What Carbon

[JohnK]

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%.

It's all meaningless propaganda.

I didn't see much of a tax cut and the rest of my poxy 3% CPI increase wasn't anywhere near enough to cover my day to day costs.

 

[james4321]

It's all meaningless propaganda.

I didn't see much of a tax cut .

Maybe because the cost on carbon didnt add much to your costs either !!!

 

[amaroo]

It's all meaningless propaganda.

I didn't see much of a tax cut and the rest of my poxy 3% CPI increase wasn't anywhere near enough to cover my day to day costs.

Probably because you're a 55 percenter.

 

[amaroo]

Hmmm ...Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.

Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.

Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.

In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

Double hmmm.... Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Weatherman’s records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen’

• 

AS a child, Ian Cole would watch his father Neville take meticulous readings from the Bureau of Meteorology thermometer at the old post office in the western NSW town of Bourke and send the results through by teleprinter.

For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?” Mr Cole said. “At the moment they (BOM) are saying we have a warming climate but if the old figures are used we have a cooling climate.”

 

[cove]

Amaroo I don't see the opportunity of making it into the 86.9% in 4 months time which many others have achieved. Our family income seems to be going the wrong way to slip into that category.

 

[RAM]

Again what is your point. We are talking about Australia reducing its pollution. At the moment Australia is one of the highest polluting nations per capita. The premise that Australia should do nothing implies that level of polluting per capita is acceptable. The obvious question is why do you deny China the right to just as much pollute per person? China has just as much right to move beyond an agrarian based economy and that means more demand for electricity.

The fact remains China is talking steps to limit pollution in the context of modernising their economy. China has 50-70 times the population of a Australia and comparatively they pollute less than Australia. That's is without ever assigning pollution from manufacturing in china of goods consumed in Australia.

But the simple facts remain:
We are talking about reducing Australian pollution
China is taking steps to reduce pollution
China pollutes less per capita.
China has a much large population to support.

As with a few pages ago you point about china is invalid and ignores what is really happening.

A city along the Yangtze River near the southwestern municipality of Chongqing sees the uglier side of China's fast-growing economy.

Credit: Jean-François Tremblay/C&EN


The point is that comparing Apples with Oranges to try and prove one's claims is insulting. That is the action, more frequently than not, of politicians and their spin doctors.

You have yet again made an erroneous claim - "We are talking about reducing Australian pollution"

WRONG
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. The carbon tax did not and does not reduce pollution = FACT.

A good first step would be to acknowledge your mistake. That is far preferable than an ever deepening journey into semantics.

China is number one or number two for every industry listed in the table except for Petroleum Refineries (at the moment)
"China is taking steps to reduce pollution" - China is increasing its emissions of 'classified' pollutants year-on-year. Health issues are increasing and are seeing widespread rebellion in the rural areas where corrupt party officials are confiscating land for 'new' factories' that fail to meet emission/pollution requirements set by western countries. But then again here in NSW we have the ongoing 'mistakes' by Incitec (Port Botany and Newcastle) to name but one.

"OECD estimates that unless the current trend is changed, by 2020 air pollution will lead to 600,000 premature deaths annually in Chinese cities. Citing data from the Chinese Ministry of Health, OECD says 300 million rural residents already lack access to safe drinking water.

The 340-page report also says China consumes resources inefficiently. It finds that the country "generates more pollution and consumes more resources per unit of GDP than OECD averages." China is aiming to quadruple its GDP between 2000 and 2020, but the country "requires commensurate strengthening of environmental management and finance so that economic growth is environmentally sustainable," the report says.

Polluting China Some big names in the chemical industry appear on a list of those cited for water pollution in China

WRONG
- The net pollution position of China has worsened every year since 1990 - FACT

You say that China is 50-70 times Aust's population, so 1/50th of 1.28m annual deaths in China from air pollution (alone, not including water pollution related deaths, chemical pollution deaths etc) is on that basis a number between 18,200 and 25,600. The actual figure calculated for Autralia in the same study was 1,483. So on an air pollution basis (emissions remember) China is killing their population at a rate 14 to 18 times more per capita than Australia.


Please stop making such outlandish claims. You never did answer the question about the Parrot and your questions?

" itemprop="image">

Since the inaugural report on pollution in China the per capita pollution generation has deteriorated (amount generated per capita has increased by estimated 2.6 to 3.9x).
That is the main game for not only China but the world.

To create incentives for companies to shift their production to a lower environmental protection and low to no true pollution controls (other than deposits to Singapore Bank Accounts) ie the Australian Carbon Tax - is irresponsible. It costs jobs in Australia and worsens the outcome for the entire planet.

Erroneous Claim "China pollutes less per capita" - really you need to stop inventing storylines for the Working Dogs "Utopia" series.

WRONG -
see OECD reports cited above - China's pollution per unit of GDP vs OECD averages. Now since their GDP growth is running around 2 to 3 times that of the OECD that means the pollution generation is actually 2 to 3 times that of the OECD average.

 

[RAM]

The carbon tax was targetting big business - that was its whole point. Conversely Tony's "Direct Action " plan is a free gift to big business (to increase their 'obscene profits' as you describe them?) at the expense of the taxpayer (thats you and me).

You need to remove the spin from the story.

The money 'spent' through subsidizing solar panels, wind farms (note: all the current pleas from the BIG companies = keep paying us the subsidies or our wind plants, solar farms are not feasible) is costing every consumer in Australia.

To believe otherwise is to accept the 'magic pudding' myth.

Another way to explain it is the example of a gang going down a street smashing every windscreen, car window, wing mirrors and body panels.

The 'subsidy' crew argue that this creates more wealth and more jobs (the natural disaster way to prosperity an even more bizarre claim).

New spending = paying for the cost of repairs (where people can afford it). If covered by insurance then they pay an excess and the insurance company charges more the following year for premiums. The people repairing the cars earn more money and buy more parts etc from overseas.

The cost side - The people whose cars were damaged lose time taking their cars to be repaired, they lose time filling out the insurance claim forms, the lose time clearing up all the broken glass etc. A number will lose wages through having to take time off work. A number without comprehensive cover will have to use their savings or borrow money to pay for the repairs. Insurance premiums will cost more on renewal etc.

The total net-economic position is the country is worse off.

Back to the carbon tax - if it is supposed to 'stop global warming' and Australia and China are on the same globe (Yes - I checked and we are!!!) then if China is adding to the problem annually more than Australia has contributed since Federation - then yes sticking your head in the sand and saying China does not matter but what we are doing in Australia does - is absurd.

You say Australia is doing nothing - WRONG - many Australians are doing something. Is it you are doing nothing? That would be wrong would it not? If you are doing something then your earlier claim is wrong.

Main game - if the people up river from you are pissing in the stream and you are not, the water down stream is still contaminated. That you have spent hundreds of dollars on the latest environmentally friendly camp toilet is swamped by impact from the 70 people camping up-stream who are urinating etc in the stream.

One globe = one problem

 

[Moody]

Double hmmm.... Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Weatherman’s records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen’

• View attachment 34636

AS a child, Ian Cole would watch his father Neville take meticulous readings from the Bureau of Meteorology thermometer at the old post office in the western NSW town of Bourke and send the results through by teleprinter.

For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?” Mr Cole said. “At the moment they (BOM) are saying we have a warming climate but if the old figures are used we have a cooling climate.”

Talk about clutching at straws! This one is a real beauty - get a cotton farmer who knows nothing about the scientific method involved to back up a discredited climate skeptic, and sell the story to the denialist's bible ... where it is lapped up by the greedy and amoral who believe climate change is a leftie conspiracy rather than an obvious consequence of a complex environment.

It's so stupid it's comical ... only nobody is laughing.

 

[RAM]

Amaroo I don't see the opportunity of making it into the 86.9% in 4 months time which many others have achieved. Our family income seems to be going the wrong way to slip into that category.

and you don't see that as a problem do you?

In the late 80s early 90s the number of Industry Funds and large Super Funds who requested that as a fund manager we pay as little tax as possible (really generate the least tax liability unless they were in a pooled fund of ours) - was huge. I always enjoyed delving into that request.

So I'd give them a real world example of a rival fund manager who took out full page adverts post the 1987 stock market crash. The adverts proclaimed that super funds would not have to pay any tax if they put the money in that company's pooled super funds. A magic pudding again?

Well no. The company was called Equitilink and the reason no tax was payable was they had lost so much money for their investors (BTW - we had a positive return for the Dec Qtr 1987) that the tax losses generated (from a large number of their investments going bankrupt) would cover anyone else's tax for probably the next 5-7 years. It is on public record that some of the shares they had invested in did not trade for up to 5 months afterwards (Tasmanian 2nd Board companies).

At the end of the day, not churning your investments needlessly and looking at what CAN (will) go wrong rather than what may go right is a better approach, having to pay tax means (unless badly prepared) you have gained something. Paying tax prematurely (like Q?) is bad.

Interesting fact - out of the near 100 fund mgmt groups operating in Aust since the early 1990s (and the over 2,000 fund managers/analysts etc) less than 0.04% held their CBA shares continuously. Over 50% sold within 3 years. {Isn't it great the surveys that get done!}

CBA shares have outperformed on both a pre-tax and post-tax basis - every publicly available pooled fund/unit trust in Australia over that period and in rolling 10 year periods.

Disclaimer: I have continuously owned CBA since listing.

 

[RAM]

Talk about clutching at straws! This one is a real beauty - get a cotton farmer who knows nothing about the scientific method involved to back up a discredited climate skeptic, and sell the story to the denialist's bible ... where it is lapped up by the greedy and amoral who believe climate change is a leftie conspiracy rather than an obvious consequence of a complex environment.

It's so stupid it's comical ... only nobody is laughing.

Remember the saying, "Better to stay silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.."

If the same methodological approach is used over an extended period then the sample error is minimised and the data set is valid.

Resorting to insults can never be described as "scientific". Lack of knowledge equally illustrates a problem.

Did you believe the claims by Eddie Obeid and his mates without reservation?
Did you believe all the claims Barack Obama claimed he would achieve in his first term (with control of both houses)?
Did you believe the claim by the Australian Climate Change Commissioner that Sydney's dams would never again be full?

If you did you were wrong and so were all of the above - proven wrong subsequently by the evidence.

Fraud is fraud regardless of the fraudster's political persuasion.

On climate change and the environment I have caught out organisations in Australia committing fraud and falsifying the figures. Just wait and see who I've caught out recently...

Just listen to the radio and any day now you will hear some very interesting names being discussed. You could go so far as to say shocking names.

Human nature has not changed through the centuries - where ever there is money and influence you will find fraud/corruption. Altering information to suit your desire is not a new phenomena. What has changed is the ability to check it.

 

[RAM]

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.

Do you have a 2nd fridge? Older fridges are really bad news.
The other big cost that people often miss - are clothes dryers.

 

[james4321]

Main game - if the people up river from you are pissing in the stream and you are not, the water down stream is still contaminated. That you have spent hundreds of dollars on the latest environmentally friendly camp toilet is swamped by impact from the 70 people camping up-stream who are urinating etc in the stream.

One globe = one problem

Pretty crude (in all senses of the word) analogy - but it begs the question: So should we just keep on p***ing in the stream anyway, since its actually the fault of the other guys upstream? Tough on the downstreamers but hey now we have someone to blame so we are guilt free?

 

[RAM]

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.

Another urban myth unfortunately.

Companies that put money back into the company, that is reinvest in their future production or service delivery will always out-perform similar companies that do not. Every company goes through down-turns but the ones that can recover are those that have looked to their future.

Providing subsidies to everyone means you reward the bad as well as the good. You are wasting scarce funds.

No company ever cut its way to sustained growth. That is the Private Equity approach (mostly) - strip out assets and costs (like new planes for example) and run the old plant and equipment into the ground, run down stocks of spare parts and at face value they can produce an 18 month to 2 year set of accounts that look like a turn around. Raise debt on the back of this improvement and pay huge 'dividends' to themselves before on-selling it via float or trade sale.

Or: Why should I subsidise (through paying tax) the people down the street to get a new car with a subsidy (cash for clunkers proposal remember). A private car is not a productive asset for the benefit of Australia (may well be useful) yet that is what was going to happen. It is always easy to spend other peoples money.

If one can get a 3 year job off the taxpayer's largesse investigating the impact of global warming on squirrels in the Surrey area then I know it has gone too far.

 

[RAM]

Pretty crude (in all senses of the word) analogy - but it begs the question: So should we just keep on p***ing in the stream anyway, since its actually the fault of the other guys upstream? Tough on the downstreamers but hey now we have someone to blame so we are guilt free?

If that is how you want to react that is your choice.

But no, the point is to your earlier arguments - what the rest of the world is doing does matter.

Acting in isolation is acting in ignorance.

Appeasement is often just a costly futile adventure that results in a worse outcome.

Ruining your economy (putting up costs) while another is happy to supply you while at the same time generating more global impacting pollutants is neither logical nor practical.

 

[JohnK]

Do you have a 2nd fridge? Older fridges are really bad news.
The other big cost that people often miss - are clothes dryers.

Nope. I only have 1 fridge and an aircon unit that gets used when it is cold at night time.

I am in the place on average about 4/7 days per week if not less.

 

[RAM]

Nope. I only have 1 fridge and an aircon unit that gets used when it is cold at night time.

I am in the place on average about 4/7 days per week if not less.

When you say 4/7 are you out of the house completely for a 24 hour period or more?

If yes, then write down the power meter readings before you leave and note what they are when you return. For us (5 adults) the power use when we're away is 3.6 to 3.8kwh/day. Some of that (.6kwh) is auto lights, radios etc for lived in look. The bulk (no we have gas hot water) is due to modern 800l Fridge/Freezer. Getting rid of second smaller fridge cut $40/qtr from the bill.

Are you on time-of-day charging?

If so GET OFF IT if you can. Pure rip-off for customers (even if you have solar panels).

For example a typical 90 cm oven in used for 90 minutes will use from 2.8 to 5kwh (range due to models, efficiency & age of door seal and door spring). A small convection microwave will use .4 to .8kwh for the same time (using it purely on convection with no microwave).

If really determined you can get a 'power' monitoring plug-in power point (Aldi has them 2x a year for $12ish for example) to see the reality per appliance.

Boiling more water than you need for a drink is an amazing 'live' physics experiment. One member of our family has improved their kettle filling skills after watching the plug-in for her filling vs mine - for the same two cups. What really sold her was that it took nearly 1 minute less for how much I boiled vs her.

 

[james4321]

But no, the point is to your earlier arguments - what the rest of the world is doing does matter. Acting in isolation is acting in ignorance.

And the rest of the world - China included - is doing something. You have got to be seriously naive to think that we are acting in isolation, despite how often Tony and the Liebirals repeat that nonsense.

And I agree that many individuals are doing something, but I want to see recognition, support and encouragement for action as as a nation - in short some Leadership at the Federal level.

 

[RAM]

And the rest of the world - China included - is doing something. You have got to be seriously naive to think that we are acting in isolation, despite how often Tony and the Liebirals repeat that nonsense.

And I agree that many individuals are doing something, but I want to see recognition, support and encouragement for action as as a nation - in short some Leadership at the Federal level.

Yes China is doing something - significantly increasing its emissions every year, increasing its release of declared pollutants etc. Look at the figures I produced earlier today in this thread - nearly 1.3mn Chinese died due to air pollution in China in 2010. Emission of declared pollutants has increased further since then.

The reality is not what the spin doctors say and vested interests crow about - the reality is in what the various countries are actually producing and building more of. China is building new coal fired power stations at such a rapid rate that it replaces the entire Australian Coal-fired capacity every 8 months.

The really big difference then is that China is using that capacity above 90% utilisation 24/7. In Australia we are no where near that.

China is burning a significantly higher proportion of 'dirty' coal than Australia is for its production.

Support

Why do you need recognition for doing something you see as good? If Australia cannot afford to protect battered children, cut waiting times (and intense pain) for hip replacements etc then why should people who are relatively well-off in comparison have to be "supported"?

I'd rather my tax dollars went towards protecting toddlers from being pummeled to death than to financially literate types getting 60 cents Feed-in-tariffs on Solar panels, for example.

Or providing flushing toilets that work at inner-city primary schools (finally paid for by parents getting a plumber to come in after DoE said not in budget for current year - just 6 weeks into new financial year). Or clearing the gutters so water did not come into the toilet block over the kid's heads as the down-pipe was blocked - I borrowed an extension ladder and spent just under 3 hours clearing them. Somehow a locked gate wasn't locked that Saturday.

Back to Carbon Tax/subsidies etc.

One size does not fit all. Rushed policy IS worse than no policy as the funds wasted are never seen again.

 

[JohnK]

When you say 4/7 are you out of the house completely for a 24 hour period or more?

It is a studio apartment in Brisbane and I am in Sydney most weekends and in Thailand ~50 days/year.

 

[Moody]

.... Human nature has not changed through the centuries - where ever there is money and influence you will find fraud/corruption. Altering information to suit your desire is not a new phenomena. What has changed is the ability to check it.

The one and only truthful statement you have made so far - please keep going with the new you.