March 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm #493012
gardenlen post=307617 wrote: you don’t have one without the other surely, seems to be a condition for the believers that the way they view it there is no hand in glove.
I heard this saying recently, “they only give out medals to those who have a worthy chest to pin them on”. That must be what you were trying to say but just couldn’t word it out. :laugh:March 21, 2011 at 8:19 am #493013
there is no reply to the quoted text but this is the gist of the believers, the paper is about selling carbon rites, it’s all about making the rules to sell to others a “pig in a poke”, and here as with science in general the only thing that is seen is to pat each other on the back peer revue, never never any real answers, so to that end it is all hand in glove being promoted by the impetuous who have no life experiences and for the thrill of the minute.
and behind the scenes the peoples forum or whatever anyone wants to name it is going to be run by people who ae not of the people by the people, not true repesentatives of the people in other words.
do with it what you will.
lenMarch 21, 2011 at 12:30 pm #493014
Here are some issues for those that think this isn’t about money.
Resently the government started locking up farmers land under the Native vegetation act. depriving them of income from that land whilst they still have to pay rates and mortgages on it. this was set aside as Carbon sinks.Carbon Credits are to be issued for these. who gets the carbon credits? the OWNERS of the land or the government?
The first issue of credits to be auctioned, this means that there may not be a price set but rather a free market arrangement.
not entirely opposed, looks like a sure thing as far as investment goes. buy carbon credits, government has already said they will increase the cost of them. I might as well make some money as well.
All the dealings with carbon credits attract GST.
I am sure others will see more interesting financial twists.March 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm #493015
Never, for the life of me, will I understand the hypocrisy of those who would use the internet as a forum to attack science. It beggars belief.March 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm #493016
I work as a carbon and energy consultant so I have to make a fairly careful study of this kind of thing.
Details are sketchy. Nothing is finalised. The intent though is that the land owners will receive the carbon credits for any changes in land use or soil sequestration.
The intent is that this gives the landowners an income stream (once carbon credits become tradeable) from un-cleared land and activities like re-afforestation and more sustainable land use. This gives an incentive for farmers to stop or reduce land clearing and improve soil and land management practices. What’s not to like.
As I said though, no final details yet. Nor any for some time. All I can go in is the stated intent.
I seriously doubt its a big conspiracy though. Really, neither side of politics is remotely competent enough. Oversights? Yes. Bungling? Yes. Left hand not knowing what right hand is doing? Your bet. Not being able to tell arse from elbow? Certainly. Conspiracy? No.
DaveMarch 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm #493017
I am not attacking the science, i am attacking the financial motivations of the government on both sides.March 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm #493018
I have been advised by Laurie Oakes that this is the guidelines being used. the white paper that was submitted by Kevin Rudd. the same one Julia Gillard managed to gain her new position with.
it is long but if we really want to know what the carbon tax will involve we need to read it.
I have had a lot of comments from people who have not read it, then have gone on to try to convince me of the climate change science.
This is not about the science, we have moved beyond that. carbon tax is happening regardless and this is how it is to be implemented . what do we think of the implementation and FINANCIAL process.March 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm #493019
That white paper laid out the rationale for Rudd’s CPRS. The one that was defeated twice in parliament. What will come out of the Multi-party Committee currently looking into carbon pricing may well be quite different.
The CPRS white-paper is one input into the process. As are the various Garnaut reports and updates, the Greens policy and the coalition’s policy (which at the moment is denial but its still an input).
At the moment we have no detail at all on the eventual carbon price other than the fact that there will be one and that it will start with a fixed price before moving to cap and trade. It may look similar to the CPRS or it may not. I’m prepared to put good money on the fact that there will be substantial differences between the final scheme and the CPRS.
Until we know details, all else is speculation and conjecture. It keeps the politicians on telly and the pundits in a job but it really tells us NOTHING about the carbon price.
Edit: The MPCC has a website here http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/multi-party-committee.aspx
It contains their terms of reference, the members and all their released information. Including a PDF summary of the proposed carbon price framework (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/~/media/publications/mpccc/mpccc-carbon-price-mechanism.pdf). As I said, no detail yet but that PDF will give a truer indication of what is coming than an outdated whitepaper on a scheme that no longer exists.
DaveMarch 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm #493020
This might popvide some interesting investment opportunities.
During the fixed price phase, liable parties may not be entitled to use international emissions units for compliance.
In the flexible price phase, international emissions units (offsets) meeting appropriate criteria concerning their quality could be able to be used for compliance. In advance of a move to emissions trading, a decision could be made on any restrictions on the quantity and any other criteria for the use of international emission units.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.