Skip to toolbar

Aussies Living Simply

Reducing CO2 without a Carbon Tax & Increasing Government Revenue!

Home Forums OVER THE BACK FENCE General chat and catching up Reducing CO2 without a Carbon Tax & Increasing Government Revenue!

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #493953
    BootstrapperBootstrapper
    Member

    I stand corrected, about volcanoes. 🙁

    In my defence, I got that information from an otherwise completely reliable source.

    I hope you’ll forgive me for my attitude that I regard everything a government does as suspect; Every initiative ultimately works out as a scheme in which a minority benefits at someone else’s (or many someone else’s) expense. That’s what I look for when I assess initiatiaves like the Carbon Tax – who benefits and who loses?

    #493954
    SurvegalistSurvegalist
    Member

    Bootstraper wrote.

    I hope you’ll forgive me for my attitude that I regard everything a government does as suspect; Every initiative ultimately works out as a scheme in which a minority benefits at someone else’s (or many someone else’s) expense. That’s what I look for when I assess initiatiaves like the Carbon Tax – who benefits and who loses?

    Yeah,they sure got a consistant track record there.

    Aint this thread about “reduceing CO2 WITHOUT a Carbon Tax AND increasing Govt revenue.”I bet if it went to a refferendum the scumbags wouldn’t be able to keep saying the BS about “The majority of Australians” think we should be priceing carbon.

    Some ppl just don’t know when they are haveing the wool pulled over their eyes.If it was all that imperative to reduce CO2 levels tptb wouldn’t be pissin about with a ponzy tax the ppl scheme.All this is,is a way to shift money,i’m betting the price of coal hasn’t gone up by 140% in the last 12mths,so how come electricity price’s have,Oh yeah having 7 or 8 differen’t electricity suppliers will create competion,HA DE HAR HAR….It all comes from the same power plant.”Money Shifting”,and a whole pile of BS with It.

    No porgey,don’t think for one moment there is any other way to do it but a CT,how dare you!!By priceing carbon “WE’LL MAKE THE POWER COMPANYS CHANGE THEIR WAYS”.More than likely a whole lot of ppl will freeze in winter and stiffel in the summer because they just couldn’t pay the price.

    Support Australian produce by Australian farmers for the Australian market.

    Our stupid Government CAN’T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,and they think they know a way to reduce carbon emmissions and compenstate for the cost to the user at the same time,like thats gonna work.

    #493955
    GrethGreth
    Member

    I read somewhere that as soon as you put a price on waste, you make it a valuable commodity, and encourage people to produce it. Just a thought.

    Give us a price on growing trees to suck up that waste instead. Our family would make a fortune on the trees we grow to improve our environment, why do you want to give that money to the oil companies?

    #493956
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Survegalist post=309039 wrote: Bootstraper wrote.

    I bet if it went to a refferendum the scumbags wouldn’t be able to keep saying the BS about “The majority of Australians” think we should be priceing carbon.

    Some ppl just don’t know when they are haveing the wool pulled over their eyes.If it was all that imperative to reduce CO2 levels tptb wouldn’t be pissin about with a ponzy tax the ppl scheme.All this is,is a way to shift money,i’m betting the price of coal hasn’t gone up by 140% in the last 12mths,so how come electricity price’s have,Oh yeah having 7 or 8 differen’t electricity suppliers will create competion,HA DE HAR HAR….It all comes from the same power plant.”Money Shifting”,and a whole pile of BS with It.

    I’m not sure a referendum would actually give you the result you are looking for. There is significant support for a carbon price in the community. We supporters are just a bit quieter than the antis. When the Rudd government had a firm proposal on the table, support for a carbon price was around 70%. Support is now very low because there is so much uncertainty over what the eventual tax will be. Once we have certainty again, and much of the scare campaigning is shown to be false, I think we will see support rise back to the 70% level we had before.

    OK. Power prices. Why have they gone up so much when coal hasn’t. There is a reason. Its called “network costs” – the cost of running the wires etc. The power companies are investing in massive network upgrades (to the tune of over 100 Billion dollars) to cope with spiralling peak demand. With the huge growth in domestic air conditioning and other power hungry devices our infrastructure can’t cope with the peak demands any more. Most of it was built in the 60s when power demands were much lower and has been neglected ever since (long story involving corporate greed and government bungling as usual). It is this investment in new infrastructure which is pushing prices up, not changes in the wholesale power price. Essentially, your power increases are subsidising your neighbour’s new airconditioner.

    This is another reason for a carbon price. It will push power prices up further (though not by as much as people think), and may make people think twice about putting in things like airconditioners.

    Much as I hate to blow my own trumpet, I wrote a piece on this on my blog – http://dontpanicitsolutions.com.au/index.php/blog/2011/03/13/4-the-real-cost-of-a-carbon-tax.html

    #493957
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    But what is the point in the Oz govn imposing a price on carbon in the hope that it will reduce peoples production of CO2 and yet increasing unnecessary trade and jamming another 3 billion mouths on to the planet. Its a totally pointless exercise that you are not addressing Dave. No energy consultant or politician, except maybe the now quiet Kelvin Thompson, is actively raising this issue.

    I wrote well before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on this site that the lead up, the conference & aftermath of the Conference will produce more carbon than it will ever hope to reduce. That sad prediction is now fact.

    The entrenched economic & political system and all its vested interests cant possibly reduce carbon emissions as the whole global economic ponzi scheme will collapse. Sad but true.

    #493958
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Again, I have to agree with you (this is becoming a habit). Population and our consumerist economic model are the two main drivers of carbon emissions. Changing both would be a big step. Unfortunately, economic systems take time to change (short of revolution and looking at places going through revolution I’m not sure any of us want that). We have to do the best we can within the current system to buy ourselves time to change.

    My main fear is that peak oil will collapse the economy before we can make the changes we need. New low carbon infrastructure is expensive. Burning coal is cheap. We need to move right now to invest in things that post peak, we simply won’t be able to afford. My view (and I have to say the view of the vast majority of experts in the field) is that the best way to achieve this under our current system is with a carbon price backed by complimentary measures. Your views differ.

    I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on the short term solution. But we all need to work towards a deeper change to society and a move away from consumerism. That’s the long term solution. I think we can all agree on that.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #493959
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    Dave its a shambles. Human greed, stupidity, lack of wisdom & political backbone are just some of the problems. I just cant see the current economic & political leadership recognising & accepting that they are the real problem let alone doing something timely and effectively enough.

    Instead of spending Billions of dollars on an unneccessary NBN the money should be better spent on things we actually need like renewable energy and promoting self reliance. Tinkering with things like CFL bulbs which do more harm than good, and an industry suppressing CT & a wealth concentrating C&T scheme are useless in mho.

    If great people like David Suzuki, Tim Flannery and there ilk have no clout then what hope do grass root battlers like me have in effecting proper change?

    #493960
    SurvegalistSurvegalist
    Member

    Dave..

    I’m not sure a referendum would actually give you the result you are looking for. There is significant support for a carbon price in the community. We supporters are just a bit quieter than the antis. When the Rudd government had a firm proposal on the table, support for a carbon price was around 70%. Support is now very low because there is so much uncertainty over what the eventual tax will be. Once we have certainty again, and much of the scare campaigning is shown to be false, I think we will see support rise back to the 70% level we had before.

    OK. Power prices. Why have they gone up so much when coal hasn’t. There is a reason. Its called “network costs” – the cost of running the wires etc. The power companies are investing in massive network upgrades (to the tune of over 100 Billion dollars) to cope with spiralling peak demand. With the huge growth in domestic air conditioning and other power hungry devices our infrastructure can’t cope with the peak demands any more. Most of it was built in the 60s when power demands were much lower and has been neglected ever since (long story involving corporate greed and government bungling as usual). It is this investment in new infrastructure which is pushing prices up, not changes in the wholesale power price. Essentially, your power increases are subsidising your neighbour’s new airconditioner.

    This is another reason for a carbon price. It will push power prices up further (though not by as much as people think), and may make people think twice about putting in things like airconditioners.

    I don’t know how to quote sentices and answer indervidually so I’ll take them as you wrote in sequence,OK.

    A reff would,it would prove wether or not the majority of Australians actually want a carbon tax,clear cut.Saying there is a significant support in the community dosen’t prove anything,clear cut.Neither stating wether supporters are quieter than anti’s is affermation,clear cut.

    When Ruddles had his support was befor “Climategate”,remember that!!.Copenhagen fell apart,the science behind “Global warming”,as it was called then(Mysteriously now it’s changed it’s name to “Climate change”), fell apart.Strangely enough though,Penny Wong still refers to “The science that can’t be ignored”BS she ranted on about before climatgate.Same agenda,different name,same outcome for the ppl.Clear cut.

    Since climategate,ppl are wising up mate,it’s got nothing to do with being”Unsure”.The only ones unsure are the commercial interested parties,a lot of them can see their bussnises going out the gate(read border).The scaremongering that you talk of has been given a pricerange allready..it starts at about $700.00,thats at $25.00 per ton,If you watch A-Pac(parliment time)you would be aware that they are really looking at $35.00 PLUS,maybe reaching $1000.00 per ton per person per yr.And thats not even equating in the likely prise rise’s that will no doubt happen,clear cut.

    You said this..

    Most of it was built in the 60s when power demands were much lower and has been neglected ever since (long story involving corporate greed and government bungling as usual). It is this investment in new infrastructure which is pushing prices up, not changes in the wholesale power price. Essentially, your power increases are subsidising your neighbour’s new airconditioner.

    “(long story involving corporate greed and government bungling as usual)”.Just to highlight a comment.And power increases arn’t essentially to subsidised a neighbours “NEW” airconditioner.I found that a typical stupid comment,think about it.

    Agree to dissagree,thats fair enough and I haven’t a problem with that.We are not argueing and I don’t see any real flamming going on or links and cut and paste from outside source’s but,please try to look outside the box at other ways than a CT for the sake of the thread.You yourself have stated “Govt bungling as usuall” and “Corporate greed”,and thats not BS…It’s clear cut mate.

    When all is said and done,the govt is gonna get their way,actually we don’t get a choice and thats the BS of it all.

    #493961
    WazzaWazza
    Member

    It’s a shame the debate has become so politicised in Australia. It seems to have degenerated into a Canberra arm wrestling competition between Tony and Julia to prove who is the stronger leader. With the change in public opinion, I wonder how much of this is semantics? The original plan which had high public support was called a reduction scheme. The new plan is called a tax and the majority don’t want it. People don’t like taxes and see them as simply revenue raising, because they don’t trust the politicians to operate them equitably. We know the 30-something cents tax on a litre of fuel doesn’t all go back to improve our roads and I’ve read that the billions of dollars raised from taxing cigarettes are much more than required to treat the health effects of smoking. So it’s natural to question if the money raised by taxing carbon will actually go towards the infrastructure required for a post carbon economy. Perhaps it should be marketed as an insurance policy? That might be acceptable to both fervent believers and sceptics alike. We don’t believe our homes are going to burn down, but most of us insure them…. just in case.

    #493962
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Wazza post=309100 wrote: I wonder how much of this is semantics? The original plan which had high public support was called a reduction scheme. The new plan is called a tax and the majority don’t want it. People don’t like taxes and see them as simply revenue raising, because they don’t trust the politicians to operate them equitably.

    Yep. Like I said, call it a carbon emission industry levy and most of the opposition would just melt away.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #493963
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Survegalist post=309076 wrote: Dave..

    When Ruddles had his support was befor “Climategate”,remember that!!.Copenhagen fell apart,the science behind “Global warming”,as it was called then(Mysteriously now it’s changed it’s name to “Climate change”), fell apart.Strangely enough though,Penny Wong still refers to “The science that can’t be ignored”BS she ranted on about before climatgate.Same agenda,different name,same outcome for the ppl.Clear cut.

    OK. I am going to be very blunt here.

    The science did not fall apart at Copengagen. The science was, and still is, absolutely certain. The failure at Copengagen was a failure of political will in the face of an organised, well resourced and very deliberate smear campaign against the IPCC.

    The IPCC report had one erroneous claim on the melting of himalayan glaciers where a figure of 2035 was accidentally attributed to all himalayan glaciers rather than one specific one. The main claim that himalayan glaciers are in retreat is not erroneous. There were a couple of other errors but I can’t remember the details.

    If you look at the IPCC report, There are several thousand individual claims over something like 20000 pages. Having under 10 of those prove incorrect makes the IPCC report one of the most accurate scientific documents ever produced. Retracted claims are not uncommon in scientific papers and new research comes to light. The usual retraction rate for leading edge science is over 10%. The IPCC’s fraction of 1% is amazingly accurate.

    There is no scientific uncertainty over whether climate change is real. Aside from a tiny handful of fossil fuel industry funded nay sayers, the scientific community is unanimous. Global warming/climate change is real, is man made and will be bad. The debate in the science now is over the localise effects of a globally warming climate and the extent to which the global climate will warm. Its not over whether it exists, its over whether it will be as bad as the IPCC says or whether it will be worse.

    All the climate measurements we are making today are either tracking, or exceeding the IPCC’s worst case scenarios.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #493964
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    porgey post=309051 wrote:

    If great people like David Suzuki, Tim Flannery and there ilk have no clout then what hope do grass root battlers like me have in effecting proper change?

    Mate, keep plugging away. Its all we can do. Politician’s don’t lead they follow. We need to really get grassroots momentum back and lead the politicians to climate action.

    Its folks like you that will make the difference in the end.

    Be careful though giving support to the anti carbon tax movement though. Whatever your beliefs on the tax its self. The anti tax movement is mostly a climate change denier movement. Their aim is to prevent any action at all on climate change and are using the tax as a scare tactic to turn people away from the need for any climate action.

    Make your views known. Write letters to politicians. But don’t support the anti tax movement being pushed on talkback radio. Not unless you want no action at all.

    Keep up the good fight. We may disagree on a carbon tax but I think we both agree on the need for urgent action.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #493965
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    Thanks for your thoughts Dave. I dont agree with the CT, I dont believe humans can make the slightest difference to reducing climate change at the current trajectories of global warming and population growth with the current economic & political system, and I think the world has far greater needs & priorities than tinkering with CO2 emissions. I think the whole CO2 debate has been a great smokescreen and distraction from the real issues facing what troubles humanity and this rock.

    Australia could be by far the best country in the world with a population below 22 million with the geographic & climate diversity we have but our leadership stinks. I think the PM is a terrific talent with some outstanding talent in her parliamentry government but short termism, poor fiscal control and bad policies wont make the best of our potential. If you ran a business or a family as bad as the government runs this island then you would be bankrupt or your children would be fostered out. Bugger.

    #493966
    BootstrapperBootstrapper
    Member

    I agree with Porgey.

    It would be a good thing if Humanity could stop emiting CO2 tomorrow but if we did, it’d take twenty years to see the result. Such is the inertia of the global climate system. The best we can do, is learn to live with the climate change and use what rescources we have left, to construct the infrastructure we’ll need to live a civilised life, after climate changes crashes the Industrial system.

    I don’t expect anything but platitudes from grubbyment or industry on reducing Carbon emissions. They’re fully invested in the status-quo. The concentration of energy in Oil, Coal and Natural Gas (OCNG) grants (often decisive) economic and military advantage to all who use them. Under the current economic and political system, there is no chance whatever that industrialised countries will stop using OCNG. At least until there is none left.

    The true constituency of big grubbyment, is big business.

    The Carbon tax will fall mostly on products for which demand in inelastic – Petrol, Natural Gas and electricity; Things for which there are no real alternatives and which are necessary inputs for most productive activities. A Carbon Tax is just another way that big grubbyment can subsidise Carbon-emiting industries; They’ll get the Carbon Tax Dollars back, as ‘subsidies’, ‘guarantees’, ‘research grants’ and ‘tax consessions’, particularly if their profits fall when people start switching to alternate energy sources. It wouldn’t surprise me to see ‘alternative’ energy initiatives (the ones that don’t feed corporate coffers) taxed, regulated or banned.

    #493967
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    Yep, Bootstrapper, its a shambles.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 91 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.