Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[MAD]

Originally Posted by colinl

The trouble with this line of thought is that everyone sits back and says why should I be the first. Sometimes it just takes a bit of guts to do the right thing and set the ball rolling.

Is it such a bad thing to try and limit each persons carbon emissions to a level? If we each produce more carbon emissions than others do, regardless of country boundaries, it could be argued that we have a moral imperative to show we are willing to change, even though our national emissions are lower than other counties.

That line of thought makes complete sense, why should we try it out when the actual effect would not even be measurable on the world scale. We might be taxed for 15 years and still not know if it has made any difference.
How about china or the US start doing so it there would be a REAL measurable drop in human influenced carbon output? And then see if it actually does anything.

It's a great idea to limit our carbon output, but adding a tax is not going to do anything about consumption, all it will do is take money from the people and hand it over to the already mega rich.

[markof]

If more people earned a legitimate income through working for it and had less reliance on Government handouts we would not need these excuses for further taxes. Unless a disabilty prevents work, and I might add that many disabled people do in fact work for their income, and for the elderly whom most have already contributed and done the "hard yards", what excuse have people got not to work?
This extra taxing will only do more to line the pockets of the Governments and will have nothing to do with lowering pollution. Only then companies will have to pay to pollute which as has been stated, the costs being forwarded to us + GST = extra revenue.
How many scientists have you heard from the sceptics side of the fence? They are all branded to be in bed with the oil companies. I suggest some research on ice core samples taken to give the indications of weather patterns way B4 our time. CSIRO site has the information. To suggest that we are totally responsible for the weather patterns of today is foolhardy. In my view, we haven't seen enough of the information from both sides of the fence and until we do, making forth on a tax of this nature is just revenue raising littered with corruption to make more money for oneselves and the parties that Governments represent wordwide. Yes, the Governments of the world are all in this together up to their necks so that they can be Masters of the Universe, or so they think.
We already have the technology to fix the power generation pollution but it is difficult for the decision to be made because of jobs at stake and spin offs as well as being politically sensitive and parties always have to remain in POWER. Get the picture?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by MAD

That line of thought makes complete sense, why should we try it out when the actual effect would not even be measurable on the world scale. We might be taxed for 15 years and still not know if it has made any difference.
How about china or the US start doing so it there would be a REAL measurable drop in human influenced carbon output? And then see if it actually does anything.

It's a great idea to limit our carbon output, but adding a tax is not going to do anything about consumption, all it will do is take money from the people and hand it over to the already mega rich.

My understanding of the tax is that it taxes dirty manufacturers and gives tax credits to manufacturers that implement cleaner operations. This encourages businesses to make the investment in cleaner technology. Originally tax income from this was going to be used to fund research into cleaner technology and the adoption of it, but I think the plan has been modified now and the income will go towards rebates to families as way of reducing the impact on their wallets.

[MAD]

So the gov puts tax on the power company, the power company puts up prices to the household to cover these taxes, the gov gives money to the household to pay increased prices. Shortcut, gov gives money to power company.

It's gunna do jack unless they can somehow force the polluters to wear the cost of these taxes, instead of passing them on as we know they are going to do, then nothing is going to happen. They don't need to worry about reducing their pollution/tax cause the gov will help the householders pay the bill anyway.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by cheap

So, can you answer a question, what is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

Looking forward to your reply - have a nice day.

Oops 5 hours and still no reply. maybe hasn't been back to the thread or like all the other experts (trolls) run when they get a hard question that they don't know the answer too

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by The G6ET Spot

Oops 5 hours and still no reply. maybe hasn't been back to the thread or like all the other experts (trolls) run when they get a hard question that they don't know the answer too

No its not a hard question and Im sure that google will readily provide some good responses, but it is clear to me that Cheap's only agenda is to try and ridicule any response on any pretense rather than any desire for more knowledge on the topic, Im too old to play silly games with these type of people

This is clear from this comment:

Originally Posted by cheap

So why don't the climate specialists suggest the sun be turned down or seek ways to stop the Earths rotation?

and from his request to colinl to explain the "accepted theory" of agw.
It is clear from his response here http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=122 and indeed his last request/question that here is Cheap himself.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No its not a hard question and Im sure that google will readily provide some good responses, but it is clear to me that Cheap's only agenda is to try and ridicule any response on any pretense rather than any desire for more knowledge on the topic, Im too old to play silly games with these type of people

This is clear from this comment:

and from his request to colinl to explain the "accepted theory" of agw.
It is clear from his response here http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=122 and indeed his last request/question that is Cheap himself.

Rather than resorting to name calling, could provide the forum with your answer, what is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

Eagerly anticipating a more positive response - have a nice night

[colinl]

Originally Posted by MAD

So the gov puts tax on the power company, the power company puts up prices to the household to cover these taxes, the gov gives money to the household to pay increased prices. Shortcut, gov gives money to power company.

It's gunna do jack unless they can somehow force the polluters to wear the cost of these taxes, instead of passing them on as we know they are going to do, then nothing is going to happen. They don't need to worry about reducing their pollution/tax cause the gov will help the householders pay the bill anyway.

It will work where ever there is competition in the market place. The power sector is not one immediately thought off when thinking of competitive markets, but there is competition. I recently used government incentives to install a 3.7kw solar power system and a solar hot water system. This has significantly reduced my use of the standard coal system. It even adds to their grid when I'm not using all its power.

One reality of life is that businesses don't loose money by choice. The customer always pays for the full cost of production. We pay for their advertising costs, R&D costs and wastage costs. If the product is too costly at the end, then it doesn't get sold. In the end it is truly a user pays system.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by colinl

It will work where ever there is competition in the market place. The power sector is not one immediately thought off when thinking of competitive markets, but there is competition. I recently used government incentives to install a 3.7kw solar power system and a solar hot water system. This has significantly reduced my use of the standard coal system. It even adds to their grid when I'm not using all its power. .

Yes and I did the same, but the scheme is being detuned or cancelled from July 1st, which I find ironic as you can see from the number of homes with solar panels that the scheme was having an effect. Look at the number of solar energy companies that advertise presently. What effect will the carbon tax have? How will the carbon tax benefit the enviroment when the money raised will go back to compensating the power companies?

Originally Posted by colinl

One reality of life is that businesses don't loose money by choice. The customer always pays for the full cost of production. We pay for their advertising costs, R&D costs and wastage costs. If the product is too costly at the end, then it doesn't get sold. In the end it is truly a user pays system.

Correct, however business does have the option of moving production offshore, the carbon tax will force many businesses to source product off shore at the cost of local jobs. Local manufacturng industry accoridng to the ABS currently is the nations largest employer (with around 1 million employees) How many of these jobs are under threat from the carbon tax?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

We are only 0.35% of the population of the planet but produce 3% of the co2(making us the highest per capita emitters on earth), does that sit well with you?

Yes, that does sit well with me. It sits well with me whilst the big polluters are not entering into the same arrangement as our government is proposing.

Our total contribution is a drop in the ocean. When USA, China and India sign up to the same agreement then I will change my position.

[MAD]

Here's a nice breakdown of emissions per capita.
I dont know where the info comes from that we are on top...

http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions

[Brazen]

Its simply exporting emissions, all that happens instead of something being made here, it will be made in Thailand or China instead.

Also that Australian highest emissions per head is a load of crap. In those calculations they are simply allocating the emissions from exported energy and minerals to the Australian total, even though India, Japan and China are the ones using the coal and iron ore etc. And funnily enough the Carbon Tax wont be applied to these exports....

[SpoolMan]

Business council of Australia says once this tax is in they want it to stay, they say if going to invest in jobs for this new tax and its then reversed all the investment money has been wasted.

"You make investments on the basis of a carbon price and then someone comes in and recklessly sweeps that away.''

"Directors, businesses, boards would make decisions where they would start employing people and Mr (edit) would come and sweep that away, recklessly stranding those investments and losing those jobs."

full article can be read at www.theaustralian.com.au

[GTP-814]

Originally Posted by Redrum

They can call it what they like, but it is just a new tax. And even if it was true, their theory on global warming, how will Australians paying more tax, actually solve anything. Flood levy, carbon levy, what next?

Polly levey, just because they can

[MAD]

What investments will be made based on a carbon price?
Investments in relocating manufacturing to another country?

And besides, I thought the carbon price was supposed to reduce emissions, not encourage investments?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Business council of Australia says once this tax is in they want it to stay, they say if going to invest in jobs for this new tax and its then reversed all the investment money has been wasted.

"You make investments on the basis of a carbon price and then someone comes in and recklessly sweeps that away.''

"Directors, businesses, boards would make decisions where they would start employing people and Mr (edit) would come and sweep that away, recklessly stranding those investments and losing those jobs."

full article can be read at www.theaustralian.com.au

Yet Bluescope's CEO has come out and said this will cost jobs and the economy. http://www.industrysearch.com.au/New...scope-CE-49724

http://www.industrysearch.com.au/New...iness-SA-49719 As has SA Business groups.

In speaking to manufacturers they say the tax will increase their costs and ultimately cost aussies their jobs.

I have read a few reports where they suggests that 34,000 jobs will be created, but I have to ask, who is going to pay the salary of those 34,000 workers and what service/product wil they provide to the community? Ulimately I cant see the carbon tax creating 34,000 jobs it will cost more than it creates.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MAD

Here's a nice breakdown of emissions per capita.
I dont know where the info comes from that we are on top...

http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions

Hmm interesting that the USA is higher per capita then Aus. But we have a population of 22 million and they have 307 million people.

[highonpsi]

The worst thing about this tax is that it will accomplish nothing but revenue collecting. Will the price of petrol ever effect how far you drive therefore how much fuel you use? No. As we don't have a choice as to how we get to the shops to get our groceries or go to work people need to drive and due to the vastness of Australia it just so happens that we need to drive further therefore use more fuel.

Say the point of the tax is not to reduce what we use seeing as everyone can agree that's not really possible. Where's the alternative i.e what's the money going to be spent on? There's no major plans to invest in nuclear power or radical green ways of producing other forms of electricity. And if there is i certainly haven't been told about them.

The whole things another another way to revenue collect by telling some gullable people it will change the world. Whoever is for this tax really needs to wake up and smell the roses.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by MAD

Here's a nice breakdown of emissions per capita.
I dont know where the info comes from that we are on top...

http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions

from here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aN60ck4Sz4iE,

its more recent than your list, though I agree there seems to be a difference on how the middle east oil nations are rated.

This article:http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110131083914. quotes figures

The UAE emits 5,610kg CO2 per capita (20% of total CO2 emissions per capita), higher than the US (5,555kg), Canada (4,861kg), or Brazil, Russia, India and China combined (4,243kg). Qatar exhales 6,729kg per capita, while Saudi, Kuwait, and Bahrain all contribute 3,894kg, 3,940kg, and 3,997kg of CO2 per capita to the Earth's atmosphere respectively.

Regardless, Australians are at the top of not far from the top of the pile.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Its simply exporting emissions, all that happens instead of something being made here, it will be made in Thailand or China instead.

Also that Australian highest emissions per head is a load of crap. In those calculations they are simply allocating the emissions from exported energy and minerals to the Australian total, even though India, Japan and China are the ones using the coal and iron ore etc. And funnily enough the Carbon Tax wont be applied to these exports....

Cmon, you've just made that up.

If it were the emissions from the country of origin that the fossil fuel was dug up from then the middle east oil countries would be near infinite and countries like Japan, Luxembourg(lol) would be close to zero, clearly they are not.

[GOF]

The carbon tax will dramatically reduce the CO2 per capita as it will result in all manufacturing going to India and China so the only industry operating will be the mining industry and no one will be driving there cars to work as there will be no jobs so we can all stay at home on the dole, breeding to get even more govt. money which will be tight as it will only be from the pitance mining royalties. Malcom Frazer was right, we will be a third world country.

[SB076]

Australias emissions per capita will be reasonably high, we have a land mass that is similiar to the size of Europe or the United States. But both those areas have over 200 million people occupying that area, we have just over 20 million. Ever been to an inustrial area in Europe? They use rail, ships or barges to move cargo around, we use trucks as we dont have anywhere near the infrasture they have. I have been able to go to some large manufacturing firms in Germany, most have direct access to docks or a rail siding (or both). We unfortunately dont. Add to that a lot of other nations rely on Nuclear power, we rely on mostly coal.

What is Greenlands emissions per capita? They face a smiliar problem we do, low population density.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by SB076

Australias emissions per capita will be reasonably high, we have a land mass that is similiar to the size of Europe or the United States. But both those areas have over 200 million people occupying that area, we have just over 20 million.

Its simple let another 20 million people in an per capita we will be much less!! Problem solved!!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

Australias emissions per capita will be reasonably high, we have a land mass that is similiar to the size of Europe or the United States. But both those areas have over 200 million people occupying that area, we have just over 20 million. Ever been to an inustrial area in Europe? They use rail, ships or barges to move cargo around, we use trucks as we dont have anywhere near the infrasture they have. I have been able to go to some large manufacturing firms in Germany, most have direct access to docks or a rail siding (or both). We unfortunately dont. Add to that a lot of other nations rely on Nuclear power, we rely on mostly coal.

What is Greenlands emissions per capita? They face a smiliar problem we do, low population density.

Its a good theory until you throw in the US, they are 16 times more densely populated than us but emissions are about the same.
The other little problem is that the majority of Australians live in urban areas on the east coast, and we are not funneling supplies to 20+ million people all over the country.

On the other side there are industries in this country which do add the total, like Alcoa, which produces roughly 30% of the co2 produced in victoria.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Its simple let another 20 million people in an per capita we will be much less!! Problem solved!!

Dont worry they are doing that what is our target again 50 million by 2050? But you need the second part of the equation improve infrastructure.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its a good theory until you throw in the US, they are 16 times more densely populated than us but emissions are about the same.

Thats my point Australia's emissions are not that bad, especially when you take into account our low pop. density

Originally Posted by sudszy

On the other side there are industries in this country which do add the total, like Alcoa, which produces roughly 30% of the co2 produced in victoria.

Good point so if we get rid of Alcoa our emissions drop. But will the worlds demand for Aluminium reduce? Or will Aluminium be produced elsewhere (ie India or China countries that have less concern for the enviroment that what we have here) Production will simply move, jobs will be lost and the worlds enviroment will fare worse.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by SB076

Dont worry they are doing that what is our target again 50 million by 2050? But you need the second part of the equation improve infrastructure.

Didn't that go out the window when there was a change of leaqdership?

But I agree with the infrastructure part regardless of population it needs to be improved.

[melbzetec]

Originally Posted by GOF

The carbon tax will dramatically reduce the CO2 per capita as it will result in all manufacturing going to India and China so the only industry operating will be the mining industry and no one will be driving there cars to work as there will be no jobs so we can all stay at home on the dole, breeding to get even more govt. money which will be tight as it will only be from the pitance mining royalties. Malcom Frazer was right, we will be a third world country.

And it's this type of moronic logic that keeps me out of trying to have a sensible debate on forums like this.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

And it's this type of moronic logic that keeps me out of trying to have a sensible debate on forums like this.

Why bother commenting then? You've added nothing to the discussion.
Thanks, now move along.

Clearly it was sarcasm wrapped in a little bit of high possibility. (operations moving off shore)

[SB076]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-sh...201-1acgw.html

A carbon tax will add to this figure (2 million underemplyeed) Australia cannot risk any increases in unemployment. We have some certain skill shortages no doubt but to give you an idea a manufacturing company in the Melbourne advertising for an open job position recently and was inundated with 700 applicans. The 2 million underemployed is a high figure (we have approx 12 million employeed)