What Carbon

[james4321]

It was targetted at the end user not big business.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?

How difficult is it to understand I do not want to fund the research into renewable sources of energy so big business can continue to make obscene profits?

Then who do you suggest will fund that research?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I am not a hard core Liberal supporter. In fact I have voted Labor early on in my life but I have been a swinging voter in a hard core Labor seat the past 20 years or so.

I don't think climate change is an issue. My grandchildren will be fine if I ever have any children.

But if you really think we have an issue with carbon emmissions then big business is your target. Not me. Sell it to them. I shouldn't have to pay to fund alternate ways big business can continue to make obscene profits. I am against further taxes that will end up being nice slush funds for other things I do not believe in.

When have businesses not passed on any cost increases to end users?

Id suggedt your biggest bone of contention about carbon tax is probably your electricity bills. Guess what made those bills rise the most over recent years?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Received this earlier today

View attachment 34579

Very generous of them... Well not really.. Would be nice if they took off the extra 50% or so that we pay for them providing capacity we do not need.

 

[whatmeworry]

[h=1]Samoa's prime minister calls on Abbott to forget budget and act on climate change[/h]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-28/samoa-pm-calls-on-abbott-to-forget-budget-and-act-on-climate/5703948

 

[JohnK]

Received this earlier today

I got it too. About time. My last quarterly bill was $220. :shock: That's a hell of a lot for someone who only spends ~60% of the time at the place.

 

[cove]

You could regret not doing something in solar at home or work if the RET gets canned. We are about to do our last work building seeing the payback is about 3 years for our circumstances. It will change if the Government subsidies get pulled.

 

[whatmeworry]

I got it too. About time. My last quarterly bill was $220. :shock: That's a hell of a lot for someone who only spends ~60% of the time at the place.

Johnk just remember to turn off appliances off at the wall and don't leave items on standby. Items can still consume 10% energy if not turn off at the wall.

 

[cove]

You can turn down the thermostat on a storage hot water system during the hotter months in Australia provided you make sure no one (kids and adults) drink the shower water.

 

[amaroo]

You can turn down the thermostat on a storage hot water system during the hotter months in Australia provided you make sure no one (kids and adults) drink the shower water.

FWIW this is fraught with danger. Legionnaires' Disease in Domestic Hot Water Systems and Legionnaires

Domestic hot water systems

The germ, which causes Legionnaires' disease, is a bacterium called Legionella pneumophila. People catch Legionnaires' disease by inhaling small droplets of water suspended in the air, which contain the Legionella bacterium.
This latest research, combined with earlier studies, now suggests the responsible bacteria often grow in the biological slime lining residential hot water pipes and domestic central heating systems, and that home water may be responsible for up to 20% of cases.

Best to keep that big billy boiling.....

 

[SeatBackForward]

I got it too. About time. My last quarterly bill was $220. :shock: That's a hell of a lot for someone who only spends ~60% of the time at the place.

That your electricity bill was so high, even when you're not consuming electricity (and therefore not contributing to carbon pollution) should be a strong hint that its not Carbon tax at play.

 

[cove]

Thanks for your note on Legionnaires ,Amaroo. That can be quite a nasty bug.

 

[amaroo]

That your electricity bill was so high, even when you're not consuming electricity (and therefore not contributing to carbon pollution) should be a strong hint that its not Carbon tax at play.

A fair chunk of that bill is the crawl back of $$$ to fund rebates/FIT/incentives for the 1.3M households that have installed solar panels across Australia.

Unfortunately, real folding stuff is always required to fund these "magic pudding" policies.

 

[JohnK]

Johnk just remember to turn off appliances off at the wall and don't leave items on standby. Items can still consume 10% energy if not turn off at the wall.

All I have is a fridge, a small upright lamp and my computer which goes to sleep when I am not here the 4-5 days/week. The TV is not switched on and the aircon power button is too high to keep switching on and off.

 

[whatmeworry]

All I have is a fridge, a small upright lamp and my computer which goes to sleep when I am not here the 4-5 days/week. The TV is not switched on and the aircon power button is too high to keep switching on and off.

Just remember if that AC unit consumes let's say 2000 watts, then that is 200 watts it might be consuming in ghost electricity. But then again looking at a recent power bill, there are so many service charges.

 

[JohnK]

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?

Because the end user ended up paying. What was the loss to big business from the Carbon tax they passed on to the end user?

How difficult is it to understand I do not want to fund the research into renewable sources of energy so big business can continue to make obscene profits?

Then who do you suggest will fund that research?

The same people that stand to make obscene profits from the fruits of that research.

Extremely unfair and illogical to ask the end user to fund research into renewable energy sources and then screw them for the privilege of using it.

 

[Moody]

Because the end user ended up paying. What was the loss to big business from the Carbon tax they passed on to the end user?

Businesses could choose whether they passed on the additional cost to end users, though we can safely assume that most did. [Actually hundreds of businesses passed on over-inflated increases that they blamed on the so-called "Carbon Tax"]

But part of the full package included compensation to negate the impact, such as tripling the tax free threshold from $6K to $18K and other measures. For low income users these would over-compensate, for most of us the impact would be fairly neutral, and only high-income households would have felt the brunt of the increases (mainly in electricity prices). Easily avoided by reducing your consumption by 10%.

Equally the businesses that worked hardest to reduce pollution would fair better than those that didn't, which is what a free-market is supposed to do.

 

[james4321]

Because the end user ended up paying. What was the loss to big business from the Carbon tax they passed on to the end user?


The same people that stand to make obscene profits from the fruits of that research.

Extremely unfair and illogical to ask the end user to fund research into renewable energy sources and then screw them for the privilege of using it.

Its all about costs/price balancing. Simple answer - the risk was that competitors (either existing or new entrants) who chose not to pass on all of the cost and/or found ways to reduce emissions then had a resulting price and competitive advantage.

The other side of that is that not providing an incentive to business to innovate removes or at leastreduces the likelihood of them doing so.

 

[eastwest101]

Businesses could choose whether they passed on the additional cost to end users, though we can safely assume that most did. [Actually hundreds of businesses passed on over-inflated increases that they blamed on the so-called "Carbon Tax"]

Don't bother with the "so-called" stuff - even the carbon Tax's main proponent, Julia Gillard, herself called it a carbon tax.

But part of the full package included compensation to negate the impact, such as tripling the tax free threshold from $6K to $18K and other measures. For low income users these would over-compensate, for most of us the impact would be fairly neutral, and only high-income households would have felt the brunt of the increases (mainly in electricity prices). Easily avoided by reducing your consumption by 10%.

You failed to mention the changes to the LITO in conjunction with the changes to tax free threshold, increases in medicare levies etc that resulted in less taxes to low incomes and higher taxes in high incomes, if we accept the premise was originally to reduce CO2 emissions, then why hang a bunch of redistributive tax cuts and hikes onto an environmental issue? Anyway - as you said easily avoided by reducing your consumption or being able to afford to put solar panels on your own roof and then charging higher than market price FIT back into the grid to make electricity more expensive for everyone (including low income earners).

Equally the businesses that worked hardest to reduce pollution would fair better than those that didn't, which is what a free-market is supposed to do.

Ever been to an aluminium refinery - do they operate when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining?

 

[Moody]

Don't bother with the "so-called" stuff - even the carbon Tax's main proponent, Julia Gillard, herself called it a carbon tax.

JG succumbed to the dumbed-down Australian media and populace, but I have no qualms at being accurate in my language. Do you need me to explain what the actual details were of the Carbon Pricing Mechanism that was passed into law?

You failed to mention the changes to the LITO in conjunction with the changes to tax free threshold, increases in medicare levies etc that resulted in less taxes to low incomes and higher taxes in high incomes, if we accept the premise was originally to reduce CO2 emissions, then why hang a bunch of redistributive tax cuts and hikes onto an environmental issue? Anyway - as you said easily avoided by reducing your consumption or being able to afford to put solar panels on your own roof and then charging higher than market price FIT back into the grid to make electricity more expensive for everyone (including low income earners).

I was responding to JohnK's comments along the lines of "who pays? - we do", to point out that most people didn't pay (overall) and the intention was to reduce pollution across the board by putting a price on it. Seemed to make sense to me (which outs me as a tree-hugging leftie) but not so much others (which outs them as greedy imbeciles ... sorry ... conservatives).

Ever been to an aluminium refinery - do they operate when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining?

Aluminium manufacturing is very energy intensive, and anything that reduces that carbon footprint would be a good thing. Personally I think every aluminium smelter should have its own nuclear power-plant on site - that would send the right sort of signal ....

 

[eastwest101]

Aluminium manufacturing is very energy intensive, and anything that reduces that carbon footprint would be a good thing. Personally I think every aluminium smelter should have its own nuclear power-plant on site - that would send the right sort of signal ....

Entirely agree, I respect that you support base load supply options, but until some sections of society accept that base load options should be evaluated (eg. nuclear, hydroelectricity or others) then we just get the same misinformation and scare tactics where say wind or solar proponents pretend that solar panels and wind turbines grow on trees and should be subsidized to the hilt and then pull out all their economic rationalist arguments against nuclear. Solar and wind proponents are just vested interests in my opinion, like any business they want to privatize the profits but socialize the costs. That's dishonest and no different to pleadings from car manufacturers whom can't control their costs or make cars that people want or say airlines that can't compete.