9524 replies to this topic

[proftournesol]

Lets wait for the rest of the world to start doing something before we act on climate change. Huh...what's that... do you mean that they have and we are being left behind? But Tony and his corporate and mining and News Corporation mates tell us that Australia will be acting on their own and we'll be economically disadvantaged.

The latest Ernst & Young’s global Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices shows that while clean energy reached record levels in 2010, some countries and sectors struggled in the prevailing economic and policy conditions. Australia was among those to have slipped in the rankings.

Ernst & Young report new investment in clean energy globally climbed 30% in 2010 to reach US$243 billion.

China continued to lead the way with incredible growth, including a 64% jump in total wind power capacity in 2010, reaching in excess of 42GW.

China's closest competitor, the USA, really wasn't all that close at all; just managing 5.1GW of new wind power. This was only half 2009's level and well shy of China’s 16.5GW in 2010. However, Ernst & Young hints to a brighter future for the USA after President Obama's recent announcement regarding an ambitious 80% clean energy target for 2035.

2010 was a solid year overall for offshore wind, with new capacity growth of 51%. The solar sector also saw strong gains, including concentrated solar power.

Closer to home, Australia's rank in the indices dropped from 12 to 14. Ernst & Young state new Government policies have negatively impacted on construction of wind farms, with as many as 70% of proposed projects under threat. The report states electricity output from new wind and solar power farms dropped almost 80% last year due to financing issues; with just 221MW added to Australia's grid in 2010 compared with 993MW in 2009.

Also influencing the ranking was the Australian Government's announcement of the early scaling back of the Solar Credits scheme; taking effect from 1 July 2011. The Solar Credits scheme is a solar panel rebate program targeted towards households and small businesses. The reduction will mean up to $1,200 less in subsidies after the June 30 installation deadline.

But hang on, listening to the fear being whipped up on the radio this week, I was sure that the sky was about to fall! Perhaps not.

report here

[Bear72]

From what I gather, the POV expressed is that an Australian carbon dioxide tax will have no effect on the global climate, and thus simply serve to increase household expenditure without increasing household income. A further consequence I see is to make more of the Australian population financially reliant on our government (socialism, anyone?).

Much of the ire raised stems from the fact that voters were given a (seemingly) ironclad assurance before voting last time around, and thus not given the opportunity to incorporate this outcome in their decision making.


This could become interesting:popcorn:

[Keith_W]

Mike, I firmly believe in anthropogenic climate change driven by CO2. I also firmly believe we need to do something about it.

However, I believe the CO2 tax is the wrong way to go about it. These are the reasons why:

- it will damage our international competitiveness by shifting production from high CO2 taxing countries to countries where the cost of energy is lower. In other words, what remaining industries we have are exported to more competitive countries with lower cost of production. This has been happening over the past 40 years, but the process will be accelerated now.

- even if Australia were to stop emitting CO2 for a year, our impact on global CO2 emissions would be negligible, and our impact on climate change would be barely measurable.

- the whole point of a carbon tax is to discourage consumption - it is a "sin tax" like tax on alcohol and cigarettes. I don't understand where this compensation mumbo-jumbo is coming from, or why Wayne Swan goes around telling people it won't hurt. The whole idea is that it SHOULD hurt, otherwise behaviour won't change! It is the typical Labor redistributive ideology - take money from the Class Enemies and give it to the poor. They even spoke of using Centerlink for compensation.


Now, I WOULD support a CO2 tax if they used the money to do these things:

- get out of coal power and into nuclear power.

- put money into research into other forms of alternative energy production

- re-invest the money in public transport, and redesign cities to reduce reliance on cars.


IOW I don't mind if you take my money, as long as you are doing something useful with it. I am not interested in seeing my money being used to "compensate" lower income taxpayers.

[proftournesol]

Any reduction in our emissions has an effect on global climate. It's a small effect at the moment, but as other countries reduce their emissions, our contribution to global warming becomes proportionally larger. We also lose any right to expect others to also take action, and if everyone plays the 'Mexican standoff' then the cost of eventual action and the effects of inaction will be enormously larger. The idea of any scheme is to tax the emissions at the point of production, unlike the coalition alternative that will transfer the cost onto us, the consumers (in the form of multi-billion dollar handouts). The skill in the scheme will be to ensure that the costs of production are just not passed on to the consumer, and that there are enough carrots as well as sticks that encourage polluters to reduce their emissions without just moving off-shore. However as you can see, the rest of the world is already moving and we are being left behind. we've already lost our lead in PV technology, we were world leaders until Howard drove them out of the country with hostile policies. Interestingly, there's been a cap and trade system in the EU for many years, the sky hasn't fallen, the population hasn't become dependant on the Governments, corporations haven't gone broke nor have they abandoned Europe. Emissions have fallen.

Bear how will the population become reliant on the Government through action on Climate Change?

You are right, the ALP on it's own would do nothing on climate change, but the current political structure gives voice to Greens and independents and being forced to provide a future for our grandchildren is an unfortunate price that the Government will have to take. Gillard lies, Abbot lies, this is news?

[proftournesol]

Mike, I firmly believe in anthropogenic climate change driven by CO2. I also firmly believe we need to do something about it.

However, I believe the CO2 tax is the wrong way to go about it. These are the reasons why:

- it will damage our international competitiveness by shifting production from high CO2 taxing countries to countries where the cost of energy is lower. In other words, what remaining industries we have are exported to more competitive countries with lower cost of production. This has been happening over the past 40 years, but the process will be accelerated now.

- even if Australia were to stop emitting CO2 for a year, our impact on global CO2 emissions would be negligible, and our impact on climate change would be barely measurable.

- the whole point of a carbon tax is to discourage consumption - it is a "sin tax" like tax on alcohol and cigarettes. I don't understand where this compensation mumbo-jumbo is coming from, or why Wayne Swan goes around telling people it won't hurt. The whole idea is that it SHOULD hurt, otherwise behaviour won't change! It is the typical Labor redistributive ideology - take money from the Class Enemies and give it to the poor. They even spoke of using Centerlink for compensation.


Now, I WOULD support a CO2 tax if they used the money to do these things:

- get out of coal power and into nuclear power.

- put money into research into other forms of alternative energy production

- re-invest the money in public transport, and redesign cities to reduce reliance on cars.


IOW I don't mind if you take my money, as long as you are doing something useful with it. I am not interested in seeing my money being used to "compensate" lower income taxpayers.

If they just transferred the amount they spend on coal and fossil fuel corporate welfare and subsidies and invested that in alternative energy, it would be an enormous stimulus, however they are actually doing the opposite, cutting money from alternative energy sector and the big emitters want to be subsidised with our money to reduce their emissions. The whole point of the cap and trade scheme is not necessarily to discourage consumption of energy, it's to shift production of energy from high emission sources to low emission sources. If we take that to an extreme, we could double our energy consumption with no environmental effects if our energy production was 100% emission free. It doesn't have to reach that level though, we just have to reduce emissions to a level lower than that which the environment can naturally manage.

The media hysteria around it seems to suggest that Australia would be going out on their own on this and we'll suffer greatly for no benefit. Germany already generates 17% of their energy needs from renewables and they are far from an economic basket case.

[handysteel]

The carbon tax will affect lower-mid to middle income earners hard and many already struggle to survive. But this is not a new plan; all governments like to take from those that can least afford to pay. $300 or so a year to start can be the difference between putting bread and milk on the table and not. But why always hit this group? This is largely due to the fact these groups has little or no power to complain and have to wear it, unlike the big boys who basically tell the government what to do, particularly if it hits them in the hip pocket. But wait won't they pay the carbon tax too via their company, Oh and then claim most of the it back on tax.

And let’s not forget while the little people here will be paying a tax to reduce carbon, the big boys and the government will eagerly be putting their hand out selling coal and gas etc to China and Co. By the way who will not be paying the tax and at the same time producing many multiple times the amount of carbon Australia ever will.

Don’t fool your self Australia is just a grain of sand in the ocean, and unless the big multinationals and their puppets (Governments) play the game nothing will change.

[davidsss]

Whenever I hear this argument that little old Australia can't make a difference I always think of the situation in WWII. Each single person could have thought the same way and we may well have been invaded by the Japanese. It is stupid to think that just because we have a small population that we can just opt out of a solution. If everybody thought that way or every country thinks that way then we really are in for trouble in the future.

I really do have a lot of trouble with the Tony Abbott Liberal view on this. If Abbott does have the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is happening then surely we should do something about it. Putting a tax on carbon is one simple way to send a clear market signal about the energy we want in the future. Remember, the carbon tax will be most effective when it raises no funds. This is the tax we want you to avoid. If you can source energy from renewable non-carbon emitting sources then you don't pay any carbon tax. This gives a big incentive to producers and consumers to create or demand carbon free energy. Anyway, I would have thought the Libs would embrace a tax you are encouraged to avoid!

The compensation side of it is just sheer idiocy. It's like taxing cigarettes and compensating smokers. Bloody stupid. The only compensation should be for low income earners who have little market power and can't so easilly change their energy sources. In fact, this is so easy it is not funny. Just lower the rate of income tax on the first, say, $30k of income. We would all get a bit of a tax cut but most of the tax cut would go to low income earners.

Possibly the biggest problem remains the access to information. With a number of media outlets pedalling lies about climate change and the carbon tax it is little wonder people are misinformed. When people only have access to bad information their opinions are limited by what they are told. The media will have much to answer for as the effects of climate change get worse.

DS

[Keith_W]

Well David, I suppose the question is whether it would be cheaper for electricity companies to pay the tax and pass on the bills to the consumer (knowing that higher electricity bills = poison for the government) - OR - invest in alternative methods for generating electricity. Mind you - most of these are not possible without government intervention. It's not as if they can go out and build a hydroelectric dam, or a wind farm, or tidal or geothermal generators without government help. Let alone nuclear power.

Home owners will have to decide whether it would be cheaper to pay high electricity bills or install solar panels in their homes. Many home owners will not have a choice - the poor, the renters, and the apartment block dwellers - so they will be stuck paying high electricity bills. Industries won't even have a choice - how are you going to refine aluminum with solar power? Or, if you are a small business (let's say you run a Bakers Delight franchise, using electric ovens) - you will have no choice but to pass on costs to the consumer.

In the end, the onus is on the government to legislate to provide for a low carbon future for Australia. I do not see how a carbon tax or an ETS will encourage anybody to lower their carbon footprint by anything but a negligible degree unless they do something big ticket, e.g. go nuclear and phase out the coal burning power plants.

On another note, I am really enjoying the political spectacle. Labor have painted themselves into a corner - they can't abandon their carbon tax (see what it did to Rudd), and there are signs that if they proceed with it, they will face annihiliation at the next election. They can't get rid of Gillard (after they knifed Rudd, and of course look at NSW), but they can't stick with her either because she is poll poison. They have invested a lot of political capital by committing to a return to surplus by 2013, but there are signs that they probably won't make it. They can't move to the right, because that space is owned by the Coalition. And they can't move to the left, because that space is owned by the Greens. They have a talentless and dysfunctional leadership team - Gillard is noted for her lack of judgement, Swan lacks political nous, Rudd is hated by the caucus, and Conroy is an idiot who still hasn't dropped the internet filter. Nobody is going to vote for Shorten or Combet for now. They are being squeezed in all directions and there is no escape from their self-created mess. Never have I seen anything like this! Every morning I can't wait to read the paper!

[LogicprObe]

Those who think that Australia can have any significant effect on CO2 emissions are severely deluded............. unless we stop all gas, oil and coal exports.
Making us pay more for energy is just going to send the rest of our manufacturing jobs offshore.
I bet there are a lot of companies just waiting for the last straw.

Answer this.......if China opens a new coal fired power plant every two weeks, on average..........how many coal fired power stations does Australia have in total?

Do the maths and you will see how insignificant............dare I say 'unimportant' ......we are on this matter.

[Bear72]

Bear how will the population become reliant on the Government through action on Climate Change?

Through the handout concept. If a goverments' action causes the finances of a household to stretch to the point where simply keeping a roof over their head, and paying for utilities and essentials becomes exceedingly difficult, then the compensation/handout becomes an essential part of that households' budget as without it they cannot make ends meet. At that point, and whatever the outcome, they have you on a string. Not a place I intend to be.

[valvelover]

Neither Gillard/Labour or Abbott/Liberal are desireable in power.

The current carbon policy will do jack you know what, it'll just see businesses slug a carbon tax on the population, the result of which the cost of living will become even more expensive. It will be another poor excuse from employers to not train staff, or provide them with the tools of their trade, or give them decent wages. Very few manufacturers/employers will do anything to reduce their carbon footprint. The *only* way to do this is to carbon tax the manufacturers/employers and make it illegal for them to slug these costs on the consumer. Sadly, that will never happen because the modern government prefers not to interfere with business.

The problem that I DO have with these sorts of taxes is that its the manufacturer/employer making most of the pollution imho, but the ordinary people subsidising them. That's just *plain* wrong. Let he who make the mess pay for it.

I intend never to vote again - the courts can charge me, fine me, chuck me in jail. I encourage others to openly refuse to vote.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

"Australia should not implement a carbon tax."

Bullshit.

I hear this twaddle from Abbott and his global warming denying idiots every day. Not only should we implement a carbon tax immediately, but it should cut hard and deep. Australians are amongst the most wasteful (energy-wise) populations on the planet. Here's some inconvenient facts to digest:

* Global warming is real.
* It is certain that the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing the warming.
* Humans are directly responsible for a 30+% increase in CO2 levels since the 19th century.
* Australia is #14 on the list of TOTAL CO2 emissions. There are 163 nations that emit less CO2 than we do. Those 163 nations represent approximately 50% of all CO2 emissions. If Australia convinced the 163 nations to emit (say) 20% less CO2, then the world total would be reduced significantly.
* Australia is #8 on the list of per capita emissions. We are far above most nations and the level is simply impossible to justify or sustain.
* More than 30 nations have already implemented some kind of carbon tax (including the UK, Germany and a host of others).
* At some point, our lack of action will result (deservedly so, IMO) severe trade restrictions, by those nations that have already enacted a tax.
* We are influential and we must act, so we can influence our trading partners (like the US) where the difference will be more profound.
* China has committed to a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. China has invested hugely in Solar energy.
* Australia is one of the best places on the planet to exploit Solar energy, yet successive governments watch other nations take the lead (along with the money and the jobs).
* Australia has lost valuable people in wind turbine, solar energy and others to foreign interests, due to the complete lack of action. We are throwing money away. It is so frustrating.
* Our economy is booming. NOW is the time we can best afford to do the right thing.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 09 March 2011 - 08:42 AM.
Brain fart

[proftournesol]

Through the handout concept. If a goverments' action causes the finances of a household to stretch to the point where simply keeping a roof over their head, and paying for utilities and essentials becomes exceedingly difficult, then the compensation/handout becomes an essential part of that households' budget as without it they cannot make ends meet. At that point, and whatever the outcome, they have you on a string. Not a place I intend to be.

the problem is that this is already happening, but in reverse. The Government has given 'handouts' for many years: tax breaks and subsidies to power generators and mining companies; handouts to farmers in the form of diesel subsidies. These have artificially distorted energy prices (too low) and provided a disincentive for alternative energy infrastructure that cannot compete on price with subsidised fossil fuel products. It's also taken away the incentive for energy producers to invest in new infrastructure. This handout should stop because, as you say, it creates dependance.

[proftournesol]

Those who think that Australia can have any significant effect on CO2 emissions are severely deluded............. unless we stop all gas, oil and coal exports.
Making us pay more for energy is just going to send the rest of our manufacturing jobs offshore.
I bet there are a lot of companies just waiting for the last straw.

Answer this.......if China opens a new coal fired power plant every two weeks, on average..........how many coal fired power stations does Australia have in total?

Do the maths and you will see how insignificant............dare I say 'unimportant' ......we are on this matter.

As you point out, we are actually a major exporter of carbon, and this creates a much larger carbon footprint than our actual consumption. If you look at us strategically, this also leaves us critically exposed as the world moves away from one of our major exports - coal, to new technologies. Thanks to Howard, we've dropped the ball on that one and lost our lead in solar technologies. The days when China opened a new dirty coal plant every 2 weeks are now gone, they have overtaken Germany as the largest solar producer, soon they won't need as much coal as they have and then what will we do. We need to start planning now for a future with much smaller domestic coal usage and much less coal exports.
The worry about the export of jobs off-shore sounds reasonable on the face of it, but as much of the rest of the world is introducing some kind of carbon pricing, where would they go? In addition, you may have noticed that energy prices have already risen and this hasn't triggered a rush of departing industry and massive unemployement. The current rise is solely due to the failure of investment in energy infrastructure that has accompanied 'privatisation'. Now we are left with ageing energy and transport infrastructure that will need massive levels of (public) investment so that the privatised providers can continue to make a profit (another public handout to the private sector).

[Zammo]

Ideologically I have no problem at all with a carbon tax. I reject that reducing our CO2 emissions will have no impact. As one of the most resource rich nations on the planet, we need to both be active in reducing our CO2 emissions, and to be SEEN to be doing so.

My major problem is I simply don't trust this goverment. (not that I've trusted many to be honest). They are a B-grade team of hacks at the moment, with little intellect and even less imagination. The success of any carbon output reduction scheme is in the details, and I wait with baited breath to hear the ineptitude planned by Gillard and Co.

If the carbon tax were part of wider plan to move to renewable energy, I would welcome it with open arms. In fact, the tax in that circumstance would soon become unnecessary. All I can see at present from this government is an attempt to offset the loss of voters pissed off about increased goods and services costs created by a carbon tax, by buying the vote of those in marginal seats with the funds created. I really can't see that they honestly give a sh!t about the environment.

I'm currently planning to build a new house, and have earmarked a signifcant amount of money for renewable products and energy strategies. Some will value add to my build, most will not. I don't care about the cost. As others have posted above, I'm happy to contribute personally to any measures to promote sustainable energy production, as I can afford it (in fact we all could if the government supported such measures). What I can't abide is a government willing to take my money purportedly to pursue environmentally responsible policies, when their real motivations lie elsewhere.

Edited by Zammo, 09 March 2011 - 10:52 AM.

[valvelover]

Most of our wealth is generated by natural resources (coal,aluminium, wheat, wool, etc etc). If our resources are no longer needed by other countries, it'll bankrupt us. I've been saying for the past 30 years that our secondary industries need massive improving, but no one wants to invest in it.

A carbon tax is great in theory, but I'm a firm believer that it needs to hit and punish the manufacturers, NOT the public. The public consumer has no control over a manufacturer's production process, and saying that a consumer can boycott a bad polluter is BS, because they're all doing it!!! Normal consumer pressure is not working because no manufacturer wants to commit to cleaner technologies because of the costs involved (R&D and implementation). Worse, those costs will be presented to the consumer. Why should the consumer pay for businesses bad policies and decisions? I'm a firm believer in those that make the screwups take responsibility for their actions, not palm them off to anyone else other than themselves. Sadly, a carbon tax will let them do the latter. And that is why I oppose it.

Oh, and I'll add that the *only* reason why Gillard is doing the carbon tax is because the greenie independants who hold the "balance" of power are forcing her hand. If she didn't need their votes in the house of senates I can guarantee that this carbon tax policy would have never seen the light of day. I find it offensive that these independants hold the balance of power, when in reality, a very very very very very tiny percentage of the Australian constituency voted for them. They do NOT represent the people over Australia, ONLY their elected electorate. I'm a firm believer of removing secondary votes. Run a majority rules, first past the post system. It'll remove most of the BS from our electoral process.

Edited by valvelover, 09 March 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[Dust]

On another note, I am really enjoying the political spectacle. Labor have painted themselves into a corner - they can't abandon their carbon tax (see what it did to Rudd), and there are signs that if they proceed with it, they will face annihiliation at the next election. They can't get rid of Gillard (after they knifed Rudd, and of course look at NSW), but they can't stick with her either because she is poll poison. They have invested a lot of political capital by committing to a return to surplus by 2013, but there are signs that they probably won't make it. They can't move to the right, because that space is owned by the Coalition. And they can't move to the left, because that space is owned by the Greens. They have a talentless and dysfunctional leadership team - Gillard is noted for her lack of judgement, Swan lacks political nous, Rudd is hated by the caucus, and Conroy is an idiot who still hasn't dropped the internet filter. Nobody is going to vote for Shorten or Combet for now. They are being squeezed in all directions and there is no escape from their self-created mess. Never have I seen anything like this! Every morning I can't wait to read the paper!

Yes Keith, this sport has more blood than cage fighting!

When Gillard got in, I had a bit of a chat with my father and told him my prediction was that she would be out within a year - too many of her own party don't like her and too many deals with too many devils to sustain a full term. I should have put money on it - it's a looong time until November.

Cheers,


John

[stefan534]

Most of our wealth is generated by natural resources (coal,aluminium, wheat, wool, etc etc). If our resources are no longer needed by other countries, it'll bankrupt us. I've been saying for the past 30 years that our secondary industries need massive improving, but no one wants to invest in it.

A carbon tax is great in theory, but I'm a firm believer that it needs to hit and punish the manufacturers, NOT the public. The public consumer has no control over a manufacturer's production process, and saying that a consumer can boycott a bad polluter is BS, because they're all doing it!!! Normal consumer pressure is not working because no manufacturer wants to commit to cleaner technologies because of the costs involved (R&D and implementation). Worse, those costs will be presented to the consumer. Why should the consumer pay for businesses bad policies and decisions? I'm a firm believer in those that make the screwups take responsibility for their actions, not palm them off to anyone else other than themselves. Sadly, a carbon tax will let them do the latter. And that is why I oppose it.

Oh, and I'll add that the *only* reason why Gillard is doing the carbon tax is because the greenie independants who hold the "balance" of power are forcing her hand. If she didn't need their votes in the house of senates I can guarantee that this carbon tax policy would have never seen the light of day. I find it offensive that these independants hold the balance of power, when in reality, a very very very very very tiny percentage of the Australian constituency voted for them. They do NOT represent the people over Australia, ONLY their elected electorate. I'm a firm believer of removing secondary votes. Run a majority rules, first past the post system. It'll remove most of the BS from our electoral process.

I don't know about that. People change energy companies all the time. Currently, paying for green energy costs a little more - but what if it cost a little less.

[proftournesol]

Zammo, I agree with you 100%. The ALP has no plan apart from clinging to power, the Coalition has no plan apart from acquiring power, and they are cynically using fear of change to do this. There's no plan for the future, no future security of energy supply, no infrastructure plan. Whether you agree with the Greens alternative energy and fast rail projects or not, at least they have a vision for the country that is integrated and imaginative, not just 'more of the same'. Valvelover, I don't think that we should be 'punishing industry' just not subsidising yesterday's lifestyle, and making them pay the true cost of energy whilst investing the money into developing our country for the future. Industry must be encouraged to become a part of this process.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Most of our wealth is generated by natural resources (coal,aluminium, wheat, wool, etc etc). If our resources are no longer needed by other countries, it'll bankrupt us. I've been saying for the past 30 years that our secondary industries need massive improving, but no one wants to invest in it.

True enough.

A carbon tax is great in theory, but I'm a firm believer that it needs to hit and punish the manufacturers, NOT the public.

EVERYONE needs to pay for CO2. Business AND the public. I'll cite the example of my nearest neighbour.

A couple of years back, I decided that I would install an air conditioner in my home. I went to enormous lengths to locate the most efficient air conditioner, suitable for my needs. It cost $2,500.00, installed. It has a EER of 4 and a similar COP. Naturally, it is an inverter type, is made by a reputable manufacturer and I read the indepenent test reports to verify it's performance was as advertised. At the same time, my neighbour decided to install a similar sized air conditioner. He purchased the cheapest (Chinese), dodgy brand he could find. The air con cost him around $800.00. I guess installation would have been around $500.00. He saved a considerable amount over what mine cost me. ASSUMING the thing delivers it's advertised cooling/heating capacity, of course (which it probably does not). It has an (independently verified) EER of less than 2. It's not an inverter type and is as noisy as all Hell (when standing 3 Metres away from my operating outdoor unit, I can more clearly hear his monstrosity chugging away, at 30 Metres). Without severe encouragement, people like my neighbour (which I fear is the majority of Australians) will simply choose the cheapest air con to do the job.

I should add that my neighbour and his wife both have excellent jobs, several investment properties, own their own home outright and have a nett worth considerably in excess of mine and my partner's. The choice of a cheap air con is just short-sighted greed and lack of care for the environment.

Further and for the record: I use my air con sparingly and set temperatures to quite high levels (for Summer) and quite low ones for Winter.

The public consumer has no control over a manufacturer's production process, and saying that a consumer can boycott a bad polluter is BS, because they're all doing it!!! Normal consumer pressure is not working because no manufacturer wants to commit to cleaner technologies because of the costs involved (R&D and implementation). Worse, those costs will be presented to the consumer. Why should the consumer pay for businesses bad policies and decisions? I'm a firm believer in those that make the screwups take responsibility for their actions, not palm them off to anyone else other than themselves. Sadly, a carbon tax will let them do the latter. And that is why I oppose it.

No, it won't. A carbon tax will do several things:

* Cause power generators to invest in renewable generation capacity.
* Cause industries to cut energy costs wherever possible.
* Cause people and business to more carefully consider vehicle purchase and use.
* The amount of CO2 emitted by the nation to fall.

Oh, and I'll add that the *only* reason why Gillard is doing the carbon tax is because the greenie independants who hold the "balance" of power are forcing her hand.

Of course. Delicious, isn't it?

If she didn't need their votes in the house of senates I can guarantee that this carbon tax policy would have never seen the light of day. I find it offensive that these independants hold the balance of power, when in reality, a very very very very very tiny percentage of the Australian constituency voted for them.

Not so tiny, really. About 15%, as I recall. However, that is the reality of politics in this country. For years, we have been saddled with nonsensical ideas demanded by a miniscule proportion of Australians. Shooters party, the Christian right, farmers, etc. They've all had their day in the Sun. Now it's the turn of the Greens. Like it or lump it. At least the Greens care about the entire nation, not just their own little patch. In general, Greens voters tend to be altruistic, idealistic and intelligent.

They do NOT represent the people over Australia, ONLY their elected electorate. I'm a firm believer of removing secondary votes. Run a majority rules, first past the post system. It'll remove most of the BS from our electoral process.

Good luck with that.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 09 March 2011 - 10:25 AM.
Brain fart

[proftournesol]

In general, Greens voters tend to be altruistic, idealistic and intelligent.

....in general! I thought that you were specifically talking about me here:D

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Carbon tax is not really different to regular tax in one important way:

Eventually, almost every nation will employ it, in way or another. Competitive advantages will be eliminated.

It's no different to the scenario we have right now. Some nations have highly competitive tax advantages for companies. These nations are rapidly becoming pariahs on the world stage (which is as it should be). Companies like BHP, who have relocated due to tax reasons, need to be severely punished in every other nation they do business. Will it happen? I believe it will and soon. Tax authorities all over the world have excellent intelligence gathering capacity and there will be no place to hide for these morally bankrupt companies (and individuals).

[proftournesol]

another climate lie

The rumour that solar power is the major culprit in electricity price rises is persistent, pervasive, damaging - and baseless. A new report from independent energy market analysts again shoots down the vicious lies and misconceptions that threaten Australia's clean and renewable energy future.

According to a study by ROAM Consulting, renewable energy schemes only add between 4 and 7 per cent to electricity bills - a small amount considering the huge economic threat posed by climate change.

Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said Australia's 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target is the largest greenhouse gas abatement program in Australian history and it will slash that nation's greenhouse emissions by around 380 million tonnes over the next decade.

ROAM Consulting's report also concluded even in the most aggressive scenarios, the combined renewable schemes are likely to contribute less than 10% of retail electricity tariffs.

Investment in upgrading aging electrical infrastructure is actually the biggest single driver of Australian power price hikes. Improvement to the grid requires an investment of $42 billion across Australia over the next five years. In early 2010, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, said State and Territory Governments have at times endeavoured to hold back necessary price increases and those decisions are now "coming home to roost."

ROAM Consulting isn't the first study that has arrived at similar conclusions about renewable energy generally, but solar power continues to be made a scapegoat by parties with various motives; attacking the clean electricity generation technology from multiple angles.

Last year, after a major Australian news outlet quoted a think-tank that stated home solar power was to blame for spiraling electricity costs, national solar solutions provider Energy Matters looked into the organisation and found among their funding sources were multiple fossil fuel companies.

Earlier this year, Energy Matters also debunked a claim that Australia's current solar panel rebate cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated. The company has also repeatedly pointed out that solar subsidies exist in part to combat the effects of fossil fuel subsidies that keep those polluting fuels artificially cheap. Those fossil fuel subsidies come at a great cost to the environment and economy; a debt that is now being called in and being repaid in part by renewable energy.

As the nation struggles to emerge from the era of cheap energy that never was and with the piper now demanding to be paid, a fierce battle is being waged behind the scenes. Like in all wars, the public is being bombarded with information and misinformation.

The winning of hearts and minds will play a key role in whether Australia becomes a leader in addressing climate change and enjoys continuing prosperity or if it becomes complicit in wreaking further environmental damage that will ultimately result in economic ruin.

The full report for the Clean Energy Council by ROAM Consulting, entitled "Impact of renewable energy policies on retail electricity prices", can be viewed here (PDF)

[proftournesol]

the climate lie of 'cheap fossil fuel energy':

As the era of "cheap" energy courtesy of fossil fuels draws to a close; it's becoming increasingly apparent it never really existed.

Our addiction to fossil fuels appears to have been a case of "easy credit" - where you get the goods immediately, but the paying is always hard and long and the full costs not always apparent at the point of sale.

"Cheap energy" been a death of a thousand small cuts and the repayments will not only be made by us, but by future generations - both in monetary terms and otherwise.

There has been a great deal of negativity in the media on the issue of renewable energy rebates, but what many people don't realise is they have been paying heavily for "cheap fossil fuel" for years.

According to 1Block Off The Grid, U.S. taxpayers have contributed over $500 each towards fossil fuel subsidies in the past 5 years, compared to just over $7 for solar power. Subsidies do not come out of thin air; they are the result of indirect taxation or tax breaks that see less revenue coming into government coffers. Ultimately, the cost is borne by the taxpayer and the consumer.

1Block Off The Grid states that if solar power received the same financial support as fossil fuel in the U.S., solar energy would be cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity across the nation. It's worth noting too that no energy sector in the USA has ever been developed without subsidies - so why is solar sometimes portrayed as the bad guy when this is normal evolution? There is a villain, but it is elsewhere.

An issue often overlooked is the real reason why solar power needs to be subsidised at all. All the effort and resources that have gone into propping up polluting fossil fuel industries for decades have been at the expense of clean, renewable energy technologies that have been kept on the outer.

It's worth pondering where solar power would be today and how cheap it would be if governments had focused more on the technology earlier. Even Thomas Edison realised solar power's potential - 80 years ago. Today, we are simply in catch-up mode.

Skyrocketing electricity prices have been a "short, sharp shock" for a variety of reasons and solar is only a bit player.

In March this year, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson said State and Territory Governments have at times endeavoured to hold back necessary price increases and those decisions are now "coming home to roost." This paying of the piper had nothing to do with solar power, but an urgent need to invest at least $100 billion in electricity infrastructure over the next decade; just to meet growing demand and replace ageing infrastructure. Distributed electricity generation, such as can be achieved through rooftop solar power systems, can help decrease these costs.

Just as Australia's massive tobacco tax is used by the government to help reduce smoking, the unwelcome increases in electricity prices will help us to kick another filthy habit - coal. It will encourage energy efficiency and also make clean and renewable energy sources comparatively cheaper.

This situation we find ourselves in is little comfort to struggling families, but the solar industry isn't to blame; it's been the pile of loans we've collectively taken out in the form of fossil fuel that came with a high interest rate - loans that are now demanding to be settled in full.

In a sense, even solar power rebates and incentives are really still just fossil fuel subsidies. It's a puzzling situation and akin to a snake eating its own tail. The solar subsidies exist in part to combat the effects of fossil fuel subsidies that keep those polluting fuels artificially cheap. It's a curious and confusing form of fossil fuel double dipping.

The renewable energy subsidies help to stimulate uptake of solar power and in the process drive down prices so that solar and other forms of renewable energy can become dominant in our energy mix to battle the problems that fossil fuels are causing. Whichever way you look at it, the problems all seem to come back to fossil fuel

While the most logical option might seem to be to just phase out electricity related fossil fuel subsidies in all forms as that may then make unsubsidised solar power still competitive and provide benefits including lower taxes and a healthier environment, that's unlikely to happen.

Thankfully, solar grid parity is rapidly approaching regardless - unless of course the clean energy revolution is somehow derailed.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

the climate lie of 'cheap fossil fuel energy':

Indeed. It's just as bad here in Australia:

http://www.acfonline...sp?news_id=3308

The Federal government spends $12 Billion in fuel subsidies and less than $500 million for programmes to tackle climate change.

Sheesh!

[proftournesol]

That's $12,000,000,000 in extra taxation that we already pay just to hand it over in fossil fuel subsidies. If we are going to pay it, aren't we better off spending it in order to reduce emissions and in investment for our future rather than in increasing emissions and jeopardising our future.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

That's $12,000,000,000 in extra taxation that we already pay just to hand it over in fossil fuel subsidies. If we are going to pay it, aren't we better off spending it in order to reduce emissions and in investment for our future rather than in increasing emissions and jeopardising our future.

Yep. You can bet that Abbott will not make things any better.

[eltech]

One thing that stands out to me is the hypocracy of successive Australian governments on both sides. A few years ago there was a Chinese Australian at (i think) Sydney University who developed a new ultra efficeient solar cell, and the Australian government would not offer him any assistance or incentive to manufacture it in Australia, despite him wanting to do it here, and so he took it to China, and they manufacture it over there, and apparently this solar cell he developed is used extensively.

Next one, some Australian guys developed a solar power generator in the shape of a hexagon (or something) its apparently quite efficent and well suited to Australia (where it was designed) and no private company, nor the government wanted to build it.

Next, Wind power returns a guaranteed proffit after 10 years, so it is finacially viable (take that to mean that you dont need to tax anyone to build it - I mean you cant expect to spend money and recoup it in a week can you?)
Yet everytime, no matter where it is proposed, the locals start the NIMBY chant.

The thing that upsets me is that we dont need a "tax" to enact change, you just need legislation outlining that electricity companies need to increase their output by "x" amount every year, and they must do so without using carbon emitting fuels. If the power companies think they can reap money without any investment they are sorely mistaken. None of us should have to pay more, they are in the business of selling electricity, they have to invest, to make money, its how business works.

Ok, the other thing that gets me about this whole thing, is that Australias carbon output is the way it is becuase of the physical size of our country, and the way the major cities are spread apart, and the distance we have to travel to get ourselves to work and get freight around the country. Countries with small physical size and dense populations dont have these same issues. Australias historical use of coal power stations is because we have a lot of coal, so much that we sell it overseas. Other countries use nuclear because they dont have that much coal.

Dont get me wrong, Im very much in favour of efficiency, and its natural that engineers around the world have spent the last 100 years developing ever more efficient products to do the same job as the product they replace. good.

But, Australias output is insignificant in relation to worldwide pollution, even if the rest of the world halved its carbon dioxide output Australias carbon dioxide contribution would still be insignificant. So if the only reason for this political discussion of carbon credits/tax etc. is to gain political leverage on the world stage, then I seriously think Australians and the Australian government are seriously mistaken. To think that other countries will change what they do as a result of something we do, is hillarious.
Thats like saying we wont do something because Angola doesnt do it.

Do you honestly think the Chinese or American or British government will issue a statement saying, we wont reduce our output becuse Australia wont. Hilarious!!!!!! It would never happen. These giant economies will do what they want whenever they want. What we do wont matter one iota to them.

For goodness sake, we were settled by Great Britain, yet still dont have a comprehensive completely free health care system like in Great Britain! There are far more pressing political issues than a tax to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, belive me, its never the rich that suffer with these sorts of things.

How about legislating that we plant more native trees and dont chop down the ones we have?
How about legislating that all new commerical and residential developments must have a certain number of trees in "x" radius of development.
Its all too easy for governments to slap on a tax, apparently far to hard to ever come up with some creative insightful intelligent policies!

Public transport in all our major cities could be so good, yet the frequency of services is disgracefull, no government seems to want to take the bold move of trippling services.
Tax, what a joke, how about the pollies do what they are meant to do and give us the better country that we want and need though inspiring leadership and forward planning.

Edited by eltech, 09 March 2011 - 12:08 PM.

[Zammo]

Wow. Imagine 12 billion spent on solar, geothermal, wind, and other renewables. Both for a rebate for home owners investing in these technologies, in R&D, and implementation on a large scale.

Imagine having a government with the foresight and balls (no apologies Julia) to actually channel funds away from fossil fuel subsidies into technologies that will lead the human race into a sustainable future.

Now look at what we've got on both sides of the parliamentary floor. I do despair.

[mr-happy-pants]

To summarise

I don't see how we cannot tax carbon

A bit of leadership goes a long way IME

Policy for the sake of longevitiy is an oxy moron

Ignorance is condonement IMO

We need to reduce our negative impact on the only planet we have, irrespective of how small each step may be

Graham

[valvelover]

To summarise

I don't see how we cannot tax carbon

A bit of leadership goes a long way IME

Policy for the sake of longevitiy is an oxy moron

Ignorance is condonement IMO

We need to reduce our negative impact on the only planet we have, irrespective of how small each step may be

Graham

No disagreement from me there, but it's the way that that policy is delivered, and who it effects that I personally have issues with.

The harsh reality and truth is that this planet cannot support 6 billion homo sapiens in the long term. Modern man has a habit of happily destroying whatever is not convenient or is in his way, rather than working with nature. Let's consider Australian Aborigines or the North American Indians - both of which had a very small footprint on the local ecologies. Anything else other than reducing our footprint is a bandaid fix. There are several reasons for our overpopulation - man made interference with diseases [surgery][medicinal][diet]. Should we be trying to cure cancer? Personally, I think not. From a social point of view, it's a hard call, and one sounds like an utter uncaring bastard I guess. I'm a firm believer that nature designed diseases etc as a way of culling a species and controlling its population so that it *works* with nature and the local ecology. Modern man is circumventing that, and our population is growing out of control. This is the *real* root cause of our pollution issues imho. Yes, we can reduce our footprint, but sooner or later, our population will grow to a point where even a reduced pollution per person is not good enough.

Dave

PS if anyone thinks I'm being a prick and being insensitive, my father has terminal stomach cancer. I think long and hard before making these comments. One has to consider the species before individuals.

[proftournesol]

valvelover, we can support any number of humans (within reason), but as the number goes up, the ecological footprint needs to come down. eltech we need to transform our economy now for the 21st and 22nd Century, otherwise we'll end up with lots of low priced low demand commodities, and no money to pay for the required transformation. what we are doing now is effectively taxing people to maintain 20th and 19th century infrastructure and technology to the tune of $12,000,000,000. Where's the sense in that?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Ok, the other thing that gets me about this whole thing, is that Australias carbon output is the way it is becuase of the physical size of our country, and the way the major cities are spread apart, and the distance we have to travel to get ourselves to work and get freight around the country. Countries with small physical size and dense populations dont have these same issues.

Yes and, no. Most Australians live in large cities, where travel is minimised. The real reason why are carbon footprint is so large, is because we don't use public transport (enough), don't use bicycles (enough), insist on dropping kids to school in monster trucks (I used to walk 2km to school - mum would drop me off if and only IF, it was raining 30cm/hour. I was certainly not alone) every day, use airconditioners, heaters and lighting unnecessarily, run pools, etc, etc. Australians are incredibly wasteful. We can do much to reduce our carbon footprint and not affect our lifestyle much at all. Hell, our kids might lose some weight!

But, Australias output is insignificant in relation to worldwide pollution, even if the rest of the world halved its carbon dioxide output Australias carbon dioxide contribution would still be insignificant.

Sorry, but that is oft-cited cop-out. It is obscene and simply demonstrates the abject greediness inherent to many Australians. We are all on this planet together. We all need to make sacrifices. Every single one of us. Australia can afford to act. It should do so. It should show the way to those nations that refuse to act.

So if the only reason for this political discussion of carbon credits/tax etc. is to gain political leverage on the world stage, then I seriously think Australians and the Australian government are seriously mistaken. To think that other countries will change what they do as a result of something we do, is hillarious.
Thats like saying we wont do something because Angola doesnt do it.

Wrong. IT is (or should be) an extremely embarrassing thing for Australians not to act. In the not too distant future, nations that do not act, will be penalised. And deservedly so.

Do you honestly think the Chinese or American or British government will issue a statement saying, we wont reduce our output becuse Australia wont. Hilarious!!!!!! It would never happen. These giant economies will do what they want whenever they want. What we do wont matter one iota to them.

The UK and China have already acted. WE are the ones that are falling behind. Australia and the US. We need to act and we need to act now.

How about legislating that we plant more native trees and dont chop down the ones we have?

That legislation already exists in various forms around the nation. The government needs to be more proactive in prosecuting offenders however.

How about legislating that all new commerical and residential developments must have a certain number of trees in "x" radius of development.
Its all too easy for governments to slap on a tax, apparently far to hard to ever come up with some creative insightful intelligent policies!

Some already are. Some are not.

Public transport in all our major cities could be so good, yet the frequency of services is disgracefull, no government seems to want to take the bold move of trippling services.

Agreed. State governments keep building roads and yet congestion merely gets worse. Time to bite the bulet and cease road funding and pour it into public transport, bicycle lanes, etc.

Tax, what a joke, how about the pollies do what they are meant to do and give us the better country that we want and need though inspiring leadership and forward planning.

Force pollies to choose from a selection of government vehicles that include (say):

* Prius
* Golf Diesel
* Et al

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 09 March 2011 - 01:37 PM.
Brain fart

[proftournesol]

Whilst it's true that the US Congress has blocked Obama's plan for a nationwide cap'n'trade scheme, but it's proposed or running in 6 states including California, itself the world's 6th largest economy. The US is investing in massive solar infrastructure, and is planning a nationwide massive infrastructure upgrade including a high speed rail network. The lie is that we are acting alone if we do something and that this will disadvantage us, whilst the opposite is more likely to be the case.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Whilst it's true that the US Congress has blocked Obama's plan for a nationwide cap'n'trade scheme, but it's proposed or running in 6 states including California, itself the world's 6th largest economy. The US is investing in massive solar infrastructure, and is planning a nationwide massive infrastructure upgrade including a high speed rail network. The lie is that we are acting alone if we do something and that this will disadvantage us, whilst the opposite is more likely to be the case.

Indeed. In fact, California is WAY ahead of Australia. I was last in the US, back in 1995. I recall driving across So Cal and noting HUGE wind farms.

[proftournesol]

But, Australias output is insignificant in relation to worldwide pollution, even if the rest of the world halved its carbon dioxide output Australias carbon dioxide contribution would still be insignificant. So if the only reason for this political discussion of carbon credits/tax etc. is to gain political leverage on the world stage, then I seriously think Australians and the Australian government are seriously mistaken. To think that other countries will change what they do as a result of something we do, is hillarious.
Thats like saying we wont do something because Angola doesnt do it.

I might try that argument with the ATO:) The amount of taxation I pay is insignificant and you won't miss it. Call me when every other individual and corporation has paid their tax and then I may pay a proportion of my share, but not if it economically disadvantages me:D

[morloch]

Force pollies to choose from a selection of government vehicles that include (say):

* Prius
* Golf Diesel
* Et al

I wonder about this. I've often thought that keeping old cars on the road, even an old govt Ford LTD, is more environmentally friendly than buying a spanking new car, even a Prius. I know a lot of a car can be recycled but that takes loads of energy too. Have any studies been made? I'm glad the "cash for bangers" proposal bit the dust. Buying a used car never gets a mention as a "green" option. Why is that?

[ignoring safety issues for a moment - though sticking 12 airbags in an old beetle would probably give it a 5-star rating].

[Bear72]

I wonder about this. I've often thought that keeping old cars on the road, even an old govt Ford LTD, is more environmentally friendly than buying a spanking new car, even a Prius. I know a lot of a car can be recycled but that takes loads of energy too. Have any studies been made? I'm glad the "cash for bangers" proposal bit the dust. Buying a used car never gets a mention as a "green" option. Why is that?

[ignoring safety issues for a moment - though sticking 12 airbags in an old beetle would probably give it a 5-star rating].

Hmph, that whole concept was a joke- apparently it is more "green" to drive (say) a brand new Ford Territory than (say) a well maintained 1973 Corolla.

Bunch of peanuts.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I wonder about this. I've often thought that keeping old cars on the road, even an old govt Ford LTD, is more environmentally friendly than buying a spanking new car, even a Prius. I know a lot of a car can be recycled but that takes loads of energy too. Have any studies been made? I'm glad the "cash for bangers" proposal bit the dust. Buying a used car never gets a mention as a "green" option. Why is that?

[ignoring safety issues for a moment - though sticking 12 airbags in an old beetle would probably give it a 5-star rating].

You make a couple of good points. We have two cars in the family - a 1992 Commodore Waggon and a 1989 Telstar. If I need to carry big loads (like the bicycles, speakers, etc), or travelling long distances, we use the Commodore. I usually manage around 7.1 - 7.5 L/100km on the highway. Around town, we use the Telstar. Since both cars do less than 5,000km PA, it makes little sense to buy a new car, though a replacement for the Telstar is not far away.

Would a Prius be less economical than one of those old LTDs? Absolutely! The Prius is an excellent vehicle for cuty driving. For long distance driving, other technologies (Diesel) makes more sense. What makes NO sense, are supplying pollies with V8 Commodores and the like. Of course, as in my own situation, it depends on the number of km driven. As more kms are driven, then modern technology makes more sense.

That said, much as we taxpayers would like to see our pollies driving around in clunkers, it is never going to happen. They should, however, be forced to choose economical vehicles.

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 09 March 2011 - 02:52 PM.
Brain fart

[LogicprObe]

As you point out, we are actually a major exporter of carbon, and this creates a much larger carbon footprint than our actual consumption. If you look at us strategically, this also leaves us critically exposed as the world moves away from one of our major exports - coal, to new technologies. Thanks to Howard, we've dropped the ball on that one and lost our lead in solar technologies. The days when China opened a new dirty coal plant every 2 weeks are now gone, they have overtaken Germany as the largest solar producer, soon they won't need as much coal as they have and then what will we do. We need to start planning now for a future with much smaller domestic coal usage and much less coal exports.

They are still opening coal plants at the same rate............and you can't make steel and many other things from solar energy..........especially at night.

[LogicprObe]

Zammo, I agree with you 100%. The ALP has no plan apart from clinging to power, the Coalition has no plan apart from acquiring power, and they are cynically using fear of change to do this. There's no plan for the future, no future security of energy supply, no infrastructure plan. Whether you agree with the Greens alternative energy and fast rail projects or not, at least they have a vision for the country that is integrated and imaginative, not just 'more of the same'. Valvelover, I don't think that we should be 'punishing industry' just not subsidising yesterday's lifestyle, and making them pay the true cost of energy whilst investing the money into developing our country for the future. Industry must be encouraged to become a part of this process.

The Greens are bigger hypocrites than the other two!
They don't care about the environment anymore..............just like the other two......they only care about power.....political power!

[eltech]

Yes and, no. Most Australians live in large cities, where travel is minimised. The real reason why are carbon footprint is so large, is because we don't use public transport (enough), don't use bicycles (enough), insist on dropping kids to school in monster trucks (I used to walk 2km to school - mum would drop me off if and only IF, it was raining 30cm/hour. I was certainly not alone) every day, use airconditioners, heaters and lighting unnecessarily, run pools, etc, etc. Australians are incredibly wasteful. We can do much to reduce our carbon footprint and not affect our lifestyle much at all. Hell, our kids might lose some weight!

Thing is, I'm not disagreeing with you, I walked to school too, my parents didnt and still dont own a car. I will reitterate that Australia has larger land mass than other countries which surely anyone can see will add to our fuel use when travelling. Our climate, and stupidly designed older houses without adequate insulation make the use of AC and heating necessary (not a luxury)

Sorry, but that is oft-cited cop-out. It is obscene and simply demonstrates the abject greediness inherent to many Australians. We are all on this planet together. We all need to make sacrifices. Every single one of us. Australia can afford to act. It should do so. It should show the way to those nations that refuse to act.

Sorry but I dont think its a cop out, thats like the teacher in the school room giving everyone detention for shouting during the class, when most of the students were quietly discussing their school work. Everyone gets punished including those who wernt contributing to the noise. Or thier contribution to the noise was very minimal. Thats how I see it anyway.

Wrong. IT is (or should be) an extremely embarrassing thing for Australians not to act. In the not too distant future, nations that do not act, will be penalised. And deservedly so.

Its embarrasing for our government not having the balls to stand up internationally, and say it how it is, that (on a world scale) our Co2 emissions are minor to insignificant.

The UK and China have already acted. WE are the ones that are falling behind. Australia and the US. We need to act and we need to act now.

I dont want you to get me wrong, as I wrote earlier, I'm all for efficiency, and leaving a small footprint on this world. I think there are better ways of achiving this than carbon trading/taxes. I think we need more intelligent policies that SERIOUSLY address the issues, the assumption that taxes will change Co2 emissions are laugable, all it will do is hurt those who cant afford it.

That legislation already exists in various forms around the nation. The government needs to be more proactive in prosecuting offenders however.

Not to a big enough extent to seriously adress the issue of excess carbon!

Force pollies to choose from a selection of government vehicles that include (say):

* Prius
* Golf Diesel
* Et al

Please dont get me started on the energy it takes to make a Prius. you should look into it, once you know, they wont seem so "green"

Edited by eltech, 09 March 2011 - 03:35 PM.

[Bear72]

Our climate, and stupidly designed older houses without adequate insulation make the use of AC and heating necessary (not a luxury)

Actually many older houses are quite well designed to incorporate "passive" cooling, as well as keeping the heat out. Heating is definitely another story though. Most new homes appear to have no regard at all for designing with our climate in mind (no eaves, low ceilings etc).

[proftournesol]

They are still opening coal plants at the same rate............and you can't make steel and many other things from solar energy..........especially at night.

Of course you can't make steel in commercial quantities from solar energy at night, you can store solar power in batteries, but we don't need to stop all coal use, we just need to drastically reduce it. We'll almost certainly need a mix of technologies that supply our energy.

Why don't you think that the Greens care about the environment anymore? As politicians, the Greens (capital G) use political power to enact their policies. The Laberal parties see the Greens as inflexible purely because they aren't willing to trade what they believe for political power.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Thing is, I'm not disagreeing with you, I walked to school too, my parents didnt and still dont own a car. I will reitterate that Australia has larger land mass than other countries which surely anyone can see will add to our fuel use when travelling. Our climate, and stupidly designed older houses without adequate insulation make the use of AC and heating necessary (not a luxury)

Air conditioning is not a necessity at all. It's nice though. It WILL be a necessity if the planet is allowed to warm further. And again, Australians are amongst the most urbanised people on Earth. The myth of large distances is just that. A myth. We CHOOSE to transport stuff that does not need to be transported. Bananas from Queensland to Hobart is nice, but not necessary. Tasmanians can grow all the food they need locally. As can most places in Australia. We might have to eat stuff that we're not accoustomed to, or eat seasonal food (like our ancestors did), but no great hardship. Energy costs of long distance freight is for convenience items (mostly), not essential stuff.

BTW: I accept your comment about not being driven to school. I comment on what I see at local schools. There is a preponderance of monster trucks outside every school, every day. It is utterly obscene and completely thoughtless by parents, who are merely selling out their children's future. I find it utterly repugnant.

Sorry but I dont think its a cop out, thats like the teacher in the school room giving everyone detention for shouting during the class, when most of the students were quietly discussing their school work. Everyone gets punished including those who wernt contributing to the noise. Or thier contribution to the noise was very minimal. Thats how I see it anyway.

People who are already practising sensible energy saving practices won't be punished. Just the dickheads who insist on driving monster trucks, rather than more appropriate vehicles and those who use air conditioners 24/7 (like my next door neighbour did, right up until he received his latest electricity bill). The extra cost has caused him to change his ways. The only way to get people to change their habits is to punish them financially.

Its embarrasing for our government not having the balls to stand up internationally, and say it how it is, that (on a world scale) our Co2 emissions are minor to insignificant.

That's because saying such a thing is intellectually bankrupt. We all need to act together to deal with the problem. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on the planet. NO EXECEPTIONS. We're all responsible for the problem. We're all responsible for the solution.

I dont want you to get me wrong, as I wrote earlier, I'm all for efficiency, and leaving a small footprint on this world. I think there are better ways of achiving this than carbon trading/taxes. I think we need more intelligent policies that SERIOUSLY address the issues, the assumption that taxes will change Co2 emissions are laugable, all it will do is hurt those who cant afford it.

Please tell us, EXACTLY how you suggest we deal with the problem of getting people to curb their emissions (use less electricity, stop driving monster trucks, etc). A carbon tax is almost the perfect solution, IMO, but I'm willing to hear your ideas.

Not to a big enough extent to seriously adress the issue of excess carbon!




Please dont get me started on the energy it takes to make a Prius. you should look into it, once you know, they wont seem so "green"

You need to look at a (say) 20 year life of the vehicle. Not a 4 or 5 year life. I'm not saying the the Prius is the ultimate solution by any measure. It's pretty good though. It's excellent for stop-start motoring in cities (which is what it is designed for). For other types of driving, there are other solutions. The new crop of Diesels from VW and Ford look very promising indeed, for those who travel long distances.