What Carbon

[JohnK]

So you dont support Abbott's direct action handouts either then I assume.

No I don't if it means I pay more taxes. I have paid enough tax to last a couple of life times. I am at the stage of life where I cannot wait to minimise my tax burden (legally of course) and let someone else make up for my share.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Its not so much a tax as much as it is the cost incurred for all the pollution we contribute to the world. Upto now we've been getting away with it at no cost, freebies.

Or rather we've all been paying for it equally. Is it not unreasonable to make the greatest contributors to that, pay for it instead?

 

[james4321]

Its not so much a tax as much as it is the cost incurred for all the pollution we contribute to the world. Upto now we've been getting away with it at no cost, freebies.

Or rather we've all been paying for it equally. Is it not unreasonable to make the greatest contributors to that, pay for it instead?

I agree with you. The irony is that if Abbott's direct action scheme gets up then the biggest polluters will actually be paid by us !!!

 

[JohnK]

Yet another example where simply holding an opinion is not enough to make it true.

Dear oh dear medhead.

You are so sure of yourself on every subject including climate change. You know something is going to happen because you have the facts. What facts? You have seen how climate change conditions in the past have caused irrepairable damage to our planet and we need an action plan right now.

Yet here we are.

 

[medhead]

Dear oh dear medhead.

You are so sure of yourself on every subject including climate change. You know something is going to happen because you have the facts. What facts? You have seen how climate change conditions in the past have caused irrepairable damage to our planet and we need an action plan right now.

Yet here we are.

Just try reading, the links are all been provided in thread. I certainly outlined a whole heap of facts in my reply to you. But we all know that your opinion is all that matters. Don't bother with the weather records, hard copy weather records, held by the Royal Society going back to the 17th century. They don't exist because Johnk says weather records have only been kept for 100 years.

However, I am sure that you're the only one claiming irreparable damage. I have never claimed that, despite your sureness that it is my position.

Totally respect your right to an opinion, no matter how wrong it happens to be.

 

[JohnK]

Totally respect your right to an opinion, no matter how wrong it happens to be.

And your opinion on climate change is full of facts.

I don't agree with the current push for climate change. It shouldn't be funded by the end user. If you want people to stop using fossil fuels then give them an alternative without asking them to fund the research.

It can't be that difficult. Can it?

 

[SeatBackForward]

And your opinion on climate change is full of facts.

I don't agree with the current push for climate change. It shouldn't be funded by the end user. If you want people to stop using fossil fuels then give them an alternative without asking them to fund the research.

It can't be that difficult. Can it?

That is exactly what the "carbon tax" was aiming to achieve - drive market forces such that entrepreneurs develop the alternatives to be offered at a cheaper price to consumers.

 

[Limewood]

While my original topic has gone out the door i ask why don't we have nuclear power plant/s in OZ? to reduce coal emissions?.

On a recent trip overseas on 2 separate occasions met a retired german guy who used to design nuclear power plants and another who is an engineer and currently works in one (USA) both said the failures to date were old plants with poor design.

 

[medhead]

And your opinion on climate change is full of facts.

I don't agree with the current push for climate change. It shouldn't be funded by the end user. If you want people to stop using fossil fuels then give them an alternative without asking them to fund the research.

It can't be that difficult. Can it?

My opinion is formed from what I've read, the information I've gather. Based on facts and information. When you state your opinion that weather records have only been kept for 100 years, I go and research the question "how long have weather records been kept?" That research brings up things like Babylonians have recorded weather details back in 900 BC, Greeks doing in back in 400 BC, plus the rest. Based on that information I then form an opinion that weather records have been kept for longer than 100 years. So I feel my opinion is well founded in facts.

By contrast you have stated an opinion and refuse to explain the information that has resulted in that opinion. I will then judge your opinion accordingly and with reference to the information I've found. I am certainly not asking you to change your opinion.

As for facts about the other stuff read the links provided in thread, if you wish. Or just stick to your opinion. But please stop trying to attack me because i like to base my opinion on information.

Now as for the rest, IMO, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the issues involved. There is no "push for climate change." I'm not even sure what that means.

No one is asking you to pay for research either. Solar and nuclear power are well developed energy sources that can be deployed immediately, without research. Lower pollution energy sources cost more. Things like taxes and an ETS are designed to increase the cost of cheap, high pollution power sources to make the lower pollution sources cost comparable. That encourages people to reduce pollution.

This is only as difficult as one wishes it to be.

While my original topic has gone out the door i ask why don't we have nuclear power plant/s in OZ? to reduce coal emissions?.

On a recent trip overseas on 2 separate occasions met a retired german guy who used to design nuclear power plants and another who is an engineer and currently works in one (USA) both said the failures to date were old plants with poor design.

The short answer is anti-nuclear politics bred from the anti-bomb movement and weak willed politicians.

I'd challenge any other industrial process to not suffer a catastrophic failure when a 20m wall of water washes over the process. The early tv footage following the great east japan earthquake feature reporters standing in front of a burning oil refinery, that burned for a long time.

Radiation from Fukushima has not killed anyone. The radiation releases have required significant amounts of work, but are not immediately life threaten or even life threatening over a couple of years. But we have people out there scaring the population. More people in the Fukushima area have died following the earthquake because of social factors, than were killed by the tsunami.

Politics!

 

[JohnK]

That is exactly what the "carbon tax" was aiming to achieve - drive market forces such that entrepreneurs develop the alternatives to be offered at a cheaper price to consumers.

I am against any tax levied against the end user.

If you want my support find an alternative fuel source and then try to sell it to me. Don't ask me to fund the research and then allow those that sell the alternative fuel to make obscene profits out of it.

Isn't that what the carbon tax was doing? Forcing companies to pass on higher costs to end user without affecting their profit margins?

And who is to say the carbon tax would end up where they say it would end up?

Discussion is getting too political and I loathe politics and politicians.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I am against any tax levied against the end user.

If you want my support find an alternative fuel source and then try to sell it to me. Don't ask me to fund the research and then allow those that sell the alternative fuel to make obscene profits out of it.

Isn't that what the carbon tax was doing? Forcing companies to pass on higher costs to end user without affecting their profit margins?

That's a commercial decision for the company to make. If they believe their customers will pay they can choose that approach, or if they want to be competitive, they can reduce their emissions, purchase fewer carbon credits and not have any extra costs to pass on. You will have instances where companies will not pass on the savings and increase their profits, but again that's a commercial decision to take advantage of consumer apathy. You should also be aware that there have been instances where companies have *increased* their costs, riding the fear-mongering of the carbon tax, despite the price rises having nothing to do with carbon tax - electricity and the gold plating of the wholesale grid is the prime example of this.

And who is to say the carbon tax would end up where they say it would end up?

Thats an irrelevant question as it could be asked of any form of taxation.

Discussion is getting too political and I loathe politics and politicians.

eh?

 

[medhead]

While my original topic has gone out the door i ask why don't we have nuclear power plant/s in OZ? to reduce coal emissions?.

On a recent trip overseas on 2 separate occasions met a retired german guy who used to design nuclear power plants and another who is an engineer and currently works in one (USA) both said the failures to date were old plants with poor design.

And I forgot to mention the cost of nuclear power. If people couldn't pay the cost of coal power with a carbon tax, I'm not sure they'd accept paying for nuclear at a similar cost.

I am against any tax levied against the end user.

If you want my support find an alternative fuel source and then try to sell it to me. Don't ask me to fund the research and then allow those that sell the alternative fuel to make obscene profits out of it.

Isn't that what the carbon tax was doing? Forcing companies to pass on higher costs to end user without affecting their profit margins?

And who is to say the carbon tax would end up where they say it would end up?

Discussion is getting too political and I loathe politics and politicians.

It wasn't levied against the end user. Companies were not forced to pass on the cost, as already mentioned.

The legislation said the carbon tax would end up as an ETS at the price stated.

 

[drron]

I'd challenge any other industrial process to not suffer a catastrophic failure when a 20m wall of water washes over the process. The early tv footage following the great east japan earthquake feature reporters standing in front of a burning oil refinery, that burned for a long time.

Radiation from Fukushima hasn't not killed anyone. The radiation releases have required significant amounts of work, but are not immediately life threaten or even life threatening over a couple of years. But we have people out there scaring the population. More people in the Fukushima area have died following the earthquake because of social factors, than were killed by the tsunami.

Politics!

Total agreement but you better hit the edit button before the grammar sleuths get to you

 

[Limewood]

And I forgot to mention the cost of nuclear power. If people couldn't pay the cost of coal power with a carbon tax, I'm not sure they'd accept paying for nuclear at a similar cost.

Ok money saved on coal could pay for it?.

 

[medhead]

Total agreement but you better hit the edit button before the grammar sleuths get to you

Fortunately, I can fully accept that my grammar is poor.

Ok money saved on coal could pay for it?.

Not sure. I was thinking in terms of price to the end user. Going back a few years the generating cost of nuclear was about 2-4 times the price of coal power. I'm not sure there would be public acceptance of increasing the cost of electricity, by assumption from the reaction to the price increase for the carbon tax/ETS.

 

[drron]

On the other hand nuclear could certainly take the pressure of the RET scheme.Although proponents trumpet the cheap cost of wind power they very rarely take into account all the subsidies both Federal and state.Independent analysis at best put wind power as twice as expensive as coal.
Remember the RET is not to get 20% of power renewable by 2020 but the is a set amount of energy.The target now is about 28% of energy produced is to be renewable by 2020.

Here are just a couple of links re the cost-
https://www.ipa.org.au/library/MORANsubFEB06.pdf
www.windwahn.de/index.php/oekodiktatur/geld-a-gier/1053-verlustgeschaeft-windkraft - Translator

And a personal bias-I find windfarms a blight on the environment.

 

[medhead]

The other thing, which really gets back to politics, but nuclear is illegal in Australia. Really need a government to take leadership on that one.

 

[amaroo]

The other thing, which really gets back to politics, but nuclear is illegal in Australia. Really need a government to take leadership on that one.

Indeed. Stage 1 could be the selling of uranium to India.......guessing that will occur prior to the next federal election.

 

[medhead]

I disagree about India. But that's about my adherence to rules. However, I saw that India has signed up to safeguards inspections. The real first step is fuel conversion. But I'm sure that's illegal as well.

 

[RAM]

Its not so much a tax as much as it is the cost incurred for all the pollution we contribute to the world. Upto now we've been getting away with it at no cost, freebies.

Or rather we've all been paying for it equally. Is it not unreasonable to make the greatest contributors to that, pay for it instead?

The trouble is that countries, like China for example, are increasing their annual pollution AND carbon dioxide emissions (two different things btw) by a greater amount each year than Australia's TOTAL ANNUAL pollution generation or carbon dioxide generation.

The largest source of CO2 emissions in China/India are from burning coal for electricity - the benefits - child mortality has fallen 90% since the 1970s etc, but the drawbacks CO2 emissions.

When the annual increase from coal fired electricity generation (new coal fired power stations commissioned) from China is greater the total installed base in Australia - it makes the issue of Australia having a carbon dioxide tax a ridiculous argument.

China's increase in coal fired power station emissions have increased 450% since Dec 2002 (period ending 31.12.2011 are the latest figures I can find - and there are over 18 new power stations commissioned since then btw).

So the choice that is faced - cheap products and reduced premature deaths in developing countries or the warm inner glow in the comfort of the typical Australian air-conditioned, 2 car, 2 television household.

Hard choice?