Carbon Tax - post announcement

[Scotty72]

Oh, please! Mean-spirited tightwads stopping starving Africans from cooking and keeping warm cheaply (sic)? You've missed the whole point! From an environmental perspective which is better, burning coal or chopping down trees and destroying habitat to burn wood? And how benevolent can we be as a nation when our government has legislated us out of business and into the poor house ourselves (figuratively speaking of course)?

Just like the GST turned us into an economic back-water... Or did it?

$5 billion investment in coal mines the day after the announcement. Sounds like the coal companies are crying wolf. How surprising.

[geoffsta]

OK. I can see that Australia is becoming a dictated country. Our democractic right is being eroded by the current government.
At the last election, The leader herself said "I will not be introducing a Carbon Tax" Just over half of Australia believed her, and took what she said as gospel. The result after a bit of haggling being the re-elected Labour government.
If she had said "I will be introducing a carbon tax" do you think that they would have been re-elected. Personally I do not think so.
At least John Howard had the balls to say he was going to bring in a GST prior to his election, and still stayed in.

If this country was as democratic as it should be, the current government should be taking notice of every single poll taken on the subject of carbon tax, including this one, and scrapping it. Then take the time to listen to their electorate who I believe is in favour of cleaner energy, and saving the enviroment. They should work with the CSIRO by giving them more funds to help the "Big polluters" to clean up the way they produce their product.

BTW I'm not a Tony Abbott fan either, he would not really have been any better.

Who cares who produces the most carbon, or who doesn't. The question is "do you want carbon tax or not"
Here is a quick fact that has not been considered.
An old growth forest gives off far more carbon with decaying wood and compost than all the transport companies combined.

[Lance B]

how can we employ more public servants when we cant afford to pay the ones we already have? Wasn't there action because the police/nurses had the wages capped?

It might interest you to know that more people either:
1) work for the government - ie have any sort of government job
2) receive some sort of pension from the government
3) on the dole

than people who do not recieve some sort of payment from the government. Therefore there are less people paying taxes in the private sector than people who receive money from the government in some way or form, whether it be for a job they do or in some sort of pension!! This is why it is so important for us to nuture our private sector companies as if we didn't there would be no way on this earth that Australia could survive with the burden that we have in order to pay all these people.

[Lance B]

The other day, when questioned about the future of the Australian Coal industry due to a carbon tax, Juliar Gillard said that even though there would be a carbon tax, the coal industry would expand??!!

Now, I am wondering how this could be if the object of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions and therefore our reliance on coal as a source of energy. So, she can’t mean that the coal industry would expand in Australia and therefore it must be the that any increase must come from an increase of exports of coal. But hang on a minute, firstly, if we have a carbon tax on coal, then our exports will be more expensive when compared to other nations who export coal and therefore we will lose out to those other countries as their coal will be cheaper. Secondly, the fact that we have introduced a carbon tax was supposed to “shame” (which is a joke) the rest of the world into having their own carbon tax and therefore their use of coal would also reduce, not increase!! So, on no level can she make the statement that the coal industry would expand when you look at these facts.

However, China is opening up a new coal fired power plant every month, so even if we reduced our emissions by by 100%, it would be more than taken up by China's increase in use. On no level will a carbon tax make one iota of difference to the world's CO2 levels and anyone that thinks it will is living in lala land and the whole thing is a con.

[Scotty72]

When any govt listens to polls / focus groups they are mercilessly criticized for lacking courage / leadership etc.

When they don't listen to polls / focus groups and show leadership, they are mercilessly criticized for not following public opinion.

Usually by the same core group of whingers!

So, do we expect them to call heads and tails at the same time? Then the criticism would be indecisive.

The lesson for any govt, what ever you do, there will always be limitless complaints.

Scotty

[Kym]

Australian Coal facts...

08/09 Produced 438.0 million tonnes
08/09 Export 263.4 million tonnes (131.4 metallurgical, 132.0 thermal)

Australia's black coal exports were worth around $A55 billion in 2008-09, more than double the previous year's value.
Black coal remains Australia's largest commodity export, representing around 23 per cent of Australia's total exports of goods and services in 2008-09 - see chart below.

Australia maintained its position as the world's largest coal exporter with exports of 261 Mt in 2008-09, or 28% of the world total - see charts below.

http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the...l-exports.aspx

And the greens want to stop all coal exports? While that would definitely reduce CO2 it would hurt in a very big way.

[Lance B]

When any govt listens to polls / focus groups they are mercilessly criticized for lacking courage / leadership etc.

When they don't listen to polls / focus groups and show leadership, they are mercilessly criticized for not following public opinion.

Yep, like now. In this instance Gillard went to the polls saying she would not introduce a carbon tax. We should have the option to vote on such a serious issue. Intorducing a carbon tax when she said she wouldn't is lying and wrong in every sense of the word.

Usually by the same core group of whingers!

So, do we expect them to call heads and tails at the same time? Then the criticism would be indecisive.

The lesson for any govt, what ever you do, there will always be limitless complaints.

Scotty

Only from minority groups with their little agendas or those that are a staunch Labor voter or Liberal voter and therefore in a minority also. Generally, most government decisions are either unconcerning to most of the voters or applauded. And this is the problem with the system of voting we have at the moment. People who think they are disollusioned with the two major parties and then they either vote independent or green without really checking their mantras and we end up with minority parties dictating to the government what they want introduced - read cabon tax that the Greens wanted, when I am sure that Gillard wouldn't have introduced a carbon tax if she didn't have to appease the Greens. I am sure she would have kept her promise of "no carbon tax under the government I lead". So, what we have is not a majority running the country, but a minority, ie about 10% who voted for the Greens, and even less that voted for Windsor, for the buffoon Oakshot and for Bob Katter. Of that 10% of Greens vote I can wager that many didn't really understand what the Greens actually stood for. Now, as you can see, the minority is pulling the strings and therefore it is no doubt that most of the population are furious about a carbon tax as it is the minority that want one and the majority didn't vote for it!

[Lance B]

Australian Coal facts...

08/09 Produced 438.0 million tonnes
08/09 Export 263.4 million tonnes (131.4 metallurgical, 132.0 thermal)





http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the...l-exports.aspx

And the greens want to stop all coal exports? While that would definitely reduce CO2 it would hurt in a very big way.

Exactly. I wonder where we are going to get out tax dollar then when, as I stated above, there are already more people who live off the government than actually pay taxes for them to have that priveledge. I mean, how long can we keep operating as a country when less people pay the taxes for the government to hand out to the majority of people who receive some sort of payment from the government. It beggars belief. I keep saying this, but people really need to get a reality check.

[WhoDo]

Ummm! Looks like you're mis-quoting to make the facts sat what you want them to.

I said the good stuff (coking coal which is closer to what I said and burns more efficiently). According to the industry itself (but, maybe you know better), a tonne of that gives you about $2 worth of tax impact once everything is considered.

Of course, both sides will manipulate the facts & figures to say whatever they want them to.

Oh, dear. COKING coal is used to make COKE to produce steel. That has nothing to do with providing cooking and heating for starving Africans. Steaming coal and lignite just might! Yes, coking coal burns more efficiently but it's too high quality and expensive to use for that purpose. Cheaper steaming coal is far more prevalent, providing as it does more than 40% of the world's electricity. The World Coal Association statistics are a good resource, although usually 12mths to 2 years behind due to international data gathering constraints. I certainly don't distrust "the industry", Scotty, but since I work in that industry I think I'd sooner trust my knowledge and experience in that area.

While we're on the subject, does either China or India need our steaming coal? Nope. They've got plenty of their own, albeit pretty poor quality in some cases. They'll burn the heck out of that for as long as they like without the slightest concern over our carbon tax! So who is exempting our coal exports going to benefit? Japan, mostly, and since their recent problems that's a precarious situation at best. The verdict is still out on the Japanese economy recovering from tsunami's and the like.

We have fantastic quality coal, steaming and coking, in this country but it's a long way from our markets and every dollar counts in competition. Even if the cost of diesel to fuel the trains, that take the export product to the port, rises by a significant amount as a consequence, a number of our volatile export markets will look elsewhere to countries like Indonesia, USA, Canada and South Africa among others. Indonesia in particular offers steaming coal at around half the price of the Australian product. We will have lost our excellent balance of trade surplus of late to a stupid political whim that has zero prospect of making a significant difference to climate change.

As an aside, I should mention that I edit a training manual called Understanding Coal Quality, which is highly regarded both in Australia and overseas. I also co-wrote the companion International Supplement that covers coal quality in the rest of the world. That doesn't mean I know all there is to know on the subject; I certainly don't. It does mean that I'm fairly well versed, having widely researched the subject on both sides of this debate. Do I have a vested interest in distorting the facts about coal, and carbon emissions? Nope. I'm an educator not a politician and the fact I work in the coal industry is both incidental and unsurprising given where I live. Tomorrow I could just as easily be working in some greener or more sustainable industry providing adult education, and either way I'm still a father and grandfather concerned about the future I leave behind. Fair enough?

[WhoDo]

Just like the GST turned us into an economic back-water... Or did it?

I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!

$5 billion investment in coal mines the day after the announcement. Sounds like the coal companies are crying wolf. How surprising.

Do you know how long it takes to plan an investment that size, do the due diligence, etc? The CT didn't exist when this investment was a reality. I'd prefer to listen to the CEO of Anglo American Coal who yesterday said if the government thinks there aren't other options for investing in coal elsewhere then they are dead wrong! It is naive to believe what politicians tell you at the best of times but least of all when they are trying to "sell" an unpopular, and in this case downright stupid, taxation scheme!

[Art Vandelay]

I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!

yep, at that time it was to appease the democrats. Which is nothing in comparison to the way we're now all hanging in a noose while that bumbling Bob Brown has the handle to the trap door.

[Blueywa]

Something to ponder FROM 1975





Have a look at this article published in Newsweek on the 28th April 1975: http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf . Forward this to your friends and family.

Here are a few interesting observations on claims made in the aricle, in order of appearance:

1. Food output will drop within ten years. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

2. There is a massive accumulation of evidence for global cooling. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

3. Global cooling is blamed for causing the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

4. Scientists claim that occurences of weather extremes represents advance signs of global cooling. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

5. The National Academy of Sciences said that global cooling "would force economic and social adjustment on a worldwide scale". Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

6. Scientists in 1975 claimed that the world was one-sixth of the way to the next ice age. Strange! because now, in 2011 we are nowhere near this predicted ice age.

7. Scientists were able to produce a world map indicating who was going to be affected by global cooling. Strange! because similar maps are produced today by global warming advocates, predicting a gloomy future for the physical world. Who was/is right?

8. Global cooling will lead to droughts, floods, extended dry spells, delayed monsoons and local temperature increases. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

9. "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even to allay its effects." Aren't we all glad that politicians did nothing to warm up the earth in the late 1970s! I think politicians should do nothing in 2011 as well.

10. We should trust in God to keep the climate of the world in equilibrium even if this leads to minor variations from century to century and decade to decade.

Combating global cooling or global warming -real of perceived- is too large and an unreasonable request for mankind. Do not let politicians fool the population into thinking they need to start a new tax to "fight" climate change. Nor allow scientist to talk you into an impending climate catastrophy. If you look at a few front covers of news magazines below, you will see how alarmist scientists (and the media) can be.



Hank Optland
M. App. Sc. (Env. Sc.)

[Art Vandelay]

Good post blueywa, I was just thinking before that I was still waiting for the Ice age that was promised in the 70's

[Mark L]

i like the idea of taxing pollution in order to have it reduced in the long term... however co2 is the wrong pollution to tax. as i stated in the other co2 tax thread, if us humans didnt exist there would still be 97% of the current level of co2 being produced....

sigh!
ask me again in 2020...

Quote from http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-matter.html
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks"."

Not that I'd believe everything in NewSientist........http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-promise.html Although it's probably more credible than me

Back to learning how to take good photos so they can be posted for informed CC

[jim]

...6. Scientists in 1975 claimed that the world was one-sixth of the way to the next ice age. Strange! because now, in 2011 we are nowhere near this predicted ice age...

On 28 April 1975, Newsweek magazine wrote:

"Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average"

Not quite the same thing. 1975 was near the end of a long period of cooling, and Newsweek found somebody with a short sensational quote. There were concerns that the present interglacial might be coming to an end (though not very much in the way of definite predictions from real scientists), and these do seem to have faded away as the present warming trend became apparent.

[Scotty72]

I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!


Do you know how long it takes to plan an investment that size, do the due diligence, etc? The CT didn't exist when this investment was a reality. I'd prefer to listen to the CEO of Anglo American Coal who yesterday said if the government thinks there aren't other options for investing in coal elsewhere then they are dead wrong! It is naive to believe what politicians tell you at the best of times but least of all when they are trying to "sell" an unpopular, and in this case downright stupid, taxation scheme!

Yes, I know you prefer to listen to those who give facts that best suit your opinion - we all do.

Don't forget, the Liberal Party only withdrew its own ETS when it was expedient to do so, they'll soon change their mind again.

Also, Abbott has publicly stated he'll not respect a popular vote on an ETS and you can only believe (according to him) a promise if it is written down. So, why (apart from blind partisan politics or the fact his drivel happens to fit your self interest) do you expect any better from Gillard. It is so hypocritical - they are politicians = they lie = get used to it.

As for coking coal - it seems if the figures about that don't support your sky falling on the economy rubbish, you just dismiss it. Yes, it is used for steel, but steel is one 500 polluters to pay the tax. And the coal inputs will be less than negligent. Ohh! The world will end, no more steel ever - we'll have to live in caves.

Yes, the investment takes a long time to prepare but seconds to not sign if the tax means the sky will fall in on the coal industry. It seems this tax will be negligible. Otherwise, why not pull out of a record deal?

Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.

Good future planning

As for the juvenile argument that India isn't doing it, why should we? What if your neighbour decides to not pay his taxes or wear pants on his morning walk, are you going to use the same logic.

This is nothing more than I want, I want, I want but, I don't want to actually be the one to pay.

Scotty

[geoffsta]

Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.

I really don't think car companies, and other companies that rely now on fossil fuels are dumb enough to wait until it runs out, then go belly up.
What does make me laugh is, there is a big push to use less eletricity, but at the same time bring out a vehicle that after 4 hours of use has to have a 8 hour electricity charge.

[WhoDo]

Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.

Oh? How so? In fact I support no such thing! I expect that we will run out of fossil fuels sooner rather than later and I desperately want our leaders to take action now to find renewable alternatives. I can't say it plainer than that. Just because I'm not naive enough to believe what a PM says when in sales mode, or support tax impositions that I don't think are productive of real change, don't be misled to believe that I'm an enemy of the planet or whatever. That is simply flawed logic.

Scotty, we've danced to this tune before, and we both know that we won't end up agreeing, so I'd say that it's best we A2D (Agree to Disagree) and leave it at that before either one of us is tempted to allow emotion to govern reason. Ok?

I hope you enjoy visiting my home town again this week, and think of me and my fellow Hunter AP'ers while you're doing so eh? Cheers

[WhoDo]

Quote from http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-matter.html
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks"."

Actually this is probably quite true, and has more to do with the destruction of vast tracts of forests by fire for food production (those are one of the carbon 'sinks' you mentioned BTW) than the amount of fossil carbon being burned to produce electricity. The point is that there isn't necessarily a causal relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and increased atmospheric CO2 levels just because the two happen to exist at the same time. All you can say is "yes, both conditions exist". What if they both have a common cause that hasn't been dealt with? What about increased population as the common cause? How does a CT resolve that particular issue if it is indeed the root cause of both problems?

[Scotty72]

Let's just agree to disagree.

Perhaps you'll vote liberal who will repeal the CT and replace it with something equally as dumb. Remember, Abbott beat Turnbul by 1 vote.

Perhaps you'll vote labour who will be equally as dumb.

Or perhaps you'll vote green who will try to be even dumber than the big boys.

The simple fact is - we are using up resources (ESP forests and oil) at an unbelievably unsustainable rate. The more we ignore that by squabbling about who will win the pissing contest, the harder the inevitable crash will be.

Once again, if you think a CT will push up fuel and inflation. What do you think will happen when a billion extra Chinese and Indians (over the next decade) discover they can now afford a car and our fossil fueled lifestyle.

Some predictions are that these 2 countries desire for cars over the next decade will double the number of cars on Earth.

I think $5 / litre will be a bargain.