What Carbon

[dfcatch]

Are you actually cheerleading this outcome? or just believe that is what will transpire? I'd be disappointed in this outcome, but the realist in me think this is where it will land.



In that case I'm doing my part! 5months ahead of that game in fact

I wouldn't say I'm "cheerleading" it, I do predict it's a plausible outcome in the current reading of the situation.

I'm not against some modest "direct action", but I actually agree with all of 777's critique of the "Direct Action" plan (my use of capitals).

I'm in favour of the RET being scrapped, or at least seriously reduced.

I'm in favour of a serious debate that commences with the position of "Australia emits a negligible amount of global CO2, therefore we will not be handicapping our cheap-energy-natural competitiveness".

Any person that wants to debate "our contribution"in the context of that preposition will have my full attention.

I would like to see the nuclear debate engaged more maturely.

I would like to see greenies chopped up through wind farm blades, and then have those wind farms demolished and the rubble used to lay the foundations for nuclear plants.

I'd also like a lifetime of unlimited free First Class redemptions on QF.

Anything else??

 

[777]

Fact is that many recognize Option 1 is great in a textbook theory discussion, but many distrust it and consider it more open to rorting, fraud etc than Option 2.

Who are these "many"? Many in this context seems to means "there must be someone out there but I can't actually think of an example." As far as i'm aware there are few documented cases of significant rorting of the carbon tax. Now start looking at government investment schemes, bureaucratic "targets", government investment funds, and anywhere any government hands out billions of dollars of taxpayers money and i can find you a hundred examples of rorting for everyone you can find of a carbon tax.

Personally - I'm happy for your implied Option 3 - nothing happening.

Of course you are, which is why any pretend interest in the most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions with the least possible impact on the wider economy, taxpayers and society as a whole is purely a sidetrack and obfuscation. Any economist on earth will tell you that price signals are more efficient than bureaucracy. It's cheaper, more efficient and more effective. As i said, and as you've essentially admitted the only people who pretend not to acknowledge that are people who don't want anything done.

 

[dfcatch]

Who are these "many"? Many in this context seems to means "there must be someone out there but I can't actually think of an example." As far as i'm aware there are few documented cases of significant rorting of the carbon tax. Now start looking at government investment schemes, bureaucratic "targets", government investment funds, and anywhere any government hands out billions of dollars of taxpayers money and i can find you a hundred examples of rorting for everyone you can find of a carbon tax.



[/COLOR]Of course you are, which is why any pretend interest in the most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions with the least possible impact on the wider economy, taxpayers and society as a whole is purely a sidetrack and obfuscation. Any economist on earth will tell you that price signals are more efficient than bureaucracy. It's cheaper, more efficient and more effective. As i said, and as you've essentially admitted the only people who pretend not to acknowledge that are people who don't want anything done.

No - I've acknowledged the economic theory.

What you need to acknowledge is that there is a difference between theories & practice.

That's where my position lies.

You need to stop listening to economists, and start balancing that "solid correct textbook theory" position with reality and pragmatism.

And as the election clearly showed (and the election before that I dare say), the Australian public are not won over by the need to implement a "textbook approved" lowest cost theoretical scheme.

You're fighting arguments on multiple fronts:

- you're fighting those who question whether anything "needs" to be done

- then you're trying to argue (and banging your head against the wall in frustration) against those who you can't understand why they "don't get it" as the straightforward textbook theory approved style of an ETS is "of course" the lowest cost way.


What you're forgetting is that not everyone agrees:

- that something needs to be done

- that something needs to be done at any cost

- that something needs to be done by us (minuscule emitters)

- that something needs to be done now


And then - (whilst not theoretically perfect) - you ridicule a plan that while flawed, may actually result in "some" results directly and locally on our own actual soil (in practice, not in theory).

My position isn't that your "wrong", just that being"right" in the lecture hall doesn't necessarily correlate to practical or successful implementation in the real world.

But by all means - run for parliament on a platform as the one you support above.

Let me know how you get on

 

[777]

No - I've acknowledged the economic theory.

What you need to acknowledge is that there is a difference between theories & practice.

The obvious way to show that "theory" and "practice" diverge around a carbon tax (note i am not referring to an ETS) is to provide an example.

Let me know how you get on.

 

[Limewood]

The reason I asked originally..

"Was wondering how much carbon pollution has been saved by our (carbon) tax and have other polluting nations like China, India and USA done anything much to reduce as well?".

I'm yet to meet anyone who has any idea what its all about, all they say is my costs have gone up, no idea where the money goes or what its used for. At a BBQ Sat. night brought the subject up, not one person out of the group had a clue!.

 

[777]

At a BBQ Sat. night brought the subject up, not one person out of the group had a clue!.

Let me guess: you weren't at a Mensa meeting?

In all seriousness, if you get your news from Murdoch tabloids and listen to too much talk back radio and hang out with people who do the same of course you won't have any idea. If you are genuinely interested in the answers to those questions the answers are very easy to find.

Let me google that for you

As for where the money went:

TAX BENEFIT. tax free threshold tripled to $18,200 a year from July 1, 2012.
. regular wage earners below $18,200 will have no tax withheld.
. 1 million Australians will not have to lodge a tax return.
. but middle tax rate ($37,000-$80,000) will rise from 30-32.5 per cent… to stop over $150,000 earners getting a benefit
. all taxpayers under $80,000 a year will pay less tax.
. no Australians will pay more tax
FAMILIES
. with 2 children will up to $220 in extra Family Tax Benefit A and other families will get $110.
. extra $69 in Family Tax Benefit Part B
SENIOR AUSTRALIANS
. pensioners and self funded retirees will get up to $338 a year for singles and up to $510 a year for couples.
. will get lump sum advance of $250 in May-June 2012… basically getting 9 month payment in advance.
. 90 per cent of pensioners will make a profit… receive more compensation than be hit with extra costs
. Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (mainly self funded retirees) will get the same assistance as pensioners.
. Self funded retirees will get benefit of increase in tax free threshold.
SINGLES
. get the tax cuts.
. People on Assistance will get $218 for singles up to $390 for couples.
SMALL BUSINESS
. small business instant asset write-off threshold will rise from $5000-$6500
. no extra paperwork
. no compensation for increase in electricity costs … go up 10 per cent.
NEW FUNDING
. $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation
. $3.2 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency
. $200 m Clean Technology Innovation Program

Source: https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/fac...ur-guide-to-the-carbon-tax-and-compensations/

 

[RAM]

The reason I asked originally..

"Was wondering how much carbon pollution has been saved by our (carbon) tax and have other polluting nations like China, India and USA done anything much to reduce as well?".

I'm yet to meet anyone who has any idea what its all about, all they say is my costs have gone up, no idea where the money goes or what its used for. At a BBQ Sat. night brought the subject up, not one person out of the group had a clue!.

Limewood good and relevant question - what's being done by others.

In reality (from a actual vs spin perspective) there has been much lip service from China with seen-to-be-done but they are adding roughly 3 coal fired-plants a month. This is causing them huge problems as the railway freight capacity (great investment opportunity) has not been growing at the same rate, so transhipment onto barges has increased many times over to pick up the slack as has truck borne transport at the margin. The current 5-year plan has 3 new stations a month being commissioned throughout its tenure (so 180 new coal fired plants with about 198 GW capacity).

India is also commissioning multiple coal fired plants consistently and also want to build nuclear capacity which Obama signed off on the US supplying and Australia well, that's a long story.

Additions to total emissions by India are growing by more than Australia's total emissions every 7 months. The Aust carbon tax, which coincidentally has seen Aluminium production virtually cease as well as steel production plummet, was only going to reduce back to earlier levels. The shut down of the bulk of Al capacity and closure of several steel arc-furnaces (environmentally friendly ones btw as they use mostly scrap metal from recycling as their feedstock) has seen electricity use fall.

This fall in AL capacity had begun prior to the Aust Carbon Tax but it accelerated it. In China, the ability to dump toxic by-products from smelters etc is a wonderful cost-saving measure and for obeidient companies apparently makes them willing donors to certain party officials. 3 of whom got caught (wrong faction after all) in Dec last year, one hung and the other two long sentences. I suppose you could say this is something being done about carbon emissions...

A cynic would say that certain companies in Australia did not talk about its impact as they did not want the Fed Govt to enforce to the letter the remediation of these sites at a cost of many hundred million. Dig into the Port Botany Orica/ICI site for expansive information about the compliancy of certain regulatory agencies.

I've reproduced what some info, links etc I posted a few pages back in case you missed them on INCREASING Chinese emissions from just coal fired power stations.

According to the IEA Clean Coal Centre, there are over 2300 coal-fired power stations worldwide (7000 individual units). Approximately 620 of these power stations are in China.

They are adding around 36 new gigawatt coal powered stations a year and expected to for the next 8 years at least. SO they need a lot of coal... they produce a lot of coal..Add India to China and between them they mine (and use) more coal than the rest of the world combined - in fact 4 times over! Australia's coal-fired generation capacity is less than 24GW and is on average only used to generate 13GW. Or at the present rate China is building more than Australia's total coal-fired capacity every 8 months.

Chinese coal-fired capacity nears 699,700 MW

21st February 2013

 

[dfcatch]

The obvious way to show that "theory" and "practice" diverge around a carbon tax (note i am not referring to an ETS) is to provide an example.

Let me know how you get on.

Like I said - run for office on your proposed platform and let me know how you get on .

The carbon tax failed because it does not have popular support.

It also failed because there is not sufficient weight/neediness/urgency/desire to stifle our economy (which is competitive because of our access to cheap energy).

The same issues apply to the ETS. The support simply isn't there to support a scheme that trades in a way that likely provides little or no concrete emissions reductions locally (in the global scheme of things).

Most people that live in the real world understand that this scheme is just asking for corruption.

The fact is that there is no appetite to accept the handcuffs on our economy when our contribution to emissions is so negligible.

You can keep denying it if you like - but the electorate has spoken.

I mean it's not like this hasn't been debated for the last 8 years.

Let me put it to you this way......

I really truly do hope that you feel better about yourself as a person because you "know" that your supported text-book-theory is the correct one.

Because you are simply a proud supporter of the "best, most-correct, theoretically low-cost scheme of reducing emissions that will never be implemented".

(Well not anytime soon anyway)


I on the other hand would rather direct my energies and considerations to alternative practical schemes that:

- "may" make some contribution practically

And

- that "may" actually get up and stay up.

 

[straitman]

SENIOR AUSTRALIANS

. pensioners and self funded retirees will get up to $338 a year for singles and up to $510 a year for couples.

. will get lump sum advance of $250 in May-June 2012… basically getting 9 month payment in advance.

. 90 per cent of pensioners will make a profit… receive more compensation than be hit with extra costs

. Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (mainly self funded retirees) will get the same assistance as pensioners.

. Self funded retirees will get benefit of increase in tax free threshold.

SINGLES

. get the tax cuts.

. People on Assistance will get $218 for singles up to $390 for couples.

Wow.

I must have been in a parallel world at that time. All I got was a DVA rise of around $1.27 per fortnight.

 

[dfcatch]

The obvious way to show that "theory" and "practice" diverge around a carbon tax (note i am not referring to an ETS) is to provide an example.

Let me know how you get on.

Oh and you and I both know how that works.

If you walk in a non-preferred direction and I poke you with the cattle prod each time..... Then subject to correct voltage selection you will soon choose a less painful way of walking.

Or you will continue to walk, albeit painfully as it's the only direction available to you.


You can't afford a protective suit to avoid the pain of the cattle prod, so you make do.

Of course the pain then inhibits your ability to participate in other activities.

Is this an "externality"?? Perhaps we can get out resident Economics Professors to clarify that.

To the rest of the population that aren't busy sipping their non-fat transgender soy latte from organic free trade climate safe rainforests.... Their power bills have skyrocketed, and they are starting to join the dots.

It's an amazingly interesting thing that folks aren't so strong in their support of "climate action" when they realize they have to pay for it.

I'm sure there's an economic term for that too

 

[medhead]

Thank you DrRon, some hard data to analyse.

According to the IEA Clean Coal Centre, there are over 2300 coal-fired power stations worldwide (7000 individual units). Approximately 620 of these power stations are in China.

They are adding around 36 new gigawatt coal powered stations a year and expected to for the next 8 years at least. SO they need a lot of coal... they produce a lot of coal..Add India to China and between them they mine (and use) more coal than the rest of the world combined - in fact 4 times over! Australia's coal-fired generation capacity is less than 24GW and is on average only used to generate 13GW. Or at the present rate China is building Australia's total coal-fired capacity every 8 months.

Chinese coal-fired capacity nears 699,700 MW

21st February 2013



China's capacity use of these power stations is generally between 75 and 97% btw.

9. Who are the world's top coal producing companies?

World's Top Coal Producers in 2010 (million tonnes)

	Company	2010 Production
1.	Coal India	431
2.	Shenhua Group	352
3.	Peabody Energy	198
4.	Datong Coal	150
5.	Arch Coal	146
6.	China Coal	138
7.	BHP Billiton	104
8.	Shanxi Coal	101
9.	RWE Power	99
10.	Anglo American	97

Now the Chinese Nuclear reactors range from 600+ MW to 1250MW, and here are a sample of projected completions:

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Sanmen 2[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1250[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Hongyanhe 4[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Yangjiang 3[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Ningde 4[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Fangchenggang 1[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Changjiang 1[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Changjiang 2[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Fuqing 3[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


The problem is the scale of coal-fired NEW plants is multiples of the Chinese Nuclear plans.

BNEF stressed that “in absolute terms, coal will continue to grow rapidly until 2022, adding on average 38 GW per year – equal to three large coal plants every month”. “It will then grow at a much lower rate, installing on average only 10 GW per year until 2030. Carbon emissions and local environmental problems resulting from coal, such as poor air quality will likely continue to worsen in the next 10-15 years despite the shift towards cleaner energy sources.” Jun Ying, country manager and head of research for China at BNEF, said: “China has started to change course towards a cleaner future. But despite significant progress in renewable energy deployment, coal looks set to remain dominant to 2030. More support for renewable energy, natural gas and energy efficiency will be needed if China wants to reduce its reliance on coal more quickly.” Milo Sjardin, head of Asia Pacific at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, added that the future of China’s energy sector “depends on a number of big questions, questions on which one can still only speculate: the cost at which China may be able to extract its shale gas reserves, the potential impact on fracking and thermal generation of water constraints; and potential accelerations in climate and environmental policy, including a potential price on carbon”. Yet the significance of China’s energy consumption growth and its evolving generation mix will be felt around the globe, stressed Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “It is hard to underestimate. The impacts will reach far beyond China and have major implications for the rest of the world, ranging from coal and gas prices to the cost and market size for renewable energy technologies – not to mention the health of the planet’s environment.”

So they have plans for more coal-fired power stations already scheduled than nuclear - approximately 9 times as many in fact. The avg coal fired is 1,000MW. So much carbon, so little time.

The increase in carbon emissions (if you believe in AGW) by China since 2002 together with their planned increases is the (to use KR's terms) greatest moral dilemma of our time.

• According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China accounted for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).
• According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.
• New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 developing countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.
• Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).
• The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of proposed new coal-fired plants.

The problem for you is that the nuclear plans of china disprove your claim they're doing nothing about pollution. If they were doing nothing they'd stick to only building coal power plants. A smooth transition is dependent of a mix of energy sources. And china is much more advanced at addressing pollution than Australia.

 

[dfcatch]

The problem for you is that the nuclear plans of china disprove your claim they're doing nothing about pollution. If they were doing nothing they'd stick to only building coal power plants. A smooth transition is dependent of a mix of energy sources. And china is much more advanced at addressing pollution than Australia.

C'mon Medhead - such misleading twaddle.

And from you who knows better.

China is building a "mix" simply because they need to build anything and everything to provide their growing power needs.

They are also multi-skilling in case those stupid western powers actually get some green-hippy government that's cuts off their coal supply.

Clearly you need more UV in your diet... Time for you to get back up here - the beer is getting warm.

 

[medhead]

No - I've acknowledged the economic theory.

What you need to acknowledge is that there is a difference between theories & practice.

That's where my position lies.

You need to stop listening to economists, and start balancing that "solid correct textbook theory" position with reality and pragmatism.

And as the election clearly showed (and the election before that I dare say), the Australian public are not won over by the need to implement a "textbook approved" lowest cost theoretical scheme.

You're fighting arguments on multiple fronts:

- you're fighting those who question whether anything "needs" to be done

- then you're trying to argue (and banging your head against the wall in frustration) against those who you can't understand why they "don't get it" as the straightforward textbook theory approved style of an ETS is "of course" the lowest cost way.


What you're forgetting is that not everyone agrees:

- that something needs to be done

- that something needs to be done at any cost

- that something needs to be done by us (minuscule emitters)

- that something needs to be done now


And then - (whilst not theoretically perfect) - you ridicule a plan that while flawed, may actually result in "some" results directly and locally on our own actual soil (in practice, not in theory).

My position isn't that your "wrong", just that being"right" in the lecture hall doesn't necessarily correlate to practical or successful implementation in the real world.

But by all means - run for parliament on a platform as the one you support above.

Let me know how you get on

Guess what? The carbon tax already actually did something. Of course a plan that is less efficient, that seems to rely on Ros Kelly's whiteboard, deserves to be ridiculed. Especially when we stop doing something that is working and replace it with something that "may" do something. Or may not.

 

[RAM]

It's an amazingly interesting thing that folks aren't so strong in their support of "climate action" when they realize they have to pay for it.

I'm sure there's an economic term for that too 

Yes, it is called the hip-pocket nerve or the less spin term - REALITY!

 

[medhead]

Dear Medhead - your responses keep changing, almost diametically, on July 30th you said:

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.

Then you change your tune to question why I have not mentioned the amount of nuclear planned for China. If you wish to raise that issue - then provide some hard information if you are really wanting to advance the discussion. If you merely are wanting to disparage that is your right (unlike in China) but at least be honest about it.

Your habit of not quoting the content of other's comments and instead 'verballing' them repeatedly is tiresome at best.

You ask questions of posters who do not share your point of view but you are not prepared to answer their questions in return. Are you not confident in your claims?

To avoid dealing with the issues I and others have raised about the Carbon tax in Australia being irrelevant on the world price for solar panels, CO2 emissions and related consequences - suggests that the answers are unpalatable to you. If you do not intend to extend the courtesy of answering others questions then perhaps stop asking questions of them.

This reminds me of the problem in the sitcom "Happy Days".
Do you, like the Fonz, have a problem admitting when you are wrong?

What are you on about? Clearly you're incapable of following a complex argument. You've quoted my response to a completely separate question out of all context. That was a reply about why we do not have nuclear in Australia. It has zero to do with nuclear in china.

I raised nuclear in china to address you're rant about china doing nothing to reduce emissions. It's a completely separate discussion! Then you're dragging in some other cough from a third discussion. If you want to see verbaling how about someone who drags in quotes from completely separate discussions and uses them out of context. Then drags in irrelevance about the pricing of solar panels. (How is that even relevant?)

If you look really closely you'll see that I have quoted your posts in full. A courtesy that you are incapable of returning.

As for answering questions perhaps you might try actually answering my questions instead of personally attacking me. That is one way to get me to answer a question in return. In any case the numbers to support my claim have been provided by someone else. I'm certainly secure in the consistency of my position against out of context quoting and false conclusions.

 

[SeatBackForward]

To the rest of the population that aren't busy sipping their non-fat transgender soy latte from organic free trade climate safe rainforests.... Their power bills have skyrocketed, and they are starting to join the dots.

You really ought to ask your power company to explain that one to you. Ever wonder why they were in a rush to get a whole heap of network upgrades done by July 1st 2012?

 

[dfcatch]

Well I have to go to work now

I'll be back later for some more fishing.

I might even put a hook on the line next time xx_

 

[dfcatch]

You really ought to ask your power company to explain that one to you. Ever wonder why they were in a rush to get a whole heap of network upgrades done by July 1st 2012?

I don't need to - I know it's a combination of multiple things.

And those happen to include (non-exclusively):

- carbon tax
- RET

The point is that people are waking up to the fact that nice sounding green-friendly ideas actually cost $$$

 

[medhead]

C'mon Medhead - such misleading twaddle.

And from you who knows better.

China is building a "mix" simply because they need to build anything and everything to provide their growing power needs.

They are also multi-skilling in case those stupid western powers actually get some green-hippy government that's cuts off their coal supply.

Clearly you need more UV in your diet... Time for you to get back up here - the beer is getting warm.

Seriously? I think you've had too much UV. China has ample coal reserves for power generation. IEA says they imported coal that would amount to 0.6% of their production. Not numbers that make being cut off seem too scary a prospect.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I don't need to - I know it's a combination of multiple things.

And those happen to include (non-exclusively):

- carbon tax
- RET

The point is that people are waking up to the fact that nice sounding green-friendly ideas actually cost $$$

Or just plain greed by the corporate sector:

Over the past five years, electricity prices have skyrocketed. From June 2007 to December 2012 average electricity prices rose by 70 per cent.

A 2012 report by the Productivity Commission found network services, or poles and wires, to be the single most costly component of electricity supply accounting for around 45 per cent of total electricity prices from 2007-2012.

The carbon price also contributed to higher electricity prices in the year to June 2013, its first full year of operation. However, it was a one-off increase and was lower than the effect of network costs in recent years.
...

The verdict

The claim that electricity and gas prices will drop by 9 and 7 per cent respectively from where they are today if the carbon tax is abolished is impossible to predict with precision. Many other factors determine electricity and gas prices. Power prices may well continue to increase, though by about 7 to 9 per cent less than they otherwise would.

The precise figures Mr Abbott used in his claim are pure speculation.

Will abolishing the carbon tax reduce power bills? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Wholesale power supply is rather perversely priced on the basis on capacity, rather than actual usage. All the power companies need to do, is to justify a network that can provide supply on the busiest day of the year, then charge it all back to consumers regardless of whether that capacity is actually required, or used. That's the real explanation for your rising power bills.