Carbon Tax

[medhead]

And Medhead is very nearly right.There have been 15 deaths from Thyroid cancer in those living around Chernobyl at the time of the accident.

I was carefully to only talk about incident of thyroid cancer and not deaths. Still there is almost no way to determine that any particular thyroid cancer was caused by chernobyl. I just read a paper about thyroid cancer from nuclear accidents, interesting the interplay of confounding factors at chernobyl; sudden increase in medical monitoring and low iodine diet.

Anyway, point taken well OT.

In 2006 the decontamination workers at Chernobyl were assessed.Over 600000 of them.Total deaths from all causes ~5750.less than 1 in 10000.In fact a little lower than the Ukraine average.

Oh, I forgot about those people.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

HTR-10

HTR-10 is a 10 MWt prototype pebble bed reactor at Tsinghua University in China. Construction began in 2000 and it achieved first criticality in January 2003.
In 2005, China announced its intention to scale up HTR-10 for commercial power generation. The first two 250-MWt High Temperature Reactor-Pebblebed Modules (HTR-PM) will be installed at the Shidaowan plant in Shandong Province and together drive a steam turbine generating 200 MWe. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2009 and commissioning in 2013.
HTR-10 is basically a replica of the German Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR). Like AVR, HTR-10 and HTR-PM are intended to be fundamentally safer[SUP][1][/SUP], cheaper and more efficient than other nuclear reactor designs.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Outlet temperature ranges between 700 C to 950 C, which allows these reactors to generate hydrogen as a byproduct efficiently, thus supplying inexpensive and non-polluting fuel for fuel cell powered vehicles.[SUP][2][/SUP]

HTR-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dfcatch]

So an 80% reduction of Australia's carbon emissions by 2050 would have no impact? It's extremely selective to take Australia's figures in isolation -- the point is that it's a global issue and we must proportionally (to our emissions and our capacity) contribute to the solution.

It's like saying when there's a fundraising appeal that an individual $5 donation makes no difference - following you logic it doesn't as it is not in and of itself enough money to build a new hospital, discover a new vacine or clean up after a natural disaster. However, the bigger picture is the coughulative impact and that involves many people, countries, and companies taking individual and ideally coordinated action.

Again you have gone back to the Flannery quote but missed the point of it. This is not a binary problem - global warming is not "on" or "off" it is a problem where the scale, degree of impact, and cost of adaptation will be proportionate to the degree of warming and to the amount of gasses in the atmosphere. That's not a difficult concept to understand and there's not a lot of actual points to be scored in misrepresenting it.

I tell you what... despite my cautious views and concerns on man's contribution to global warming, i'm prepared to support the carbon tax!

WHEN the rest of the world does!

Until then - no - I don't support an impost on the Australian economy that will have no impact on global emissions, but in all likelihood will just damage our economy.

In the absence of action from the world's largest emitters, of which Australia is NOT one (and the per capita argument is simply spin-doctoring), I would rather move more slowly and use other methods to incentivise the R&D of lower emissions technologies. (And no - I don't support blindly supporting expensive and inefficient "renewables" simply out of ideology).

To answer your other question - then if that can't be done - then I would rather do nothing. Well, not quite nothing, I would redirect the money towards mitigation and adaptation.

 

[dfcatch]

Are you of the view that the alternative will be any better? Again, we are talking about the relative merits of different approaches here - do you think the "direct action" fund (which, bare in mind will also be paid for by your taxes) is likely to reduce emissions more cheaply and efficiently

No we're not "talking about the relative merits of different approaches here". Well I'm not anyway.

The issue is the government's proposal - so the alternative is the status quo.

If this were an election - with one party advocating one position / and the other party advocating another position - then the electorate can decide which policy platform it prefers.

It's not an election - it's a proposal by government which it isn't taking to an election - therefore the alternative is the status quo.

IF the carbon tax was to be defeated.....then, and only then, does the opposition then have the requirement to put forward it's policy for dealing with climate change (if it chooses to put forward a policy. It may decide to have the status quo as its policy).

It's not an election - we're not being asked to choose. So the Coalition's plan is (at this stage at least) irrelevent.

If the ALP wants to turn the debate into a Carbon Tax vs Direct Action debate.....then it can....it simply needs to call an election.



PS. I'm not getting political here.....The government has another alternative.....

They can dump the Carbon Tax, put forward a new proposal, and I'll consider that proposal on its merits.

My viewpoint on the Carbon Tax is independent of any assessment of the Coalition's policy. The Coalition could support the government's policy - that wouldn't make it any better, and I still wouldn't support it.

So as I said - it's not political for me.

 

[cove]

The latest Gary Morgan survey since the data release on the Carbon Tax a few minutes ago shows tha ALP support has collapsed to 39.5% against the other guys on a two party basis.

 

[medhead]

Until then - no - I don't support an impost on the Australian economy that will have no impact on global emissions,

Sorry but that is technically incorrect. Any reduction in Australia's emissions will also reduce global emissions.

In the absence of action from the world's largest emitters, of which Australia is NOT one

I'm sorry but the world's largest emitters are taking action. China has plans to build 172 nuclear reactors. That is action, they also have no significant uranium reserves, so they are putting their energy security in the hands of the rest of the world in order to take action. In fact, the only significant polluter not taking action is the USA.

(and the per capita argument is simply spin-doctoring),

Name an alternative comparative measure then. Sorry but the only spin is to suggest that we can only consider a country's total emission as a way to compare their need to take action. That comparison fundamentally assumes that all countries have equal footprint's, that the energy needs of 1 billion people are the same as the energy needs of 20 million. Totally flawed.

The fact remains that Australia has 0.3 % of the world's population and we emit over 1.3% of the carbon pollution. The US with 5% of the population emits 18% of carbon pollution. By comparison China with 16% of the world's population emits 23% of carbon pollution. If china used energy the same as the USA then they should be emitting 54% of the carbon pollution. The same as Australia then 69%. Clearly everyone country needs to do something but the level of action can only be determine with a valid comparison.

Total emissions is ludicrous, insulting spin and the quality of this argument can be judged by the people who are spinning it - Bolt, Jones et. al.

 

[dfcatch]

Sorry but that is technically incorrect. Any reduction in Australia's emissions will also reduce global emissions.

Not if those emissions are replaced by operations occurring in competitive markets. eg. if we close our smelter, but its replaced by a new smelter in another country - then global emissions are not reduced. And to claim and assume that they won't be replaced is naive at best. True - perhaps the smelter won't be replaced - but more than likely it will. That's the nature of a global economy.
Same with coal - ok, we can close a power station - but then we'll just ship the coal offshore to someone else's power station.

I'm sorry but the world's largest emitters are taking action. China has plans to build 172 nuclear reactors. That is action, they also have no significant uranium reserves, so they are putting their energy security in the hands of the rest of the world in order to take action. In fact, the only significant polluter not taking action is the USA.

Medhead - stop trotting out the company (ALP) line. I've seen and read enough contradicting reports that I don't accept your viewpoint on this. They may well be building nuclear reactors, but they are also still building plenty of coal ones too. I'll throw your argument back at you another way - list for me all the top polluters that are taking action. (please detail total reduced emissions?).

Name an alternative comparative measure then. Sorry but the only spin is to suggest that we can only consider a country's total emission as a way to compare their need to take action. That comparison fundamentally assumes that all countries have equal footprint's, that the energy needs of 1 billion people are the same as the energy needs of 20 million. Totally flawed.
...
Total emissions is ludicrous, insulting spin and the quality of this argument can be judged by the people who are spinning it - Bolt, Jones et. al.

I could't care less about Bolt/Jones etc - you are the one obsessed here.

I accept your argument (in the context of your point). But you've missed my point - total emissions are relevant. Especially when arguing whether or not our policy will make any tangible difference to global warming.

The fact is that we are one of the western world's smallest emitters - period - fact - all sides of politics agree on this.

You argue that our "per-capita" calculation implies a moral responsibility - good for you. I'm more pragmatic about it.

Also - per capita calculations are only accurate and relevant if the two countries in the comparison are identical on all other factors (economy, level of civilised development, land area, transportation systems, energy technologies in use, natural resources available etc etc).

This is why the comparison's are flawed, and why you can not compare European ETS/Carbon schemes with Australia. Not apples with apples - it's more like apples and televisions

 

[777]

Meanwhile, for those of you sidetracked with the nuclear option, you might want to refer back to Ziggy Switkowski's report recommending nuclear power for Australia. His conclusion about what Australia needed to do make it economically viable is the same one he repeated weeks ago...

Carbon price over $50 needed - Ziggy Switkowski | News.com.au

Until you change the *relative* costs of fossil fuel derived power vs. other forms of power - be they nuclear, solar, wind, or monkeys riding bicycles - it aint going to happen.

 

[dfcatch]

Meanwhile, for those of you sidetracked with the nuclear option, you might want to refer back to Ziggy Switkowski's report recommending nuclear power for Australia. His conclusion about what Australia needed to do make it economically viable is the same one he repeated weeks ago...

Carbon price over $50 needed - Ziggy Switkowski | News.com.au

Until you change the *relative* costs of fossil fuel derived power vs. other forms of power - be they nuclear, solar, wind, or monkeys riding bicycles - it aint going to happen.

Fair enough - then my view is for it not to happen. Simple.

 

[medhead]

Not if those emissions are replaced by operations occurring in competitive markets. eg. if we close our smelter, but its replaced by a new smelter in another country - then global emissions are not reduced. And to claim and assume that they won't be replaced is naive at best. True - perhaps the smelter won't be replaced - but more than likely it will. That's the nature of a global economy.Same with coal - ok, we can close a power station - but then we'll just ship the coal offshore to someone else's power station.

You accuse me of trotting out the company line and then repeat this rubbish from Abbott, Bolt and Jones et al. You're just repeating this rubbish that industries are going to close. Why would it close? This carbon tax doesn't make smelter's unprofitable. That is the biggest problem, you've clearly been sucked in by the fear campaign of Abbott. That's you're choice, but it doesn't make you, or them, right.As for the idea of coal being shipped offshore, are you forgetting that the entire coal industry is going to shut down? That is your thesis here. The sky is falling but the destroyed industry will still be operating and exporting.

Medhead - stop trotting out the company (ALP) line. I've seen and read enough contradicting reports that I don't accept your viewpoint on this. They may well be building nuclear reactors, but they are also still building plenty of coal ones too. I'll throw your argument back at you another way - list for me all the top polluters that are taking action. (please detail total reduced emissions?).

contradiction? Am I trotting out the company line or are they my views that you don't accept. Sorry, please show me were the ALP has said what is totally my view about nuclear construction in China? I've been to the international conference on uranium production and supply, I read the World Nuclear Association information. I can absolutely assure you this is entirely my own view. As for a country taking action - China!!!! China is building nuclear reactors when they could just build all coal power. There is your action, if you care to listen to what I'm saying. Every nuclear reactor that china builds reduces carbon emissions.

I could't care less about Bolt/Jones etc - you are the one obsessed here.

It is not an obsession. Just pointing out that you are simply repeating the fear mongering of those people. It is a valid observation that is important when considering the points that you make.

I accept your argument (in the context of your point). But you've missed my point - total emissions are relevant. Especially when arguing whether or not our policy will make any tangible difference to global warming. The fact is that we are one of the western world's smallest emitters - period - fact - all sides of politics agree on this.You argue that our "per-capita" calculation implies a moral responsibility - good for you. I'm more pragmatic about it.Also - per capita calculations are only accurate and relevant if the two countries in the comparison are identical on all other factors (economy, level of civilised development, land area, transportation systems, energy technologies in use, natural resources available etc etc).This is why the comparison's are flawed, and why you can not compare European ETS/Carbon schemes with Australia. Not apples with apples - it's more like apples and televisions

Total emissions are flawed for all of the very reasons that you mention. Both countries have to be identical, (agreed) including the size of the population. If anything is comparing apples and TVs it is total emissions. As you agree this is an issue for the entire world to tackle and that is why Australia has to do something as well as other countries. That is why a valid comparative measure of emissions is needed that accounts for population variations. If you do not like per capita comparison, suggest something else that will actually be a proper comparison, that accounts for all factors including variations in population.

 

[medhead]

Sorry about the formatting in my last. Now Safari in MBP seems to stuffing up the line breaks the same as ipad. My have to try firefox.

 

[dfcatch]

My iPhone doesn't help with the formatting either

You misunderstood my points.

1/ The Government has clearly said they want to close Hazelwood. I didn't make that up, I used a smelter as a similar example. I never said anything about Abbott's line about industries shutting down.

The Government has said it wants to close Hazelwood, and that our reliance on coal fired power will reduce to 10%.

They have not said that coal mining will be banned.

So it's quite clear that we will reduce our emissions by having less coal power stations, but our coal will just go instead to a coal power station elsewhere.

So if our reduced emissions from "shutting a power station down", are replaced elsewhere - then global emissions are not reduced.

2/ The "ALP Line" that I referred to, was the line that China is reducing it's emissions, so we should too.

Well, all the reports that i'm aware of, including the government accepted ones all state that China is building new coal power stations and that China's total emissions are going to increase (as are ours according to the Treasury modelling). They may well be building more nuclear plants, but coal ones as well.

3/ You are very quick to label any contrary view to yours as someone being "brainwashed" by Bolt/Jones et al.

Instead of doing so - you should acknowledge that not everyone draws the same conclusions as you do.

We can agree on the facts.

We can agree that there are various proposals, modeling, forecasts etc.

But there is clearly disagreement on the implied assumptions that are built in to all of the above.

For example - if any of Treasury's assumptions don't play out - then the entire forecast model is invalid.

And I don't share your faith in such assumptions.

That's where we differ.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I use Chrome and Safari. Both have been playing up on my MBP too.

 

[drron]

just to add a lighter tone to the discussion.I realised George Harrison predicted this tax 45 years ago-
1,2,3,4,1,2

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

(If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.

‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Haha! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Haha! Mister Heath!),
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).

 

[Dyslexic traveler]

Drron now that's what we need It's funny when that was written it was a time when the UK governments tax was very high, I have a college who worked through a time in Australia when he was paying over 60c in the dollar tax and now I see we are heading in the same direction, if I work out all the Tax I pay it's getting close to that. Sometimes I think I should sell the practice lay of the staff sell the rooms and work as as a staff consultant working five days a week With no oncall and weekends off

 

[medhead]

My iPhone doesn't help with the formatting either

You misunderstood my points.

<snip>

For example - if any of Treasury's assumptions don't play out - then the entire forecast model is invalid.

And I don't share your faith in such assumptions.

That's where we differ.

No I didn't misunderstand. I just don't agree.

1/ Abbott's line is that the tax will put coal based industries out of business, you seemed to be copying that line. Hazelwood and also the Port Augusta power station burn very low quality coal. I would be surprised if anyone overseas would want to buy that coal. Especially when they can get good stuff from QLD/NSW

2/ I wasn't repeating that line. A rather different idea, to say that nuclear construction by China is an indication that they are doing something to reduce their emissions. I should have also mentioned that this is within the context of an expanding economy, But the point remains that it is a relative disadvantage for China to build nuclear. If they are only interested in protecting their economy as part of their expansion then I don't see why they would expand nuclear so much.

3/ Not sure I said brainwashed. I just get annoyed at hearing the lines of select identities being repeated. It is all well and good to say we don't believe in treasury modelling of carbon taxes. But many of the same people who say that now did explicitly accept treasury modelling for things put forward by a coalition government in the past. It is ludicrous for Abbott and the coalition to get out there and say the treasury is wrong and this tax will destroy our economy. Our GDP is something like $200 billion. Treasury would have to be grossly wrong for this $10billion tax to turn into a $200 billion tax.

 

[yeldarb8]

No Country on Earth Ever Taxed It Self to Prosperity

No Country on Earth Ever Taxed It Self to Prosperity.

There is no science that proves human activity is causing global warming. Sorry, but that's the inconvenient truth. If you can provide a citation to any scientific, peer reviewed, published research in any scholarly journal of international repute then please post it here.

Until then, please stop the BS and fess-up to the fact this is just another government money-grab that will hurt Australia's global competitiveness and lead to the further export of jobs.

 

[medhead]

I thought thus thread was about a carbon tax not the science of climate change. Related ideas sure, but I thread this started as being about the effects of the tax.

Anyway, I should say that I certainly don't think climate change will destroy the world in the same way I don't think this tax will destroy the economy. As for jobs going offshore the inconvenient truth is this tax will have negliable impact on factories moving overseas. The very low cost of labour in other countries is vastly more important and this tax doesn't change that situation.

(BTW I do think we need to use less and pollute less.)

 

[yeldarb8]

I thought thus thread was about a carbon tax not the science of climate change. Related ideas sure, but I thread this started as being about the effects of the tax.

Anyway, I should say that I certainly don't think climate change will destroy the world in the same way I don't think this tax will destroy the economy. As for jobs going offshore the inconvenient truth is this tax will have negliable impact on factories moving overseas. The very low cost of labour in other countries is vastly more important and this tax doesn't change that situation.

(BTW I do think we need to use less and pollute less.)

@medhead - Climate change is the stated REASON we "have" to have a Carbon Tax. The stated PURPOSE of the tax is to change behavior. OK, so I'm a rational investor... so I can choose to pay a tax on production in Australia or move my production offshore to another lower tax jurisdiction and improve my return on capital... I know what choice I'm making. This tax will not save the Great Barrier Reef. It will not reduce global carbon emissions... It may actually make them WORSE because China, India, Brazil and elsewhere all have less stringent emissions standards than we do. This is a MORON TAX. It's anti-Australian and will damage our economy.

 

[11sjw]

Re: No Country on Earth Ever Taxed It Self to Prosperity

No Country on Earth Ever Taxed It Self to Prosperity.

There is no science that proves human activity is causing global warming. Sorry, but that's the inconvenient truth. If you can provide a citation to any scientific, peer reviewed, published research in any scholarly journal of international repute then please post it here.

Until then, please stop the BS and fess-up to the fact this is just another government money-grab that will hurt Australia's global competitiveness and lead to the further export of jobs.

Even if someone can post a link. The bolded part is still true.