Carbon Tax Poll

[pjs2]

Nuclear. I know I will be lambasted for this, but it is our only real alternative. Please read on.

Did you know that coal kills more poeople due to cancers than every other power source ever used? Yep, it has stored radioactivity in the coal which is released when burnt and this accounts for huge numbers of deaths each year. In fact, nuclear has the lowest death rate per terawatt of electricity production!!

This is just one good article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opi...439/story.html

Take note of the following excerpts:

"Premature deaths as a result of exposure to radiation released during the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor 25 years ago are now predicted for just over 200 people a year. That totals 16,000 deaths by 2065. This looks like a scary figure until you compare it to the premature deaths caused by inhaling fine particulate matter released during the burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst.
Over the same period of time, the number of people dying prematurely from exposure to fossil-fuel pollution will be 108 million. So, for every person killed by radiation from the Chernobyl accident, 6,750 will be killed by coal-fired electrical generating stations, household furnaces, fireplaces, barbecue briquettes, mowing the lawn and, of course, driving to the drugstore to pick up those potassium iodide pills."

And

"One should also, I suppose, add in the 63-million premature deaths that will occur between now and 2065 because of traffic accidents — one more consequence of burning fossil fuels.
So let’s add them up. It turns out that for every person expected to die prematurely because of exposure to radiation from the worst nuclear accident in history, 12,741 will die before their time thanks to exposure to fossil-fuel emissions.
Put another way, the calculation of premature deaths per terawatt hour of energy production comes to this conclusion: for coal, 161; for oil, 36; for biofuels, 12; for natural gas, four; for nuclear, 0.04."

The thing is, everyone focuses on things like ###ishima and the nuclear accident, yet not one person has died from it yet and only a handful will over the comign years, yet everyone has lost sight of the fact that the death rate from the actual tsunami was in the tens of thousands!!!



Asphyxiation due to poor air quality? Hmm, you are way overstating the facts. That will never happen as carbon dioxide accounts for .039% of our atmosphere and mans contribution to that has increased it by a miniscule amount.

Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.

Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/...nsumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!

Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?

Yes of course it's safe. Self regulation works beautifully. Oh hang on they do all the checks don’t they. It must work though they had some pretty big buckets of water ready to throw on that nuclear power plant so they must know what they're doing. Money and corruption wouldn't come into it.
You can put on a breathing apparatus if you work in an area of airborne particles. Try seeing how effective that is with radiation.
Maybe you have forgotten about the wonderfull birth defects that go on for generations. Or the fact that the area contaminated cannot be lived in used for farming it's just dead.

[ameerat42]

(ASIDE: Hmm! Just thought of something. In this explanation of code tags, I didn't see any [rant] [/rant] or [rave] [/rave] tags.)

[Rattus79]

It gets even better though!

Australia is about to open another 3 Coal mines, Alpha site, and 2 others out past Emerald.
The coal being pulled out of there is the cleanest burning coal that has yet to be found. Hancock Coal has been given permission for the rail link and it's going to go ahead. Where will this coal go? India.
Which coal will we be burning to power our plants? The old dirty stuff. Go Figure.

Meanwhile, It's illegal to Tax a Tax, yet we pay World Parity Pricing (Fancy name for a 70% tax) Fuel Levy (fancy name for tax), and GST (fancy name for yet another mony grab!) on fuel. Now they want to put a Carbon Tax on it too???!!!
Even better then that is the fact that we produce approx 70% of our own fuel yet we pay top dollar (Singapore's prices as they import 100% of theirs)
Wake up Julia and smell the Ahem ******, Oh, and stop selling all our resources!!!

[Lance B]

You didn't read the article.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opi...439/story.html

As stated in the article (and other similar facts on the issue) coal fired power station and fossil fuels in general cause more deaths than you would beleive. Chernobyl will kill 16,000 people in the 80 years after it's melt down. Coal fired power stations and fossil fuel use will kill 108,000,000 in the same 80 year time period!!!!! Due to cancers and other related illnesses caused from the release of radiation stored in the coal and toxic chemicals.

Nuclear is the safest of all forms of energy production and coal already produces levels of radiation that cause cancers and deaths far in excess of all or any of the nuclear reactors ever built. France's power is produced by 80% nuclear.

I implore you to do some more research and not listen to the alarmists and knee jerk reactions of the ill informed.

Self regulation can be converted to government regulation as well as self regulation and have a more stringent regulation process.

[Lance B]

If we do nothing then the levels of pollution will continue to rise and the disrupted weather patterns and systems will continue to become more severe. Rather than thinking about your hip pocket, think about the future generations who will have to deal with the mess we and previous generations have created. Should we allow greed to come before the future of the entire planet? That is what is driving the opposition by industry who are thinking only of their profit margins and shareholders. Everything has it's price, including the very future of the human species who seem hell bent on profiteering themselves out of existence.

The truth of the matter is that we have to make sacrifices in order to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy a similar kind of lifestyle that we have today. Rather than listening to boffins and scholars etc saying "Yes, we need a carbon tax" or "No, it's a load of rubbish", try taking a look at the very thing that will be adversely affected if nothing is done, the world (and I mean THE WORLD, not just Australia or your own backyard). Unseasonal weather, killer tornadoes, the snow on Mt. Everest becoming less and less, glaciers that have existed for hundreds of years disappearing, above average rainfall, record snowfalls, bigger and larger hurricanes. Don't you think nature is trying to tell us something? It cannot be written off as "100 year events" or just a blip in the weather. If there is no action taken on carbon emissions then all of those things are, over time, going to accelerate and get worse.

If Australia leads the way in instituting a carbon tax, other countries will follow. Those that don't will find themselves frozen out of the world market place because, as we all know, money talks and the stuff that drops out of the bulls' behind walks (although I've never seen a walking bull-pat. ). Yes, prices will rise with the introduction of a carbon tax but that's the whole point. Our consumeristic society is to blame for part of the problem in the first place and we are going to seriously have to reduce, reuse and recycle more than we as a society do now otherwise we all stand to be condemned by those who will follow us in years to come. They'll say, "They knew or denied what was happening but, for the sake of a few bucks, they weren't prepared to lift a finger to ensure we have a future."

Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.

If you think that other countries will follow Australias lead in introducing a carbon tax, then you are well mistaken and are living in a dream land especially one so draconian as our government is thinking about. These other countires will be laughing their heads off thanking us for moving our industries to their shores in order to bolster their economies, especially the emerging economies begging for indsutries and work for their peoples. The funny this is, we introduce a carbon tax - which supposedly reduces our emissions - meanwhile, to escape the silly carbon tax in order to survive, companies here move over to China and India where their emission standards are worse than ours and they actually produce more pollution than if they had stayed here if we didn't have a carbon tax. So, in fact we are making it worse not better!!

[Tannin]

Even better then that is the fact that we produce approx 70% of our own fuel yet we pay

This delightful little gem is an outstanding example of the detailed, thoughtful, and completely misinformed sort of "fact" the anti-planet lobby relies on. The correct figure, of course, is not much more than half of the figure cited, and is falling rapidly as our reserves dry up and our population explodes.

[ApolloLXII]

[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]

Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.

As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.

[ricktas]

[QUOTE=Apollo62;853969][QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.

Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.

As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.

Umm. Take the Queensland floods, they had them about a Century ago (which is why they are often called the 100 year floods). The difference is that today, it is in our faces, where back then it would take weeks for news to travel to other parts of the world.

If you are going to say you do not listen to the media, at least do some research and look into the archives, rather than just saying you cannot recall seeing it in them!

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=Apollo62;853969][QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.

Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.

As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.

As Rick says, these weather events have been happening for years and just as bad. They may look worse now due to the fact there are many, many more people, more buildings and therefore more damage, but they are no worse as an actual weather event. The media is good at making it look worse than it actually is as we don't have TV footage of the previous floods like we do nowadays.

Yes, companies have been moving offshore, bit this is just another straw to make them move if they were on the verge of doing so but also the fact that they do due to a carbon tax is not going to solve the carbon dioxide emissions as the countries they go to have much worse emissions than we do. In fact, as I said, what ever tax they put on here in order a forlorn attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not only be made up for overseas in these hell hole economies but will backfire and make carbon emissions worse!!!

[ameerat42]

Seasonal and unseasonal weather!!! You hear these begged questions every night after the news. Anything to make people go "OOH!" and "AAHH!" And they proceed to pretend to be meteorologists and climatologists. Perhaps even quote some irrelevant "fact" as "incontrovertible evidence", if not downright "proof". And what's worse, WE let them pretend. And we let ourselves become alarmed, except that we call it "BEING CONCERNED" and feel assuaged of conscience and perhaps even jump onto the bandwagon. YES! Let's all have a Carbon Tax. It seems like a good idea, even if we don't really know why. Then the bandwagon has to grow to accomodate more and more jumpers-on. It becomes a juggernaut, and we get our Carbon Tax. And then what...? Another "DISASTER" is forewarned, and off we go again.

(Now really, I didn't want to make another post in this thread...)

[Kym]

What about the Federation drought... worse than the one we just had by several years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought
Which was followed by floods in 1902

[ApolloLXII]

[QUOTE=ricktas;853978][QUOTE=Apollo62;853969]

Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.

Umm. Take the Queensland floods, they had them about a Century ago (which is why they are often called the 100 year floods). The difference is that today, it is in our faces, where back then it would take weeks for news to travel to other parts of the world.

If you are going to say you do not listen to the media, at least do some research and look into the archives, rather than just saying you cannot recall seeing it in them!

Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.

[WhoDo]

Quote "A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that" (same sentiment from various above)

If this was the case, then increasing the excise (tax) on cigarettes wouldn't make any difference either, except that each time the excise is raised there is a matched 10% (+/-) drop off in smoking.

Except that a majority of smokers have a viable alternative. People who need to cook, keep warm and travel to work really don't have much choice.

Worse still, the main polluters are overseas and struggling to feed their people much less anything else. That's why they burn rainforest to create agricultural land, polluting the atmosphere, killing the native animals and substituting bovine methane makers, etc. For them it's the lesser of two evils.

We ALL need to realise that this planet is supporting ALL of us and it's a GLOBAL problem. A carbon tax here is only a political bargaining chip for use on the foreign stage and the problem is that the people we would be bargaining with aren't interested in our tokenism; they are interested in food and survival. Work on THAT and some of the other problems will take care of themselves.

Sustainability is not about doing with less of anything, it is about doing more with what you have in the best and most efficient possible way. Show me ANY tax that has achieved that! Most of the money raised that way gets swallowed in bureaucracy rather than being productive of change. Insulation anyone?

[Lance B]

Just one example, 1930's USA and Australia droughts.

For the same reason you can't say that it isn't worse than other times.

[WhoDo]

... Due to cancers and other related illnesses caused from the release of radiation stored in the coal and toxic chemicals.

I don't know where you got this one, Lance. I work for a coal testing laboratory company (Australian-owned but global) and I've never heard of any abnormal radiation levels caused by burning coal. There are plenty of radioactive trace elements in coal; that's true. Many of those can be removed by properly processing the coal before burning it, or by trapping particulates before they are emitted, but that costs money and that puts up the price of electricity so ...

I don't disagree that nuclear appears the only viable, long-term alternative to fossil fuels ... unless we can solve the issues with cold fusion, anti-matter, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. It turns out you can even burn water ... if you put enough microwave energy through it ... but microwave energy comes from electricity, too! It's a dilemma alright. The bottom line is that coal is the cheapest, and most accessible fuel for generating electricity. It won't last forever but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're looking for new ways to get clean, ok?

[ricktas]

Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/?n=ms_flood_history

and in particular : 1912 March-May
$70M damage along the MS River [Hoyt], New Orleans 2nd highest crest of record of 21.02 feet on May 11th; Donaldsonville 4th highest crest of record at 33.91 feet on May 10th; Baton Rouge 8th highest crest of record at 43.30 feet on May 11th. [AHPS]

[WhoDo]

Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.

Ever heard of the Ice Age? What about the great flood ... apparently people looking to prove Noah existed have found geological evidence of a massive global inundation, albeit one not able to be pinned down to the religious time scales (tch tch). Talk about pop science.

The fact is that the Earth actually WOBBLES on its axis, and that wobbling can be held to account for and predict all sorts of climatic aberrations back to the Big Bang! Furthermore, there are many more correlations between solar activity and earthly climate changes than anything to do with the human production of CO2. Finally we have the so-called "evidence" of "weather events" that actually have nothing to do with the climate. Tsunami's, for example, are geologically driven ... thanks to movements in the Earth's crust ... and yet people treat them as another harbinger of the impending catastrophe from global warming/climate change!

I think it is fabulous that people are concerned for our planet and its inhabitants; human and non-human. I don't see anyone in this discussion who isn't concerned. We just disagree on the best way to exercise that concern for the good of all. Let's not waste that concern on furphies generated by vested interests, be they commercial, political or religious. Let us instead spend our efforts in being a positive influence for solving real global problems like hunger, extinction of species, war, etc. instead of spinning our wheels in a panic over some media hype being leveraged by politicians and other vested interests to "protect (our) phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" (Mel Brookes - Blazing Saddles)

[Lance B]

I don't know where you got this one, Lance. I work for a coal testing laboratory company (Australian-owned but global) and I've never heard of any abnormal radiation levels caused by burning coal. There are plenty of radioactive trace elements in coal; that's true. Many of those can be removed by properly processing the coal before burning it, or by trapping particulates before they are emitted, but that costs money and that puts up the price of electricity so ...

There are many articles written on the subject and it is from the fly ash emitted by the coal fired power stations, I first heard it in a radio interview by an eminent scientist on the subject many years ago and then did some research. Here are some articles:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opi...439/story.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

I don't disagree that nuclear appears the only viable, long-term alternative to fossil fuels ... unless we can solve the issues with cold fusion, anti-matter, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. It turns out you can even burn water ... if you put enough microwave energy through it ... but microwave energy comes from electricity, too! It's a dilemma alright. The bottom line is that coal is the cheapest, and most accessible fuel for generating electricity. It won't last forever but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're looking for new ways to get clean, ok?

I do agree, but the third world is developing at an ever increasing rate and the demand for fossil fuel is fast diminishing supplies and causing pollution, not to be confused with carbon dioxide which not a pollutant, I am talking about the other problems with burning coal and other fossil fuels. I don't think we have time to wait for these other energy sources to appear before problems with fossil fuel supply spring up, especially oil. I think the major issue confronting the world is not carbon dioxide (as I do not think it is an issue at all), but overpopulation which will require all this new energy. I don't know if you read my post above about the amount of enegry required for us to turn to all electric cars just here in Australia, but we need to double our power output if we all end up using electric cars!! What I said:

"Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.

Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/...nsumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!

Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?"

[Irru]

CT.
another thought is .... until china /India are made to pursue a carbon reduction...

China has set its carbon reduction targets, and they are very, very ambitious. They'd be laughable in fact, if the Chinese government wasn't as powerful as it is, being both capable and willing to enforce it. Because that government is a communist one (albeit more socialist these days), no carbon tax/trading scheme is needed. They tell a company to change, and it damn well gets changed.

Our government doesn't have that kind of power though. If we legislated to force our energy companies to replace their plants with clean power stations, within 3 years (or even 20) it would hit the courts and likely never leave them.

An emissions trading scheme (or a carbon tax) are ways that a government can legislate in order to manipulate market forces in ways that will indirectly encourage, and later even force, companies to make those same changes we cannot directly force.

We need to be leading this movement, because small though we are, we're influential. We certainly shouldn't be waiting until all the other bad kids in the schoolyard are playing nice first.

It sucks that times will get tougher, but we have to do our part because this is the biggest and toughest crisis humanity has ever faced. Consider it WW3 and be thankful there are no air raids.

[Scotty72]

I have started to come around on this issue (Climate Change).

Do I (or any of us) really know if it is real... not really.

Do scientists on both sides have vested interests... of course.

Is pumping exhaust gasses into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates a good idea.... NO

Will Australia's policies change the world... not likely (but, then again, a river begins with one drop... what if every drop of water refuses to flow until the river starts first)

BUT!!!!

I think the bigger issue is that of peak oil. It is bloody obvious we are running out of oil and need to change our behaviours... Australians are generally too bloody minded to change unless we are forced to by cost. Some may say that a CT will push up prices... probably correctly... but, the cost of not changing our habits (via a CT)if we do nothing will massively outweigh the cost of the CT...

We really do need to change from our 1950's view of the world... Get used to the idea of $2-3 per litre of petrol.

Scotty