Carbon Tax on it's way through the House.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The House of Representatives is tonight debating the carbon tax. If Juliar has her way it will pass the House by tommorrow morning and if the reports are correct she has the numbers ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-11/mps-debate-carbon-tax-bills/3498898 ) and given the Greens numbers in the Senate there won't be a delay there either.

Despite all the ads we will soon be about $600 per man woman and child worse off. So I thought it was an appropriate juncture to review some of the Government's projections kindly displayed on the ABC website next to every article on climate change.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/07/1289.jpg

According to one graph Australia contributes 1.47% of Global Carbon Emmissions, http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emissions/ then if we look at another graphic Emission Reductions Graph (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emission-reductions/) (the graph above) we can see that all the carbon Tax initiatives will achieve around 2% in carbon emission reduction by 2050 over 2011. The other 78% of abatement will be purchased from 3rd countries.

Lets do a little calculation.

In 2011 Australia produces 1.47% of Global CO2 we will be reducing that by 2% (of todays figures) so we will be reducing Global CO2 by 0.0294% or in 2050 we will be producing 1.44% of Global CO2 (on 2011 figures). Whoopee how good is that for our contribution to Climate Change.

I then ask another question. If every country actively wanted to reduce it's share of Global CO2, how many will have carbon abatement offsets to sell us?

And for this we will be paying the World's highest carbon tax.

[bob10]

Very good presentation, I don't know what to think about the tax, what is your alternative? Bob

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Bob

I've said all along that the Government should have been providing low interest loans, tax concessions and significant grants for research and development of on the ground alternative power generation projects.

In the 1940s and 1950s we invested heavily in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, but since that time the only major power generation projects funded or supported by the various Governments have been coal fired power stations.

What has happened to our innovation over the last 60 years. We got lazy and went for the cheapest option. Even the solar cell technologies produced in our taxpayer funded universities (specifically UNSW) has gone overseas for lack of investment and Commonwealth grants to build production.

Have you ever been to Lake Argyle and Wyndam? The tidal flows in that part of the country are huge, there are even narrows across those flows that would make tidal flow a viable possibility and outside the slack water at each tide provided reliable generation forces that are not dependant upon wind or sunlight.

On the west coast of Tasmania and the Bass Strait (in-fact right across the Southern coastline from Albany) we regularly have huge seas and these can be used as wave action generators located below the surface so as not to obstruct shipping.

Solar thermal and geo thermal are other options but AFAIK only two pilot projects have received any funding at all.

Diana

[WhiteD3]

We (as in the human population) have to do something. Is this strategy right? Don't know. Should we wait for everyone else to act before we do? No. Are industry and the markets already taking major steps to reduce carbon emmisions and energy usage? You better believe it.

[Veryan]

Well said,

I am a geologist/easrth scientist if you wish and no stranger to a little controversy, but like lotz-a-landies has said the best way to reduce our footprint would be to investing in new technologies, tax breaks to put solar hot water and photoelectric solar cells on roofs, insulates homes/start building well designed energy efficient homes, not steel frames with plastic /tin on the outside. I.e reduce our power consumption and invest rather than tax.

Research, I work down at UWA and they did have a project to put in a hot rocks bore (~1000m) to tap into the hot waters/rocks of the Perth basin. The idea would be to power the campus' air conditioning, use it as a test bed for applied technology for potential use in new build office complexes and retrofitting to existing buildings and train young scientists. Cost about $300 million. Private and government money. What did the government do? Pulled the funding and the project went under. Imagine the power consumption reduction if you could get a percentage of down town Perth powered by the temperature gradient beneath it? Now that is reducing power consumption, and thus fossil fuel usage, and therefore carbon output. Instead we tax the producers, give the cash to the poor to make up for the increased prices and invest very little. Good work.

I guess if we don't use electricity,or we reduce our consumption, then the government doesn't make any money in the form of taxes, so really they don't want us to reduce out energy needs, since they would not make any money......

[Mick_Marsh]

A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to work as part of a design team to build a solar collector pilot power plant. The foreign company wanted tax breaks so they could compete with the mud burning power stations in the Latrobe Valley.
The government said no.
The power plant was built in another country with a foreign design team.
Opportunity lost.

This carbon tax is nothing but a money grab.

And I thought they would never be able to tax the air. I'm now re-thinking.......

[GEK064]

We (as in the human population) have to do something. Is this strategy right? Don't know. Should we wait for everyone else to act before we do? No. Are industry and the markets already taking major steps to reduce carbon emmisions and energy usage? You better believe it.

Where is the kudos in being the first country to bleed it's population with yet another ill timed and concieved tax? We have some of the best innovators in solar energy, alternative energies etc leaving the country because they cannot get sufficient support from the government here in Australia. We live in a country blessed with so many resources, yet all we do is dig them up, chop them down or just ship them live. Where is the valve adding in our supply chains? Where is our future?

The solar rebates were sold, in part based on the fact that if enough people buy then, we can avoid building another dirty power station...now what happens? The government goes back, yet again on theirs promises....we need innovators (of all kinds) in government, not more lawyers or accountants or union leaders.

[101RRS]

If every new house built in Aust from now on was required to have solar panels on its roof I wonder how our energy footprint would reduce - cost increase on a new house would be less that 10% and most likely much less. Certainly not the sole solution but as part of a range of initiatives - like those already suggested a start.

Garry

[bob10]

Bob

I've said all along that the Government should have been providing low interest loans, tax concessions and significant grants for research and development of on the ground alternative power generation projects.

In the 1940s and 1950s we invested heavily in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, but since that time the only major power generation projects funded or supported by the various Governments have been coal fired power stations.

What has happened to our innovation over the last 60 years. We got lazy and went for the cheapest option. Even the solar cell technologies produced in our taxpayer funded universities (specifically UNSW) has gone overseas for lack of investment and Commonwealth grants to build production.

Have you ever been to Lake Argyle and Wyndam? The tidal flows in that part of the country are huge, there are even narrows across those flows that would make tidal flow a viable possibility and outside the slack water at each tide provided reliable generation forces that are not dependant upon wind or sunlight.

On the west coast of Tasmania and the Bass Strait (in-fact right across the Southern coastline from Albany) we regularly have huge seas and these can be used as wave action generators located below the surface so as not to obstruct shipping.

Solar thermal and geo thermal are other options but AFAIK only two pilot projects have received any funding at all.

Diana
Think I know what happened after the snowy, the Franklin river. After that, most of the " alternative " power solutions were deemed too much of a political hot potatoe. I have been around the Australian coast about 4 or 5 times, including around Tasmania. The problem with the tidal dream is no-one has been able to make it financialy viable. It's all right to have feel good dreams, making them reality is the problem. You haven't given a solution, just pie in the sky dreams, sorry, Bob

[Davehoos]

CLEVA COUNTRY
.
My wife got bats in our roof from our government hand out because [I dont know],as we are cash poor it took longer to come up with our contibution so the rebate was less costing me a lot more than i wanted to or could aford.

we have free wood for heating and no airconditioning so our power consumption didnt change.those that be might say the standard of living is better---but it cost me around 3 months cash that would have gone towards a social life..

we now saving for a new roof.all the quotes come with insulation included-so im getting more of what i dont need.because its now considered the industry standard

what gives me the .is people that write into the papers complaining about costs of services dont understand its the mindless complience costs that take up all the cash for doing stuff.

AND THIS TAX IS ANOTHER BIG DRAIN THAT ACTUALLY WONT DO ANYTHING

for those of you out side of the hunter do a google on lamas st figs.Fig campaigners calling for picket line - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald (http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/fig-campaigners-calling-for-picket-line/2319035.aspx)

at $800 000 + you see why you cant do buisness in australia.this part of townwas bankrupted to be handed over to the university crowd that have the cash and the old university diehard tree huggers that have been running newcastle are now winning.

[Davehoos]

there are lots of projects around that are viable.
there are lots of projects that work.

the argument is that coal and now gas is [artificially] cheeper.hense carbon tax.

my experience has been that lots of these very good projects have been science driven but when the reseach has concluded the project are scrapped.the few i know of ran faultless untill all the data was achieved to write up and present papers or PHD.etc.

a few times i have supplied A/C compressors to be studied as heat pumps by the same research organisation.

I heard one local radio interview saying that she could comercally sell alcohol fuel from waise for under 145 c/l.[predicted that it would be 200c/l by june 2011] when asked why she doesnt she replied that she was writting up her thesis to go with new studies.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Think I know what happened after the snowy, the Franklin river. After that, most of the " alternative " power solutions were deemed too much of a political hot potatoe. I have been around the Australian coast about 4 or 5 times, including around Tasmania. The problem with the tidal dream is no-one has been able to make it financialy viable. It's all right to have feel good dreams, making them reality is the problem. You haven't given a solution, just pie in the sky dreams, sorry, BobWhen they're taxing us $70 billion over the next 6 years, who needs it to be financially viable.

Spain generates aprox 850MW through Solar Thermal stations (48.4 Mw through Solar Tower and 800MW by solar trough). The USA produces just over 500MW by solar-thermal therefore producing the same wattage as any one of the 4 coal fired turbines at Liddell in NSW.

The USA has another 770MW under construction and Spain 1,330MW under construction.

Australia has a massive 2 MW of Solar Thermal production topping up the coal fired Liddell and none under construction. Yet we have millions of square KM that could be used to produce similar or greater amounts of power.

[isuzurover]

Haven't we had this discussion already?

[JDNSW]

Haven't we had this discussion already?

Probably! The simple fact is that coal fired power generation is by far the cheapest form of electricity possible in Australia (even with quite a high carbon tax) because of the vast quantities of easily mined coal close to most major population centres, it is familiar, risk free technology, uses existing distribution networks and employs significant numbers of voters. And power costs and retention of the existing union power base are far more important to voters and hence governments than actually doing anything about climate change, which, as pointed out, this bill will not influence to any measurable extent.

To spend money on developing untried (at least by local industry) techniques such as thermal solar power when it is risky and much expertise would need to come from overseas and would only produce more expensive power is hardly a course that recommends itself to power companies or voters (and hence governments). And since it would remove jobs or potential jobs from an existing workforce, replacing them with ones with different skills and almost certainly not unionised, employed by new companies, probably from overseas, it does not appeal to either side of politics.

John

[Zute]

People whinge about the cost of petrol, but I still see plenty of new v8s on the road. What gets me is, the world has been warming long before man started lighting fires. But surely we should be doing something about clean air for our Kids.
Yesterday the meadia was saying this bill would not make it through the Upper house. Tonight, the Greens seem to be backing it without there changes. So what gives ?

[JDNSW]

People whinge about the cost of petrol, but I still see plenty of new v8s on the road. What gets me is, the world has been warming long before man started lighting fires. But surely we should be doing something about clean air for our Kids.
Yesterday the meadia was saying this bill would not make it through the Upper house. Tonight, the Greens seem to be backing it without there changes. So what gives ?

The cost of petrol as a proportion of average income is probably not significantly higher than it ever has been, and the buyers of these V8s are probably mostly not on average incomes anyway - the top 10-25% of people have never worried about the cost of petrol, and in any case the cost of fuel is a relatively minor part of the cost for most new car buyers - depreciation, cost of capital and fixed costs are far more important unless you do a very high mileage or keep the car for a long time.

Even if "surely we should be doing something about clean air for our Kids" it is not clear in what way this bill will do anything about this - most emissions that Australia is ultimately responsible for are unaffected (primarily exported coal) and most savings are simply by transferring activities offshore where the tax is not charged. Also, the tax, while high enough to cause pain, is probably not high enough to cause any significant change in behaviour, particularly given the compensation paid to almost anyone really affected. And in any case, with Australia accounting for less than 2% of global emissions, the effect of any savings is likely to be so small as to be unmeasurable. Without an effective policy to stop population growth the whole exercise is pointless anyway - it may reduce per capita emissions, but if the population increases by proportionately more, what is the point?

And in answer to your last point, it appears that the Greens, who were planning to oppose it because of the planned compensation for the steel industry, have decided that it is enough to eventually kill the steel industry anyway, and given the alternative of no carbon tax, will support it as is, without insisting on dropping the compensation.

John

[Mick_Marsh]

To spend money on developing untried (at least by local industry) techniques such as thermal solar power when it is risky and much expertise would need to come from overseas and would only produce more expensive power is hardly a course that recommends itself to power companies or voters (and hence governments). And since it would remove jobs or potential jobs from an existing workforce, replacing them with ones with different skills and almost certainly not unionised, employed by new companies, probably from overseas, it does not appeal to either side of politics.
John,
The expertise is here in Australia, waiting.
The expertise was an Australian owned company.
The expertise is now internationally owned.
We're still sitting here, waiting.
Do you want to fund a project?

[ATH]

And while Gillard takes the enormous amount of extra tax this stupidity will generate, China heads towards parity with the US as the worlds biggest polluter.
Don't tell me about comparisons showing us as the biggest, we are just a tiny portion of the worlds population and our total pollution doesn't make one tiny bit of difference to it overall.
Bloody idiot politicians trying to show the world they are leaders in lunacy that's all this tax is about.
AlanH.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yes it's passed! :mad:

And to top it off Juliar and 747 exchanged a loving embrace on the floor of the House!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/10/866.jpg

What did Tony Abbott do - he promised it would be repealed when he attains office. One can bet with the income this tax will generate for General Revenue, the repeal will turn into a "Non-core promise".

They are all liars and I don't care that the comment is seditious.

[CraigE]

What annoys me is we will be paying a carbon tax with absolutely no benefit to the environment. The majority of the revenue wil be going to offset price increase for low to low-middle income earners. Middle High - High income earners will be wearing the cost. There is not real benefit to the environment. If we are going to have a carbon tax lets at least have a real one that goes some way to repairing or maintaining our environment from pollution.
The way I see it is the current proposed carbon tax does not address this.
I am not adverse to the tax if it has a real effect on emmissions and the environment, however everyone should pay not just a minor % of the population.
As said there are far better ways to improve our emmissions footprint.
Every house in Australia should have solar panels, the problem with this is as more houses do, electricity producers lose forecast revenue, so prices are adjusted to meet forecast, electricity prices jump for those that can not afford solar panels, so the endless cycle continues as our electricity companies are no longer a service and infrstructure provider but are profit driven entities.
Same happened in SA with water. Big drought, so people were asked and then forced to save water, the water supplier in SA had a huge revenue drop due to the water conservation plans, so just hiked up water tariffs.

[drivesafe]

Well Bob Brown’s whore got her way, for now.

There is a long time between now and when this new tax comes into play and if we get lucky and have a change of government first, even with the new governments lack of numbers to revoke the new tax, they can instruct the taxation office not to collect it.

So all we can do is wait and see.

As a side note, did anyone see the interview with Lindsay Fox last week.

He was saying that over the last fifteen years, his trucking companies had reduced their carbon output by 60% but a carbon tax would mean they would no longer have the money available to develop even greater reductions.

Yep the carbon tax will be real good for everybody, HOW?

[SuperMono]

I don't have any issue with pricing/taxing carbon/polluting technologies to drive demand for cleaner alternatives.
I do have a problem with the way the money collected is circulated.
No good taxing 'the big polluters' then giving allmost all of the money back to those controlling the actual consumption (that's you and me), so they can afford the increased charges.

First rule is: reduce consumption within your control.
So don't turn it on unless you actually need it, turn it off, turn it down, use it less where possible and appropriate.

Second rule is: make it better.
Replace inefficient or dirty technology with improved versions/alternative as appropriate and when available/affordable.

Follow these rules at an individual level and this has a much bigger (positive) impact than a handful of tax dollars doing the rounds.

Third rule: Private business won't do it unless there is money in it for them.
So governments around the world must invest directly in R&D and pilot schemes for cleaner or more efficient technologies.
This is where the taxes collected must go.

Sometimes life does need to be tough.

Back in my day.....walked 6 miles.....rant....rant...hobby horse......soapbox etc.......

[Ratel10mm]

How many of you have air conditioning and / or refrigeration at home or in your business?
Care to guess what's going to happen to the price of refrigerant with this new tax?

[Chucaro]

Great day for Australia and the planet :twobeers::twobeers::banana:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Great day for Australia and the planet :twobeers::twobeers::banana:
Yep in 39 years we will be producing 0.0289% less of the Worlds CO2. (Yes that is less than 3 hundreths of one percent of the World's CO2, using Aust Government projections.)

Worth every cent of the $420 billion dollars Tax we will pay over the next 37 years.

[Chucaro]

Yep in 39 years we will be producing 0.0289% less of the Worlds CO2. (Yes that is less than 300ths of one percent of the World's CO2, using Aust Government projections.)

Worth every cent of the $420 billion dollars Tax we will pay over the next 37 years.

Heaps better that the alternative, more than 600 billon dollars pay by the workers to "assist the polluters to find a smart way to reduce emissions.
An in the top of that he said that he will remove any help to ofset the cost. ;)

In any case, we whent trough about this in the other thread so now it is time to celebrate :cool:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Heaps better that the alternative, more than 600 billon dollars pay by the workers to "assist the polluters to find a smart way to reduce emissions.
An in the top of that he said that he will remove any help to ofset the cost. ;)

In any case, we whent trough about this in the other thread so now it is time to celebrate :cool:Glad that Juliar will be giving me a nurse, $3 to off-set the hundreds of dollars of cost. It's more an insult than anything else.

I haven't voted Liberal for 30 years but I sure will be next election.

[Chucaro]

Glad that Juliar will be giving me a nurse, $3 to off-set the hundreds of dollars of cost. It's more an insult than anything else.

I haven't voted Liberal for 30 years but I sure will be next election.

It is your choice and right,
Good on you, Abbot will take you the $3.00 and will add more cost to your living because his plan cost morfe that the Carbon Tax policy.
You will work to pay the polluters.

[drivesafe]

I haven't voted Liberal for 30 years but I sure will be next election.

I can’t stand Abbot, but as a small business owner, if I want to keep my doors open, we have to have a change of government and the sooner the better.

[frantic]

Has anyone including chucaro looked to where the ETS certificates will be coming from?
Who here likes the idea of PAYING for a MONSTER coal power station in india, at completion of all stages will produce over 4000mw!!!, who will onsell ETS certificates to us and europe because it is more efficient than the old power stations in india.
Yes thats right $500million to 1 power plant in india in ets certificates so they can produce over 600million tons of carbon.Dont worry that there are several other new COAL plants being built in the third world that are all lining up to suck our stupidity carbon tax dollars away:mad: Let alone the crippling to the aussie manufacturing and steel industry.
http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageMarket.aspx?id=%20111

[GEK064]

Not sure on how such tax, higher and more far reaching than most other countries on earth, shown to reduce next to nothing on the global level can possibly be seen as a good move or to be celebrated?*

Would it not be better to support those very industries that will innovate the new path rather than punish those that know no better. Would it not be better to reduce all the tax subsidies that are given to the big miners whose very product causes the problem. Would it not be better to reward good behavior'that is just for staters - why have a trading scheme that will see money leave our shores.

Which ever way you cut it, this is just another tax, another money grab without purpose and without intent and I think it fair to say without support.

[Chucaro]

Has anyone including chucaro looked to where the ETS certificates will be coming from?
Who here likes the idea of PAYING for a MONSTER coal power station in india, at completion of all stages will produce over 4000mw!!!, who will onsell ETS certificates to us and europe because it is more efficient than the old power stations in india.
Yes thats right $500million to 1 power plant in india in ets certificates so they can produce over 600million tons of carbon.Dont worry that there are several other new COAL plants being built in the third world that are all lining up to suck our stupidity carbon tax dollars away:mad: Let alone the crippling to the aussie manufacturing and steel industry.
http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageMarket.aspx?id=%20111

So, in the way that you think is that just because another countries pollute, it is ok for us to pollute as well :confused:
The same principle then we can apply to the cost of recycling and our contribution in collecting material and place it in a bin which in some councils cost more than $50 a year just to have it in our home. Why I should recycle and collect free materials to the recycling industry when other people just do not do it.
We have to do what we believe what is right for the enviroment and not look what the polluters are doing.
If the government have "balls"then it can put a barrier on products imported from countries that pollute the planet, but then I am dreaming, greed is the root of the problems in the planet. :(

[roverfan]

How is a revenue neutral policy a tax grab???

I'm against it, but it seems allot of opinions on it are shaped by tabloid media with no real research.

There are advantages to the policy, and there is a strong backing from research groups for the tax and they are gearing up for the benefits that will arise. Treasury modeling also suggests it has a great potential for job growth over the next 20 years.

Don't believe all the scare mongering read the policy, study it and most will see it's not all doom and gloom.

[CraigE]

Not sure on how such tax, higher and more far reaching than most other countries on earth, shown to reduce next to nothing on the global level can possibly be seen as a good move or to be celebrated?*

Would it not be better to support those very industries that will innovate the new path rather than punish those that know no better. Would it not be better to reduce all the tax subsidies that are given to the big miners whose very product causes the problem. Would it not be better to reward good behavior'that is just for staters - why have a trading scheme that will see money leave our shores.

Which ever way you cut it, this is just another tax, another money grab without purpose and without intent and I think it fair to say without support.
Hang on a tick, you are targetting the miners without any knowledge or proof.
The facts are farm animals actually produce the most polution in the form of Methane and CO2. Refuse produces a lot of detrimental gases.
Mining istself produces fairly little. Downstream processing which is not strictly mining produces quantities of emmissions depending on the processing. Way above mining is the pollution we as animals, car drivers and consumers produce. Dont even start ofn the foresty / wood pulp industry. Deforestation globally is truly the single biggest issue.
Maybe the answer is to take your car.:p
We as consumers demand electricity, so coal is mined, electricity produced and emmissions created, so we are back to the consumer.
We as consumers buy products made of plastic, steel (iron ore), nickel etc etc that create the need for mining and processing so we are once again back to the consumer.
Maybe look at the big picture before you go pointing the finger at one segement of industry you obviously know very little about.

I do agree we should reward companies with innovation with incentives, but I also think we should penalize companies that do not embrace or utilise cleaner technologies.

[OffTrack]

Anyone who thinks doing nothing would have been a better option should think again...


No carbon tax? Europe will make us pay instead
May 31, 2011
OPINION

At some point in the next few years the EU will impose general sanctions on those nations that don’t measure up to its standards on carbon control. There’ll be some fine and filthy politicking over it, of course. Economic superpowers like the US and China will either muscle up, impose their own retaliatory sanctions, or simply make life so difficult that Brussels comes to an arrangement that accommodates their raw power.

Smaller and middle power players, however, countries like ours, they’ll get bent over the negotiating table for some rougher than usual handling. If Tony Abbott is PM at that point – and he is convinced he can ride Gillard and Brown’s carbon tax back into office – he’ll huff and he’ll puff but in the end he’ll drop trow and take it, because the pain imposed by Europe will far outweigh any pain he needs to impose via a carbon price to avoid their sanctions.

Don’t believe it?


Potential EU sanctions are why we have the privacy legislation we do. The Howard government, of which Abbott was a member, made wrenching changes to Australian privacy law to avoid being penalised when doing business with Europe.

Next year, Qantas air fares will increase because of a 15 per cent penalty imposed by the EU on carriers from countries that have not introduced a carbon tax. Abbott can fume and rage all he likes, but his posturing will count for nothing in Europe.

And that’s just the beginning.

In the end climate change and carbon pricing is a debate we will have, in spite of Rupert Murdoch’s trained orcs and trolls scaring the bejesus out of people like Dick Smith.

Smith yesterday admitted he hadn’t joined Cate Blanchett in her pro-carbon tax ad, because he was scared of being vilified by the Murdoch press. Not just the Piers Boltbrechtson hive mind, but the journalists, and headline writers, the photographers and moderators and serried ranks of deniers and abusers who have gone to war with science and the future on Rupert’s whim.

I must admit, I think less of Smith for that, and a lot more of Blanchett. After all, her career and livelihood arguably depends more on maintaining a happy, unconflicted public image than his. And she would have known, as he did, what was coming when she shot that advert.

But she probably knew much worse was coming anyway, if Abbott and Murdoch’s goon squad get their way and this debate becomes less about science than it is about thuggery and wilful ignorance.


Read more: No carbon tax? Europe will make us pay instead (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/no-carbon-tax-europe-will-make-us-pay-instead-20110530-1fcu9.html#ixzz1aWol4qmR)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>
The same principle then we can apply to the cost of recycling and our contribution in collecting material and place it in a bin which in some councils cost more than $50 a year just to have it in our home. Why I should recycle and collect free materials to the recycling industry when other people just do not do it.
We have to do what we believe what is right for the enviroment and not look what the polluters are doing.
<snip> :(Chucaro

Do you realise that because there is not sufficient capacity in recycling industries, that a lot of the recyclables and particularly the green waste is transported directly to landfill in the same trucks as the rubbish you placed in the other bin.

It is all window dressing, just as this carbon tax is window dressing. It is not going to reduce greenhouse emissions, because the big polluters are being compensated and the only people who will be paying for it are ordinary Australians. I have worked shift work, including overnight and weekends for 30 years and now have risen to a middle level manager and am earning over $85K and as such Juliar's Government will compensate me $3 annually with an expected impact of $463 annually. https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au (https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/)

I wouldn't mind paying this IF THE TAX WOULD ACHIEVE ANYTHING. less than one percent reduction in 39 years is ZERO improvement and as frantic suggested, how is buying credits from an Indian supersized coal fired power station that is a little bit more efficient than the old one going to help the Global environment? It isn't.

[frantic]

Chucaro with this tax YOU will be paying more for your power so that money can be passed to india to increase their power output/pollution output and they can pay LESS for their power BOTH of us from coal-fired power stations.
Besides backpackers,tourists and a few hundred HSV's what do we export to europe?
HMM do we export a hundred thousand cars? No we import them.
Do we export truck's and heavy equipment like excavators endloaders and tractors? No we import them.
Do we export computers, sound systems or medical specialist eqipment? No AGAIN!
If we taxed those imports at a rate to cover their unfiltered emissions from SHIPPING we would be able to compensate qantas and pay for other initiatives!

[roverfan]

Your $460 a year will go towards the creation of jobs to strengthen the economy. It's not just about pollution it is about establishing Australia as a leader in clean energy research and development, essentially future proofing our economy so that it doesn't rely on the mining industry to sustain it.

Australia is in a great position to be an innovator and a leader in this field that will pay dividends going forward instead of relying on an industry that rapes the resources of our country to benefit foreign investors. The mining boom won't last forever as even without the carbon tax there will come a te when we can't compete with Luther resource rich countries with a lower cost of doing business.

Australia needs to move away from manufacturing and build on it's strengths as an innovative nation as that's where the future of industry for our country lies.

And bitching about a few hundred bucks a week is pathetic.

[roverfan]

Also a point the scare mongers always forget to mention is that whilst it may not decrease our overall carbon footprint when you take into consideration population growth it is a major decrease in the per capita output.

[frantic]

ROFL roverfan you have obviously not fully understood what a CAP means:twisted:
We in Oz have a limit that is going to be reduced on the amount of CO2 we can emmit OVERALL as a country not per head.
China and india are proposing a limit per ITEM which means that they can ramp production up as much as they want as long as each ITEM only makes a certain amount of CO2.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Your $460 a year will go towards the creation of jobs to strengthen the economy. It's not just about pollution it is about establishing Australia as a leader in clean energy research and development, essentially future proofing our economy so that it doesn't rely on the mining industry to sustain it.

Australia is in a great position to be an innovator and a leader in this field that will pay dividends going forward instead of relying on an industry that rapes the resources of our country to benefit foreign investors. The mining boom won't last forever as even without the carbon tax there will come a te when we can't compete with Luther resource rich countries with a lower cost of doing business.
Australia needs to move away from manufacturing and build on it's strengths as an innovative nation as that's where the future of industry for our country lies.

And bitching about a few hundred bucks a week is pathetic.The problem is that this tax isn't going to innovation, it is going into the pockets of those who cant work and the pockets of those who wont work and to subsidise the people who pollute.

In your proposal you suggest that we need to get away from living off mining and manufacturing and we should innovate. The comment doesn't make sense. If we don't dig anything out of the ground and we don't make anything we are back to relying on agriculture and tourism. Agriculture no longer employs a lot of people, except back-packers.

Innovation is only useful if we value add to it, thinking something up and transferring that "innovation" to another country to manufacture only helps that other country. Look at the higher efficiency photovoltaiic cells designed at UNSW, these are being manufactured in China and being exported to the World from there, including to us. So our innovation has only meant that we are sending dollars to China to buy something that we designed.

[Veryan]

Woo.. it get $3 back for.....riding my bike to work, driving an old land rover (or several) (which as we all know is better for the environment than getting new car), growing my own veggies in the garden...sounds fair right? Where is the incentive here?

[GEK064]

Leave my car out of this - its the only vice i have left!! You are right. I know little about mining. I know they make holes in the ground and ship the product out without value adding. I know that they make huge profits and yet pay less tax than most. I know they pay silly amounts to drive big trucks and even more for people with degrees. *I know that their success can be measured , but so can the misery of those people in the towns that get taken over.

If you work in the mines or make a living that way, good luck to you, but i'm sure you are not tell me that a trading scheme that will have little to no global effect on CO2 and one that will see the credits traded overseas is a good thing, or that selling our coal to power a third countries dirty power stations is a good thing for our kids future.

But I'm off subject as this is not about the environment or mining - It is about tax.

I do what I can to become self sufficient. I built a new house and sent more than I could afford on clean technology and methods to save the heat/cooling cost in a passive way. I have my own super, and I work hard to pay the taxes and maybe more than some. I buy Australian food products because It make sense. I buy local when ever I can - I even have a large vegy garden and hug one of my 1000plus trees on my slice of heaven. And I've*lived in 5 other countries and always come back because this is what I call home, so when the government I trust with the future of my kids is doing little or nothing to improve their future, other than yet another tax because they cannot think laterally, well I just don't think that right.

When did over taxing solve anything....it did not work at Ballarat 1854 and it will not work here.

[OffTrack]

The tax is a carrot and stick to modify behaviour. The Government would not be paying out the vast majority of tax collected in compensatory measures if it was a purely revenue raising device.

[OffTrack]

Woo.. it get $3 back for.....riding my bike to work, driving an old land rover (or several) (which as we all know is better for the environment than getting new car), growing my own veggies in the garden...sounds fair right? Where is the incentive here?

The incentive is if you spend on products that don't attract carbon tax, or have a lower carbon tax component than the alternative choices you retain more of the tax cut resulting from the increased tax free threshold in your pocket.

If you choose not to minimise the impact of the carbon tax through you purchasing choices you really can't blame the government.

[roverfan]

The problem is that this tax isn't going to innovation, it is going into the pockets of those who cant work and the pockets of those who wont work and to subsidise the people who pollute.

In your proposal you suggest that we need to get away from living off mining and manufacturing and we should innovate. The comment doesn't make sense. If we don't dig anything out of the ground and we don't make anything we are back to relying on agriculture and tourism. Agriculture no longer employs a lot of people, except back-packers.

Innovation is only useful if we value add to it, thinking something up and transferring that "innovation" to another country to manufacture only helps that other country. Look at the higher efficiency photovoltaiic cells designed at UNSW, these are being manufactured in China and being exported to the World from there, including to us. So our innovation has only meant that we are sending dollars to China to buy something that we designed.

It absolutlely makes sense, Companies who pollute have to face the cost of doing business will increase, If they pass that onto consumers the consumers start to look elsewere and said company will need to become more competitive to survive and the only way to do that is to invest $ in clean energy alternatives hence increasing spending on research and development of new technologies. Nothing to do with agriculture at all.

As for the solar comment, i guess you are ignoring the royalties Australian companies get from inventing these technologies.

Its not all doom and gloom mate there are positives.

[Chucaro]

We went through this topic in THIS THREAD (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/132148-carbon-tax-well-someone-had-bring-up.html) where a lot of arguments were backed up by articles in the media and other source.
Why bother to repit all again?
Just take it as it comes and try to do the best for the future.
For those who prefer the alternative policy, also in the other thread is information about the "brilliant policy" by Mr Abbott.

[Ean Austral]

Your $460 a year will go towards the creation of jobs to strengthen the economy. It's not just about pollution it is about establishing Australia as a leader in clean energy research and development, essentially future proofing our economy so that it doesn't rely on the mining industry to sustain it.

Australia is in a great position to be an innovator and a leader in this field that will pay dividends going forward instead of relying on an industry that rapes the resources of our country to benefit foreign investors. The mining boom won't last forever as even without the carbon tax there will come a te when we can't compete with Luther resource rich countries with a lower cost of doing business.

Australia needs to move away from manufacturing and build on it's strengths as an innovative nation as that's where the future of industry for our country lies.

And bitching about a few hundred bucks a week is pathetic.


If you dont need to complain about a couple hundred bucks a WEEK... then send some $$$ my way cause I could use and extra couple hundred per week :p

Cheers Ean

[roverfan]

Week - year whoops :) if I had it I wouldn't mind sharing but I've just quit working to stay at home with my little boy.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It absolutlely makes sense, Companies who pollute have to face the cost of doing business will increase, If they pass that onto consumers the consumers start to look elsewere and said company will need to become more competitive to survive and the only way to do that is to invest $ in clean energy alternatives hence increasing spending on research and development of new technologies. Nothing to do with agriculture at all.

As for the solar comment, i guess you are ignoring the royalties Australian companies get from inventing these technologies. <do Chinese companies actually pay royalties, or do they have a reputation of stealing patents and copyrights?>

Its not all doom and gloom mate there are positives.You missed my point. You said we have to stop relying on mining and manufacturing. If we take those industries off the table what have we got left?

We have a road to ruin.

[JDNSW]

Also a point the scare mongers always forget to mention is that whilst it may not decrease our overall carbon footprint when you take into consideration population growth it is a major decrease in the per capita output.

Which has exactly zero relevance to global warming! Without a way of at least stopping population growth, everything else is simply (expensive) window dressing.

John

[CraigE]

Leave my car out of this - its the only vice i have left!! You are right. I know little about mining. I know they make holes in the ground and ship the product out without value adding. I know that they make huge profits and yet pay less tax than most. I know they pay silly amounts to drive big trucks and even more for people with degrees. *I know that their success can be measured , but so can the misery of those people in the towns that get taken over.

If you work in the mines or make a living that way, good luck to you, but i'm sure you are not tell me that a trading scheme that will have little to no global effect on CO2 and one that will see the credits traded overseas is a good thing, or that selling our coal to power a third countries dirty power stations is a good thing for our kids future.

But I'm off subject as this is not about the environment or mining - It is about tax.

I do what I can to become self sufficient. I built a new house and sent more than I could afford on clean technology and methods to save the heat/cooling cost in a passive way. I have my own super, and I work hard to pay the taxes and maybe more than some. I buy Australian food products because It make sense. I buy local when ever I can - I even have a large vegy garden and hug one of my 1000plus trees on my slice of heaven. And I've*lived in 5 other countries and always come back because this is what I call home, so when the government I trust with the future of my kids is doing little or nothing to improve their future, other than yet another tax because they cannot think laterally, well I just don't think that right.

When did over taxing solve anything....it did not work at Ballarat 1854 and it will not work here.

Hey I dont agree with the carbon tax in the form it is in as it actually achieves very little. I could however be swayed on one that actually accomplished something worth while.
I am sorry but without mining this country would be bankrupt, no ifs, no buts.
I agree we should be doing some downstream processing, but you can not just blame the miners for that. Our job is extracting the ore from the ground and selling it. Often that is to overseas producers as we as consumers do not want to pay $100 a sheet for colourbond, $10,000 dollars for a set of saucepans or $100,000 for Hyundai Elantra. The processing and manufacturing capabilities just are not here, let alone sourcing employees at $2 a day to run them and produce said items.
I would love to see down stream processing but I am a realist and know it is generally just not feasable.
If you want to blame anyone how about blaming spineless governments who are controlled by corporate executives, who have no foresight.
I am sick of hearing the towns get taken over bull**** too, it does happen, but what about similar growth in places like Greater Sydney? What about the 80% of the mining work force that are FIFO? so actually live in our cities and keep these areas sustainable. Growth happens wether we like it or not and is tied with population growth and as it is we focus too much on overpopulating our cities.
The reason most people earn good money in the mining industry is because we will live and work in ****holes most of the population wont, we comply to D&A testing that most wont, we work hard in hot climates in high risk jobs that most wont and above all we are away from families for long periods of time and this is why we are compensated accordingly. Most of the jobs dont pay much more as a base rate than anywhere else. Most is paid for shift penalties and living remote.
You also tend to forget the cost of living in many of these areas absorbs a lot of the so called higher income.
There is also a widespread misconception that everybody earns $200k a year, well that is rare. Truck drivers working 2 weeks on 1 week off on 12hr days are on around $120k, which is around the average. Construction is where the actual big money is, construction of mining infrastructure, I dont see anyone criticising that part of the industry.

[Hymie]

Great day for Australia and the planet :twobeers::twobeers::banana:


Geez Chucaro, I didn't know you were noted for sarcasm.

[Hymie]

Leave my car out of this - its the only vice i have left!! You are right. I know little about mining. I know they make holes in the ground and ship the product out without value adding.


Yep, only because the were either Taxed out of it or developing counties that are going to get our carbon tax dollars can do it cheap.

[Hymie]

So, in the way that you think is that just because another countries pollute, it is ok for us to pollute as well :confused:

Confused all right!!!
You don't get it do you?
We are going to be giving our money to other countries to pollute as much as they can.
The argument is not supposed to be about Pollution.
It's supposed to be about minimising Man Made Climate change, and despite Julias edict that the science is in, the science is still being debated and that's what makes people mad, the fact that we have been conned and lied to.

[barefoot]

I cant believe this. Sounds like everything we buy is going to get dearer :mad:

[CraigE]

I cant believe this. Sounds like everything we buy is going to get dearer :mad:
That is pretty much the jist of it.
People will pay and nothing will get done to actually help the environment and then with the extra revenue you can guarantee that the pollies will stick their hand out for a big pay rise. A few will be compensated in a small way but most of us who will pay. How much will probablly take 5 years to really know the final cost.

[roverfan]

That is pretty much the jist of it.
People will pay and nothing will get done to actually help the environment and then with the extra revenue you can guarantee that the pollies will stick their hand out for a big pay rise. A few will be compensated in a small way but most of us who will pay. How much will probablly take 5 years to really know the final cost.

But there is no extra revenue

[Mick_Marsh]

Your $460 a year will go towards the creation of jobs to strengthen the economy. It's not just about pollution it is about establishing Australia as a leader in clean energy research and development, essentially future proofing our economy so that it doesn't rely on the mining industry to sustain it.
No it won't. Don't believe what the pollies say. Any money spent on green energy will be creating jobs in Thailand, India, Chillie and other overseas countries. I'm in the industry. I see this often. "How can we do this cheaper? Send it off shore."

Australia is in a great position to be an innovator and a leader in this field that will pay dividends going forward instead of relying on an industry that rapes the resources of our country to benefit foreign investors. The mining boom won't last forever as even without the carbon tax there will come a te when we can't compete with Luther resource rich countries with a lower cost of doing business.
That time has passed. Innovation has moved off shore. We can't compete. Our knowledgeable people are moving overseas.

Australia needs to move away from manufacturing and build on it's strengths as an innovative nation as that's where the future of industry for our country lies.
Australia needs to be self sufficient. If Australia wants it, design and manufacture it in Australia.

And bitching about a few hundred bucks a week is pathetic.
A few hundred bucks a week is more than most have as disposable cash. I think you meant a different figure. I don't object to paying a few hundred dollars a year provided it is spent in Australia on alternative energy and carbon reduction research and development. This carbon tax will not be used for that purpose.

[Veryan]

Confused all right!!!
You don't get it do you?
We are going to be giving our money to other countries to pollute as much as they can.
The argument is not supposed to be about Pollution.
It's supposed to be about minimising Man Made Climate change, and despite Julias edict that the science is in, the science is still being debated and that's what makes people mad, the fact that we have been conned and lied to.

As a scientist of the earth, the science is still under debate, that makes me mad. Its not even proven, or we have not even proven to what extent we have effected the earth.

Since I work in billions of years, as a opposed to a few hundred years the earth will sort us all out in the end, need not worry all :p

[roverfan]

Yeah mick was meant to say year not week.

[Mick_Marsh]

Construction is where the actual big money is, construction of mining infrastructure, I dont see anyone criticising that part of the industry.
Hey! Ease off.
The money I made from working on the design of a mine got me my first 101 and introduced me to this forum.
Now I mention it, that is an interesting story.
Multinational company wins contract to build Australian mine.
Detailed design is sent off shore (cheaper hourly rate, more profit to multinational)
Off shore design house designs to Chilean standards, fails to keep to schedule and runs over budget due to rework.
Final construction documents are unworkable.
Project is moved to Australian design house who amends design to fit for purpose (they had given up on worlds best practice by that stage).
This photo from the mine site illustrates the typical off shore design's shortcomings.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=40027&d=1318413253
This carbon tax will not be used well.
I'm sure all Victorians will agree when I mention those two words, "Desal Plant".

[oldyella 76]

Can someone please tell me what will happen when the carbon tax scheme finishes in 2015 and the trading scheme starts. The so called big poluters will buy their offsets for about $5 to $7 per tonne, the Govt won't get the tax to offset to small business , the low paid and the unemployed. The "big polluters" won't drop there prices, so who is going to get screwed.
Congratulations Austrlia.
The best idea is to get rid of this mob at the next election, try to get rid of the tax, it wont pass the green controled senate then get rid of the greens at a double disullusion.

[ugu80]

To quote Professor Garth Paltridge, chief scientist (retired) CSIRO division of atmospheric research (impeccable credentials I would suggest):

"In this day and age it can be fairly dangerous to ones career if you are a climate scientist and express some vociferous objection to the concept of dangerous global warming."

This statement by Prof. Paltridge sums up the problem with the dangerous global warming conept, the science is one sided thus unreliable and lacking credibility. The proof comes because funding is available only to select evidence supporting the hypothesis.

[slug_burner]

When they're taxing us $70 billion over the next 6 years, who needs it to be financially viable.

Spain generates aprox 850MW through Solar Thermal stations (48.4 Mw through Solar Tower and 800MW by solar trough). The USA produces just over 500MW by solar-thermal therefore producing the same wattage as any one of the 4 coal fired turbines at Liddell in NSW.

The USA has another 770MW under construction and Spain 1,330MW under construction.

Australia has a massive 2 MW of Solar Thermal production topping up the coal fired Liddell and none under construction. Yet we have millions of square KM that could be used to produce similar or greater amounts of power.

I don't know if the 2MW you refer to in red above is just for solar thermal (solar hot water) or what but I know that down here in Vic we have just started to close of subscriptions to the Primium Feed In Tariff (PFIT) which was to close when we had 100 MW of photovolataic electricity generation, Therefore with all the other states having had similar systems in place I say we would have a few times more than that throughout Australia.

[Hymie]

I don't know if the 2MW you refer to in red above is just for solar thermal (solar hot water) or what but I know that down here in Vic we have just started to close of subscriptions to the Primium Feed In Tariff (PFIT) which was to close when we had 100 MW of photovolataic electricity generation, Therefore with all the other states having had similar systems in place I say we would have a few times more than that throughout Australia.

The problem that the Power Grid is having with PV-(photovoltaic) and Wind Generation is that a base-load is still needed, and PV and Wind are too unreliable due to their variability. The Grid can only support less than 10% of the load as renewable sourced energy. The main reason Power has gone up so much in recent years is that Distribution companies are having to build so much infrastructure to take on so small a percentage of their available power.

Another problem that will surface in about 6 weeks is that Victoria's major power stations have not been maintained due to uncertainty in the sector.
Maintenance workers have told me that with the Units down now and the ones that are overdue maintenance we will be lucky to have power come Christmas, the system is that close to collapse.
Hold you breath people.

[DiscoMick]

The emissions trading scheme with a fixed price of $23 for the first three years is intended to change consumer behaviour towards more energy-efficient and cleaner alternatives, which should encourage investment in new technologies, which is sadly lacking while coal-fired power is so cheap. We are amongst the highest polluters per head in the entire world because our power comes from dirty coal fired lower stations. Even China generates 20% of its power from renewables, plus its new coal stations are much cleaner than our old ones. We need to do our part.
The revenue will be given back as most households are overcompensated in various ways, including higher pensions and the lifting of the tax free threshold from $6000 to $18,000 for everyone, with more than a million people no longer to pay tax from July 1, 2012. That will put a lot of cash in the pockets of people who are likely to spend it, which will be good for small businesses and stimulate retail sales.
This scheme is a great achievement for the Gillard Government and will cause great progress towards a cleaner future. Gillard has done what Howard and Rudd couldn't do.
Hopefully Tony "Mr No' Abbott, who has no positive ideas at all for the future, will never get his chance to vandalise the emissions trading scheme, the NBN and other advances under this government, which have been so misrepresented and slandered by Abbott and the Murdoch media's 'bring back Kevin' campaign.
Well done Gillard!

[frantic]

It's another nail in the coffin for our exports.
A major boost for imports as they do not have to pay a cent of the tax.
Another shot to the head for local manufacturers and retailers as you can now buy cheaper again O/S.
Innovate my arse, we sit at work and watch as our industry is slashed in 1/2 by stupid management and govt. decisions and look across the port to see boat loads of wind turbines being unloaded direct from china along with 100,000 of cars from everywhere else

[blitz]

My problem with the tax is that there has been so much mud slinging and politicing that I have no idea what the truth is any more.

Perhaps if the Labour Party had been more clear in it explanation of how it would work would have made it better for the average Australian to understand. The thing is as I see it; given how important it is I shouldn't have to go searching labours (or anyones) web site to find out about it surely given the money spent on adertising it some of that money could have gone on simple explanations without all the hype.

i also think that the climate change agenda has reached such a level of snowball effect that it would appear that the truth doesn't matter any more just that we are going to do something about it and that is all there is to it??

[blitz]

As a scientist of the earth, the science is still under debate, that makes me mad. Its not even proven, or we have not even proven to what extent we have effected the earth.

Since I work in billions of years, as a opposed to a few hundred years the earth will sort us all out in the end, need not worry all :p

Veryan I spent 12 years teaching refrigeration and air conditioning - we are considered the dirty trade as we have created the hole in the ozone layer (according to some scetchy theories, which began the whole climate change agenda)

I have spent years studying the science of this and from what I can see none of the climate change people have proven anything.

BUT it has gained momentum to the point were if you disagree you are shouted down by the moral right/left? but rather uninformed majority.

As I have said many times in the past should we be trying to do better and polute less? well of course we should, but dont make everyone do it through a lie.

Will the carbon tax help? no idea, I think that there could have been better ways of doing it I.E. tax breaks for the companies that are doing the right thing which is a carrot, instead of a tax which is a stick approach. Both will achieve the same thing BUT the perception of the first is that you are rewarded for doing the right thing instead of flogged first then forced to do the right thing.

As far as the climate goes I agree with you it will sort itself out and I also think that most of it is a naturally occuring cyclic phenomenon that we have no control over (just like El nino / La Nina ), are we adding to it undoubtedly BUT not causing it.

AND I think it is time the scientists stood up and fessed up to this - come clean and more people will be willing to toe the line.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I don't know if the 2MW you refer to in red above is just for solar thermal (solar hot water) or what but I know that down here in Vic we have just started to close of subscriptions to the Primium Feed In Tariff (PFIT) which was to close when we had 100 MW of photovolataic electricity generation, Therefore with all the other states having had similar systems in place I say we would have a few times more than that throughout Australia.We are talking electric power generation. The solar thermal at Liddell is a pilot project to create steam that is diverted and combined into the regular coal fired steam turbines. Base load and night generation is still coal fired.

Photovoltaic is not part of any of the figures I quoted.

[Graz]

This tax is nothing to do with reducing carbon and never will be as it is simply the incumbent governments party's ultimate policy, the redistribution of wealth. Google Fabian society and it will become clear. Also it was the dirty little deal gillard did with the greens to get into power which lead to the well discussed lie, "there will be no carbon tax while I am boss".
It's going to be very interesting next election.

[scarry]

found this on another site..........

Once a jolly sheila tried to run Australia
Under the shade of a wind turbine tree
And she laughed as she sang
As she introduced a carbon tax
Who'll come and screw the economy with me

[scarry]

Here is something that hasn't been talked about a lot

They are saying this tax is going on refrigerants,& the increase costs of the wholesale price is going to increase substantially.Many are talking 300% at least.

This is going to cost many industries,including every part of the food industry,therefore as costs are passed on,everyone in the country.

I really can't see this happening as this will be a massive cost to industry & will hit everyone.

I bet it also hasn't been taken into account in the govt's rebate calculations,etc.

And as for the businesses in the refrig/ac industry,it will be fun & games:(