Carbon Tax

[Moody]

Remember the carbon tax is around 8-9% of the increase.

So of the 21% increase in electricity prices a little under half goes to the government to invest in renewable energy and other carbon-reducing technologies, and the balance goes to price-gouging network and retailing companies. Got it.

Average electricity prices have actually been declining the last couple of years.

Que? Do you mean the cost of generating electricity? Yep - that has been flattish due to cheap coal. But I don't pay the generators for my electricity (do you?) - I pay the retail price which has been rising at 2-3 times inflation ever since they privitised the energy sector. Big win for everyone except me.

Just remember, when you've got your aircon running from 4pm till 9pm YOU are contributing to the network builds and upgrades that have raised electricity prices by 40% (ex carbon tax) over the last couple of years .

Not me, chum. My family's consumption is well below the average and slowly declining, and if the evening peak is causing the bulk of the upgrades then I for one would favour variable pricing. But of course the network companies have absolutely no interest in people using less of their product, do they?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Why is 10% of the collected carbon tax going to the UN Climate Change Panel?

 

[serfty]

Why is 10% of the collected carbon tax going to the UN Climate Change Panel?

So the Greens will keep voting for Julia? I'm sure the ALP would rather spend it on something else.

 

[amaroo]

Why is 10% of the collected carbon tax going to the UN Climate Change Panel?

Bobby Dazzlers slush fund :?:......word has it he will be bobbing up (or down ) feeding of the giant public tit that is the United Nations

 

[medhead]

This is were there was the side discussion about the worse Prime minister. I just found out another interesting fact today, Homebrew beer used to be illegal if brewed over 2% alcohol. Whitlam removed that, thereby allowing the development of home brewing in Australia. Well done, for that alone he can never have been the worse PM.

 

[Mal]

Why is 10% of the collected carbon tax going to the UN Climate Change Panel?

Someone has to pay for climate change junkets. (cough, sorry "panels", "conferences", "strip clubs", "restaurants", "hotel suites", "first class travel")

 

[Mal]

Just remember, when you've got your aircon running from 4pm till 9pm YOU are contributing to the network builds and upgrades that have raised electricity prices by 40% (ex carbon tax) over the last couple of years .

It's simple to solve. Just bung solar cells on every roof and attach them to the network.

Oops. Another failed initiative.

 

[medhead]

It's simple to solve. Just bung solar cells on every roof and attach them to the network.

Oops. Another failed initiative.

Indeed, If only Howard didn't kick off that big joke.

 

[amaroo]

It's simple to solve. Just bung solar cells on every roof and attach them to the network.

Oops. Another failed initiative.

Yes, I'm happy that I've stayed out of the market until recently - 5KW systems have dropped by around 50% (around $11,000) and I still get to pocket the QLD Gov feed-in tariff of 44c/KW + the 8c/KW that AGL give their customers = 52c/KW!

There aren't many schemes where the low-middle class subsides the higher earners ........love the way the Labour/Green alliance (read- hate pact) thinks:!:

 

[777]

Why is 10% of the collected carbon tax going to the UN Climate Change Panel?

I have no idea whether that's true or not but the IPCC is doing excellent work.

If you give me a choice between the scientific method and the interests of the powerful fed by talkback radio hosts and the like i'm going to go for the scientific method every time.

Seriously, does anyone remember the dark ages? I fear we're heading back there at this rate when you've got nutbags challenging everything from the theory of evolution, to vaccinations to climate science. I will always back science over dogma. Even where science makes mistakes the process of science has built into it the capacity for self correction. When dogmatic idiots make mistakes they just double down and scream louder.

In the long run Galileo, Copernicus, et al got it right and the screaming vested interests who felt threatened by knowledge got it wrong and i see no reason whatsover to think that's not happening again right now.

 

[amaroo]

Well done, for that alone he can never have been the worse PM.

He hasn't needed to worry about tag since Julia arrived - I think it's wonderful that he lived long enough to see it

 

[drron]

Someone has to pay for climate change junkets. (cough, sorry "panels", "conferences", "strip clubs", "restaurants", "hotel suites", "first class travel")

Yes interesting isn't it.I met a former senior Victorian politician in the West Indies in 2007 who I had gone to school with.I asked "so you are here for the World Cup?"
"Oh no.I am here fore the Climate Conference as I work for the South Australian premier on his Climate Change committee"
I did resist the urge to say-Pull the other one.

 

[Mal]

I will always back science over dogma. Even where science makes mistakes the process of science has built into it the capacity for self correction. When dogmatic idiots make mistakes they just double down and scream louder.

The merge between "scientists" and "nutters" has been occurring for many years. It seems to be quite simple to put phoney scientific "proof" forward, and get enough "nutter" scientists to back your claims, hence getting published, hence getting famous for false science.

 

[777]

Yes interesting isn't it.I met a former senior Victorian politician in the West Indies in 2007 who I had gone to school with.I asked "so you are here for the World Cup?"
"Oh no.I am here fore the Climate Conference as I work for the South Australian premier on his Climate Change committee"
I did resist the urge to say-Pull the other one.

Hmmm. Well there you have it: proof.

Thank God News Ltd, Oil companies, Climate skeptics, or anyone else in the climate change denial movement (or any other profession) doesn't have conferences in attractive destinations or that would immediately undermine their credibility as well.

 

[777]

The merge between "scientists" and "nutters" has been occurring for many years. It seems to be quite simple to put phoney scientific "proof" forward, and get enough "nutter" scientists to back your claims, hence getting published, hence getting famous for false science.

That's pretty much idiotic. Read this: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once you've done that, explain your point again.

 

[amaroo]

I have no idea whether that's true or not but the IPCC is doing excellent work.

If you give me a choice between the scientific method and the interests of the powerful fed by talkback radio hosts and the like i'm going to go for the scientific method every time.

Seriously, does anyone remember the dark ages? I fear we're heading back there at this rate when you've got nutbags challenging everything from the theory of evolution, to vaccinations to climate science. I will always back science over dogma. Even where science makes mistakes the process of science has built into it the capacity for self correction. When dogmatic idiots make mistakes they just double down and scream louder.

In the long run Galileo, Copernicus, et al got it right and the screaming vested interests who felt threatened by knowledge got it wrong and i see no reason whatsover to think that's not happening again right now.

There are plenty of people in the scientific world that argue that global warming (remember, when they use to call it that) and the current new age tag of climate change - is a crock!

Stating that an alternative view is limited to shock jocks - is disingenuous in the extreme!

 

[Mal]

That's pretty much idiotic. Read this: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course it's idiotic. That's why the doomsters at Hadley CRU were insignificant...

 

[777]

Their are plenty of people in the scientific world that argue that global warming (remember, when they use to call it that) and the current new age tag of climate change - is a crock!

Stating that an alternative view is limited to shock jocks - is disingenuous in the extreme!

There are actually few if any who do so according to the principles of the scientific method - peer reviewed, evidence based process that tests a verifiable hypothesis. The overwhelming majority, following the overwhelming weight of evidence in major credible scientific fora and publications argue that not only is global warming real, but the consequences are potentially dire. Any reasonable precautionary response would take the weight of evidence very seriously.

More to the point though, science always has a capacity for self correction. Where predictions are over-egged or under-egged or incorrectly extrapolate from available data it is science and not talkback radio that corrects that because that is what the scientific method is designed to do. It is not that science never gets things wrong, it's that science has rigourous processes to refine itself over time.

 

[serfty]

"Peer Review"

AKA: Don't interfere with our [-] gravy train [/-] funding by publishing contradictory research results - otherwise you will be ostracised as a "sceptic" and your fiduciary resource will become problematic.

Posted on a wing and a prayer ...

 

[amaroo]

There are actually few if any who do so according to the principles of the scientific method - peer reviewed, evidence based process that tests a verifiable hypothesis. The overwhelming majority, following the overwhelming weight of evidence in major credible scientific fora and publications argue that not only is global warming real, but the consequences are potentially dire. Any reasonable precautionary response would take the weight of evidence very seriously.

More to the point though, science always has a capacity for self correction. Where predictions are over-egged or under-egged or incorrectly extrapolate from available data it is science and not talkback radio that corrects that because that is what the scientific method is designed to do. It is not that science never gets things wrong, it's that science has rigourous processes to refine itself over time.

Like everything in life - there are differing views.

A casual search through any source will provide eminent views on either side!

Shock jocks don't come into it! The most shocking thing about the whole thing is the absolute minimal affect it will have on whatever the real issue is!