Carbon Tax

[medhead]

China, India and the rest of Asia will not stop building coal fired power plants. If Aussie coal, with the carbon tax applied is more expensive than coal from another supplier, well you know whose coal those power plants will burn. Not ours.

The major problem with this idea of more expensive coal is that coal is priced globally, same as iron ore. The price is agreed on a benchmark across the world, so you can't actually have more expensive coal from one country. Also India has introduced a carbon price on coal. So even if there was more expensive and less expensive coal, India at least is going to apply a charge.

 

[connieguy]

So same amount of coal same amount of pollution, wonder if anyone has told Julia & Bob

I suspect this is more about Bob than Julia. Bottom line is, and I would suggest Bob does know, the rapidly melting Arctic ice cap makes it all too little and too late. But who has the balls to tell the electorate the truth about the melting ice cube, admit we humans got the time scale wrong and NO carbon tax or anything else can stop this and close the Pandora box of accelerated Methane release?

Besides I suggest Bob is enjoying being the power behind the throne and telling the PM what she can and can not do. This is not democracy but a whole country being run by a very small number of people who are enjoying the power trip and making our PM march to the beat of their idealistic but not consensuses drum.

This is really a sad time to be Australian.

 

[connieguy]

The major problem with this idea of more expensive coal is that coal is priced globally, same as iron ore. The price is agreed on a benchmark across the world, so you can't actually have more expensive coal from one country. Also India has introduced a carbon price on coal. So even if there was more expensive and less expensive coal, India at least is going to apply a charge.

Correct. So Australian coal exporters then need to wear the A$23 / tonne of CO2 cost impost. As good thermal coal has around 2.5 MWh (2,500 kWhs) of electrical energy generation per tonne (assuming 40% thermal conversion efficiency to electricity), that puts up the effective cost to the exporters of around A$57.50 per tonne of good New Castle Black assuming 1 tonne of CO2 release per MWh generated. That is a lot for Aussie coal exporters to absorb to maintain price competitiveness with other non carbon taxed coal exporters.

Fair enough if all developed nations did likewise and did it back in 1997. But today it is too little and too late. The climate scientists are already saying what is happening in the Arctic is irreversible. About time the Greens started telling the truth as I'm 100% sure they know what is happening in the Arctic but have apparently decided to stay quite as they are apparently enjoying being the puppeteer being the throne and pulling the PM's strings. Sort of like the Wizard of OZ.



Democracy in action. My cough.

 

[Moody]

I suspect this is more about Bob than Julia. Bottom line is, and I would suggest Bob does know, the rapidly melting Arctic ice cap makes it all too little and too late. But who has the balls to tell the electorate the truth about the melting ice cube, admit we humans got the time scale wrong and NO carbon tax or anything else can stop this and close the Pandora box of accelerated Methane release?

Besides I suggest Bob is enjoying being the power behind the throne and telling the PM what she can and can not do. This is not democracy but a whole country being run by a very small number of people who are enjoying the power trip and making our PM march to the beat of their idealistic but not consensuses drum.

This is really a sad time to be Australian.

Your last statement is true, the preceding paragraphs are pure bitterness. How come democracy is only good when we "our mates" are in? It is either a good thing or a bad thing, so if it is bad then put up a different system. And there have been plenty of examples in recent years of the government of the day licking the daggs from some loony with a strategic vote (anyone remember Brian?), Bob Brown looks saintly in comparison (queue pithy insult from the feckless).

A carbon tax or ETS was always going to happen, so all the last election has done was to bring it back into this term. If you remember a few years back there was broad consensus from ALL parties for such a scheme. Then a moderate conservative leader was rolled for a regressive hard right winger, and suddenly all bets are off and like the boat people and mining tax issues, all rational debate was chucked overboard.

So we bizarrely have the Tory leader in the UK praising Australia's leadership on carbon pricing, whilst the opposition plays spoiler and tries to pretend they have a better plan. Nobody I repeat NOBODY thinks is true - not even Tony. It's just typical opposition spoiling tactics.

Australia is the best placed economy in the world to introduce a carbon tax, so if we can't be bothered then you might as well give up on humanity all together.

 

[odysseus]

So Wayne Swan causing the dollar to go higher was good then but if Tony Abbott did it now it would be bad?
In fact neither proposition is correct.The Reserve bank should be given most of the ? credit for the higher dollar.

I would have expected you to be more intelligent than that, so can only be surprised at why you keep trying to twist my words. Again, that's not what I wrote.

As for the higher dollar, I wouldn't put it down to a single party, and not the Reserve Bank either - although their practices were beneficial to it.

 

[odysseus]

Wall Street Journal has its slant on how stupid this carbon tax is...

Ah, yes, another part of Murdoch's News Limited stable. And we know how objective they are, and what their local mouthpieces are agitating for.

 

[connieguy]

Your last statement is true, the preceding paragraphs are pure bitterness.

Bitterness? I not a political animal. Neither Labour, Green nor Liberal. I do however live on planet Earth and have observed what political inaction and using AGW for party political ends has resulted in. An Arctic Ice Cap that is melting many times faster than the worst IPCC predictions and that just may have been preventable.

How come democracy is only good when we "our mates" are in? It is either a good thing or a bad thing, so if it is bad then put up a different system. And there have been plenty of examples in recent years of the government of the day licking the daggs from some loony with a strategic vote (anyone remember Brian?), Bob Brown looks saintly in comparison (queue pithy insult from the feckless).

What mates? I'm not political. I'm an engineer who just looks at the historical data to show the very short term future. As for the Greens, they are not telling the truth about what is happening in the Arctic and how that will effect the whole planet, Australia included.

A carbon tax or ETS was always going to happen, so all the last election has done was to bring it back into this term. If you remember a few years back there was broad consensus from ALL parties for such a scheme. Then a moderate conservative leader was rolled for a regressive hard right winger, and suddenly all bets are off and like the boat people and mining tax issues, all rational debate was chucked overboard.

Sure but back then the Arctic Ice Cap was going to take 50 - 70 years to melt out in the Arctic summer. Now that will happen in the summer of 2015. You see no reason to be upset with the whole political BS process that has allowed this to happen? Especially when back in 1997 we did have a chance to stop this happening?

So we bizarrely have the Tory leader in the UK praising Australia's leadership on carbon pricing, whilst the opposition plays spoiler and tries to pretend they have a better plan. Nobody I repeat NOBODY thinks is true - not even Tony. It's just typical opposition spoiling tactics.

Australia is the best placed economy in the world to introduce a carbon tax, so if we can't be bothered then you might as well give up on humanity all together.

As I said, the big ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea basin knows no politics. It just reacts and melts from more heating than freezing every year since at least 1979.







These charts has been know about for sometime, yet NO political party, even Green party has acknowledged what Arctic climate scientists have known for several years. The Arctic Ice Cap volume will not recover. Forget about BS measurements and statements about Arctic Sea Ice extent as every year the whole Arctic basin will freeze and then melt away. Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Area is nothing but fodder for professional anti AGW skeptics who know extent and area has little to do with volume / ice mass and it is the volume / mass of frozen of floating sea ice which keeps the Arctic sea, air and nearby land mass cold and the Methane stores frozen solid. Well it did. But no longer:



When the ice cube melts out in the summer of 2015, all hell will break lose. I fear the political system of any nation, which is designed to keep business as normal, alive and well and the party in power re-elected will NOT be capable of handling what will be happening between now and say 2023 or 10 years post the first ice free Arctic summer.

As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with politics. But it is about the failure of the politics of many parties, in many countries to react to what the vast majority of climate scientists were advising. They guys, for all their hard work will now get in the neck for being conservative and their conservative modelling which said we had 50 - 70 years to do something. They got it wrong and we are now beyond the point of no return. However it seems there are many voices who still say we have 20 or so years to react. Most are political Green parties who have a vested interest in saying you need to in-act Carbon taxes to save the planet. My cough. It is too late and they know it, yet continue to sell the line that gives them the most political power.

So again politics fails to listen to the Climate scientists and their available historic data, which does not take a PHD to understand, who say we have passed the point of no return in the Arctic and now face irreversible change in our planetary wide climate system. So to hell with working out how to protect Australia, her people, their life styles, business, GDP and domestic / international business. Lets just play puppet master and enjoy fiddling while Rome burns.

Excuse me while I do a Techicolour yawn.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

For those interested, there is a facebook page 'I'm marking the Gov's "CleanEnergyFuture" brochure 'Return to Sender'.

Some interesting ideas on what to do with these brochures.

I'll be dropping my copy off tomorrow....

View attachment 3389


Anyways, here is a interesting article.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Paper here;
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

(Simplified version here)

 

[drron]

Undertaking a big clean up at present and came upon an interesting photo taken at our place on 9/11/97-

Yes I live on a canal so if the sea level rises I am in trouble.In this photo there is another level of our property 30cms below that small palm.Every year the water came over the lower level.yet since 1997 it hasn't got to this height again.in fact in the last 5 years it doesn't even come over the lower level.
Yet the department of climate change and CSIRO tell us that since 1997 the sea level in Australia has risen 30mm(3CM).
Sea level - Think Change

But are those charts actually sea levels-no they are computer modelling of the raw data.lately that has been questioned in a peer reviewed article.this though is a News Limited report of that article-
Studying the climate? Then get out of the lab | The Australian

So who do i believe?Well sorry but seeing is believing.

Then there are also those who question the temperature modelling used by all commonly quoted sources-
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Yes another peer reviewed article.Now none of this says Global warming is nonsense but it does bring into doubt the scientific methodology and-"the science is proven" argument.

For raw data from the Bureau Of Meteorology go here-
Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Monthly Sea Level and Meteorological Statistics

Much of this goes against what is found on the dept. of Climate change website-Ie every decade from the 1950s has been warmer than the preceeding decade.Darwins temperature has consistently risen since 1950.Only by the computer models.

 

[medhead]

Undertaking a big clean up at present and came upon an interesting photo taken at our place on 9/11/97-

Yes I live on a canal so if the sea level rises I am in trouble.In this photo there is another level of our property 30cms below that small palm.Every year the water came over the lower level.yet since 1997 it hasn't got to this height again.in fact in the last 5 years it doesn't even come over the lower level.
Yet the department of climate change and CSIRO tell us that since 1997 the sea level in Australia has risen 30mm(3CM).
Sea level - Think Change

Umm, come on a photo of the maximum since 1997 doesn't not tell us anything about the average. It certainly doesn't show us that the average water level below the lower level of your property hasn't risen 3 cm ([-]insert comment about misleading use of different units[/-])

But are those charts actually sea levels-no they are computer modelling of the raw data.lately that has been questioned in a peer reviewed article.this though is a News Limited report of that article-
Studying the climate? Then get out of the lab | The Australian

That story in the Australian clearly makes the point that you need to both look at real numbers and use them to verify models.

So who do i believe?Well sorry but seeing is believing.

Yep and they used to see "vapours" and then believed those vapours spread cholera. The major trouble is your photo tells us nothing. Seeing a single snapshot tells us nothing at all. Did they say the range of sea levels, maximum and minimum, are going to increase or just the average. For a Dr there seems to be a complete lack of scientific method in your beliefs.

Then there are also those who question the temperature modelling used by all commonly quoted sources-
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Yes another peer reviewed article.Now none of this says Global warming is nonsense but it does bring into doubt the scientific methodology and-"the science is proven" argument.

For raw data from the Bureau Of Meteorology go here-
Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Monthly Sea Level and Meteorological Statistics

Much of this goes against what is found on the dept. of Climate change website-Ie every decade from the 1950s has been warmer than the preceeding decade.Darwins temperature has consistently risen since 1950.Only by the computer models.

Are you serious? That BOM graph for Darwin doesn't even get back to 1990. How does that tell us anything about models going back to 1950? Why selectively pick Darwin? Happy for you to have your faith but don't pretend it has any basis in science

 

[drron]

Medhead you can access the data for Darwin back to the 1920s on the BOM website.The earlier data is in Unix Zipped form.I have accessed it.
I did not claim my one photo was Scientific method.However it is not totally irrelevant either.

PS I did not use misleading measurements.CSIRO reports in MM-I put the equivalent in CM so as to bring it into line with my first measurement.

 

[Mal]

For those interested, there is a facebook page 'I'm marking the Gov's "CleanEnergyFuture" brochure 'Return to Sender'.

Damn. Mine was thrown out unopened. Now I have to wonder - even with whatever "enviro friendly" mumbo jumbo they used to create it:

- How much C02 was emitted by Australia Post delivery vehicles (eg the trucks that shipped it from wherever, the delivery vans which took them to the nearest drop-off point, and the motorcycles used by delivery staffers?)

They may have off-set it against some random Carbon scheme, but I bet it wasn't anything insignificant. And of course my taxpayer dollars have been spent on that useless campaign.

JULIA - Please, please disappear. And take your carbon tax with you.

 

[medhead]

Medhead you can access the data for Darwin back to the 1920s on the BOM website.The earlier data is in Unix Zipped form.I have accessed it.

thanks might check it out

I did not claim my one photo was Scientific method.However it is not totally irrelevant either.

all it proves is there was a really high tide once. Come on, think about it. What's the maximum temperature in OZ ever? Like 56 in Coolgardie or somewhere, in like 1956. The fact that the temperature has never been high since doesn't mean Australia is getting colder, or not getting hotter on average. That single number tells us nothing about trends and changes in temperature.

PS I did not use misleading measurements.CSIRO reports in MM-I put the equivalent in CM so as to bring it into line with my first measurement.

No you didn't. I completely misread the units. My perfuse and profound apologies.

 

[dfcatch]

Damn. Mine was thrown out unopened. Now I have to wonder - even with whatever "enviro friendly" mumbo jumbo they used to create it:

- How much C02 was emitted by Australia Post delivery vehicles (eg the trucks that shipped it from wherever, the delivery vans which took them to the nearest drop-off point, and the motorcycles used by delivery staffers?)

They may have off-set it against some random Carbon scheme, but I bet it wasn't anything insignificant. And of course my taxpayer dollars have been spent on that useless campaign.

JULIA - Please, please disappear. And take your carbon tax with you.

I noticed the "this has been produced by certified emissions free blah blah blah" written on the cover page.

But I was pleased to see that it was wrapped in high quality dolphin and turtle-killing plastic wrap

Seeing as I paid for it - I felt it was my right to dispose of it unopened in the landfill-destined trash can

 

[drron]

Ah but I also said the water regularly came over our lower level-usually several times a year but it hasn't for approx the last 5 so not just one high tide.
Also came across another article relating to the Arctic ice.Appears not everyone is as full of gloom as our gowatson-
On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future - NYTimes.com

I wasn't looking just regularly read the NYT.

 

[medhead]

Ah but I also said the water regularly came over our lower level-usually several times a year but it hasn't for approx the last 5 so not just one high tide.
Also came across another article relating to the Arctic ice.Appears not everyone is as full of gloom as our gowatson-
On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future - NYTimes.com

I wasn't looking just regularly read the NYT.

Ok all it proves is that the tide was high a few times.

All I know about the arctic ice is if it melts the sea level won't change.

 

[Moody]

I noticed the "this has been produced by certified emissions free blah blah blah" written on the cover page.

But I was pleased to see that it was wrapped in high quality dolphin and turtle-killing plastic wrap

Seeing as I paid for it - I felt it was my right to dispose of it unopened in the landfill-destined trash can

I understand that you can't handle the truth .... but you could have removed the wrapping and disposed the contents into your recycling bin without reading it. Would that really have killed you?

I recycled the "dob in a terrorist" rubbish without petulantly marking it "return to sender". Why can't climate denial fascists do the same?

 

[11sjw]

I understand that you can't handle the truth .... but you could have removed the wrapping and disposed the contents into your recycling bin without reading it. Would that really have killed you?

I recycled the "dob in a terrorist" rubbish without petulantly marking it "return to sender". Why can't climate denial fascists do the same?

Well good on you.

I'd suggest that the protest is against the Julia Brown's oops Gillard's policies on the matter. This wealth redistribution tax will achieve 3/5ths of 5/8ths of bugger all re CO2 emmissions.

 

[dfcatch]

I understand that you can't handle the truth .... but you could have removed the wrapping and disposed the contents into your recycling bin without reading it. Would that really have killed you?

I recycled the "dob in a terrorist" rubbish without petulantly marking it "return to sender". Why can't climate denial fascists do the same?

I can handle being called whatever you like - including "fascist" if you will (personally I disagree...)

But your post is typical of your kind - completely unable to accept that perhaps it is quite legitimate to hold views that question yours.

For the record:

1/ If you scroll up through the thread - you will find my very clear articulated views on this matter..... Namely - that I have very clearly accepted global warming, have never denied it, however I have clearly expressed scepticism at various and continual alarmist claims made in the name of global warming. My cautious scepticism is based on the objective evidence of a number of these claims in recent years being proven false (and no I'm not quoting someone else's views... I'm referring to clear and loud claims of "no dam-filling rains" and other ludicrous nonsense that has been proven wrong).

So again - by all means call me what you like - but please do it accurately - and a "denier" I clearly am not. A "questioner" - ABSOLUTELY.



2/ Scientific modelling is hardly "the truth".

And seeing as such "modelling" is a constant work in progress - I oppose the carbon tax simply on the basis that I don't agree that it is an acceptable solution/course of action to deal with a problem whose modelling is so fluid.



3/ I understand the government's policy and proposed legislation more than their "propaganda" is going to tell me. (which of course was cleared by no less than a medium size army of taxpayer funded bureaucrats).

Why do I understand it - because I make it my business to understand an issue prior to commenting on it publicly.

For the record - understanding it is a prerequisite to deciding whether to support it or not.


4/ I feel reassurred to know that you (according to your same argument) supposedly "couldn't handle the truth" about the existence of terrorism. I suppose you probably think that 9/11 wasn't actually terrorism. You probably think that recent terrorist convictions here in Australia are a Howard Conspiracy too..??



5/ Would you have felt the same about the "dob in a terrorist" stuff if it was sent to you by an ALP government??

See - my views on the carbon tax are based on my views on the carbon tax - irregardless of which political party proposed it, supports it or otherwise.

For the record - I would oppose it just the same if it was Tony Abbott who was pushing it. I oppose the policy - period.



In summary - by all means, attack me. By all means, attack my views, disagree with my conclusions.

But if you want to have any credibility in your attacks - you need to attack the argument, the detail, the inconsistency or the contradictions.
You gain no credibility by blindly displaying a political allegiance in your arguments.


I'm all up for debate - but it frustrates me to no end when I have to coach my opponents on how to attack me properly.

Attacking oneself due to a lack of credible opponents isn't nearly as much fun!

 

[JohnK]

I have deliberately stayed away from this thread and have no interest what so ever in any debate on the merits of a carbon tax.

What I find difficult to understand is not that the government is stupid enough to try and pass this tax but that they have managed to find 26.7% of the people in favour of the carbon tax.