What Carbon

[Limewood]

My original post:

"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?".

Well the subject has gone way of track, I didn't ask about panels and tariff savings and all I'm seeing here is bickering.

 

[amaroo]

.......

all I'm seeing here is bickering.

Not just this thread, unfortunately To answer your OP - things like carbon tax and FIT do bugger all.

 

[medhead]

Not just this thread, unfortunately To answer your OP - things like carbon tax and FIT do bugger all.

Sorry but you need to actually read the thread. Links have already been presented that show that the carbon tax did actually do something. How about you try presenting evidence rather than sprouting uninformed opinion.

In any case for things that do nothing, they certainly made you take action. The very fact that you installed solar shows that the feed in tariff did do something.

 

[amaroo]

Sorry but you need to actually read the thread. Links have already been presented that show that the carbon tax did actually do something. How about you try presenting evidence rather than sprouting uninformed opinion. You saying something does not make it true.

If correcting mis information is bickering then so be it. Another way to stop this so-called bickering would be to stop spreading mis-information.

I also see you're incapable of backing up your pronouncements about the feed in tariff with any facts either. Another evidence free zone.

I've posted facts and anyone with an ounce of knowledge (and a little common sense) would know why things turned out the way they did for FIT right around the globe. In regards to carbon tax - bugger all is the best tag one can place on the thing.

How many more posts will there be before we decide who gets the last one:?: I suggest we toss a coin and save ourselves some time

 

[medhead]

I've posted facts and anyone with an ounce of knowledge (and a little common sense) would know why things turned out the way they did for FIT right around the globe. In regards to carbon tax - bugger all is the best tag one can place on the thing.

How many more posts will there be before we decide who gets the last one:?: I suggest we toss a coin and save ourselves some time

Bugger all is a fact, is it? I'll stick to the peer reviewed study that I linked. Please feel free to present evidence to back up your claim. Or perhaps you'll just keep trying to have the last word such as above

As for fit, I'm yet to see you post any facts.

 

[drron]

Unfortunately the supposed proof for the carbon tax doing anything to save the planet rests on rubbery figures.There are no definite measurements of our CO2 emissions only estimates.
The real problem is who is doing the estimates.I have seen estimates of our emissions from our Climate Change Commission,the EU,UN,Sweden,the US and then there is Wikipedia.The problem is they all differ.
If you believe the US figures our emissions were dropping before the Carbon Tax was introduced.After pausing in 2008/2009 they began dropping in 2010/2011.
The world figures for 2011 are interesting.According to the US figures China's CO2 emissions increased by double Australia's yearly total.

International Energy Statistics - EIA

 

[amaroo]

Bugger all is a fact, is it? I'll stick to the peer reviewed study that I linked. Please feel free to present evidence to back up your claim. Or perhaps you'll just keep trying to have the last word such as above

As for fit, I'm yet to see you post any facts.

I see you want the last post, should I give it to you? .... I'll think about it.

Bugger all is a technical term that sits a notch above zero in the measuring of insignificance.

 

[burmans]

Unfortunately the supposed proof for the carbon tax doing anything to save the planet rests on rubbery figures.There are no definite measurements of our CO2 emissions only estimates.
The real problem is who is doing the estimates.I have seen estimates of our emissions from our Climate Change Commission,the EU,UN,Sweden,the US and then there is Wikipedia.The problem is they all differ.
If you believe the US figures our emissions were dropping before the Carbon Tax was introduced.After pausing in 2008/2009 they began dropping in 2010/2011.
The world figures for 2011 are interesting.According to the US figures China's CO2 emissions increased by double Australia's yearly total.

International Energy Statistics - EIA

Have to say this idea of "definitive" figures is for me a difficult one. There is no "definitive" figure on how many people die from cigarette smoking either, cigarette smoking is only one factor in causing cancer (albeit now accepted as a major one) and there are frequently other contributing causes. Am mentioning this not to divert but nevertheless to suggest that even when climate science is beter understood there will be some level of estimation involved and when you have estimation you have margins of error.

 

[drron]

Have to say this idea of "definitive" figures is for me a difficult one. There is no "definitive" figure on how many people die from cigarette smoking either, cigarette smoking is only one factor in causing cancer (albeit now accepted as a major one) and there are frequently other contributing causes. Am mentioning this not to divert but nevertheless to suggest that even when climate science is beter understood there will be some level of estimation involved and when you have estimation you have margins of error.

But we do have the definitive numbers of lung cancer deaths.And like many doctors if I am filling out a Death Certificate I always will put cigarette smoking as an antecedent cause in that case or asbestos exposure if that is the history.So these figures are much more accurate than CO2 emissions.
Then there is the other side of the equation.Where are the estimates of how much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere?

 

[medhead]

The definitive proof of distraction is trying to pretend anyone said the carbon tax would save the planet.

But we do have the definitive numbers of lung cancer deaths.And like many doctors if I am filling out a Death Certificate I always will put cigarette smoking as an antecedent cause in that case or asbestos exposure if that is the history.So these figures are much more accurate than CO2 emissions.
Then there is the other side of the equation.Where are the estimates of how much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere?

Yet you have no certain way of knowing that smoking was the cause. It could just as well have been pollution from burning fuels or the extremely small percentage that theoretically get cancer from background radiation. Still if Wikipedia told you it's correct perhaps I'll concede the point. It would be good to have Wikipedia as the source to tell me what killed my father.

 

[drron]

The definitive proof of distraction is trying to pretend anyone said the carbon tax would save the planet.



Yet you have no certain way of knowing that smoking was the cause. It could just as well have been pollution from burning fuels or the extremely small percentage that theoretically get cancer from background radiation. Still if Wikipedia told you it's correct perhaps I'll concede the point. It would be good to have Wikipedia as the source to tell me what killed my father.

My original post graduate training was in Respiratory Medicine.I don't need Wikipedia to tell me the causes of lung cancer.

 

[RAM]

Sorry but you need to actually read the thread. Links have already been presented that show that the carbon tax did actually do something. How about you try presenting evidence rather than sprouting uninformed opinion.

In any case for things that do nothing, they certainly made you take action. The very fact that you installed solar shows that the feed in tariff did do something.

Medhead you seem to have lost sight of the big picture.

Australia is a huge island a long way from where the solar panels are made despite the fact that most panels are based on patents created and lodged by the Centre for Photovoltaics at UNSW. A centre I know well.

As has been stated - overseas Govts stopped subsidies/incentives - some prior to and some just as JG and State Govts got them going on steroi_s.

One point to clarify - where do you think Govt largesse comes from?

It comes from tax payers, less some handling costs, study trips and consultants' fees. It is not free and not some magical pudding.

The FITs are paid for by ALL electricity users Australia-wide. Many people saw the inequity of the FITs being 2 - 2.5 times the then Kwh prices and did the logical thing. Unfortunately the project was not properly designed, costed nor implemented. Just like the free roofing insulation this truly was a magic pudding and you had a good number of businesses spring up that had no clue (or pretty close) cashing in on the scheme at the wider community's cost. In NSW it was estimated (put out by NSW Treasury) as having added $200 per NSW power bill per annum before it was finally stopped. Each month the FIT at 60c/kwh continued was estimated to be adding $30 a year cost due to the huge upsurge in people rushing to take advantage of the 'generosity' at others expense.

"It has been reported that NSW households could pay an extra $600 on their electricity bill over six years ($8.33/month) to cover the $2 billion cost of the tariff scheme. The total cost to families in some regional areas could be $1000.[SUP][54][/SUP]

Note: $2bn was just the cost to NSW residents and estimated before the scheme was curtailed.

A detailed analysis of the German experience makes interesting reading vs the claims aired.

Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies - The German Experience (University of Essen)
http://repec.rwi-essen.de/files/REP_09_156.pdf

"The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this effort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security."

Have a look at that study, plenty of real-world information unfortunately. Now you know why the EU carbon price plummeted - it did not work and 'The emperor's new clothes' were finally revealed for their true nature.

Just about EVERY European solar panel maker has gone bankrupt. They were rescued (swallowed whole) at cents on the Euro by three Chinese and one Korean company. The Japanese Govt already had stopped the subsidies within Japan before the EU and their industry imploded to some degree.

Then the Chinese solar panel makers imploded (especially Sunpower) including defaults on bonds issued and saw some taken over completely by the regional government.

These are all facts, not a hopeful hypothesis.

China drove the EU and also a couple of US solar panel makers out of business by selling the panels for less than the cost of silicon on them (aka dumping). Don't you remember all the fuss about Obama's biggest 'green' loan and subsidies to a US Solar panel maker that went broke within 12 months of getting the gifts, loans and loan guarantees?

Obama-backed, bankrupt Solyndra sues Chinese solar companies | The Daily Caller

"Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009, after which, President Obama hailed the company as “leading the way” and the company represented one of the “true engines of economic growth.” “It is time to rev up the American innovation machine and reclaim our lead on clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu when the loan was announced.
“This investment is part of a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work, end our dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon pollution.” Despite warnings early on from DOE staff that the solar company would run out of cash by September 2011, the loan moved forward with the loan, and in August 2011, the Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, laying off 1,100 workers."

Solyndra; solar energy; bankruptcy; Obama - Los Angeles Times
"Solyndra would become the third such company to file for bankruptcy in recent days. Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Aug. 19. Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 on Aug. 15."

Sure cost goes down as production rises (up to a point) but dumping is something else. Artificially stimulating (roof insulation for example) just distorts a market, encourages rorts and corruption and usually ends up destroying the industry and costs jobs over time. WA Inc should have been a good enough example of how Govts always fail in picking winners. If that was not enough then there was the Victorian Debacle, remember the State Bank of Victoria? Ringing any alarm bells?

Another impact of Govts picking winners, is the guaranteed return offered on ALL infrastructure spending by the power transmission companies (poles & wires). They get to charge every consumer Australia-wide so they get a guaranteed return (12% IIR the last time I looked) on every $1 they spend regardless of whether the capacity is actually required.

This is covered under the daily supply charge not the usage charges. As a result the daily supply charge is not covered under the discounts offered by power companies. The ACCC, IPART etc have much to apologise for.

As more solar panels are introduced (post-distortion) the daily supply charge will only increase despite the need for the poles and wires falling.

 

[burmans]

So these figures are much more accurate than CO2 emissions.

More accurate though is not definitive. I'm certainly not trying to argue that lung cancer isn't caused by smoking but I do know that the lack of definitive evidence was what the cigerette smoking companies succesfully argued for a very long time and many people died as a result.

And I'm not arguing that we dont need better information or estimates either, the question in my mind is at what point do we say the estimates are good enough. And I for one are not prepared to wait 40 years (as we did for cigarette smoking) to get to a point to say we think this really is a problem (or not).

 

[SeatBackForward]

When this debate comes around, I tend to fall asleep through the calls for facts and evidence, this report, that report - there is plenty of quantitative analysis out there than can be presented to support any argument. I prefer to see a more qualitative set of questions as forming the basis:

Do you agree pollution is a problem, and that it should be minimised?

Note the above question is specifically worded as pollution, not emission, not carbon. You can argue pollution is a subjective term, but call it on the basis as any by-product that has a detrimental effect on quality of life. Whilst the term "carbon tax" is good for the iGeneration, carbon is only an equivalence factor, like how dollars are used to value goods and services. Any pollution is measured in CO2 equivalents using accepted and agreed conversion factors.

I would like to believe that this question has a unanimous answer.

Do you agree that those that generate pollution should be accountable for it?

At the moment, pollution is usually a problem that all society pays for. Yes fines get levied in individual cases of spills, leaks and releases, but on the whole, the pollution generated by society is distributed across all members, through the air we breathe, the water we drink and resultant short and long term impacts of that pollution.

Again, I don't see how many would argue against the question.

Its the third question that I think where the most disagreement and debate will occur, but relies on agreement of the first two:

What is the most effective method for penalising polluters?

 

[RAM]

The BIG Picture

Look at the figures from the EIA on CO2 generation from coal: (millions of tonnes)

International Energy Statistics - EIA
[TABLE="class: scrolltable, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="class: locked, colspan: 2, align: left"] [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2001 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2002 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2003 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2004 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2005 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2006 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2007 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2008 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2009 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2010 [/TH]
[TH="align: center"] 2011 [/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: scrolltable, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="class: locked, colspan: 2"]China [/TH]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 2,641.729 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 3,025.298 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 3,455.387 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 3,819.951 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 4,483.041 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 4,897.171 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 5,228.599 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 5,537.758 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 6,292.162 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 6,568.872 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 7,178.190 [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: scrolltable, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="class: locked, colspan: 2"]Australia [/TH]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 204.283 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 204.625 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 204.081 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 209.380 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 224.723 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 227.889 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 230.708 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 229.318 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 228.711 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 223.878 [/TD]
[TD="class: dataCenter"] 176.487 [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

These are the latest "World" figures - 2 years out of date. Australia's numbers are lower (less brown coal) and China's are thought to be now around 8,600,000 million tonnes of CO2 per annum.

It shows clearly that China continues to add new coal fired power stations EACH year that burn more coal than AUSTRALIA's entire coal fired power stations in total. Brings to mind the "Flea pissing on the fire" does it not?

Or the 2011 emissions by China from burning coal is greater than the total by Australia for the last 100 years!

Yes China is building some Nuclear power stations but is building more coal than nuclear.

 

[james4321]

Nicely put SBF. As I said in an earlier post the carbon tax is not the issue, it being simply the (no longer) chosen strategy to combat pollution or as you put it, to penalise the polluters. The fact that Abbott droned on about the "toxic tax" ad nauseum illustrates nothing more than his arrogance and ignorance, unfortunately the majority of voters at the last election swallowed his repetitive nonsense without any sensible evaluation of what it actually meant. (True of more than just the carbon tax isssue but thats OT). Even more unfortunately, now that the CT has been repealed, it seems that there is little agreement on what to replace it with. I hope we dont simply see Abbott confirm his original position and consign the whole topic to the wastepaper bin labelled "cough".

 

[RAM]

Nicely put SBF. As I said in an earlier post the carbon tax is not the issue, it being simply the (no longer) chosen strategy to combat pollution or as you put it, to penalise the polluters. The fact that Abbott droned on about the "toxic tax" ad nauseum illustrates nothing more than his arrogance and ignorance, unfortunately the majority of voters at the last election swallowed his repetitive nonsense without any sensible evaluation of what it actually meant. (True of more than just the carbon tax isssue but thats OT). Even more unfortunately, now that the CT has been repealed, it seems that there is little agreement on what to replace it with. I hope we dont simply see Abbott confirm his original position and consign the whole topic to the wastepaper bin labelled "cough".

Totally agree, pollution needs to be handled, minimised etc.

Just one thing, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Totally agree, pollution needs to be handled, minimised etc.

Just one thing, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

Well..its a Greenhouse Gas, as defined by Greenhouse Gas Accounting Standards.

 

[RAM]

Just one thing, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

Well..its a Greenhouse Gas, as defined by Greenhouse Gas Accounting Standards.

Exactly correct, and that is the point. Never let the facts get in the way of a good PR spin campaign.

Something members of this forum know much about: Qantas 'enhances' FF scheme.

Just because something is said or claimed does not make it true.

 

[whatmeworry]

Graphic after carbon laws repealed.