Carbon Tax

[dfcatch]

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.

John - that's easy.. That 26% is made up of two groups of people:

1/ Those people (mainly rusted on greens voters) who actually do believe that this is the only issue worth worrying about (or that it trumps all other issues).

2/ Those people who are rusted on ALP supporters and will back whatever the government policy is.


If of course the ALP were to change policy and dump it - then it would only be Group 1 left.

 

[Moody]

I don't have a problem with people who have weighed up both sides of the debate and still think 99% of climate scientists are wrong. I have a problem with those that believe it is all a conspiracy. I particularly despise those that proudly send the entire onfo package to landfill because they don't give a flying frack about other people, and think it shows how cool they are. They are a particularly nasty sort of idiot.

There was an event in London in 1952 that has since been called the Great Smog. It was a 5-day pea-souper that was not unusual for a city that used low-grade coal for much of its heating, but shortly afterwards the medical authorities came to the conclusion that around 4000 people had died as a result. Initially the government and other vested interests tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet, but eventually they were forced by the overwhelming scientific evidence to introduce the Clean Air policy of 1956. It is now accepted that at least 12000 people died as a result of that one pollution event.

I also remember visiting London in the '70s and having to go into a department store because my throat was getting sore from the vehicular pollution. Removing lead from petrol and controlling exhaust emissions has dramatically reduced some of the pollutants, but it is an ongoing battle.

But why is it when scientific observation concludes that we now have a planet-wide problem, it brings out the hidden flat-earthers in some sections of society? And rather than hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, they simply ignore the evidence and dispute the modelling. I had no idea I was surrounded by so many geniuses that can skewer those pesky, leftie, panic-merchant climate scientists with a single quote from Alan Jones (or was that Frederick Forsythe?) Actually it doesn't really matter who it is as long as it gives them plausible deniability when their grandkids ask them what they did to avert the impact of climate change.

Oh - and I do believe in terrorists, but unfortunately most of the so-called anti-terrorist policies have resulted in increased terrorism. I can't see how putting a price on carbon pollution will increase the amount generated, but if it does I will be the first to fall on my sword and admit I was wrong. I wonder what all the climate denial mob will do when there isn't a skerrick of doubt that we are screwing the planet?

 

[Mal]

I don't have a problem with people who have weighed up both sides of the debate and still think 99% of climate scientists are wrong. I have a problem with those that believe it is all a conspiracy. I particularly despise those that proudly send the entire onfo package to landfill because they don't give a flying frack about other people, and think it shows how cool they are. They are a particularly nasty sort of idiot.

Oh - and I do believe in terrorists, but unfortunately most of the so-called anti-terrorist policies have resulted in increased terrorism. I can't see how putting a price on carbon pollution will increase the amount generated, but if it does I will be the first to fall on my sword and admit I was wrong. I wonder what all the climate denial mob will do when there isn't a skerrick of doubt that we are screwing the planet?

Why are those who threw out the brochure " a particularly nasty sort of idiot. "? The brochure is just the Government wasting mega $ (and screwing up the environment) trying to sell an unpopular tax.

The government is subsidising carbon usage by a section of society. If they really cared, they wouldn't be giving rebates to certain parts of society which they want votes from.

Now, which other countries are implementing a carbon tax to the level of ours???? Australia will be a world leader .... towards destruction of our economy, while certain other countries will merrily keep burning their forests, burning coal for their ever expanding industries, and producing huge amounts of carbon unabated.

Your label of "particularly nasty kind of idiot" I think only applies to those who have fallen for the Government's spin.

 

[dfcatch]

I don't have a problem with people who have weighed up both sides of the debate and still think 99% of climate scientists are wrong. I have a problem with those that believe it is all a conspiracy. I particularly despise those that proudly send the entire onfo package to landfill because they don't give a flying frack about other people, and think it shows how cool they are. They are a particularly nasty sort of idiot.

There was an event in London in 1952 that has since been called the Great Smog. It was a 5-day pea-souper that was not unusual for a city that used low-grade coal for much of its heating, but shortly afterwards the medical authorities came to the conclusion that around 4000 people had died as a result. Initially the government and other vested interests tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet, but eventually they were forced by the overwhelming scientific evidence to introduce the Clean Air policy of 1956. It is now accepted that at least 12000 people died as a result of that one pollution event.

I also remember visiting London in the '70s and having to go into a department store because my throat was getting sore from the vehicular pollution. Removing lead from petrol and controlling exhaust emissions has dramatically reduced some of the pollutants, but it is an ongoing battle.

But why is it when scientific observation concludes that we now have a planet-wide problem, it brings out the hidden flat-earthers in some sections of society? And rather than hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, they simply ignore the evidence and dispute the modelling. I had no idea I was surrounded by so many geniuses that can skewer those pesky, leftie, panic-merchant climate scientists with a single quote from Alan Jones (or was that Frederick Forsythe?) Actually it doesn't really matter who it is as long as it gives them plausible deniability when their grandkids ask them what they did to avert the impact of climate change.

Oh - and I do believe in terrorists, but unfortunately most of the so-called anti-terrorist policies have resulted in increased terrorism. I can't see how putting a price on carbon pollution will increase the amount generated, but if it does I will be the first to fall on my sword and admit I was wrong. I wonder what all the climate denial mob will do when there isn't a skerrick of doubt that we are screwing the planet?

Mostly fair points.

1/. My point was that it was hypocritical to trumpet the environmental credentials of the info packet itself (the emissions free paper), and then wrap it in environmentally-damaging plastic. That was my very simple point. Irrelevant to climate change - simply hypocritical to the message IMHO.

2/ There are always flat-earthers on both sides of every debate. Let's ignore them. (I've made very clear in my previous posts that I accept the scientific observations of historical data).

3/ The modelling is not "settled". It is constantly changing and being revised.

There are many examples of where (when re-examined a few years later), the modelling has been proven exaggerated by new empirical observations.

Alarmist predictions that turn out to be false do nothing to add to the credibility of any models.

4/. Even if I subscribed to the doomsday scenario (which I don't), or even if you concurred with me that a more "modest model" may be more accurate, it doesn't change the fact that this new policy won't change the worlds' emissions by a single particle of CO2. Therefore it won't help the planet one bit.

5/ You can not compare the carbon tax to clean air policies, or the removal of lead from petrol.

It's one thing to agree on the existence of the problem (which with climate change most sensible people do), it's another thing altogether to come up with a workable solution.

This policy IMHO does not do that, and has a zero chance of making a difference to the climate (even if I'm wrong and we should be planning for the worst).

PS. I would be happy to pay twice as much - if it was on a sensible effect mitigation policy. I believe that would be a more sensible approach, and at least is more practical.

 

[medhead]

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!

Wow. Talk about completely missing the point. If you believe in global warming and all that. Why in the world did you send the propaganda to landfill? Why didn't you recycle the paper? Legitimate question, don't try to avoid it with distraction.

As for you little terrorism comments. Again big avoidance of the point. $15 million dollars worth of fridge magnets was a complete waste of money that did nothing to protect us. It is that simple. The fact that someone recycle the wasted paper from that massive waste of money is no basis for your spurious claims in point 4. It also has nothing to do with point 5. In fact that you cannot acknowledge how much of a waste the fridge magnets were very much highlights your partisan views on mail out. Remember also that while you might be over the carbon tax issues. Most of australia isn't. Hence they need something to explain what is proposed. Unlike the antiterrorism hotline, everyone in Australia has the whitepages, no need to post out a fridge magnet.

 

[medhead]

Why are those who threw out the brochure " a particularly nasty sort of idiot. "? The brochure is just the Government wasting mega $ (and screwing up the environment) trying to sell an unpopular tax.

The government is subsidising carbon usage by a section of society. If they really cared, they wouldn't be giving rebates to certain parts of society which they want votes from.

Now, which other countries are implementing a carbon tax to the level of ours???? Australia will be a world leader .... towards destruction of our economy, while certain other countries will merrily keep burning their forests, burning coal for their ever expanding industries, and producing huge amounts of carbon unabated.

Your label of "particularly nasty kind of idiot" I think only applies to those who have fallen for the Government's spin.

Well we should weigh up their views on this waste of mega $ with past wastes of mega $. But the question remains: Why didn't they recycle it as much as possible?

Nice to see that the question has change "from which other countries?"; to now ask to the level of ours. Well India is going to tax all the coal usage.

Mostly fair points.

1/. My point was that it was hypocritical to trumpet the environmental credentials of the info packet itself (the emissions free paper), and then wrap it in environmentally-damaging plastic. That was my very simple point. Irrelevant to climate change - simply hypocritical to the message IMHO.

You know this was environmentally damaging plastic? Or are you just making an assumption? I'm given "plastic" for my food scraps that go into my green waste bin. These are then separated and composted "plastic" bag and all.

 

[dfcatch]

Wow. Talk about completely missing the point. If you believe in global warming and all that. Why in the world did you send the propaganda to landfill? Why didn't you recycle the paper? Legitimate question, don't try to avoid it with distraction.

As for you little terrorism comments. Again big avoidance of the point. $15 million dollars worth of fridge magnets was a complete waste of money that did nothing to protect us. It is that simple. The fact that someone recycle the wasted paper from that massive waste of money is no basis for your spurious claims in point 4. It also has nothing to do with point 5. In fact that you cannot acknowledge how much of a waste the fridge magnets were very much highlights your partisan views on mail out. Remember also that while you might be over the carbon tax issues. Most of australia isn't. Hence they need something to explain what is proposed. Unlike the antiterrorism hotline, everyone in Australia has the whitepages, no need to post out a fridge magnet.

Medhead - I was attacked with some quite vicious comments.

My arguments go to the point of whether it is a blindly party political argument or whether the carbon tax arguments were the point of contention.

Why didn't I recycle it? Because it was wrapped in non-recyclable paper. That's why. My comment was a reflection on the unnecessary inclusion of plastic, which negated the environmental qualities of the contents.

My points 4 and 5 are incredible relevant.

I put them to you the same way.....

"Would you have opposed the fridge magnets with the same vigour - had they been sent to you by an ALP government?"

Just like I've already asked you...

"Would you continue to support the carbon tax if the ALP government dumped it. Would your position change if it were, in fact, the Coalition who was proposing this exact carbon tax policy?".

The questions are relevant because it goes to the heart of the argument.

Are we debating the merits of the policy? Or are we simply championing support for or against the government of the day?

In relation to fridge magnets - I've never said that I supported or opposed them. Didn't really change my life. At the time (and it seems still now), it's only been the anti-Howard crowd that are/were preoccupied with them.

I've also stated my view that waste of money or not - if they resulted in one phone call, that potentially saved a single life - then it's worth it.

For the record - I enjoy debating you Medhead because your arguments come across intelligent, thought out, and generally are on point. (doesn't mean I agree with everything though )

Unlike some others.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I particularly despise those that proudly send the entire onfo package to landfill because they don't give a flying frack about other people, and think it shows how cool they are. They are a particularly nasty sort of idiot.

Was that quote about me posting my RTS brochure or are you referring to dfcatch? I was sending it back to where it came from because I don't agree with it, what they do with it is beyond my control....

I also remember visiting London in the '70s and having to go into a department store because my throat was getting sore from the vehicular pollution. Removing lead from petrol and controlling exhaust emissions has dramatically reduced some of the pollutants, but it is an ongoing battle.

Even on a very recent trip to Europe, my throat was sore at times from pollution in ex-Eastern Bloc Countries I visited.

 

[Moody]

Why didn't I recycle it? Because it was wrapped in non-recyclable paper. That's why. My comment was a reflection on the unnecessary inclusion of plastic, which negated the environmental qualities of the contents.

And how, exactly, is this not an idiotic statement? When you receive advertising material or magazines or anything solicited or unsolicited in the mail, do you always just dump the entire contents in the bin? You don't sort it into the recyclable and non-recyclable parts and dispose of them both appropriately?

Then ... you .... are .... a ... particularly ....nasty .. sort .... of ... idiot!

Is this so hard to understand? Don't you realise that all your other comments (both reasonable and otherwise) just seem like a smoke-screen to obscure the indefensible? I would like to hear from you that your previous remarks were in jest and of course you unwrapped it and put the paper contents in the recycle bin. That would be nice.

 

[drron]

Dfcatch once again you have summed up my position very clearly.I have been doing my thing for a long time.put in rainwater tanks even though in the Caloundra Council area it was illegal.Have solar power-our accounts range from $20 credit to $20 debit.
However I cant just accept the modelling and when mrsdrron lets me back to the computer I will summarise why.

I even enjoy arguing with Medhead.But he is like a dog with a bone isn't he?even when you have an inkling he is agreeing with you he wont come out and say it!However as his darling SWMBO obviously forgives and loves him I can agree to disagree.Of course I will also not let on when i agree with him!(insert smilie)

 

[medhead]

Medhead - I was attacked with some quite vicious comments.

My arguments go to the point of whether it is a blindly party political argument or whether the carbon tax arguments were the point of contention.

Why didn't I recycle it? Because it was wrapped in non-recyclable paper. That's why. My comment was a reflection on the unnecessary inclusion of plastic, which negated the environmental qualities of the contents.

I can't agree with the tone of the message but the question remains. Why didn't you recycle the paper? Being wrapped in plastic does not negate the recycle-ability of the paper. What negates that is your unwillingness to separate the paper.

As for tone - well I'll leave that alone in public.

On the fridge magnets you seem to be confusing the hotline with the fridge magnet. My objection is that $15 million of fridge magnets was a total waste. The fridge magnets were not required to set up a hotline and to advertise it. The existence of the hotline is what results in phone calls not the fridge magnet. At no point have I said anything about the hotline's effectiveness. Only the fridge magnets - greatest waste of money ever regardless of government.

Unlike $4 million for a mail out on this topic, when so many people IRL say to me that they don't understand the carbon tax.

As for my views on the opposition's policy, well if they dropped this direct action BS and had a proper policy that didn't involve distributing funding via a whiteboard. And if the opposition to them was confusing the electorate on the policy then I would have no problem with them doing a mail out to inform the public.

 

[medhead]

I even enjoy arguing with Medhead.But he is like a dog with a bone isn't he?even when you have an inkling he is agreeing with you he wont come out and say it!However as his darling SWMBO obviously forgives and loves him I can agree to disagree.Of course I will also not let on when i agree with him!(insert smilie)

Ah, imagine the frustration some felt when I worked in a regulatory role. It was particularly good when they were especially inept. SWMBO doesn't forgive, I believe there is a record of all my past sins, and she is trying to beat it out of me.

 

[dfcatch]

Ah, imagine the frustration some felt when I worked in a regulatory role. It was particularly good when they were especially inept. SWMBO doesn't forgive, I believe there is a record of all my past sins, and she is trying to beat it out of me.

No, she keeps a record and will remind you one day when it suits her

At least that's how I find SWMBO operates


Oh Moody - actually I would have burned it in my incinerator if I had one. Right after I let off an old aerosol with CFCs in it

And all the "other magazines" aren't trumpeting their "printed on zero emission paper" credentials

 

[dfcatch]

PS. Does anyone know if there is a "red rag" type smiley??

 

[medhead]

No, she keeps a record and will remind you one day when it suits her

At least that's how I find SWMBO operates


Oh Moody - actually I would have burned it in my incinerator if I had one. Right after I let off an old aerosol with CFCs in it

And all the "other magazines" aren't trumpeting their "printed on zero emission paper" credentials

Oops, the "it" that she is trying to beat out of me is my behaviour. Not the record of my sins, she has that and uses it often.

I actually burn all the personal information from mail. Rip out names and addresses, CC/bank numbers etc. Then either burn all the little bits of paper or flush them. I figure if someone is prepared to separate my personal information from what it is flushed with they deserve to steal my identity. Saves electricity as well by not shredding.

 

[jehane]

I've been skimming this thread for a while, but resisted getting involved. IME most people are not interested in actually discussing the issue but are welded to their positions.

dfcatch, you state that you agree with the science but disagree with the proposed method of tackling the problem. What then would be your preferred approach? Is Abbott's direct action policy viable? Do you think he would actually go through with it, were he in power?

Regards,
Jehane

 

[dfcatch]

I've been skimming this thread for a while, but resisted getting involved. IME most people are not interested in actually discussing the issue but are welded to their positions.

dfcatch, you state that you agree with the science but disagree with the proposed method of tackling the problem. What then would be your preferred approach? Is Abbott's direct action policy viable? Do you think he would actually go through with it, were he in power?

Regards,
Jehane

I don't spend a single moment worrying about the oppositions' (or anyone else's) policy at this point in time.

IMHO - I consider my political antenna to be reasonably astute, and the political observer in me resists wasting time on thinking about the merits of an opposition policy this far out from an election. Personally - any opposition this far out from an election is likely to refine (probably majorly) any policy position on the whole portfolio of issues a lot closer to election time. That will be the time that I will analyse the policies accordingly. (And yes - if it were the ALP in opposition - my approach would be the same).

The debate is not a case of choosing between Labor or the Coalitions policies (at this point - come an election - it may well be). But the fact is, failing a by-election, a backbench revolt or Gillard falling on her sword, I imagine the carbon tax will be a fait accompli more than a year prior to the next election. Assuming this to be the case - the policy debate will have advanced significantly (read - the Coalition will have refined a sensible political approach to the issue), and that will be the time to scrutinise the opposition's plan and evaluate accordingly.

In regards to your question about my position on the "science" and global warming generally..... To summarise:

1/ I (like most sensible people) believe the planet is warming;

2/ I don't believe the science is settled on how much of the warming is caused/exacerbated by man vs natural cycle;

3/ I question man's ability to brake or reverse global warming (ie. if man ceased to exist tomorrow - it's possible that warming will continue regardless of zero emissions). Do not confuse this with scepticism - it's a legitimate question that has not (and probably can not) be accurately answered.

Now - the remainder of the questions get so confused and intertwined that it makes sensible debate quite difficult.

A/ Let's assume for a moment - that there is bipartisan support for "doing something" (ie. Let's pretend the "Carbon Tax" doesn't exist, and Abbott and Gillard are passing the peace pipe and getting along)...

The question is now firmly on the issue of the science; what has been happening; what is likely to happen; and what should we do about it???

Kyoto, the IPCC and Copenhagen are good examples of this. Now let's remember that Copenhagen was meant to be the duck's nuts of universal worldwide agreement for a solution. It failed - spectacularly.

So we are left with "broad agreement" that there is a problem - but no agreement that we should do something, let alone "what" to do about it.

We still have two intertwined, yet separate issues - the credibility of the science, and the political problem of what to do and how to do it.

B/ The credibility of the science....

Now - I'm not knocking the overall theme of the planet warming and man (most likely) having some level of contribution to this. BUT - the exaggeration of findings (eg. manipulation of Hadley data), over the top alarmist predictions from people like Flannery etc, do nothing to win Joe Public over to the view that "the science is settled", or "the science is beyond doubt".. Actually - the truth is - just as some of the sceptics are off the planet, many of the "pro-warming" camp have done a good job at bringing the credibility of the science into doubt. The alarmists only have themselves to blame for sceptics getting the airtime that they do. It only takes one over-the-top "it will never rain again in Victoria" type prediction to discredit everything that person stands for and has said (even if 99% of comments are on the mark).

Now Joe Public is starting to take all these alarmist predictions with a grain of salt.

C/ The political dilemma....

Political power (success) is generally measured by how much support you have for your agenda. (I don't want to get into a political science debate please - I'm sure everyone understands my point here).
This doesn't mean you have to have popular support for every individual measure - but you do need a decent buffer of general agenda support to politically succeed at "support-questionable" policies.

As an army of future political science students will no doubt analyse to death - it's pretty obvious that the Gillard Government vis-a-vis the Carbon Tax will be a lesson in how not to govern.

But let's stay more generalised....

The general public's appetite or interest in taking action on global warming has waned siginificantly since the Copenhagen collapse, and the polls are reflecting this. Personally, I also believe that the questions of the credibility of some alarmists, and the Hadley scandal are also contributing to the general public taking the "science" with a grain of salt nowadays too.

Add to this that in 2007 - the economy was tracking well, everything was pretty much hunky dory. There was consternation over Workchoices, housing affordability etc, but generally things were tracking well and that afforded people the indulgence to think about peripheral issues. Hence issues like global warming, reconciliation etc were back on the agenda.

It's a different political environment now - there is only one issue in the publics' mind - and that's the economy, the economy, and the economy. "Will I have a job next week?", "Can I make the mortgage payment?", "How on earth am I going to pay for my impending retirement?".

IMHO - the carbon-tax-horse bolted 3 years ago.

So - in summary - we are left with an electorate who probably no longer ranks action on global warming in their top list of priorities, a minority government which by definition has limited real political power, and a global warming debate with credibility questions on all sides.

You asked me what we should do?

IMHO - which I believe the general majority of centrist voters would agree with - I would take a slowly slowly approach.

That means continued investment in sustainable technologies (and that doesn't mean blindly funding expensive renewables - although I am still open to gowatson sponsoring my SC earn for the next year so that I can achieve WP1 and I'll learn all there is to know about renewables), it means clean-coal technology, a serious debate about nuclear energy, continued incentives for the average Joe to (of their own volition) reduce energy / take advantage of solar subsidies etc.

I would not - overhaul the economy with such a radical step as being proposed.

I don't believe that imposing a punitive tax that permeates every level of the economy is the best way forward in the current circumstances.

Now you will no doubt ask me - "What IF the alarmists are right? What IF we have to take dramatic action RIGHT NOW or else it will be too late?"

Fair questions - but the premise only exists IF the worst case scenarios turn out to be right. And based on past performance (as all science is) - I'm not prepared to bet and gamble my childrens' economic future on it.

In 50 years we can all look back and we'll be able to see the wonderful benefits of hindsight..... Maybe my approach is wrong..... But maybe it isn't. And I'm pretty sure that my crystal ball is just as accurate as yours.

Ultimately - it's a political problem - and right now, the clear majority of the electorate don't support the proposal at this present time. Personally, if the Coalition wins the election (which is not guaranteed) - it won't be because they have a "better" global warming solution, it will be because the government gets voted out. Tony Abbott could scrap his direct action plan and simply say that action is "on the back-burner until global agreement is reached" and I don't believe his numbers would change dramatically.


DISCLAIMER: My opinion on the issues of the carbon tax and global warming is not party political. My views would be exactly the same if it were a Coalition government in power and Abbott was proposing the carbon tax.

And me opposing the carbon tax doesn't mean I support "direct action" or whatever else may be proposed. I, like all other voters at this time, are not required to assess anyone other than the government of the day.

Oppositions don't win elections - governments lose them.

 

[henryfrankston]

I've mentioned them several times without getting a straight answer.
Do you realise what this statement of yours implies-


As you say the IPCC got it wrong in 2007 and did not understand the complexity of the system.So you can be sure they now totally understand?

As the devil's advocate just what if there is a major component of cyclical global warming and it is just about to reverse.We successfully reduce our CO2 levels dramatically thus plunging ourselves back into the next Ice age-boy that will have a more dramatic effect on agriculture and the ability to feed the world's billions.


A prediction and modelling that you deny using.If true how does India with much warmer temperatures than us already by itself support a population of over a half billion?


No.And this is where you have gone wrong.By making Climate Change political it has made opposition inevitable.


Really?So there are not going to be a 1000 green jobs in adelaide?

THEY TUK ER JERBS!

Press Release
By Green and Gold Energy
Date: 17th February 2008


Green and Gold Energy to invest AU$250m, building a 1,000 MW SunCube™ manufacturing plant, building 60 MWs of SunCube™ Energy Farms and providing 1,000 ‘sustainable Green Jobs’.
Leading solar energy inventor and CEO of Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd (GGE), Mr. Greg Watson today announced GGE’s intent to build a 1,000 MW SunCube™ manufacturing plant in Adelaide that would provide over 1000 new sustainable green jobs and mark the beginning of what could be a green energy manufacturing revolution in this state.
After many years of research and development, GGE has achieved a world breakthrough with its high efficiency, smart 2 axis tracking SunCube™ CPV technology, which Mr Watson says is well ahead of its competitors in supplying cost effective renewable energy to Australia’s electricity grid.
The SunCube™ is being launched at 10am today to the world market during the Green City Festival, which is being held at Elder Park, Adelaide (Sunday 17 Feb 2008 10am to 5pm). The general public is invited to visit and see the future of electricity generation.
Mr Watson says GGE has contracts with commercial partners in South Korea, Spain, India, Israel, USA and Australia to supply approximately 400 MW’s of SunCubes™ per year within 3 years


Significantly, GGE has also placed a US$78m purchase order with Emcore Corporation of the US to supply 215 MWs / 6.2 million of their world-leading 38% efficient triple junction cell receiver assemblies.
Mr Watson says South Australia could lead the green energy manufacturing revolution thanks to a number of important national and international factors that have changed the renewable energy business in Australia forever and have opened up enormous potential for our state.
“The first act of the Rudd government was to ratify Kyoto. This event has opened the world market to GGE, which can now engage in renewable energy generation projects, via the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in developing countries worldwide, bringing back to South Australia both carbon credits and a share of the foreign generated power profits.
“Currently coal exports earn Australia about US$0.03 / kWh of foreign generated power. GGE’s carbon credits and share of the profits from CDM renewable energy generation projects, measured on a $ / kWh generated, would more than double the income from coal exports.”
Mr Watson says the Rudd government has also set a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. This market is estimated to be worth AU$2 billion per year in new renewable energy generation.
To meet the worldwide 20% renewable target by 2020, approximately 100GWs per year of new renewable energy generation at a cost of US$300 billion per year will also be required, while the UN Secretary General (Feb 2008) released a report showing that to meet the IPCC CO2e emission reduction targets will cost US$15-20 trillion.
To take advantage of these new worldwide market opportunities and our worldwide contract obligations, GGE is at an early stage of working with various financial, government and industry partners to build a world class highly robotic SunCube™ manufacturing facility.
GGE has set a target of 1,000 MWs or 3.3 million SunCube™ per year (1% of the world renewable energy generation market) as the capacity to be achieved within 2 years following a 2—3 year construction phase.
The SunCube™ manufacturing plant will, at full capacity, cost GGE upwards of AU$70m and should employ up to 1,000 full time skilled staff when running at full capacity.
GGE favours establishing this manufacturing plant in Adelaide, South Australia and to supply the world demand from this facility with fully South Australian built SunCubes™.
GGE signed an exclusive Australian, New Zealand and South Pacific Islands distribution license with Zolar Distributors Pty Ltd for Domestic, Industrial and Commercial SunCube™ customers. They are talking to customers and taking orders now. Initial Australian SunCube™ availability is 60 MW’s / 200,000 units through 2009.
GGE is also at an early stage of working with various financial, government and industry partners to initially build four 15MW “SunCube™ Energy Farms” (SEFs) in SA, Qld, NSW & Vic which will supply wholesale electricity directly into the national grid.
Community ownership opportunities are planned to be offered as is currently available with “Tree Farms” but delivering regular dividends to the investor during the 25 year life of the SEFs.
This community ownership opportunity fits well with state and federal social inclusion policy as it allows those low incomes, renters, apartment & community titled dwellers & home owners to participate directly in the ownership of solar technology through purchasing units in the SEFs.
This community ownership opportunity increases options for residential, commercial and industrial customers across all Australia including those in cooler areas of high cloud cover where PV energy is not economically viable.
For more information please view the GGE website

​

 

[Mwenenzi]

Re: Qantas sticking to charging passengers for carbon tax

Tax is designed to encourage changes in behavior including investment.

The Tax is designed to encourage the Greens to vote with Labor.
Remember Julia's"No carbon tax" before the last election.
But the voters did not give labor a majority --> Hence the Greens were needed. They got want they wanted

 

[777]

Re: Qantas sticking to charging passengers for carbon tax

The Tax is designed to encourage the Greens to vote with Labor.
Remember Julia's"No carbon tax" before the last election.
But the voters did not give labor a majority --> Hence the Greens were needed. They got want they wanted

There is very good reason why pricing carbon has, in one form or another, been the policy of every major Australian political party for most of the last five years. The Liberals under Howard, Nelson and Turnbull all supported introducing carbon pricing. Abbott himself was for it before he was against it and indeed advocated a carbon tax over an ETS as more efficient (which it is in many respects). The only reason the coalition is not advocating it right now is that Abbott used the issue to get into the leadership and finds it politically expedient to tell people what they want to hear rather than what is actually good policy.

The opposition policy is actually more expensive and less effective. I would encourage you to find anyone not working for the liberal party who actually thinks otherwise.