Carbon Tax

[eastwest101]

The Fauxfacts article about the fish has been pulled entirely. The article about the increasing amount of water is due to inflow of uncontaminated groundwater which would of course act as a dilutant for the radiation affected water being stored. The article also conveniently forgot to mention the reduced inflow of ground water over time, and the project to remove radioactive elements to below detection. All told - both excellent examples of poor and sloppy journalism.

 

[drron]

I got to read the article before it was pulled and it noted the threshold level for caesium in fish had been reduced to 20% of it's previous level.Wonder how many fish would have failed at the new limits pre-tsunami.

 

[Moody]

Simple you just have to quote a source for your point of view.

Is that code for "find some dodgy stats to back up the lies"? Why can't you admit that global per-capita emissions are currently increasing - is it against your religion?

Just remember China's population growth has been slowing and predictions have been made that it may start to decline by the 2030s.

Is that code for "quote irrelevant stats to cover up the lies"? Global population is increasing (though at a slowing rate). Global per-capita emissions are increasing (though at a slowing rate). China reaching ZPG in 20 years ain't going to save the day, is it?

And the paper I quoted showed that the per capita CO2 emissions had not risen even in those countries that were industrialising quickly including China whose growth did not just start in the 2000s.
Chinese electricity consumption has actually fallen in the last 12 months.So things are not as simple as you think.

No things are that simple. You quote a piece of literature that uses stats over a decade old and really believe that you have a hope in hell of passing it off as science? Who do you think you are - Alan Jones?

 

[drron]

Is that code for "find some dodgy stats to back up the lies"? Why can't you admit that global per-capita emissions are currently increasing - is it against your religion?



Is that code for "quote irrelevant stats to cover up the lies"? Global population is increasing (though at a slowing rate). Global per-capita emissions are increasing (though at a slowing rate). China reaching ZPG in 20 years ain't going to save the day, is it?



No things are that simple. You quote a piece of literature that uses stats over a decade old and really believe that you have a hope in hell of passing it off as science? Who do you think you are - Alan Jones?

So if I am wrong quote your sources.Certainly I cant accuse you of using dodgy statistics as you are using none.

 

[medhead]

I got to read the article before it was pulled and it noted the threshold level for caesium in fish had been reduced to 20% of it's previous level.Wonder how many fish would have failed at the new limits pre-tsunami.

There was a couple of interesting talks in Glasgow about the levels. They have moved to rationalise levels, which might explain the reduction. One of the findings was the public were confused about levels and that many similar things had different levels. For example juices as a foodstuff had a different level to water. I can't remember the exact numbers but it was like one had a level of 1000 and the other a level of 100. This one talk listed a whole range of discrepancies and basically made the point that this is bad for the public who are looking for a "safe" level and don't have the professional knowledge to know why there are different levels.

Not sure if this makes sense as such. I'll try to remember to pull out a summary or something.

 

[Moody]

So if I am wrong quote your sources.Certainly I cant accuse you of using dodgy statistics as you are using none.

So you didn't even bother reading the link I posted? Why am I not surprised???

OK - how about this. If you can find ONE article that say global population is currently declining then I will eat my proverbial hat. If you can find ONE article that says global emissions are currently declining then I will eat my shoes too.

But please surprise me with something else ....

 

[drron]

your quote is for individual countries not the Global figure as in mine.
so a quote from your reference-

Please note that the accuracy of China’s coal consumption data is estimated at about 5% to 15%, with higher uncertainties expected regarding the data on the last 15 years.

and from mine-

Empirical evidence shows that, despiteconsiderable variability in per capita CO2
emissions within and among countries in recent
decades, global per capita CO2
emissions have become stationary and trendless.

And although you say the figures only go to 2000 the addendum has the figures to 2006.
Plus to your previous argument that the emissions have gone up 50% since 1992(An estimate of course) the population has risen 30% in that time from 5.46 billion to 7.1 billion.So even if the estimates are right that is not a great increase in per capita emissions since 1992 until today

 

[Moody]

.... Plus to your previous argument that the emissions have gone up 50% since 1992(An estimate of course) the population has risen 30% in that time from 5.46 billion to 7.1 billion.So even if the estimates are right that is not a great increase in per capita emissions since 1992 until today

SO YOU FINALLY AGREE THAT PER CAPITA EMISSONS HAVE INCREASED BY AROUND 17% AND GROSS EMISSIONS BY AROUND 50% IN THE PAST 2 DECADES?

Well thank Bolt for that!

 

[drron]

SO YOU FINALLY AGREE THAT PER CAPITA EMISSONS HAVE INCREASED BY AROUND 17% AND GROSS EMISSIONS BY AROUND 50% IN THE PAST 2 DECADES?

Well thank Bolt for that!

But from your quote the chinese emissions figure may very well be wrong as here-
China figures prompt doubts over accuracy - FT.com
Also pointing out you cant trust Chinese figures but even on the official figures there has been no growth in electricity consumption since mid year.
Second as previosly stated the per capita emissions had to rise by 10% just to have the low range predictions by IPCC.
So again many of the doom and gloom scenarios are still fanciful.
The upcoming financial crisis will almost certainly decrease emissions a la 2009.

 

[whatmeworry]

A good read today how the US has cheap shale gas and will be soon oil independent of the middle east.

Shale gas transforming US economy

 

[medhead]

Just to tie this up, I've dug out one of the presentations from the Glasgow Congress I attended. This is from one of the big wigs in Radiation Protection, Abel Gonzalez Biographical Sketch - Abel Julio González

He presented the the following limits for various products (NB a Bq is a measure of the radioactivity - the number of atomic transformations per second):

Water - according to the WHO Drinking water quality guidelines - 10 Bq/l for Caesium
Juice - as a food stuff 1000 Bq/l for Caesium.
Rice - 1000 Bq/kg as a food stuff
Rice paper - 100 Bq/kg based on an IAEA safety guide.

For the public these are vastly different levels and they appear inconsistent. Which is "safe" water vs juice why can we drink juice but not water? Is the juice dangerous? Obvious and natural questions if you don't have any background. The various levels are set by modelling intake and dose arising over an extended time period in order to keep people's exposure below a certain, low dose level.

The key thing is that these number are for long term exposure. So over a short term you could eat/drink something that exceeds the levels and still be safe. Take the water level at 10 Bq/l, drinking the average 2 l per day. That would be a limit of 20 Bq per day and 7300 Bq per year as a total intake. Over a short term it wouldn't be unsafe to drink say 40Bq in a day.

Anyway the fish limit has been reduced from 1000 Bq/kg to 500 Bq/kg - as best I can make out from the presentation. Basically to rationalise the various "safe" levels into a more consistent set of limits. There is now 1 level for Grains, fruit and veg, meat, eggs fish and etc. and 1 limit for Water, milk and dairy products.

There was a couple of interesting talks in Glasgow about the levels. They have moved to rationalise levels, which might explain the reduction. One of the findings was the public were confused about levels and that many similar things had different levels. For example juices as a foodstuff had a different level to water. I can't remember the exact numbers but it was like one had a level of 1000 and the other a level of 100. This one talk listed a whole range of discrepancies and basically made the point that this is bad for the public who are looking for a "safe" level and don't have the professional knowledge to know why there are different levels.

Not sure if this makes sense as such. I'll try to remember to pull out a summary or something.

 

[drron]

According to the now deleted article on Fukushima fish the Japanese Government after the event reduced the safe caesium level in fish from 500 to 100Bq/kg.

 

[medhead]

According to the now deleted article on Fukushima fish the Japanese Government after the event reduced the safe caesium level in fish from 500 to 100Bq/kg.

Maybe. I did have trouble deciphering a presentation from May without the speaker talking the slide in question is titled "Guidance Values in Japan" but maybe it shows the old values. Happy to accept the 100 Bq/kg as the current level. However, my impression on everything I've heard around this is the levels have been set to address inconsistency in the levels and address public confidence issues. Anyway, really moving well off the main topic now.

 

[Mal]

http://m.couriermail.com.au/busines...hike-immediately/story-fn7kjcme-1226413528468

Yep as I've said before... the storm is yet to come. For all the supporters... congratulations.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

 

[777]

Businesses plan carbon tax price hike immediately | The Courier-Mail

Yep as I've said before... the storm is yet to come. For all the supporters... congratulations.

I can't tell whether you're trying to continue the argument or concede it by linking to that. That's probably one of the last examples of the pre-carbon tax "sky is falling" scare pieces from July. It's pretty typical of the genre -- unquestioned regurgitation of a statement by a lobbyist group with no attempt to balance it out by providing the treasury predictions, question the method or motivation for the statement or do anything else that used to be Journalism 101.

Several months later and the ABS inflation data has come through and it is showing that the effect on prices for the most part has been LESS than the government modelled. Remember when the government modelling was being dismissed by these kinds of stories as optimistic?

Yes, in July people were predicting the end of the world. It's now November and it doesn't appear to have happened.

 

[eastwest101]

Yes, in July people were predicting the end of the world. It's now November and it doesn't appear to have happened.

You are not going to win any awards here by making distortions that everyone whom is opposed to the Carbon Tax was predicting the end of the world. There are a lot of different reasons for opposition to the current carbon tax, and the effect of the carbon tax are not conveniently complete yet.

There are genuine skeptics about the size of the human contribution to any natural and measurable change in the climate, there are the mathematical skeptics whom doubt the computer modeling as some of them say that the modelling can't even replicate the past changes in the atmosphere. Amongst those whom accept current science are the the purely economic rationalist argument that this is a self inflicted reduction in our economic competetivness due to relatively cheap and abundant energy. Another group of people simply don't like the political dishonesty. The CT as it stands has not reduced carbon dioxide emissions but has merely redistributed funds from high energy using businesses to low and middle income families and to future proffesional traders in carbon permits. The economically illiterate RET's, rooftop solar schemes and recent linkage to the EU emissions scheme has also opened out economy up to more economic shonks and rent-seekers that have assisted in the crippling of some parts of the EU.

If all the Carbon Tax supporters were serious about climate change they would allow an adult debate about hydroelectic power and nuclear energy in Australia, and with a few honourable exceptions - most of them don't want, that so I can only conclude that they're not interested in reducing carbon emissions at all.

The carbon tax will have to be reformed/fiddled with in the future because even if widespread global action is taken on an emissions trading scheme - it will not be a pretty or a trouble free proccess, and will be more likely an unsightly cacophony of self interest, compromise and picking rent seekers/winners that has characterized the whole debate so far. I know who will pay for all that...

 

[777]

You are not going to win any awards here by making distortions that everyone whom is opposed to the Carbon Tax was predicting the end of the world. There are a lot of different reasons for opposition to the current carbon tax, and the effect of the carbon tax are not conveniently complete yet.

Did you read the article I was responding to? If you can't see the irony of posting a 4 month old dire prediction from a lobby group predicting immediate and large price rises that have turned out not to be true at this stage of the debate i'm not sure what to add.

If all the Carbon Tax supporters were serious about climate change they would allow an adult debate about hydroelectic power and nuclear energy in Australia, and with a few honourable exceptions - most of them don't want, that so I can only conclude that they're not interested in reducing carbon emissions at all.

That's a straw man argument. Who are these specific people that you are referring to? Just because some people who support action on climate change also oppose nuclear power it doesn't in any logical way follow that all or "most" people hold that position. Where is your evidence? I have no problem with hydroelectric power nor am i (in principle) opposed to nuclear -- although advocates ignore that nuclear is just staggeringly expensive and would require massive subsidies and state intervention to get off the ground.

You're basically conflating supporting a carbon tax/ precautionary action on climate change with the green movement. The reality is that a carbon price is supported by a whole range of people who have no association with the Green movement and never have.

It's indicative of how much people have opportunistically shifted around in this debate that idea of carbon tax or carbon pricing was originally the preferred response of conservative and centrist economists looking for the most efficient method of pricing the externality of carbon pollution while the "left" historically proposed state centric solutions relying on spending massive amounts of public money picking winners and investing in state-subsidised industries. The irony is that the conservative parties are now proposing to spend $10b of taxpayers money on solutions picked by bureaucrats while the greens are supporting a market based price mechanism.

The carbon tax will have to be reformed/fiddled with in the future because even if widespread global action is taken on an emissions trading scheme - it will not be a pretty or a trouble free proccess, and will be more likely an unsightly cacophony of self interest, compromise and picking rent seekers/winners that has characterized the whole debate so far. I know who will pay for all that...

If your concern is rent seeking i suggest you take a look at the opposition policy. It proposes to get rid of the price based mechanism and give billions of dollars from consolidated revenue to industries selected by bureaucrats and politicians. The carbon tax is infinitely more transparent and efficient.

 

[eastwest101]

That's a straw man argument. Who are these specific people that you are referring to? Just because some people who support action on climate change also oppose nuclear power it doesn't in any logical way follow that all or "most" people hold that position. Where is your evidence? I have no problem with hydroelectric power nor am i (in principle) opposed to nuclear -- although advocates ignore that nuclear is just staggeringly expensive and would require massive subsidies and state intervention to get off the ground.

Essential Research polling - Support of Nuclear Power in Australia for the Generation of Electicity
[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"][/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

27 Jan 09​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

20 Dec 10​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

21 Mar 11​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

21 Nov 11​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

Total ​

29 Oct 12​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Labor​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Lib/Nat​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Greens​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"]Total support[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

43%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

43%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

39%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

39%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

36%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

47%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

19%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"]Total oppose[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

37%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

53%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

45%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

41%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

44%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

34%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

69%
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It's indicative of how much people have opportunistically shifted around in this debate that idea of carbon tax or carbon pricing was originally the preferred response of conservative and centrist economists looking for the most efficient method of pricing the externality of carbon pollution while the "left" historically proposed state centric solutions relying on spending massive amounts of public money picking winners and investing in state-subsidised industries. The irony is that the conservative parties are now proposing to spend $10b of taxpayers money on solutions picked by bureaucrats while the greens are supporting a market based price mechanism.

If your concern is rent seeking i suggest you take a look at the opposition policy. It proposes to get rid of the price based mechanism and give billions of dollars from consolidated revenue to industries selected by bureaucrats and politicians. The carbon tax is infinitely more transparent and efficient.

Stawman, any opposition or skepticism about the current Carbon Tax does not equal support for the past coalition policy or the current coalition policy either. The floating price will not be transparent, it will be gamed and corrupted, and I suspect that the price on carbon will be very efficient at encouraging the relocation of emissions-intensive industries to overseas juristictions. This will then reduce revenue coming into governments.

 

[777]

Essential Research polling - Support of Nuclear Power in Australia for the Generation of Electicity
[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"][/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

27 Jan 09​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

20 Dec 10​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

21 Mar 11​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

21 Nov 11​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

Total ​

29 Oct 12​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Labor​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Lib/Nat​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

Vote Greens​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"]Total support[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

43%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

43%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

39%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

39%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

36%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

47%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

19%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 116"]Total oppose[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 67"]

37%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54"]

53%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

45%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 59"]

41%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

44%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

34%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 60"]

69%
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

You've basically proved my point -- you're conflating support for the carbon tax with the greens. "Most" (your word) labour voters, for example, don't oppose nuclear by the numbers above.

Stawman, opposition or skepticism to the current Carbon Tax does not equal support for the past coalition policy or the current coalition policy either. The floating price will not be transparent, and I suspect that the price on carbon will be very efficient at relocating emissions and industries to overseas juristictions.

So what is your position then? You don't support any precautionary action of any kind or any incentives to reduce carbon emissions?

 

[medhead]

I would refer people to the UMPNER report which found that nuclear cost about the same solar power per kwh. It is as expensive as solar, which is a power source that Australia is pursuing. Therefore I reject any implication that nuclear is too expensive.

, any opposition or skepticism about the current Carbon Tax does not equal support for the past coalition policy or the current coalition policy either.

The problem with this statement is that the most vocal skeptics link opposition to the current policy to a reject of the current party running the government. That raises the obvious question as to their alternative. If the ALP has it wrong and need to be voted out, as this vocal minority claims, then they must be advocating a coalition government and hence must support their policies.


Sent from the Throne