What Carbon

[Limewood]

As I said up thread, it was a tax, of course the money went to government.

Surely not

 

[JohnK]

Another question is what caused the onset of the last ice age, and what caused the warming to end it (50,000 - 20,000 years ago)? Not to mention all the other warming and cooling periods evidenced in the geological record. Human carbon dioxide emissions?

Is it possible that current human Civilisation is not v1?

 

[RAM]

.... and Al Gore AND many others :!:

Perhaps you are missing the point,

S.I.T. is the guiding principle and has been for many centuries.

Remember the Y-2-K 'disaster'.

Lifts were going to plummet to the ground, Airbus' and Boeings were going to fall out of the skies. I was even approached as one of my degrees in the distant past involved computing and COBOL programming. People were being paid $100 a line of COBOL code, and many COBOL programs are/were over 2,000 lines long and a good number over 10,000 lines. Just take 6 months off and the sky's the limit!

Next we had SRI - Socially responsible investing - with several well-knowns getting onto the band wagon. Fund performance figures and market indices were falsified to 'prove' you made more money following SRI (yes I can substantiate it). In digging into people who started associations for SRI, services for SRI - a curious phenomenon - virtually none had any SCIENTIFIC background but there were many lawyers and PR jobs on their CVs.

For example, one very large financial insto in Aust had a wonderful SRI approach, with sensational advertising to boot. It had positive screens to ensure positive results of course. Trouble is how ethical or SRI is it to invest in a company that donates 1% of its profits to charities decided by an annual vote of its workers, give's every worker a turkey at say Thanksgiving/Xmas, has never had a strike, does not employ children, provides medical care etc. Sounds great?

Passes all those positive screens that companies like BHP did not (strikes).

Guess what the 'successful' company produced in the hundred's of thousands, in fact world leader?

Any idea?

LANDMINES

That fund closed down after a few years on life support (and a loss

When the 'emperor's new clothes' started to fray they got onto the 'Global Warming' band wagon. When the numbers did not match the title there was this magnificent media relaunch and it became 'Climate Change'.

Trouble is there has been climate change since day 1. This is where the two card trick comes in. Mis-use scientific research on Climate Change (exists) as so-called proof for Anthropomorphic Climate Change. {Now I know I'm in trouble when the spell checker knows the correct spelling of that word}

BTW - S.I.T. = SNOUTS IN TROUGH.

 

[Moody]

Normally I like to reply with quote, but the above post by RAM has me stumped. Actually, he lost me at Y2K ... and I am wondering if this is the sort of person who is cheering the removal of carbon pricing.

 

[JohnK]

I don't buy into this debate because I think it is a load of codswallop but one thing is clear in my mind and that is those in favour of the carbon tax have no idea what is going to happen and are using scare tactics to try get people on side.

"Don't go near the water or you will drown."

Yep makes perfect sense to me.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I find it odd thar the Liberal party is against something that is user pay ( and now we collectively will all pay for pollution target than the emitters), and were against a market mechanism for emissions trading.

Next thing you'll know, they'll support government intervention!

 

[medhead]

And the Australian has dragged out this rubbish for the front page.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-still-cynical/story-e6frg6xf-1226992821596

Whinging about a $230000 electricity bill with a $20000 carbon tax component. Classic quote:

“I wouldn’t have had a problem paying that tax, but it was just put into general revenue. I don’t think the Australian people would have minded paying a tax that in the end was going to defeat itself, but by having a tax that punished you for a behaviour for which you had no alternative to, is a bit like beating a kid over the knuckles and saying ‘You’re not allowed to do that’ but then not giving them *another behaviour to do.”

Mr Hamparsum said his family would invest any carbon tax savings into solar energy for their houses and workshop.

Clearly the guy has no idea, or the reporting is selectively quoting. The farmer certainly could have changed his behaviour and avoided the $20000 tax bill. $230000 buys a lot of solar panels. How about investing in solar for the house and workshop and saving the carbon tax bill before you even pay it!! Like many blindly supporting the lies about this, commenting makes it clear the guy has No Idea. Not sure which, but either the reporter or the farmer is a complete goose.

And no I'm do not buy the load of BS at the end about nothing being able to power his motors. Exactly what does "generate the 150 horsepower electric motors" mean? How much is that in real, actual electricity units, like Watts and such. Classic load of tripe from Murdoch.

“Unfortunately, there’s nothing big enough yet to generate the 150 horsepower electric motors,” he said.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps you are missing the point,


Remember the Y-2-K 'disaster'.

I think you're clearly missing the point. Y-2-K? That thing where they did a lot of work and fixed the problem before the year changed to 2000. That potential problem where people acted on the warnings to fix the problem. Are you serious? THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT HAPPENED. The fact that nothing happened actually disproves whatever you're view is about climate change, reducing pollution.

An absolutely ludicrous analogy. Oh look they fixed the issue and nothing happened, that must mean there was nothing wrong in the first place. Seriously? Are car airbags a big hoax as well?

 

[dfcatch]

Now that the Senate has voted and the tax is going to be repealed. Will people get a carbon tax refund for all existing fares post 1 July?

Only those that voted against the carbon tax

The rest of you will continue to subsidize my Eggs Benedict .


Can this thread be merged with the other one please mods - you know the one with 8000000 posts.

Alanslegal, 777, Medhead, drron and I have life memberships to that thread.

(Unlike LTQP - life membership here means something )

 

[juddles]

And the Australian has dragged out this rubbish for the front page.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-still-cynical/story-e6frg6xf-1226992821596

Whinging about a $230000 electricity bill with a $20000 carbon tax component. Classic quote:





Clearly the guy has no idea, or the reporting is selectively quoting. The farmer certainly could have changed his behaviour and avoided the $20000 tax bill. $230000 buys a lot of solar panels. How about investing in solar for the house and workshop and saving the carbon tax bill before you even pay it!! Like many blindly supporting the lies about this, commenting makes it clear the guy has No Idea. Not sure which, but either the reporter or the farmer is a complete goose.

And no I'm do not buy the load of BS at the end about nothing being able to power his motors. Exactly what does "generate the 150 horsepower electric motors" mean? How much is that in real, actual electricity units, like Watts and such. Classic load of tripe from Murdoch.

Medhead, I cannot access the link about the farmer (something about logging in for Premium material??) but just going on the scant info in the last few posts it appears that he may be using 150hp pumps on his farm. I am not up to date on the current (forgive the pun) solar power equipment available on the Aussie market, but you are talking SERIOUS power requirements here. Not something that a couple of hundred grand will buy you, I suspect.

Anyway, just commenting. Maybe an engineer/solar expert can shed light on this? (whoops - another pun)

 

[juddles]

And the fact that he appears to be using electric pumps for irrigation shows he is using best practice, environmentally. Alternative would be diesel.

 

[burmans]

I think you're clearly missing the point. Y-2-K? That thing where they did a lot of work and fixed the problem before the year changed to 2000. That potential problem where people acted on the warnings to fix the problem. Are you serious? THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT HAPPENED. The fact that nothing happened actually disproves whatever you're view is about climate change, reducing pollution.

An absolutely ludicrous analogy. Oh look they fixed the issue and nothing happened, that must mean there was nothing wrong in the first place. Seriously? Are car airbags a big hoax as well?

I personally think you should ignore that post, quite why Alan Jones felt the need to come on here and comment at this stage I dont know.

 

[juddles]

And last comment re the mystery farmer: for users of such large amount of electricity as a necessary part of their business, why is the onus on the individual to ¨go solar¨? Why isnt the pressure on the enrgy providers or government to invest in solar to supply the grid? It would seem to a novice like myself that it is ridiculous to get individual farms to invest over a million bucks each in médium scale solar plants. Wouldnt it be better for government or enrgy suppliers to do big plants? Economies of scale and such? Not my opinión, am just asking questions that I do not know the answers to.

 

[SeatBackForward]

And last comment re the mystery farmer: for users of such large amount of electricity as a necessary part of their business, why is the onus on the individual to ¨go solar¨? Why isnt the pressure on the enrgy providers or government to invest in solar to supply the grid? It would seem to a novice like myself that it is ridiculous to get individual farms to invest over a million bucks each in médium scale solar plants. Wouldnt it be better for government or enrgy suppliers to do big plants? Economies of scale and such? Not my opinión, am just asking questions that I do not know the answers to.

That was always the intention of having a market based ETS - that the increased cost of fossil fuels would generate opportunities for new "green" technologies to be developed, by the mechanism that society and economics best responds to - $$$. The farmer in your example would then have a choice of paying more from the existing providers, or pay less from the lower emission providers.

 

[juddles]

Are there ¨lower emission providers¨ available to Farmer Brown?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Are there ¨lower emission providers¨ available to Farmer Brown?

Not sure, but given time, and the cost of trading emissions, there would be new entrants using solar, wind or hydro. These take time to develop however, and will only happen if the ROI on these is feasible. By snuffing out the "carbon tax" (and it is the most ludicrous term for it - a pollution penalty is more appropriate) these ROI calculations will very quickly show all these green energy investments are no longer viable.

 

[medhead]

Medhead, I cannot access the link about the farmer (something about logging in for Premium material??) but just going on the scant info in the last few posts it appears that he may be using 150hp pumps on his farm. I am not up to date on the current (forgive the pun) solar power equipment available on the Aussie market, but you are talking SERIOUS power requirements here. Not something that a couple of hundred grand will buy you, I suspect.

Anyway, just commenting. Maybe an engineer/solar expert can shed light on this? (whoops - another pun)

My mistake. You can get rid of the premium content thing by clicking the red X in the top right corner to get a preview. Otherwise, if you google the title that will get the full article. $20,000 reason to cheer, but farmer still cynical. (I don't expect everyone to know this)

Not to be smart but here is an easy link to google the story. Let me google that for you (need to do it this way as the direct link does the premium content thing)

The point is what is the electrical requirement for 150 horsepower. That's not even a proper electrical quantity, it is mechanical power. If I convert that to watts (mechanical) 150 hp = 111 kW. the toyota Prius is rated at 67 kW. I'm not an electrical engineer or anything. But if the prius can drive around with enough batteries to provide 89 horsepower, is a fixed pump installation for 150 horsepower that hard? There are also small scale wind generators available that might be very suitable for his farm, judging by the picture.

Perhaps he just decided on the low capital cost and high operating cost option. Short sighted?

And the fact that he appears to be using electric pumps for irrigation shows he is using best practice, environmentally. Alternative would be diesel.

The picture of him standing next to a fixed installation that looks to be generator powered suggests otherwise. I don't think the pump is running from mains power by the look of that picture. Which now raises another question - Diesel fuel rebate would have been available for the cost of the generator fuel.

And last comment re the mystery farmer: for users of such large amount of electricity as a necessary part of their business, why is the onus on the individual to ¨go solar¨? Why isnt the pressure on the enrgy providers or government to invest in solar to supply the grid? It would seem to a novice like myself that it is ridiculous to get individual farms to invest over a million bucks each in médium scale solar plants. Wouldnt it be better for government or enrgy suppliers to do big plants? Economies of scale and such? Not my opinión, am just asking questions that I do not know the answers to.

That was the design and structure of the ETS. It was supposed to give people the incentive to change their behaviour. This guy is a prime example where he could have avoided the ETS charge by changing his energy supply. I would also raise that he is talking about going solar on his house and sheds. He could have done that already and saved himself the ETS charge related to that power usage. That is regardless of needing to power pumps. In relation to the house and sheds, powering the pumps is little more than a distraction.

Are there ¨lower emission providers¨ available to Farmer Brown?

He could have been the provider for himself. Just like I'm providing power for myself and avoided the ETS on that power.

 

[RAM]

I think you're clearly missing the point. Y-2-K? That thing where they did a lot of work and fixed the problem before the year changed to 2000. That potential problem where people acted on the warnings to fix the problem. Are you serious? THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT HAPPENED. The fact that nothing happened actually disproves whatever you're view is about climate change, reducing pollution.

An absolutely ludicrous analogy. Oh look they fixed the issue and nothing happened, that must mean there was nothing wrong in the first place. Seriously? Are car airbags a big hoax as well?

Rose coloured glasses in use perhaps?

If you look at where the carbon tax, carbon abatement, carbon credits businesses etc have been rorted, misrepresented and fraudulently claimed then the Y-2-K example is directly relevant.

Post Y-2-K there were a number of inquiries etc that found a large proportion of 'preventative spending' or forced upgrades had no actual need.

For example, a large number of software program upgrades were not required but software companies advertised widely along the lines of avoid the potential business calamity - upgrade to latest version now. With two large commercial software packages (global not just Aust sourced software) there was absolutely no Y-2-K reason to upgrade. Yet the scare campaign saw most businesses suckered in globally.

Just like with the climate-gate scandal (google it if you've forgotten) where the data was deliberately falsified by the 'top scientists at one UK University centre of Excellence , threats made against any scientists who questioned its validity etc - the same happened with the Y-2-K.

There were a number of inquiries launched into the rorts, lies etc however with the emperor's new clothes many of the dupes were not game to admit they wasted millions without proper due diligence. Remember the claims that the GPS system was going to fail? Planes would fall out of the sky - so don't fly on Dec 31, 1999? The alarmists got the headlines. Many small businesses adopted the wait and see approach and found no problems the next day despite the doomsday claims.

Sure in some systems there was a Y-2-K issue but it was not every system. Similarly a large proportion of the alarmist claims are blatantly without any substance. Remember the Climate Change Commissioner (was that his taxpayer funded title?) Tim Flannery going out on a multi-media campaign saying that Sydney's dams would never again be full? Within 12 months they were over flowing.

The claims about no glaciers left in the IPCC report was traced to an undergraduate student who made the unsubstantiated claim in a paper they wrote. Its retraction did not get the front page headlines though did it? Why not?

There is a clear problem with pollution (real pollution such as that caused by shifting huge CAPITAL intensive (not labour intensive) industries into developing countries with issues of corruption +/or low to no environmental emission controls. Have a go and do some searching on China's new coal fired power plants in the last few years. They have been adding more in one year than we have in total!

Then there is the source of a large proportion of their coal - low calorific value brown coal. That is real pollution and has a proven adverse impact on both people and the broader environment.

Apples & Oranges

Product faults leading to safety recalls are not in the same class as alarmist claims although apparently GM alllegedly tried to portray it that way for years until the recent revelations that they knew of the issues for years.

The carbon tax issue at one extreme is portrayed as a King Canute exercise and at the other Joan of Arc.

As always the truth lies somewhere in between - extremism is rarely right.

 

[burmans]

Rose coloured glasses in use perhaps?

If you look at where the carbon tax, carbon abatement, carbon credits businesses etc have been rorted, misrepresented and fraudulently claimed then the Y-2-K example is directly relevant.

Post Y-2-K there were a number of inquiries etc that found a large proportion of 'preventative spending' or forced upgrades had no actual need.

For example, a large number of software program upgrades were not required but software companies advertised widely along the lines of avoid the potential business calamity - upgrade to latest version now. With two large commercial software packages (global not just Aust sourced software) there was absolutely no Y-2-K reason to upgrade. Yet the scare campaign saw most businesses suckered in globally.

Just like with the climate-gate scandal (google it if you've forgotten) where the data was deliberately falsified by the 'top scientists at one UK University centre of Excellence , threats made against any scientists who questioned its validity etc - the same happened with the Y-2-K.

There were a number of inquiries launched into the rorts, lies etc however with the emperor's new clothes many of the dupes were not game to admit they wasted millions without proper due diligence. Remember the claims that the GPS system was going to fail? Planes would fall out of the sky - so don't fly on Dec 31, 1999? The alarmists got the headlines. Many small businesses adopted the wait and see approach and found no problems the next day despite the doomsday claims.

Sure in some systems there was a Y-2-K issue but it was not every system. Similarly a large proportion of the alarmist claims are blatantly without any substance. Remember the Climate Change Commissioner (was that his taxpayer funded title?) Tim Flannery going out on a multi-media campaign saying that Sydney's dams would never again be full? Within 12 months they were over flowing.

The claims about no glaciers left in the IPCC report was traced to an undergraduate student who made the unsubstantiated claim in a paper they wrote. Its retraction did not get the front page headlines though did it? Why not?

There is a clear problem with pollution (real pollution such as that caused by shifting huge CAPITAL intensive (not labour intensive) industries into developing countries with issues of corruption +/or low to no environmental emission controls. Have a go and do some searching on China's new coal fired power plants in the last few years. They have been adding more in one year than we have in total!

Then there is the source of a large proportion of their coal - low calorific value brown coal. That is real pollution and has a proven adverse impact on both people and the broader environment.

Apples & Oranges

Product faults leading to safety recalls are not in the same class as alarmist claims although apparently GM alllegedly tried to portray it that way for years until the recent revelations that they knew of the issues for years.

The carbon tax issue at one extreme is portrayed as a King Canute exercise and at the other Joan of Arc.

As always the truth lies somewhere in between - extremism is rarely right.

Alan, you are back again, getting bored with radio?

 

[cove]

We are doing solar on each of our warehouses seeing the payback is a little over 3 years now that the components have fallen dramatically. Our warehouses run mainly in sunlight hours so that is helpful.
We have not given up on South Australia where our energy supplier wanted $18,000 a year for us to cut our bill by $20,000 so we have had to engage a consultant.
eastwest101 is correct stating that the energy suppliers have a big problem as they have to supply extra power when it get cloudy and also when it is night time. Going forward costs will increase for those who do nothing so it is quite tricky seeing most of the households who have no solar cannot afford the cost.