i think pollies need to realise that to discourage use, a tax is not an effective method.
like the GST - who avoids buying a hot chook to avoid paying GST?
like the GST - who avoids buying a hot chook to avoid paying GST?
So much for global warming
- Thread starter Propertunity
- Start date
I think it's a big enough risk to warrant doing something about. It may be that the Earth can handle 1000ppmv comfortably and we can go on our merry way (although I seriously doubt it...). However, two points are still worth noting:
1) Done properly, the cost of reducing emissions isn't all that great if we just change what we tax. If the effort that currently went into "tax minimisation" could be diverted into CO2 emissions, just imagine the results!And absolutely an ETS will drive all the wrong behaviours...
2)There are added long term benefits for our long term energy, water and environmental security in tackling these problems ASAP. You are well aware of the link between oil and food prices - I don't want to live in a world where a permanent oil shock drives up the cost of food to revolutionary / military levels. We need to do what we can to develop alternatives and a cost on carbon is a key component of establishing that market.
By the way, getting away from the hysterics of Australian journalists and the folly of the ETS currently on the table, you may be interested in this joint statement from the UK MetOffice, the Royal Society and their Natural Environment Research Council. These organisations are very conservative and not known for making outlandish public claims on any subject. Strikes me as a comprehensive summary of the current state of the science...
I agree with HiEquity here.
Some skeptics deny there is a problem because the sea levels haven’t risen enough yet. What this fails to notice is that, if we wait for the sea levels to rise significantly before we do something, it may be too late to revert the process.
There is definitely a risk in doing nothing & ignoring the problem. The "Don't worry, we'll be alright mate" attitude won't do for me. I don't think any of the skeptics can claim to know for sure that everything will be alright.
What is odd about all this is that it is not that difficult to reduce our carbon emissions. Generating electricity from nuclear reactors instead of burning coal would make a huge difference for example.
The cost estimates have found that economic growth may be reduced from 3% / year to 2% / year if we took radical action. So what? Is that something we can't live with? Do we prefer to have to relocate the millions of people who live in low-lying areas in about 100 years, and have to rebuild infrastructure somewhere else? Where would be rebuild in a world where sea levels keep rising?
There is a lot of hysteria in the media against action to mitigate global warming, saying basically "This is a scam, there is no danger, all this is going to costs jobs and a lot of money, ..." Many people love to read that, because it pushes the problem away, and they can carry on driving their 4WD in the city without feeling guilty for example. Since it is what people love to read, it finds its way into the newspapers.
Unfortunately it's much easier to be a skeptic that to consider changing your habits.
Cheers,
Last edited:
I'm not sure the GST is a good comparison.
a carbon tax is a simple, effective way to rise the cost of carbon burners. This money can then be used to fund research into cleaner forms of energy production.
It would be ideal if we had renewable energy being cheaper than coal-fired energy production. Unfortunately it won't happen overnight.
Given the right incentives, it will happen sooner though.
Cheers,
And it's even easier to let someone else fix the problem for you.....
US bets $150m on high-risk renewable energy
Technology is changing everything constantly, it's changing things exponentially faster than ever before. Anything we do today will be dwarfed by what technology change will achieve for us next year.
Anyone remember the smog in London in the industrial age that killed 1000's every year ? ...... their solution was to find a better energy source.
Good point.
There are many people who consider it "The government's problem" and carry on with their lives.
Cheers,
Hi Keith
I agree we need new technology development. Unfortunately the history of technology development in the power business is not good - a glacial pace in fact. Coal power stations were developed well over 100 years ago and still provide the majority of our needs. They are incredibly cheap if you don't count the cost of their emissions and this stifles anything newer (and more expensive) coming along. There has lately been a reliance on the free market to develop new technologies when history shows it is only government support that has provided the key leaps in energy technology in the last century (from 747s to wind to solar to nuclear power). It takes 20-30 years to develop a new technology in the power business regardless of how good it is - the private sector doesn't have the appetite for those lead times.
First you have to have an idea
Then you have to prove it may work in a lab
Then you have to build a demonstration scale
Then you have to go out in the field on a pre-commercialisation scale
Then you have to find a way to finance a commercial scale project with a technology that has no track record.
Then you have to convince people that with only five years of track record they should buy your new technology.
Then you have to roll it out en masse across the globe...
Each one of those steps can involve a five year gap of refining, improving, modifying etc and each step requires ever increasing amounts of risk money. Note you only start making money at the last step. Relying on this process to come up with a technology to beat coal is a bridge too far - all you have to do is dig the stuff out of the ground and burn it after all...
If we want new technology development from the private power sector we have to provide a long term market for low emission technologies that recognises the cost of the status quo. A price on carbon is a key component of that. Without either that or massive (orders of magnitude above existing) R&D expenditure in the energy sector from all countries we are doomed to maintain the status quo. Pick your poison!
By the way $150m in R&D for energy technology is a very small drop in the ocean required for this challenge. Typical of the phlegmatic response of governments to date...
yeah good point - prob wrong analogy on second thoughts. still - can you see the point...?
i see another derivatives market out there, because for something to be taxed, it must first be a "something" and that "something" has a value for said tax to be applied at a given %.
i'm a skeptic. i'm not a de-bunker though - i take everything everyone says, from both sides, with a grain of salt - including my own. i'm happy to be corrected.
at present, i feel we cannot make large assumptions about what will happen to the earth if we do nothing - we simply don't have enough data to project what will happen with human interference.
we can roughly tell what happened last time there was a spike of CO2 in the air, and the time before that, and the time before that. however - once again, that was NATURE taking it's course.
however, i think it's prudent to amend our ways because doing nothing could be our downfall.
i don't think a tax on carbon is right kind of "amendment". this doesn't mean i'm not concerned about our planet's welfare, or that i'm being apathetic, but i see it as a token measure that will do nothing but relinquish control to a larger inter-governmental body for taxation purposes for another derivatives market for a select few to make more money from doing nothing.
to tar everyone with a brush whereby if they don't agree with the ETS they're not green, or apathetic, or immature, or afraid of change... is bollocks.
example
our recycle bin is the same size as our general waste bin. we stuff our recycle bin stupid, because it's emptied every fortnight, whereby general waste is emptied every week, of which the bin is lucky to be half full.
if the local council would swap this around, there'd be a lot more recycling, because people would be forced to think about it.
this would make more change to the planet than me paying another tax on my general waste disposal, wouldn't it....?
wouldn't it....?
our recycle bin is the same size as our general waste bin. we stuff our recycle bin stupid, because it's emptied every fortnight, whereby general waste is emptied every week, of which the bin is lucky to be half full.
if the local council would swap this around, there'd be a lot more recycling, because people would be forced to think about it.
this would make more change to the planet than me paying another tax on my general waste disposal, wouldn't it....?
wouldn't it....?
a lot of the 'recycling' that is collected is dumped as landfill, especially since the GFC took a grip, so it probably doesn't matter when or how much they collect
Found this artical about the Emissions Trading Scheme.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/inconvenient-truth-its-a-high-price-for-nothing-20091123-j0xb.html
Just some more food for thought!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/inconvenient-truth-its-a-high-price-for-nothing-20091123-j0xb.html
Just some more food for thought!
I don't understand that much about this ETS. It seems to me far more complex than it needs to be.
There has been so much political horse trading on this already.
I would have preferred a carbon tax, at least it's easier to understand.
Cheers,
our recycle bin is the same size as our general waste bin. we stuff our recycle bin stupid, because it's emptied every fortnight, whereby general waste is emptied every week, of which the bin is lucky to be half full.
if the local council would swap this around, there'd be a lot more recycling, because people would be forced to think about it.
this would make more change to the planet than me paying another tax on my general waste disposal, wouldn't it....?
wouldn't it....?
Good point about the recycle bins.
Where I live, the recycle bins are twice a big as the waste bin.
It gives people a message than there should be more recycling than waste.
It's one of those little things that make a difference.
Cheers,
It could be argued that the glacial pace is speeding up exponentially
.... it took 10,000 years to get from wood to coal, 1000 yrs to oil, 100 yrs to nuclear, 10 yrs to ?.......and with the current political direction, you can add talk about ETS, convince the public about an ETS, convince the developed world to join in, etc to the start of that list. I agree that there aren't any easy answers (except coal status quo).
There are many technologies that are a fair way down that list of hurdles - see the $150M link above.
My poison is to throw money at R&D todayIf we want new technology development from the private power sector we have to provide a long term market for low emission technologies that recognises the cost of the status quo. A price on carbon is a key component of that. Without either that or massive (orders of magnitude above existing) R&D expenditure in the energy sector from all countries we are doomed to maintain the status quo. Pick your poison!
. Slap a tax on carbon based electricity & oil to pay for it.
Last edited:
My poison is to throw money at R&D today
Then we agree...
Actually it bloody hard being a scepic.
We are accused of being wonton polluters who don't give a damn. We are called "deniers" (as in holocaust deniers). Others say we are are traitors and should be shot as such. You now accuse us of being lazy/selfish.
The sceptics I chat with are well read on the subject and usually educated or with technical trades. Often a bit older and are tired already of being lied to. None of us want to pollute the earth and we are all painfully aware of the problems mankind faces and really would prefer our precious resources, both physical (particularly energy) and fiscal to be spent better.
So next time you want to dump on a sceptic accept that we are caring citizens who want a better future too. We want to do it differently though.
Actually HK (household) recycling is a sop to the masses. Like a little rum for the sailors before they take on the Spanish Amarda, it is designed to make you feel good. No way are they going to tell the suckers what is REALLY ahead. Where I live we send the material thousands of Ks south on diesel burning semi's at high cost. But everyone feels good about it. When money gets tight they take it to the tip anyway.
I would vote 100 times over (if i could) for any govt that was pro-nuclear power and anti-coal power.
I say clean coal is more like perpetual motion.
HiEquity said:keithj said:My poison is to throw money at R&D today
Then we agree...
And I agree also.
My ideal solution would be:
1/ Tax the crap out of carbon-based electricity
2/ Immediately replace coal-fired power with Nuclear (and dont give me the 10-year to come on line bullcrap. It takes just as long to build a coal station, and really... 10 years is a SHORT time).
3/ Invest heavily in a long-term RENEWABLE replacement for nuclear.
4/ Send nuclear waste to jupiter.
send nuclear waste to the SUN - it's cheaper.
Ausprop - i think you're talking about "single bin recycling" ala City of Stirling. their contractor got caught and slapped for only recycling 15% of what was collected....
divisible recycling bins go to the right places. what happens at said places is beyond our control for the moment.
Ausprop - i think you're talking about "single bin recycling" ala City of Stirling. their contractor got caught and slapped for only recycling 15% of what was collected....
divisible recycling bins go to the right places. what happens at said places is beyond our control for the moment.
Not as hard as fixing the problem though ...Actually it bloody hard being a scepic.
So what's your plan then?
Similar threads
