Carbon Tax Poll

[WhoDo]

There are many articles written on the subject and it is from the fly ash emitted by the coal fired power stations

Yep, fly ash contains radioactive trace elements, but that's a different thing to releasing radioactivity by burning coal ... not better or worse, just different. The vast majority of fly ash is trapped at the power plant using scrubbers and other filtering devices before it actually reaches the atmosphere.

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.

Agreed. How will a CT/ETS solve that one? Remember that birth rates are higher in poorer nations, so if we tax ourselves poor our birthrate will likely climb as well!

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!!

I did. Here is a link to the most current statistics and predictions on fuel usage to 2030. Yes it comes from an oil company but they have a vested interest in how long they can continue to sell oil, don't they?

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarti...tentId=7066648.

Predictions are downloadable for free in PDF format and stats in an Excel spreadsheet and are used by energy authorities world wide. In particular their Statistical Review of World Energy 2010 is about as comprehensive a document on the subject as can be obtained for free, and also comes with Excel workbooks that can be used to chart comparative figures for all energy sources including nuclear, solar and others.

[peterb666]

If the european ets is so successful why have the Germans announced the decommissioning of all nuclear plants by 2020 ?

Because growing 3 heads is worse than black lung.

[ameerat42]

Scotty. Well pointed out. The facts are there. What we make of them is anyone's guess, dog's breakfast, all and none of the foregoing. The original topic asked about Carbon Tax and, implicitly, its efficacy in making a difference. Well, kingdom come had its chance a week or so ago. It didn't, and so I think we will be able to argue the toss until the next time. To me, a Carbon Tax is about as good as Tin Tacks or Brass Tacks, (or the latter Razoos). I suppose we can be considered lucky if it (KK) does not miss next time.

And to the above-cited question of

EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE

what empirical evidence is there for that? How does anyone arrive at such a conclusion? To admit that it is no more than the mere suggestion of media doomsayers, a questionable breed in themselves, would be a giant leap forward for person-kind. It would probably do more good than a Carbon Tax.

[Cage]

Well, well, this thread has certainly stirred the pot, and rightly so.

Personally I think that anything we in Australia can do to reduce Global warming is but a drop in the ocean, plus as has been alluded to above, global warming and ice ages seem to come and go.

Carbon taxes and the like are 'band-aid' fixes, and do not address the real issue which should be to totally eliminate pollution.

We should be going all out to ramp up the technology involving Solar power, wind power, tidal power and gravitational power (yes, it's an energy force and therefore a potential source of power) which are all there for the taking, are clean and sustainable.

We could also piss off the oil companies by tooling our vehicles to run 100% ethanol.

We, as a people of the planet, really need to move forward from the 'chop it down, dig it up and burn it mentality'.

As an old fart I won't be around to see what happens, but I have kids, and grand-kids, and I have concerns for what they are going to have to contend with.

Just my two bobs worth.

[PH005]

I am yet to read or hear from anyone, how the money from a CT will help the enviroment. All I have heard from the government is that some of the money will be given out to the less fortunate to offset any increases. Well excuse me, but how does that help anything ? All it does is win some votes. Why are we constantly treated like idiots ? OK, we are not all scientists, but we can tell when we are being fed a load of crap. (sorry).

[ving]

stop worrying you lot... the fluctuation are all natural...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

bring on the iceage.

[Papou]

Voted NO!!! for reasons mostly mentioned above , but if the Gov is so concerned about carbon and its effects to the atmospherre why are we exporting so much coal to help add to the so called problem??..Close Coal Mines, powerstaions and lets all get back to burning candles, Now the question is ?? do they put carbon into the atmosphere???...
Gov needs money and looking at ways off collecting . Simple as that!!!...
Should have just from the beginning said "We want a piece of the Pie from all the Coal etc that gets exported at such good present pricing"..

[ameerat42]

Should have just from the beginning said "We want a piece of the Pie from all the Coal etc that gets exported at such good present pricing"..

Agreed, and they tried. It was called the "Mining Tax". The rest is history.
Am.

[ApolloLXII]

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]

All of which took place in the U.S. I'm talking about weather events happening in other parts of the globe either at the same time or within a short space of time. Yes, there have always been weather fluctuations in past years, centuries etc. but not at such frequency of occurrence as has been happening in recent times.

[ApolloLXII]

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)

Yes, I have heard of the Ice Age which is not what we'll be in for if nothing is done about about the problem of global pollution of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is being warmed and it is in the atmosphere that our weather is created, hence the increased frequency of either unseasonal or severe weather events. It will be of no use worrying about hunger, species extinction or war because all of that will become increasingly more likely if the weather disrupts the growing of crops leading to food shortages as the years roll by.

Yep, good ol' planet earth does indeed wobble on it's axis (and wobbled a bit more apparently as a result of the Japanese earthquakes) but that wobble does not account for increasing weather phenomena. If you were to look at the planet from a few hundred thousand kilometres in space, you'll notice just how thin the atmospheric layer is in relation to the size of the planet. I saw somebody in an earlier post mention something about us all asphxiating from too much carbon dioxide or whatever but I'm sorry to say that such a thing eventuating is ridiculous. But it is because of the atmosphere being relatively thin that the problem of carbon pollution will exacerbate the climactic conditions of the planet, all around the globe. We can't just continue to pump all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and expect everything to remain hunky dory. Everything has it's limits and so does this planet.

[Bennymiata]

While we MIGHT be running out of oil, we still have far larger energy sources to use like frozen methane.

Experts say there is enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the US for the next 3,000 years, and that there's plenty of it at the bottom of virtually ever ocean.
That's far more energy than all the oil we know about, and will ever know about!

Personaly, I can't understand why we are continuing to use oil at all, when we have a very good alternative to use, that will not run out in our history.
It would be easy to convert oil refinieries to refine methane and would require virtually no changes to our cars or power stations to use it either.
It is certainly much safer, and less polluting to extract the frozen methane from the bottom of the oceans than it is to drill for oil at the bottom of the ocean, and far less worries about any spillage polluting too.
Some US power stations actually run on methane gas now, and this gas is being generated from garbage dumps!
Why don't we do that?
Instead of the gasses given off from rotting garbage going into the atmosphere, we should collect it and use it as an energy source.

I do firmly believe that we need to be smarter about our energy use and our energy wastage, and we need to explore new forms of free energy too like geothermal, hot rock technology which could be easily applied here., which don't cause pollution, as like many of you here, I want to breathe clean air and have clean water, but taxing us because our forefathers and us caused a minute fraction of extra CO2 into the air over the last few hundred years, just makes no sense to me and it certainly won't help pollution either.

You want to see extreme weather?
Go back many thousands of years and look at the weather patterns.
We've had everything from ice ages to air that is so thick with CO2 that mankind could not have existed - at a time when oxygen was a poison, to times when the volcanic activity killed most life on the earth.
There have been times when the earth was parched, and times when it flooded - mankind is but a flea on an elephant.
We might cause a very small itch, but we won't bring it down.

[ApolloLXII]

Nuclear is the safest of all forms of energy production.

So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.

[ricktas]

So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.

Warning: You seem to want to attack every other member for their views here. Everyone has a different opinion and even when other present you with factual links you jump on their views. I suggest you tone it down, or I will temporarily ban you!

[ApolloLXII]

While we MIGHT be running out of oil, we still have far larger energy sources to use like frozen methane.

Experts say there is enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the US for the next 3,000 years, and that there's plenty of it at the bottom of virtually ever ocean.
That's far more energy than all the oil we know about, and will ever know about!

Personaly, I can't understand why we are continuing to use oil at all, when we have a very good alternative to use, that will not run out in our history.
It would be easy to convert oil refinieries to refine methane and would require virtually no changes to our cars or power stations to use it either.
It is certainly much safer, and less polluting to extract the frozen methane from the bottom of the oceans than it is to drill for oil at the bottom of the ocean, and far less worries about any spillage polluting too.
Some US power stations actually run on methane gas now, and this gas is being generated from garbage dumps!
Why don't we do that?
Instead of the gasses given off from rotting garbage going into the atmosphere, we should collect it and use it as an energy source.

I do firmly believe that we need to be smarter about our energy use and our energy wastage, and we need to explore new forms of free energy too like geothermal, hot rock technology which could be easily applied here., which don't cause pollution, as like many of you here, I want to breathe clean air and have clean water, but taxing us because our forefathers and us caused a minute fraction of extra CO2 into the air over the last few hundred years, just makes no sense to me and it certainly won't help pollution either.

You want to see extreme weather?
Go back many thousands of years and look at the weather patterns.
We've had everything from ice ages to air that is so thick with CO2 that mankind could not have existed - at a time when oxygen was a poison, to times when the volcanic activity killed most life on the earth.
There have been times when the earth was parched, and times when it flooded - mankind is but a flea on an elephant.
We might cause a very small itch, but we won't bring it down.

Very good post, especially the last sentence. No, mankind will not bring down the planet. It will be the earth bringing mankind down, possibly even out of existence. Dinosaurs once ruled the earth and now they are nothing but fossils so, unless we want to end up like them maybe, we really need to take care and pay attention to the planet on which we all depend. Not enough of us care and too many of us are prepared to just work for the weekend and let the future generations sort it out.

[Lance B]

All of which took place in the U.S. I'm talking about weather events happening in other parts of the globe either at the same time or within a short space of time. Yes, there have always been weather fluctuations in past years, centuries etc. but not at such frequency of occurrence as has been happening in recent times.

It is no different now than it has ever been, just that we see more because of the amount of TV/media coverage, personal mobile phone coverage, everybody's got a point and shoot coverage etc. In countries/places like China, India, much of Africa, South America, we would not have even heard of the devestation that storms etc would have made 20+ years ago as most of these places had no or little coverage as they either didn't have TV/media or the regimes wouldn't allow reports to be made. To make a statment that wetahr occurances like we have been having are worse than previous is being quite nefarious and this is the type of hysteria that the media plays on in order to get you to watch TV coverage or buy newspapers etc. Don't fall for it.

The hottest day in Sydney is still January 14th 1939, yet if you listen to the media, it could have it could have been anyone of the days in the last 20 years! I remember the floods back in 1974 which were just as bad if not worse than the recent one. In fact, floods occur about every 20 years in QLD and some are worse than others. However, Queensland had a wetter spring in 1900, so what does that tell you? Nothing, as all it means that we have wet years and dry years and some are worse and some are not so bad.

There is also a major link between sunspot activity and weather events on earth and it also affects the temperatures, El Nino/La Nina etc. Do some research on it and you will see that it is not mans involvement, but natural fluctuating climate that has been going on like this for thousands of years.

[Lance B]

So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.

I am sorry to have to say this, but this is quite a silly statement to make. The fact of the matter is, why would they build a nuclear facility in my backyard? They aren't about to build a coal/gas fired power station there either, so why a nuclear one? They will build it where it needs to go, and that won't be my backyard or yours. It will be somewhere away from populated areas near a grid and where they can easily supply fuel, access the grid and remove waste. Yes, it will be away from built up areas, but that is the same for any power plant.

The thing is, Australia is the safest place in the world to have nuclear power as we have:
1) stable government
2) no wars
3) we have the stuff here already and therefore we do not have to ship it far
4) no earthquakes
5) we can store it safely underground in the middle of the desert and yes it is SAFE to do this.

I think you need to have a reality check as far as future requirements of power needs for not only Australia, but the world. And remember, what we do in Australia has zero impact on what other governments will end up doing regardiong their power needs. China will use whatever power they want to, as will India and any other country, in order to provide cheap power and in many cases, this will be nuclear. People are already screming about paying an extra $500 a year on their electricity bills and using only these pie in th sky ideas of wind and solar would push the electricity price into stratospheric areas. People really need to get a reality check. If you want any semblance of the current way you live now to be like that in the future, and I mean anything like the way you live now, then you will have to embrace nuclear at least in the short term. Nothing will ever be cheap again, because make no bones about it, the reason we have what we have is completely because of cheap power, nothing more nothing less. If we don't have cheap power, China and India and other countries certainly will and we will be left behind.

Did you read my dissertation on power requirements if we go the way of electric cars? I will represent it:

"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?"

[Lance B]

Very good post, especially the last sentence. No, mankind will not bring down the planet. It will be the earth bringing mankind down, possibly even out of existence. Dinosaurs once ruled the earth and now they are nothing but fossils so, unless we want to end up like them maybe, we really need to take care and pay attention to the planet on which we all depend. Not enough of us care and too many of us are prepared to just work for the weekend and let the future generations sort it out.

So, the dinosaurs created CO2 and killed themselves off too?

[kiwi]

The carbon tax isn't really about creating a tax to consumers, the intent really us to transfer costs from bad energy users to good energy users via taxing higher say coal users and generators and giving incentives to say solar, it's trading mote than taxing.

Now, should current governments care about climate change, science would say yes in an overwhelming manner. There are of course a vocal
Minority that various skeptics and talkshow jocks grasp to, probably the same minority that say there's no benefit in shooting RAW

I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that

[peterb666]

The funny thing about this thread and most discussions on "carbon tax" is that those against it because of the cost don't seem to realise that regardless of a "tax" (which will apply directly to polluters) or not, it will cost pretty much the same to clean up the mess we have created for ourselves.

We should leave the environment in pretty much the same state as we entered it. That hasn't happened for a long time. We are stuffing the world we live in.

Like peeing in your bath water, there comes a time when the water gets too dirty and you have to pull the plug. Regardless when it is done, you still need a new tub of water. Do you wait until the water is dark yellow and get a few infections along the way, or do you change your bad practices now? I vote for getting a bath tub of clean water and keeping it longer, rather than enduring more time in the dirty stuff.

[peterb666]

I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that

The problem is that there are some motivated by short-term vested interests, usually associated with greed. There is another group that find it easier to believe those with vested interests. Change is always hard to implement.