Uncertain what a carbon tax is

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

The way I see it this government is looking to the future long term not the electoral cycle if it were the electoral cycle they would be doing the "POPULAR" thing to get reelected. This tax is not aimed at the battlers it is aimed at the emiters of CO2 and that is why the compensation will be there to ensure it doesn't impact on those least able to afford it.

How does a tax on carbon reduce CO2 emissions?
The producers pass on that tax to the consumer. The consumer gets compensated and uses as much product as they did to start with.

Phil

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

How does a tax on carbon reduce CO2 emissions?
The producers pass on that tax to the consumer. The consumer gets compensated and uses as much product as they did to start with.

Phil

Because the way to make money is to cut down on expenditure and company's will look to reduce expenditure every way they can so pricing carbon makes it more economical to reduce it anyway they can.

You say they can pass the cost on to consumers but in reality this will not work as they still need the consumer to buy the goods and in the case of luxury items especially people will go without so competition with other companies and the need for stock turnover will mean they have to find other ways to reduce the impact of the tax. The consumer is not going to be hundred percent compensated so they may not consumer as much as they did to start with.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

With our mineral resources, our technologies, we should have the highest standard of living in the world. And we have not. Yes when you compare Australia to third world countries it looks like heaven. When you compare it to countries like Germany maybe not.

Phil

Actually Phil we leave Germany in the dust on the standard of living scale This is the problem, on a national scale many Aussies just don't appreciate how good it is here compared to the rest of the World, sure we have people in circumstances that we can and should improve but over all we have it about as good as the World will allow...we all just need to remember that when we telescope owners are bitterly complaining about things, keep a little perspective is all

Mike

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Sorry, forgot trains, buses, airports, air traffic control, street lights, libraries, the ABC, firefighters, ambulances, the SES, flood relief, bushfire relief, negotiation with other countries etc etc etc that I get from taxes.

... All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, What have the Romans ever done for us?


I'm not lampooning your point, Paddy - well well made but your quote immediately took me back

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Because the way to make money is to cut down on expenditure and company's will look to reduce expenditure every way they can so pricing carbon makes it more economical to reduce it anyway they can.

You say they can pass the cost on to consumers but in reality this will not work as they still need the consumer to buy the goods and in the case of luxury items especially people will go without so competition with other companies and the need for stock turnover will mean they have to find other ways to reduce the impact of the tax. The consumer is not going to be hundred percent compensated so they may not consumer as much as they did to start with.

To a degree this will be correct, but most felt carbon pollution products are services to the community not disposable products. Options like Electricity, Gas utilities and so on. The affect will be felt more in WA though as the power industry is in monopoly and to use the Greenpower initiative by the federal government requires an additional 6c KW/h, this does not seem right. Turns out the government is subsidising coal and gas power generation and this has not allowed green energy to take a foothold.

I recently phone the state energy authority and they did explain some sort of compensation they were not able to clarify. Consumer power is going to be the biggest killer of this tax. It will not reduce carbon only charge for it.

I believe one initiative being considered is to place a cap on electricity use for a typical family home based on construction or household members. This is a far better solution than carbon tax. This allow the consumer to scale back luxury consumption. I like this approach as pensioner can start to apply heating to their home based on the needs.

The government in so many instances get a bulldozer out to pull out the weeds. This does not represent effective way contributing awareness on efficient power usage either and letting the consumer take action for there carbon usage. Greens want to take control of the carbon usage instead of educating consumers to take responsibility for themselves.

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Actually Phil we leave Germany in the dust on the standard of living scale This is the problem, on a national scale many Aussies just don't appreciate how good it is here compared to the rest of the World, sure we have people in circumstances that we can and should improve but over all we have it about as good as the World will allow...we all just need to remember that when we telescope owners are bitterly complaining about things, keep a little perspective is all

Mike

Fair comment

I think German roads and renewable energy is far more developed though.

Like I said its not about comparison it is doing the best with what we have.
Australia has a lot.
Like Marc said

Originally Posted by multiweb

Right now just a bunch of clowns driving it (in circles)

phil

[midnight (Darrin)]

Australia has one of the best electricity networks in the world. One only needs to look at the tough grid connection requirements of generators to see.

I have worked in many power stations (NSW, Vic, SE/Central QLD, WA) and grid compliance is strict.

The penalties for non compliance are not so much "fines" but in loss of generation and how quickly the "market" can increase from say $30MW/Hr up to several thousand dollars /MWHr (I think Nemmco had a ceiling of $5000/MWHr).

However, the general argument with the carbon tax is how power stations are seen as dirty and polluting. This is very subjective in how you assess this and I feel that the public is being unnecessarily biased (slowly over time) against large power stations. Some interesting facts about coal fired :

1. The technology is proven and highly reliable with 100yrs of maturity.
2. Worst case scenario I can think of is a localised explosion. No fall out or gas emissions that may have harm many kms away.
3. Safe and relatively easy to operate.
4. The fuel is general benign - it can be stockpiled without significant containment issues such as tanks, pipelines, water table leaching etc.
5. The fuel can be stockpiled in the event of supply failure/issues. Try doing that with gas.
6. The boiler provides a reserve energy should the grid require it (eg a large load trips off/power line tripping or another generator trips off). Grid stability is what gives Australia it superior reliability.

I really love solar and the idea of distributed power but, solar like wind, is inherently unpredictable and potentially noisy from a power fluctuation point of view. Most wind turbines still need a synchronis generator on the grid to provide the Var support.

I just hope the carbon tax directs some of this money towards solving the more immediate question of dealing with CO2 emissions in bulk from power stations in an economical way if one believes in climate change. I personally think this can be done and easily knock 30-40% off our emissions.

My belief is that Aus should move towards distributed power generation with a bulk of daytime peak generation coming from solar (for example) and retain a base load coal fired generation using supercritical technology (over 40% efficient). Having a large 500MW + machine ramp up and then down is inefficient. And where are most people at 10AM when grid load is near max and the sun is high - at work and not at home using power.

Darrin...

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Turns out the government is subsidising coal and gas power generation and this has not allowed green energy to take a foothold.

This is the crux of the problem the government needs to stop this subsidy if they are serious about combating carbon until they take this bitter pill we will not move foward in clean power and a cleaner atmosphere.

But then you get all the complaints (and rightly so these are peoples lives we are talking about) about the jobs in these industries. It is like another industrial revolution lots of jobs were lost during this time but if we are honest would we really like to go back to before the industrial revolution now

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Because the way to make money is to cut down on expenditure and company's will look to reduce expenditure every way they can so pricing carbon makes it more economical to reduce it anyway they can.

You say they can pass the cost on to consumers but in reality this will not work as they still need the consumer to buy the goods and in the case of luxury items especially people will go without so competition with other companies and the need for stock turnover will mean they have to find other ways to reduce the impact of the tax. The consumer is not going to be hundred percent compensated so they may not consumer as much as they did to start with.

I dont see Gas, electricity, fuel, steel and food as luxury items.
For our society to function as it is, the level of consumption of these products will not change. And if you also factor in population growth the consumption will increase.

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by midnight

Australia has one of the best electricity networks in the world. One only needs to look at the tough grid connection requirements of generators to see..

Shame its still not a public asset.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

I dont see Gas, electricity, fuel, steel and food as luxury items.
For our society to function as it is, the level of consumption of these products will not change. And if you also factor in population growth the consumption will increase.

All these industries want to make money also so I see them trying to cut costs as well and will not want to upset their customers either as there is competition for them as well so they will move to cleaner forms of energy. I never said I was only talking about luxury items it will have the same impact people will use less power, gas and will drive less as fuel gets more expensive I mean some people spend more on a litre of water than they spend on fuel and that seems just wrong somehow.

I understand where you are coming from but I think people need to accept that we can't just go on as we always have it is like the frog placed in boiling water it jumps out straight away but put it in cold water and bring it to boil it will just sit there until it dies.

Please don't put frogs in boiling water I only use this as it is scientifically proven that this will happen.

No frogs were hurt in the writing of this post

[Paddy (Patrick)]

Originally Posted by stephenb

... All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, What have the Romans ever done for us?


I'm not lampooning your point, Paddy - well well made but your quote immediately took me back

"tis one of the great quotes, I reckon

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

All these industries want to make money also so I see them trying to cut costs as well and will not want to upset their customers either as there is competition for them as well so they will move to cleaner forms of energy. I never said I was only talking about luxury items it will have the same impact people will use less power, gas and will drive less as fuel gets more expensive I mean some people spend more on a litre of water than they spend on fuel and that seems just wrong somehow.

I understand where you are coming from but I think people need to accept that we can't just go on as we always have it is like the frog placed in boiling water it jumps out straight away but put it in cold water and bring it to boil it will just sit there until it dies.

Please don't put frogs in boiling water I only use this as it is scientifically proven that this will happen.

No frogs were hurt in the writing of this post

You are right we can't keep going the same way.

I will quote my self here.

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

Here is something to think about, What was the price of fuel ten years ago? around 60c to 70c. What is the price of fuel today? about double and a little bit more depends what state you are in. Now has the consumption of fuel gone up or down? Have people stopped using fuel because of the increasing price? No they have not. People use the same amount of fuel now or more as they did ten years ago. The price of fuel has not effected the consumption. This will be the same for a carbon tax.

If you factor population growth you will never stop CO2 emissions from rising unless you stop producing CO2. Try getting 7 billion people to hold their breath.

I am glad no frogs were hurt.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

People are using less fuel as they are demanding more fuel efficient cars just look at one of the available options the Prius 1000 klm's per tank. So the price of fuel is having an impact on fuel consumption.

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

People are using less fuel as they are demanding more fuel efficient cars just look at one of the available options the Prius 1000 klm's per tank. So the price of fuel is having an impact on fuel consumption.

Well then global consumption of fuel should be going down.
We won't have to worry about peak oil then.
It is peak oil that is driving fuel economy, not the price.

The population in Australia is increasing by about 300,000 per year, you can't honestly say the demand for fuel or energy is decreasing?

[CDKPhil]

I have a solution.
All who support the carbon tax can pay it.
And all that do not support the carbon tax can find better ways of reducing their carbon footprint.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

I have a solution.
All who support the carbon tax can pay it.
And all that do not support the carbon tax can find better ways of reducing their carbon footprint.

Nice ideals but totally impractical. There is no doubt we are going to pay it though so I expect I will utilise my experience to better things for myself and let the others suffer the tax. Becoming quite cynical in my old age but that is the way things have to go.

[PeterM]

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
And what a mess has been created, replies here are a good indication of public feeling.
6 prime ministers running the country and some here think we are better off than ever, come on guys talk to someone in small business or about to lose their home to see what a nonsense is going on in this country.
PeterM.

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by PeterM

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
And what a mess has been created, replies here are a good indication of public feeling.
6 prime ministers running the country and some here think we are better off than ever, come on guys talk to someone in small business or about to lose their home to see what a nonsense is going on in this country.
PeterM.

Well Said

Phil

[TrevorW]

Ok trees take in Co2 and pump out oxygen

simple plant more trees, - no carbon tax needed

I suggest people don't stop breathing but stop flatulating, 7 billion people doing it causes severe methane build up which is more damaging