Why Australian Businesses SHOULD back the carbon pricing.

[ramblingboy42]

There is some very good information showing how it is working and some examples showing the losses that can occur if the legislation is put through.
One good reason why business should back the carbon price – Opinion – ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/07/11/4044472.htm)

if mods think it's too political axe it straight away.

I feel it is informative.

[p38arover]

Written by Christine Milne, leader of the Greens. I'd be suspicious.....

[Mick_Marsh]

Wow. I wonder who wrote that?

The "carbon tax" is a farce. It did nothing for the environment and put money, we paid, into the government coffers so they could give some of it back to us.
Now, an "emissions trading scheme", that's a whole new ball game.

[Mick_Marsh]

Written by Christine Milne, leader of the Greens. I'd be suspicious.....
You beat me to it, Ron.

[ramblingboy42]

the author of the article is immaterial.

the contents of the article can checked and verified.

why is there suspicion?

read it on it's merits without bias , not based your political affiliations.

[Mick_Marsh]

the author of the article is immaterial.

Your opinion.


why is there suspicion?
You're kidding, right?

[ramblingboy42]

well Mick, if "you're kidding right?" is a justifiable answer to my question I can totally understand the reasoning behind your response.

who would you like it to be written by to give it credibility to you?

[Slunnie]

Hopefully it will remain. I laughed at the cartoon - We destroyed the world, but we made some profits at the time. The carbon tax has reduced emissions, notably from the electricity sector and the funding from the carbon tax has boosted investment into green energy in Australia. There are some great schemes going on and solar is now able to act as base load with current (haha) technology. The environmental gains however have been offset by the states increase in coal and coal seam mining. the carbon tax has been great to shake up the status quo and make cleaner technology that perhaps wasn't viable, now viable.

[Mick_Marsh]

The carbon tax has reduced emissions
I think you will find there were other factors involved.

solar is now able to act as base load with current (haha) technology.
Would you like to edit that part of your post?

[Slunnie]

I guess that depends if you also believe in the budget emergency.

[ATH]

"Solar can now act as base load"!!!! What utter tripe. That applies to wind farms as well.
The promoters of these things are nearly all very heavily subsidised as they will never make money without them. They cannot produce any where near like their "installed capacity" except on rare occasions and that's generally not when it's needed most.
Let's all believe in the guff from the Greens, the IPCC and charlatans like Al Gore who has made many millions peddling crap.
Climate change is happening but I and many others including huge numbers of very good proper qualified scientists don't believe we're the main cause. Certainly we should cut pollution where ever we can, but taxing us and passing it on to despots and dictators, bent politicians around the world and very clever criminals isn't going to help one bit.
AlanH.

[ramblingboy42]

Obviously you haven't kept up with things Ath.

You are completely wrong, completely wrong in saying "what utter tripe" to solar being capable of base loading.

It is clearly capable and systems are being developed at this very minute to do just that.

Your comments sound like they have come directly from the Abbott Book of Denial.

You have not made one statement in your post that has any verifiable credibility.

Did you see Four Corners on ABC this week?

[Homestar]

Can you post some links to the Solar developments that can be used as base load - I'd like to look where they're up to. They were 10 years away 12 months ago, so someone's done something incredible recently.

[Mick_Marsh]

I'd like to see any generation system that can be used as a "base load"?

[Rurover]

Re the assertion in the article that uncertainty re various government programs is holding back investment worth billions of dollars.

I can verify that statement, because I know of two major wind farm developments in my region (South East of SA) that are on hold, pending some certainty in the RET in particular.
The RET was SUPPOSED to have been supported by all sides of politics, but the current Warburton enquiry has put that support in question , especially from the current government.

Both Macquarie Bank and Infigen energy have the two projects I mentioned on hold, waiting for all this government re-thinking to be sorted out.

Yes, agree with everyone that the Carbon tax was not the best instrument to drive a move to renewable energy,but some sort of Carbon Trading scheme, linked to world markets is the logical way to go.

If you contend that taxpayers/households should not bear the cost of the shift to renewables,then remember that we are right now subsidising fossil fuels through generous tax incentives, provision of public infrastructure for mine developments, and most importantly by the public purse bearing the considerable health and environmental and social costs that are associated with coal and unconventional gas extraction and the burning of "dirty" coal in particular.

On top of that, we taxpayers have contributed billions (I think) towards carbon sequestration technology and so for there's bugger all to show for it in terms of commercial working sequestration plants. We continue to spend lots of money in this area and the "experts" reckon that even if we can make it work commercially, the cost will make coal uncompetitive with renewables.

Alan

[Mick_Marsh]

Yes, agree with everyone that the Carbon tax was not the best instrument to drive a move to renewable energy,but some sort of Carbon Trading scheme, linked to world markets is the logical way to go.
I thought Clive was holding out on just that. He'd vote out the carbon tax if an ETS is put in it's place.

[ramblingboy42]

this is information on a working solar "base load " station.....http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energymatters.com.au%2Findex. php%3Fmain_page%3Dnews_article%26article_id%3D1593&ei=b_bAU6qlN8K_lQWd14HICA&usg=AFQjCNHFpioDwf9W7rgR7bT3_eSnugTA5w&sig2=Xk-hcgEyZhSBPPDQiO5ZHg&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI

[ramblingboy42]

And....further to the argument on base load supply.....
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fbaseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210&ei=b_bAU6qlN8K_lQWd14HICA&usg=AFQjCNFgQOa4cZmRMfrdJZydVFdjGCndJA&sig2=NdWWqrOXhsLl7_mOkiV6vA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI

[Mick_Marsh]

base load supply.
One word makes all the difference.

[Mick_Marsh]

this is information on a working solar "base load " station.....http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energymatters.com.au%2Findex. php%3Fmain_page%3Dnews_article%26article_id%3D1593&ei=b_bAU6qlN8K_lQWd14HICA&usg=AFQjCNHFpioDwf9W7rgR7bT3_eSnugTA5w&sig2=Xk-hcgEyZhSBPPDQiO5ZHg&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI
From the article

The surplus heat accumulated during favourable conditions is stored in a molten-salt tank and can provide enough stored energy for 15 hours of electricity production.
And that's the rub.
By all means, build it on The Gold Coast where it's beautiflu one day and perfect the next (or so they tell us).
Build it down here, after one overcast day, the public transport system shuts down. That's alright though, because we won't be going to work because industry will have shut down as well (except those that have emergency diesel backup generators).

[Homestar]

Ahhh, so nothing new is what our saying. The molten salt technology has been around for years, but no one can overcome the issues it has and keep it reliable and economically viable. Biggest issue is that as soon as it cools a bit, it turns back into a solid - which means time consuming and expensive repairs.

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here - I understand power generation better than most, in most of its forms - it's what I do for a job. I would love to see a viable solar base load solution but I think it is many years away in reality.

I do think we should be investing in the technology though - we have vast tracts of the country that would be suitable, we should be trying to make the most of it.

Even better would be a nuclear plant.

[ramblingboy42]

Read this , many of you here fit into this category.

Read it , then come up with more bull****.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateandcapitalism.com%2F2011%2 F05%2F14%2Fthree-fallacies-spread-by-renewable-energy-deniers%2F&ei=eQHBU7iwLcTQkwX05YDADg&usg=AFQjCNFwTt63UacX5CzdSSscsef9lWDVNg&sig2=aPtOMPWOSPZ_ggG5DNU2UA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI

[Mick_Marsh]

Read this , many of you here fit into this category.

Read it , then come up with more bull****.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateandcapitalism.com%2F2011%2 F05%2F14%2Fthree-fallacies-spread-by-renewable-energy-deniers%2F&ei=eQHBU7iwLcTQkwX05YDADg&usg=AFQjCNFwTt63UacX5CzdSSscsef9lWDVNg&sig2=aPtOMPWOSPZ_ggG5DNU2UA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI
Ah. Yes.
Ian Angus. You know he is just a socialist with a political agenda.
Playboy has less biased articles on power generation.


You know, Shane posted up an interesting comment in another thread which you all poo-pooed him for (the post, not the comment).
Here in Victoria, under our beds of brown coal, it's hot. Damned hot.
You know, if we could pump water down under those coal beds and recover it as steam, we could use that steam to drive the existing turbines and use the existing power infrastructure to supply the base load. But we don't talk about that. Why not? Because people who don't know are prattling on about wind and solar.

[Mick_Marsh]

Even better would be a nuclear plant.
Yeah. A few little fourth generation thorium reactors dotted about the place.
Put them in regional areas to supply the locality and you'd spend less on the distribution.

[Homestar]

Read this , many of you here fit into this category.

Read it , then come up with more bull****.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateandcapitalism.com%2F2011%2 F05%2F14%2Fthree-fallacies-spread-by-renewable-energy-deniers%2F&ei=eQHBU7iwLcTQkwX05YDADg&usg=AFQjCNFwTt63UacX5CzdSSscsef9lWDVNg&sig2=aPtOMPWOSPZ_ggG5DNU2UA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI

I don't subscribe to any of those claims, I just saying that we are a long way off a viable solar power station that is of any use when the sun goes down.

[bob10]

Ah. Yes.
Ian Angus. You know he is just a socialist with a political agenda.
Playboy has less biased articles on power generation.


You know, Shane posted up an interesting comment in another thread which you all poo-pooed him for (the post, not the comment).
Here in Victoria, under our beds of brown coal, it's hot. Damned hot.
You know, if we could pump water down under those coal beds and recover it as steam, we could use that steam to drive the existing turbines and use the existing power infrastructure to supply the base load. But we don't talk about that. Why not? Because people who don't know are prattling on about wind and solar.


Actually, a mate of mine was involved with trying to develop a process similar to that here in Qld., about 15 years ago, with a French firm. They were going to use the natural heat of the subterranean rock to do the job. He was involved with the drilling side of it. They worked on it for a few years, then the French left. Not sure why, Bob

[Mick_Marsh]

Actually, a mate of mine was involved with trying to develop a process similar to that here in Qld., about 15 years ago, with a French firm. They were going to use the natural heat of the subterranean rock to do the job. He was involved with the drilling side of it. They worked on it for a few years, then the French left. Not sure why, Bob
Yep. That's a little different. That's hot rock power generation. You use what you've got.
There is a 10MW hot rock power plant operating somewhere in the South Australian outback. I heard the power it generated was supplying the Olympic Dam mine copper processing plant.

[inside]

I don't subscribe to any of those claims, I just saying that we are a long way off a viable solar power station that is of any use when the sun goes down.
I must point out a major error you've made here. See ramblingboy has actually searched Google and posted a link that supports his argument. I'm sorry but you must accept his point of view as correct and change your opinion. The only recourse you have is to attack him personally. This is how internet arguments work I'm afraid.

[Slunnie]

I must point out a major error you've made here. See ramblingboy has actually searched Google and posted a link that supports his argument. I'm sorry but you must accept his point of view as correct and change your opinion. The only recourse you have is to attack him personally. This is how internet arguments work I'm afraid.

Very true! I just find it amazing that the engineers behind that technology have so little understanding of their own work despite it being based in research, testing and application.

[Homestar]

Just re read what I posted - it may have been misinterpreted - I had a few beers in me. I don't subscribe to the fallacies listed, not the claims - sorry about that, it was badly worded. (I knew what I meant:) )

Im not a renewable energy naysayer - I agree with it, and as I said in an earlier post, I think we should be investing in it here - particularly solar. My comments were made about there being 'new advances' in these technologies even though one that was being commented on - molten salt - has been at a prototype stage for over a decade, but hasn't yet made it as a mainstream method of solar collection due to its issues. Other technologies coming on line aren't just round the corner but are being developed over seas when we should be doing it here.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I certainly wasn't having a go at Ramblingboy directly in any shape or form.

Cheers - Gav.:)

[frantic]

A carbon scheme based on reductions just exports manufacturing jobs and heavy industry. The u.k and eu are perfect examples, from 1990-2006 under their scheme their actual carbon consumption increased by about 30%!
This is including imports, so basically their industry stood still or reduced a bit, but their imports ramped up.
The UK's outsourced emissions almost double its carbon footprint | Carbon Brief (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/03/defra-the-uk-outsources-emissions)
There are numerous reports on carbon consumption including imports.
Combine this with the Chinese emission scam that doesn't reduce carbon output but just reduces it per item, so they made 1 thingo at x carbon last year, next they can make 1 million putting up carbon output by whatever as long as it's less per item. Their coal plan involves not cutting mining but slowing the increase from 200million tons a year to 130 , on top of the 4 billion they already mine and burn.;)

[Mick_Marsh]

A carbon scheme based on reductions just exports manufacturing jobs and heavy industry.
Yep. I work for a company that did just that.

[akelly]

It's 2014. If you're still talking about "baseload" then read this:

Unravelling the Baseload Furphy – part 1 of X | Evcricket's Energy (http://evcricketenergy.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/unravelling-the-baseload-furphy-part-1-of-x/)

Then check google for "pumped hydro" and other storage technology (other than salt), read a bit and stop talking about baseload.

By the way: solar has already won. If you're still arguing about that then you're barking at the moon. Regardless of goverment policy people are installing solar PV like mad. So much so that the generators are freaking out beacuse during peak hours there electricity price is going negative - ie, they are paying people to use it because solar is so plentiful.

Cheers,

Adam

[Mick_Marsh]

By the way: solar has already won. If you're still arguing about that then you're barking at the moon. Regardless of goverment policy people are installing solar PV like mad.
There is a limit to how much can be installed.

So much so that the generators are freaking out beacuse during peak hours there electricity price is going negative - ie, they are paying people to use it because solar is so plentiful.
I'd like to see evidence of this which includes the area they are supplying, their definition of peak hours (peak supply or peak load) and their solutuin when there is no sunlight.

Oh, pumped hydro, that technology was around decades ago. There was a pilot plant built in Australia somewhere. There are a few very good reasons why it didn't take off.

[ramblingboy42]

Mick , why are you always asking other posters for evidence?

I can't recall seeing any coming from you to support your negativity.

Can you show us your supportive links to your arguments here.

We have shown you ours , and , they will keep coming.....your turn.

[Mick_Marsh]

Mick , why are you always asking other posters for evidence?

I can't recall seeing any coming from you to support your negativity.

Can you show us your supportive links to your arguments here.

We have shown you ours , and , they will keep coming.....your turn.
I'm not negative about solar power, it's just that it is not the be all and end all solution that others make out.
I want to get solar panels but, with the low feed in rate on offer, it's cheaper not to have them. Oh, you do know they don't work at night. It's just from many of your posts, I suspect you think they do.
This makes an interesting read:
Rapid increase in solar installations potentially overloading the grid | Electrical connection (http://electricalconnection.com.au/article/10014811/rapid-increase-solar-installations-potentially-overloading-grid)
And that was the first article of many that came up in a quick search.

When those that push the "Solar and wind are the only solution" agenda are living my lifestyle totally off the grid, then I'll admit they are right. In the meantime, let's look at practical solutions that power our cities and homes, not fanciful dreams from idealogues.

[Slunnie]

There are lots of people living off solar and wind and totally off the grid though. My friends do it although admittedly they live like they don't have endless power which is what the rest of the population has, and so does. They buffer it with wet cells so they have power 24hrs and run (I think) a 12V system through the house which I think comes straight from the wet cells. If there is an apocalypse however, they do have a Generator.

[akelly]

... Oh, pumped hydro, that technology was around decades ago. There was a pilot plant built in Australia somewhere. There are a few very good reasons why it didn't take off.

Correct, its been around for decades. Maybe you can list the reasons it didn't take off, and we can send them to the guys that run the Snowy Hydro scheme. You know, that place where PUMPED HYDRO IS USED TO SMOOTH OUT THE SUPPLY/DEMAND CURVE ON A DAILY BASIS.

[akelly]

...I want to get solar panels but, with the low feed in rate on offer, it's cheaper not to have them....

Cheaper not to have them? What planet are you on mate?

As for your comment about not working at night, you should provide link to the posts where anyone has said they think solar works at night.

[akelly]

When those that push the "Solar and wind are the only solution" agenda are living my lifestyle totally off the grid, then I'll admit they are right. In the meantime, let's look at practical solutions that power our cities and homes, not fanciful dreams from idealogues.

You are totally off the grid already old son. Just not the power grid.

You linked to an article that shows people are already producing too much solar electricity for the grid to cope with. All that's missing is storage, and there is plenty of existing tech (remember that pumped hydro has been around for decades) to solve that problem.

[ramblingboy42]

Getting back to the thread , I can't understand why the pm is incenced with removing what is proving to be an effective scheme.

The carbon offset trading scheme currently operating is becoming widely accepted by businesses throughout Australia.

Opposition leader this morning on ABC Insight seemed quite unruffled about the coalitions ideas and hasn't openly accepted anything from PUP, because no one really knows yet what they eventually will settle on.

The pm on thurs flapped his gums looking very smug about 'Australia's mandate to repeal the carbon tax' but lost face badly again.

He came out again yesterday and flapping his gums, blaming the opposition for the first failure of his repeal and swinging his arms around like the robot from Up in Space and then smugly said the 'carbon tax' will be repealed on Monday.

Come monday , It'll be all right....tum tee tum......

[Fatso]

[QUOTE=akelly;2183427]Cheaper not to have them? What planet are you on mate?


I think he means the cost of installation is not a worth while investment .

[Slunnie]

The agenda is about politics, not about the realities of the world, or truth for that matter. Its about looking after sponsors interests and their continuation as a sponsor. None of this is based in the best interests of the countries future.

[ramblingboy42]

This is a fairly good article giving an open perspective of carbon trading with Australia as an example.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHIQqQIwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brisbanetimes.com.au%2Fcommen t%2Fthe-true-cost-of-carbon-offsets-20140709-zt0wa.html&ei=FizCU962NIuXkwWtx4DQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHSzll8XblvXRNU-J3toNleH5aSzw&sig2=mZ-VDc2p7P7I4bNqFMuErQ&bvm=bv.70810081,d.dGI

[frantic]

There are 3 points of view here.
Negativity, renewable never work.
Fantasy, renewable will be only energy source.
Reality, costs of upgrading power network and providing any facilities to store the power whilst sun's down, winds stopped etc are far higher than throwing black rocks into a fire.
The other is that some renewable sources are not thought through. The local wave generator is a perfect example. First they didn't hook it up when it was making power, second they built the anchor points of insufficient strength and thirdly it was made from mild steel in salt water.:eek:
It's now a rusting mess at the end of South beach near the coal terminals breakwater.

The same goes for a carbon trading scheme where you can pay an Indian generator for credits who's burning coal. One that has helped increase emissions by making local lower end of emissions scale products more expensive than the same item made overseas emitting far more carbon and causing even more carbon to be burnt in transport. Even the article in ramblings post by an extrader says without a global reduction it's a failure.

[Mick_Marsh]

Correct, its been around for decades. Maybe you can list the reasons it didn't take off, and we can send them to the guys that run the Snowy Hydro scheme. You know, that place where PUMPED HYDRO IS USED TO SMOOTH OUT THE SUPPLY/DEMAND CURVE ON A DAILY BASIS.
Yep, that would be the one that is in Australia. They didn't build one in Alice Springs. Or Adelaide or Perth for that matter.

[Mick_Marsh]

You are totally off the grid already old son. Just not the power grid.

You linked to an article that shows people are already producing too much solar electricity for the grid to cope with. All that's missing is storage, and there is plenty of existing tech (remember that pumped hydro has been around for decades) to solve that problem.
I know very well what I linked to. Your rather simplistic review of the article shows you failed to comprehend most of it.
You're right that storage is missing. There are already commercially available storage systems that are coming on to the market. Unfortunately the storage systems and wind power generation and PV power generation capacities still fall way short of a modern day city's power needs.

[akelly]

[QUOTE=akelly;2183427]Cheaper not to have them? What planet are you on mate?


I think he means the cost of installation is not a worth while investment .

Maybe, but he's wrong.

[akelly]

I know very well what I linked to. Your rather simplistic review of the article shows you failed to comprehend most of it.
You're right that storage is missing. There are already commercially available storage systems that are coming on to the market. Unfortunately the storage systems and wind power generation and PV power generation capacities still fall way short of a modern day city's power needs.

You better let the Germans know then. Because they are running about 25% of their country on renewables already.

74% generation (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/15/wind-power/74-generation-%E2%80%93-germanys-record-renewables-day)

“Once again, it was demonstrated that a modern electricity system such as the German one can already accept large penetration rates of variable but predictable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic power,” said Bernard Chabot, a renewable energy consultant based in France, via email.

“In fact there are no technical and economic obstacles to go first to 20 per cent of annual electricity demand penetration rate from a combination of those two technologies, then 50 per cent and beyond by combining them with other renewables and energy efficiency measures and some progressive storage solutions at a modest level.”

You do know the wind blows at night, don't you?

[PhilipA]

Hmm Germany eh?
The country that just recommissioned 5 coal fired plants and had to buy electricity from Austria in Winter.
Germany forced to buy Austrian electricity - The Local (http://www.thelocal.de/20120105/39933)
Regards Philip A

[Tombie]

Questions if I may...

Is this thread about:


Political Agenda?
Emissions trading?
Reducing emissions?
Renewable energy?



Reasons I ask:


Snowy Hydro Scheme worked well, although the redirection of water has contributed to several downstream (or previously downstream) ecosystems being damaged
Global emissions are not reducing, they are increasing and will continue to do so as population expands and capitalism continues its hold on the planet - How can this seriously work!
Solar panel manufacture isnt exactly emissions neutral, nor is the transport of them. I have solar to negate my bill, nothing more.
Storage PV arrays (Wet Cell etc) are messy to manufacture, and reasonably regular in their turn over - how carbon friendly are they?
Why does emissions trading (carbon credits) come across as the latest buzz in the Capitalism hat? Lets sell a non-tangible item with a system in place to make it a business, then we can hire people to manage the scheme and make some money from it - All the while just shuffling 'fake' notes around.



Im personally all for reducing emissions and living smarter and more inline with the planet - but heck, how serious are we?

[Chucaro]

Tombie, the majority of people are serious as long as any measure does not affect them in a financial or comfort way.
That is the truth, greed rules and works in many way, money, power, comfort,etc.

[incisor]

now china is starting to realize just how polluted their country has become they are really starting to get stuck into it by all accounts.

mate just spent the week in inner mongolia and commented on how you can see the filth in the air in the distance.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10402009_924857684206863_8184035963328557477_n.jpg

some people have terrible jobs... ;)

[Homestar]

Cheaper not to have them? What planet are you on mate?

As for your comment about not working at night, you should provide link to the posts where anyone has said they think solar works at night.

Got to agree with Mick on this one, and as per your other post - I don't think he's wrong. I doubt I'd ever break even putting them on my place. Not just the low feed in tarrif now, but I've logged the voltage here over a few weeks. During a week day, with full sun the voltage rises to over 260 volts after about 10.30am. There are 7 solar systems in my street and I think that's at about saturation now. Next door has noticed a drop off in the amount of KWH hers is feeding in now there are a more systems in the street - including 2 x 5KW thumpers.

The more systems being used in a local area, the higher the localised voltage will be. Once the voltage gets up, the inverters start shutting down. There's not enough load in a suburb during the day to cope with this amount of feed in, and it can't go backwards into the network - it isn't designed to cope with reverse power in most instances.

I'm not anti solar, I just know how the network reacts to it.

[Tombie]

Same issue here.. I have the largest system in our area and on cloudy days I do better than I do on bright sunny days where the smaller installations are helping push line voltage up.
We start cutting out once it gets warm and sunny.

[Mick_Marsh]

I've got to point out, from another thread:

meanwhile Qld electricity providers trying to block solar from grid (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-08/qld-providers-trying-to-block-solar-from-grid-groups-says/5579874)
and from this thread earlier:


This makes an interesting read:
Rapid increase in solar installations potentially overloading the grid | Electrical connection (http://electricalconnection.com.au/article/10014811/rapid-increase-solar-installations-potentially-overloading-grid)

Both articles are about the same situation. Do you see the difference between them?
One is from an industry website who's purpose is to impart accurate information and the other is from an industry who's motto is "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Can you tell which one is which?

[Slunnie]

They both are promoting a vested interest. Let's be honest here.

[Mick_Marsh]

They both are promoting a vested interest. Let's be honest here.
Please elaborate.

[Slunnie]

Please elaborate.

C'mon Mick, it's not that hard to see.

[Homestar]

They both are promoting a vested interest. Let's be honest here.

What are you talking about? The issues in those articles are real - I have to work around and with them every day. No vested interest, just physics at work. If you don't understand the grid and how it works, that's fine, but don't tell those that know that they are wrong. Solar systems as they stand on domestic installations are not a magic bullet that can be rolled out on every property. It just won't work. No vested interest - it just won't.

Once you've spent 15 years working on the network, trying to maintain supply to everyone and encountering the issues cause on a system that simply wasn't designed for it, let me know.

And just before you say the grid can be redesigned, I'd like to know who would pay for that. While power is supplied from a centralised location like we currently have, solar as it stands is almost at saturation in a lot of areas. Many supply authorities - including those I work with are already evaluating procedures and policies to limit further solar installations in areas - no vested interest, they are trying to keep your light on.

Accept the evidence provided. It's not a conspiracy theory.

[Chucaro]

Perhaps the solution it is to have a mix solar system where the house have storage (batteries) and when they are full put the energy on the grid?
Or it is more sensible to be off the grid altogether?

[ramblingboy42]

I've got to point out, from another thread:

and from this thread earlier:

Both articles are about the same situation. Do you see the difference between them?
One is from an industry website who's purpose is to impart accurate information and the other is from an industry who's motto is "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Can you tell which one is which?

you tell us Mick.....you're obviously trying to put someone down again....

[Tombie]

Play the ball guys...

These threads always turn into a personal view argument and lose their point.

[Mick_Marsh]

Perhaps the solution it is to have a mix solar system where the house have storage (batteries) and when they are full put the energy on the grid?
Or it is more sensible to be off the grid altogether?
No, it's not sensible to be off the grid altogether but you previous comment is sopt on but probably not for the reasons you may think.

The Newport gas fired power station in Melbourne was built to cater for the morning and evening peaks. Nowdays, it runs all the time.
If you had a suitably sized solar system on your house with a suitably sized storage system, during the day, it will charge your storage and maybe there is a little left over to put in the grid. In the evening and morning the energy you use will be taken from you storage, and if you run out, you take from the grid. They are currently selling domestic energy storage solutions with this in mind.
What this will hopefully do is not overload your segment of the grid. If the voltage goes too high or too low/ you can damage your appliances and electrical equipment. Voltage regulation is important. Voltages of about 250V plus or 230V minus are not good.
This will hopefully negate the need to upgrade your feeder segment (at some expense) so others may connect with their system.
Another advantage would be as the load is removed from the system, expensive upgrades at the main power stations (ie a new generator) might not be necessary for some time. We may even be able to cycle the Newport power station back to just morning and evening peak.

[Slunnie]

What are you talking about? The issues in those articles are real - I have to work around and with them every day. No vested interest, just physics at work. If you don't understand the grid and how it works, that's fine, but don't tell those that know that they are wrong. Solar systems as they stand on domestic installations are not a magic bullet that can be rolled out on every property. It just won't work. No vested interest - it just won't.

Once you've spent 15 years working on the network, trying to maintain supply to everyone and encountering the issues cause on a system that simply wasn't designed for it, let me know.

And just before you say the grid can be redesigned, I'd like to know who would pay for that. While power is supplied from a centralised location like we currently have, solar as it stands is almost at saturation in a lot of areas. Many supply authorities - including those I work with are already evaluating procedures and policies to limit further solar installations in areas - no vested interest, they are trying to keep your light on.

Accept the evidence provided. It's not a conspiracy theory.
I'm not sure what you're on, but my comments are that they both promote a vested interest. I said nothing about the accuracy, the science or anything like that. The language used is quite clear.

[Homestar]

I'm not sure what you're on, but my comments are that they both promote a vested interest. I said nothing about the accuracy, the science or anything like that. The language used is quite clear.

Obviously not to the people you've aimed the accusation at as they have all asked the same question of you and you have not replied to anyone's satisfaction.

None promoted a vested interest, the views came from knowledge and fact. Still yet to hear a response from you that makes sense of your original statement.

Mick asked you to elaborate as well, but you brushed that off too. You going to actually tell us why you think he has a vested interest, because I sure as **** don't know and I don't think Mick does either.

[Mick_Marsh]

I sure as **** don't know and I don't think Mick does either.
Nup. Complete mystery to me.

[Ean Austral]

We would all have been a lot better off if when Carbon Pricing was introduced, everything we payed for had to have the cost listed just like GST does.


I have no problem with any system as long as its fair, this system was rushed in and now if it gets removed no one is going to have a clue as to what the real cost and the real improvements were.


To my simple mind it needs a lot of improvement on the current way its implemented and charged for me to believe its working as fairly as it should.


I will leave the rest to people who know far more about it than me.


Cheers Ean

[ramblingboy42]

Ean , and everyone else , the thing is working and reasonably well.

As you said it needs improvement , so let's improve it , not repeal it because if we don't someones ego's are going to suffer.

This what John Hewson is currently saying about the way things are being addressed politically from all sides.

stop the grandstanding and innuendo and get on the job.

If the axe is blunt sharpen it.....if the handles rotten , put a new one on it , don't throw it away.

[Ean Austral]

Ean , and everyone else , the thing is working and reasonably well.

As you said it needs improvement , so let's improve it , not repeal it because if we don't someones ego's are going to suffer.

This what John Hewson is currently saying about the way things are being addressed politically from all sides.

stop the grandstanding and innuendo and get on the job.

If the axe is blunt sharpen it.....if the handles rotten , put a new one on it , don't throw it away.


See from my simple brain I cant see if it is working or not. I can take your word that it is, or I can listen to the next bloke who says it isn't.


I think you need to take your foot off the stomping of Abbott a bit, the country voted him in and from the way I see it people wanted this removed otherwise he most likely wouldn't have won.. or maybe I didn't follow the election closely enough, either way that was his policy from the start and they won, so that tells me this scheme was disliked by more than liked.


If I could see on my daily bills a line that says $$ XX for carbon pricing no problems, but then you could see the same item from another country and see if the pricing is similar and make a correct judgement on how this scheme is really effecting day to day business costs and if its fair that the scheme be enforced or does it need to be removed or tweeked.


Its a touchy subject and I applaud you for putting it up knowing how most of this type of subject end on this forum.


Cheers Ean

[Ratel10mm]

Well, CSIRO believe that solar could be at least part of the base load in the foreseeable future:

"CSIRO's Energy Director, Dr Alex Wonhas said this milestone is a game-changer for the renewable energy industry.
"It's like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources.""

Supercritical solar - new frontier for power generation | CSIRO (http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Supercritical-solar-new-frontier-for-power-generation.aspx)

[frantic]

We would all have been a lot better off if when Carbon Pricing was introduced, everything we payed for had to have the cost listed just like GST does.


I have no problem with any system as long as its fair, this system was rushed in and now if it gets removed no one is going to have a clue as to what the real cost and the real improvements were.


To my simple mind it needs a lot of improvement on the current way its implemented and charged for me to believe its working as fairly as it should.


I will leave the rest to people who know far more about it than me.


Cheers Ean

Actually people would be more interested in WHERE the carbon credits came from, be it a plantation in Qld or Tassie or a coal fired generator in India .;)

[ramblingboy42]

This article AGAIN shows that the (sic)'carbon tax' is alive and working well.

The title to the article doesn't point to the last half of it's content which is very informative.
Why an actual climate 'reform' is being axed - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/jericho-why-an-actual-climate-reform-is-being-axed/5597888)

[Redback]

This article AGAIN shows that the (sic)'carbon tax' is alive and working well.

The title to the article doesn't point to the last half of it's content which is very informative.
Why an actual climate 'reform' is being axed - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/jericho-why-an-actual-climate-reform-is-being-axed/5597888)

Unfortunately Tony doesn't care whether it works or not.

[ramblingboy42]

Unfortunately Tony doesn't care whether it works or not.

and that , Redback , is noted in that article.

Unfortunately it's not just tony , but nearly every politician at the moment.

[Redback]

and that , Redback , is noted in that article.

Unfortunately it's not just tony , but nearly every politician at the moment.

And I would say, most of the population too, funny that all these companies that raised prices to compensate for the tax, are not going to lower their prices when it goes, in fact some want to raise their prices, which leads me to believe, prices would have been raised regardless of whether the carbon tax was introduced or not.

As with everything about these people in charge, everything is for now, not the future, roads are a prime excample.

Baz.

[Ean Austral]

Actually people would be more interested in WHERE the carbon credits came from, be it a plantation in Qld or Tassie or a coal fired generator in India .;)

Yep anything is better than nothing, but to the average person, such as me who is more interested in what the real costs are at the least a line similar to the GST would be a start.

An example of why I say so and that is from my own personal business expeirence is as follows

I used to buy R22 freon gas for $18/kg plus all the enviromental levies prior to the Carbon Scheme ( I will call it tax for ease ) being introduced, within 1 day of its introduction we recieved a letter saying "due to Gov policy changes the cost will increase to $56/kg and it was within 1 week the rise happened, and on your Invoice there was no cost due to this new tax. Now the cost is about $110/kg and rising. This is consistant across all fridge gases, but remember on top of this you already pay an enviromental levy (tax).

You can take your boat to New Guinea, just off the tip of Cape York and buy the same gas for $18/kg, so if you ask me if the system is fair I would say based on first hand expierence NO.

So now the tax gets repealed, and you would think that the price would drop back to close to original...It wont and then you try and complain, but without being able to prove the increase was caused due to the carbon tax how do you fight it. The supplier just says production costs have increased so thats why the price is where its at, BUT, if you were told like you are with GST then its easy.

I am not against any scheme but it needs to fair and able to be proven for it real cost to business.

Cheers Ean

[DiscoMick]

Emissions are not growing as fast as predicted because consumers are cutting electricity consumption as a perfectly reasonable market forces reaction to prices having risen by about 50% over five years. The carbon tax contributed about 9% of that 50%. So, the carbon tax is working, but the big driver is consumer reaction to higher prices.
Meanwhile, China is now by far the largest investor in renewable energy, while our redneck government is opting out and betting the farm on a dying industry, coal-fired power, and putting in doubt about 20,000 current renewable energy jobs, and many potential jobs if we were being smarter. Not clever.

[frantic]

Yep anything is better than nothing, but to the average person, such as me who is more interested in what the real costs are at the least a line similar to the GST would be a start.

An example of why I say so and that is from my own personal business expeirence is as follows

I used to buy R22 freon gas for $18/kg plus all the enviromental levies prior to the Carbon Scheme ( I will call it tax for ease ) being introduced, within 1 day of its introduction we recieved a letter saying "due to Gov policy changes the cost will increase to $56/kg and it was within 1 week the rise happened, and on your Invoice there was no cost due to this new tax. Now the cost is about $110/kg and rising. This is consistant across all fridge gases, but remember on top of this you already pay an enviromental levy (tax).

You can take your boat to New Guinea, just off the tip of Cape York and buy the same gas for $18/kg, so if you ask me if the system is fair I would say based on first hand expierence NO.

So now the tax gets repealed, and you would think that the price would drop back to close to original...It wont and then you try and complain, but without being able to prove the increase was caused due to the carbon tax how do you fight it. The supplier just says production costs have increased so thats why the price is where its at, BUT, if you were told like you are with GST then its easy.

I am not against any scheme but it needs to fair and able to be proven for it real cost to business.

Cheers Ean

Actually I used your industry as a point for law breaking back when the scam was introduced, would you like to go into business legally? :D

If you/ we can source those refrigerants for 1/5th-1/6th what they are sold here for, you could offer all the users a 20% lower price for a fixed rate over 2 years, bring in a few containers full and have a nice day. 4-6k for a 30ton container is roughly 20c a kilo import plus loading there and transport and storage here.
Sounds like a potentialy good business.

[rick130]

The carbon tax is dead and there is nothing credible to take its place | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/carbon-tax-is-dead-direct-action)

[rick130]

Actually I used your industry as a point for law breaking back when the scam was introduced, would you like to go into business legally? :D

If you/ we can source those refrigerants for 1/5th-1/6th what they are sold here for, you could offer all the users a 20% lower price for a fixed rate over 2 years, bring in a few containers full and have a nice day. 4-6k for a 30ton container is roughly 20c a kilo import plus loading there and transport and storage here.
Sounds like a potentialy good business.

It wasn't solely the carbon tax that pushed refrigerant pricing through the roof, extra ?(Federal) import licensing fees and straight out profiteering (who'd a thunk it ??!!) from importers at least twelve months prior to the tax being introduced contributed heavily IMO.

[ramblingboy42]

what scam are we talking about Frantic?

[Chucaro]

My next T Shirt with the excellent David Pope cartoon :p

https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-0/10526063_10152600095754913_3800904912686839477_n.j pg

[frantic]

what scam are we talking about Frantic?

The one that is now dead in Oz but still paying Indian coal burning generators millions forccarbon credits, and up to GFC had allowed a real increase in U.K and various E.u emissions via consumption of Co2 by depending upon paper between 15 and 33% at the cost of local industry.
I have put the links up in both this thread and others. Do a search on carbon consumption including imports in u.k or various EU countries.

[ramblingboy42]

Arthur, would that be subject to copyright?

I , too , would love to put it on a t shirt.

[ramblingboy42]

Oh well, the carbon trading scheme is gone.

But there is joy ahead.....we are all going to be better off financially.

They could print us all a cheque for $550 right now and they can pick up the gains as it comes in.

Right? We are going to be $550 better off aren't we? Well aren't we?

Surely it's not another porky pie......surely not!!!!

[Chucaro]

Arthur, would that be subject to copyright?

I , too , would love to put it on a t shirt.

Any creation, be graphic, written, photography, drawings, etc by the Australian laws are subject to copyright and there is not need to put the symbol on it or in the metadata.
The appropriate thing to do is asking permission to the author to use it for personal use only and definitively not for commercial purpose.
I intent to ask him before do anything.

[frantic]

We know the $550 was another myth, but industry loss is not.
have a read of these 3 links then see if you think its a good idea.
The first two are that the CO2 emissions scheme are causing industry and working class job losses :eek: Inside the report it shows how E.U emissions over 26 years from the start of the scam shot up 47% by exporting the industries that made over 30% of those emissions but still consuming them. Ditto for U.K who claimed to have cut from 1990 levels but where up 30% when you included imports.


http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/carbon%20omissions%20-%20oct%2010.pdf


https://greener-cheaper.squarespace.com//carbon-omissions-consumption-based-accounting-for-international-carbon-emissions/


According to the official Kyoto-based figures, UK carbon production is down 3% between 1990 and 2006. However Policy Exchange Research Fellow Andrew Brinkley has discovered that total carbon consumption in the UK has increased by 30%.
For the EU as a whole, carbon production increased by just 3% between 1990 and 2006. But total carbon consumption – including, for example, the carbon produced during the manufacture of steel exported from China to Europe – shot up by 47%.


BBC News - Openness urged on UK's emissions (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11172239)


And we can never trust the BBC can we.

[Mick_Marsh]

Good news for Australia. The carbon tax has been repealed.

Why do I say it's good news? When you give "tonnes of carbon" to a dollar value, the cost is just passed on and there is no incentive to do anything about it. The money raised just goes into the governments coffers.

Now, let's do something about an emissions trading scheme with the aim to become carbon neutral..
If you are a carbon producer, you will have two choices.
Choice 1: reduce your carbon emissions by making your process cleaner.
Choice 2: invest in schemes that lock away carbon that can be offset against your carbon production.

We have a chance to make it a good one, let's not miss this chance.

[Chucaro]

Please edit your post by deleting the good news bit because it is a bait to start a political debate. ;)
I would like to reply to your post but forum rules do not allow it ;)

Cheers

[bob10]

Now, let's do something about an emissions trading scheme with the aim to become carbon neutral..
If you are a carbon producer, you will have two choices.
Choice 1: reduce your carbon emissions by making tour process cleaner.
Choice 2: invest in schemes that lock away carbon that can be offset against your carbon production.

We have a chance to make it a good one, let's not miss this chance.


We are on the same page, Bob

[ramblingboy42]

Hey Frantic, the carbon trading scheme in Australia is dead.

funny you should start producing links to your thoughts now when we have been discussing this in every shape and form for a year or so.

I was continually challenged about my posts and I continuously produced links to support my statements and beliefs.

It's not much good putting up stuff after the horse has bolted through an open gate....mate.

[frantic]

Hey Frantic, the carbon trading scheme in Australia is dead.

funny you should start producing links to your thoughts now when we have been discussing this in every shape and form for a year or so.

I was continually challenged about my posts and I continuously produced links to support my statements and beliefs.

It's not much good putting up stuff after the horse has bolted through an open gate....mate.

No its funny you actually read the links this time??,did you?? I've put up similar links since it was introduced, if you have ignored or not read them not my problem, mate.

Post 31 this thread, first by me in this thread has guess what,,,, a link, climate change threads, also my posts usually have a link.
P.s we've been discussing this since 2011 if not longer.
post 390, 2011
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/132148-carbon-tax-well-someone-had-bring-up-post1538063.html#post1538063

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/137012-carbon-tax-its-way-through-house-5.html

About halfway down the page my post(30) with a link, from 2011, that gate took a lot longer to open. But ignore the content, that is the E.U paying $500million in carbon credits to burn coal in india, ignorance was ronny regans excuse to.

[Mick_Marsh]

Hey Frantic, the carbon trading scheme in Australia is dead.
We never had one. We had a carbon tax. Different things.

[akelly]

We never had one. We had a carbon tax. Different things.

Wut? Australia had a carbon pricing mechanism. Just because the media calls something a tax, doesn't make it a tax.

About the carbon pricing mechanism (http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx)

Small wonder people think their power bills are going to go down now. Laughable levels of knowledge across this issue.

[vnx205]

I wasn't sure whether I should laugh, cry or cringe when I heard Barnaby Joyce celebrating the repeal on the news last night.

He told the gathered journalists that it was obvious there was no problem with the planet heating up because they could see for themselves that everyone in Canberra was warmly dressed against the cold. :no2:


Edit: His exact words were, “Look at the weather today, look at the way you are dressed, no one thinks it is too hot”.

[Chucaro]

Arthur, would that be subject to copyright?

I , too , would love to put it on a t shirt.

I just have an email from David, you can order a T shirt here:

"Australia's climate policy coat of arms" T-Shirts & Hoodies by David Pope | Redbubble (http://www.redbubble.com/people/hinze/works/12296482-australias-climate-policy-coat-of-arms)

Cheers

[Chucaro]

I wasn't sure whether I should laugh, cry or cringe when I heard Barnaby Joyce celebrating the repeal on the news last night.

He told the gathered journalists that it was obvious there was no problem with the planet heating up because they could see for themselves that everyone in Canberra was warmly dressed against the cold. :no2:


Edit: His exact words were, “Look at the weather today, look at the way you are dressed, no one thinks it is too hot”.

That proves how ignorant he is and also the people that have voted for him.
An embarrassment to Australia to have people like him in our parliament.

[Ean Austral]

You guys are looking at this all wrong.


The government just saved us all $550 a year ( those of us that buy refrigerant gas a hell of a lot more....in theory ).. so now you cant complain about the extra costs from the budget...ie $7 co payment to see a doctor..


An absolute stroke of genious from the Government, kept an election promise and saved us all money to help pay the extra from the budget..:wasntme::wasntme:
The joys of having such a simple mind

Cheers Ean

[Mick_Marsh]

Wut? Australia had a carbon pricing mechanism. Just because the media calls something a tax, doesn't make it a tax.

About the carbon pricing mechanism (http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx)

Small wonder people think their power bills are going to go down now. Laughable levels of knowledge across this issue.
Thankyou for finding the government website that supports my post.


There are two stages to the carbon pricing mechanism:


Fixed price—The carbon price is fixed for the first three years. In 2012–13 it is $23 a tonne of carbon pollution, in 2013–14 it is $24.15 a tonne and in 2014–15 it is $25.40 a tonne. Liable entities can purchase units up to their emissions levels. Purchased units cannot be traded or banked. For more information, see fixed price 2012–15 (http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Fixed-Price-2012-15/Pages/default.aspx).
Flexible price—From 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market. Most units will be auctioned by the Clean Energy Regulator—we begin auctioning units from the first half of 2014, in the lead up to the flexible price. The number of units the Government issues each year will be limited by a pollution cap set by regulations. For more information, see flexible price from 2015 (http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Flexible-Price-from-2015/Pages/default.aspx).

If a liable entity does not surrender any or enough units, it must pay a 'unit shortfall charge':


from 2012 to 2015, this charge is set at 130 per cent of the fixed price for the relevant fixed price year
from 2015 onwards, once the carbon pricing mechanism moves to the flexible price period, the unit shortfall charge will be up to 200 per cent of the benchmark average auction price for the relevant period.

[Slunnie]

You guys are looking at this all wrong.


The government just saved us all $550 a year ( those of us that buy refrigerant gas a hell of a lot more....in theory ).. so now you cant complain about the extra costs from the budget...ie $7 co payment to see a doctor..


An absolute stroke of genious from the Government, kept an election promise and saved us all money to help pay the extra from the budget..:wasntme::wasntme:
The joys of having such a simple mind

Cheers Ean
Personally I think $550 is severely over-quoted, and I'd rather the environment. I think that we are the embarrassment of the world right now. Not even George W was this bad.

[Chucaro]

The Direct Action alternative:

Direct Action climate policy way off target, industry groups tell Tony Abbott (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/direct-action-climate-policy-way-off-target-industry-groups-tell-tony-abbott)

Now regarding the possible $550 it will better to invest it at very high interest because the alternative will cost us $1300 per household per year

[jasonedu]

We never had one. We had a carbon tax. Different things.

The trouble with this debate is there are too many experts who have a strong opinion but don't actually know anything. Know what you know, listen when you don't.

The emissions trading system we have is supported by the australian national registry of emissions units that is managed by the Clean Energy Regulator. This Registry allows the trade of both carbon units and australian carbon credit units. As well as these domestic units people are able to trade in the international carbon market.

even during the fixed price period (and it was not a tax) financial organisations were buying and trading the units. in addition to this entities who run projects under the carbon farming initiative are able to sell their units to liable entities. just the ACCU's from these projects are worth around $130 million.

Can you be more specific for us? What part of this is not a carbon trading scheme?

[jasonedu]

Thankyou for finding the government website that supports my post.

Mick that is very selective quoting - probably unintentional.

Under the first year of the carbon price liable entities could:
* Purchase Units from the government for a fixed price (what you quoted);
* Purchase Units generated under the Carbon Farming Initiative;
* Establish and run their own project under the Carbon Farming Initiative;
* Receive units through the industry assistance schemes;
* Purchase units from others.

The point is they had a choice. If they wanted to they could take the easy option and hand over $23 in the first year and purchase units from the government. Others went out and found cheaper options.

We don't have that option for a tax. We pay it and cannot shop around and purchase a cheaper tax rate. Well not quite true for the Gina Rineharts of the world but you know what I mean.

[Ean Austral]

Personally I think $550 is severely over-quoted, and I'd rather the environment. I think that we are the embarrassment of the world right now. Not even George W was this bad.

I agree about the $550 being over quoted for the exact reasons I have said in my previous posts, but quite frankly I don't give a rats arse about what the rest of the world thinks, I have been involved in committees that have traveled to the USA and EU regarding fisheries policies and if it's not what they want to hear they dismiss it, so what they say about us falls on my very deaf ears.

Cheers Ean

[Slunnie]

I agree about the $550 being over quoted for the exact reasons I have said in my previous posts, but quite frankly I don't give a rats arse about what the rest of the world thinks, I have been involved in committees that have traveled to the USA and EU regarding fisheries policies and if it's not what they want to hear they dismiss it, so what they say about us falls on my very deaf ears.

Cheers Ean

Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated that we are the fools of the world then.

[Tombie]

Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated that we are the fools of the world then.


I seriously doubt they care...

[Slunnie]

I seriously doubt they care...

Apparently I'm just not as selfish as others.

[Mick_Marsh]

The point is they had a choice. If they wanted to they could take the easy option and hand over $23 in the first year and purchase units from the government.
What happened to that $23? It was handed to the government. I thought I said that.

Others went out and found cheaper options.
Whose option was it to find the cheaper option? Not mine. The carbon producers just handed over the money to the government and then passed on the cost to me.

[Tombie]

Perhaps we are, perhaps not.

Trading appears only to create another scheme for the pursuit of capitalism.
And it certainly put an end to the solar energy projects that had commenced in our region whilst Howard was in action.
Interestingly, the project was on track until the Carbon Tax was introduced, upon which time the project ceased, the company involved walked away, leaving the entire infrastructure to collapse.

It was dismantled last month and used to feed a blast furnace...

[BathurstTom]

Australia produced a Fulbright scholar that based his thesis on a carbon tax. A quote from it is;


"Ultimately it is by harnessing the natural economic forces which drive society that the pollution tax offers us an opportunity to exert greater control over our environment."

(A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/50162694/A-Tax-to-Make-the-Polluter-Pay))

That man was Greg Hunt. His thesis was scholarly, unfortunately his politics has to cower to his masters. Happens so often in our politics in this country...


Tom.

[Tombie]

Interesting read. Thanks. Will cogitate on its content.

[Ean Austral]

Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated that we are the fools of the world then.


Let me elaborate on my reasoning.
About a decade ago the good old USA decided that to many turtles were being caught in their waters so they wanted to reduce it by introducing Turtle Excluder devices, and imposed a import ban of seafood on any country that didn't use these devices, so as not to place their own commercial fisherman to a disadvantage to other bottom trawl fisheries around the world.
I was part of a delegation of Australians who met with the US state department about How/why/What etc these rules and designs were.


18 months later they ( the USA state department ) came to Australia with 4 USA fisherman to see our progress because they couldn't believe that we (Australian prawn fisherman ) were achieving a 90% + reduction in turtle catch , when they at best were 50%.


After many discussion and actually taking them out and showing them our system they asked 1 question. "How Do You Quantify This Data".


Well our fisherman fill in daily log books that record all catch, area, and time Data was our reply, backed up by onboard observers for consistency.


"How do you know its true they said." Well we fill in COMPULSORY log books daily was our reply.


'Well we cant force people to do that in the USA under our bull **** privacy laws so we cant believe that is true.


So it cost us untold amount of $$ to pay for an independent company to ratify our data just to get them to accredit us with the OK to import into the USA.



We had 2 USA fisherman pay out of their own pocket to come over here and learn what we did in 18 months what they couldn't do.


My point is that governments around the world do things to suit themselves, The USA didn't like the fact that we did more in a shorter time than they could , so dismissed us as a fake.


So personally I pay no attention or give no credence to what other countries think of what we do here..


If you doubt my claims, im sure the AFMA website will have an insight into the introduction of TED's ( Turtle Excluder Devices ) and their use in Australian fisheries.


Cheers Ean

[Ean Austral]

Let me elaborate on my reasoning.
About a decade ago the good old USA decided that to many turtles were being caught in their waters so they wanted to reduce it by introducing Turtle Excluder devices, and imposed a import ban of seafood on any country that didn't use these devices, so as not to place their own commercial fisherman to a disadvantage to other bottom trawl fisheries around the world.
I was part of a delegation of Australians who met with the US state department about How/why/What etc these rules and designs were.


18 months later they ( the USA state department ) came to Australia with 4 USA fisherman to see our progress because they couldn't believe that we (Australian prawn fisherman ) were achieving a 90% + reduction in turtle catch , when they at best were 50%.


After many discussion and actually taking them out and showing them our system they asked 1 question. "How Do You Quantify This Data".


Well our fisherman fill in daily log books that record all catch, area, and time Data was our reply, backed up by onboard observers for consistency.


"How do you know its true they said." Well we fill in COMPULSORY log books daily was our reply.


'Well we cant force people to do that in the USA under our bull **** privacy laws so we cant believe that is true.


So it cost us untold amount of $$ to pay for an independent company to ratify our data just to get them to accredit us with the OK to import into the USA.



We had 2 USA fisherman pay out of their own pocket to come over here and learn what we did in 18 months what they couldn't do.


My point is that governments around the world do things to suit themselves, The USA didn't like the fact that we did more in a shorter time than they could , so dismissed us as a fake.


So personally I pay no attention or give no credence to what other countries think of what we do here..


If you doubt my claims, im sure the AFMA website will have an insight into the introduction of TED's ( Turtle Excluder Devices ) and their use in Australian fisheries.


Cheers Ean




IIRC , the good old USA removed the compulsory use of turtle excluder devices from many of their own fisheries because the fisherman couldn't get them to work efficiently. The rules remained the same to any other country , you cant import into USA if your fisheries don't use TED's.


I would bet my leftie that they don't loose any sleep about the fact that they would be the laughing stock of many fisheries around the world, because they couldn't enforce a rule on themselves that they did on others, that is designed to save an animal that they considered to be under threat.


For those that don't know, TED's are still enforced in Australian prawn fisheries and I think would be somewhere around the 97% success rate these days.


Cheers Ean

[ramblingboy42]

Well , I bought the t shirt.

My right wing mates will love it when we meet up in few weeks.

[p38arover]

Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated that we are the fools of the world then.

I couldn't care less.

[jonesfam]

Why don't we just plant lots & lots & lots of trees?
They lock up carbon don't they?
Jonesfam

[Mick_Marsh]

Why don't we just plant lots & lots & lots of trees?
They lock up carbon don't they?
Jonesfam
They certainly do. Then you can harvest them and make things with them and the carbon is still locked away.
Instead, we are pulling them out.

[mudmouse]

Because that isn't cool, controversial, and doesn't promote argument between political sides - it's doing 'something' rather than pushing an agenda... Oh, and you can't make much money doing that either.

;)

Matt.

[jasonedu]

What happened to that $23? It was handed to the government. I thought I said that.

Whose option was it to find the cheaper option? Not mine. The carbon producers just handed over the money to the government and then passed on the cost to me.

I'm not sure of the point of this post Mike. People could purchase from the government if they wanted to.

And as I said they had cheaper options. I can see these trades occurring. Every available cheaper unit has been purchased and sold. So it did happen.

The money collected was distributed in different ways - including tax cuts and funding for renewable energy.

Do you realise that with direct action our taxes go towards funding abatement? We pay either way mate - global evidence (not theory) is that using the market and not direct action we end up paying less.

[jasonedu]

Tombie, I think unfortunately this cost around $500 per ton of abatement. Im not 100% sure of this but believe the program was audited after it was finished and this was the number they came up with.

Not saying there are other benefits - but reducing carbon pollution was not really one of them.



Perhaps we are, perhaps not.

Trading appears only to create another scheme for the pursuit of capitalism.
And it certainly put an end to the solar energy projects that had commenced in our region whilst Howard was in action.
Interestingly, the project was on track until the Carbon Tax was introduced, upon which time the project ceased, the company involved walked away, leaving the entire infrastructure to collapse.

It was dismantled last month and used to feed a blast furnace...

[jasonedu]

Why don't we just plant lots & lots & lots of trees?
They lock up carbon don't they?
Jonesfam

thats what carbon farming is about. So you can do this already, or continue to do it under direct action.

[frantic]

I'm not sure of the point of this post Mike. People could purchase from the government if they wanted to.

And as I said they had cheaper options. I can see these trades occurring. Every available cheaper unit has been purchased and sold. So it did happen.

The money collected was distributed in different ways - including tax cuts and funding for renewable energy.

Do you realise that with direct action our taxes go towards funding abatement? We pay either way mate - global evidence (not theory) is that using the market and not direct action we end up paying less.

What global evidence?
We all hear market will reduce this , credits will do that, but the "evidence" points in the opposite direction when you look at a countries total carbon consumption including imports.
The U.K and E.U over the course of their carbon trading scheme had pop growth around 13%, but their carbon output when you included imports was between 15-47% HIGHER, depending upon which report you believe , over a 26 year period to the GFC. I've put up numerous links in this thread, do a google on U.K carbon consumption including imports. It shows the flaws.


Basically all it did was limit heavy industry and the higher carbon sectors out of the E.U , shifted their production to china/india(increasing unemployment in the E.U and U.K) and increased the pollution as those countries are not only more inefficient but also have far lower pollution laws if any and the good are then required to be shipped thousands of miles to the consumer.

[ramblingboy42]

Your last paragraph , Frantic , is business economics and has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon trading schemes.

[lyonsy]

business economics has everything to do with an emission trading scheem its making a business out of carbon credit's, that we buy from a 3rd person party like al gore who has brought them from ether a 3rd world country which has sad they wont use that carbon, which i would like to see the protocals in place to stop them selling the same credit's over and over or if they use the carbon they have sold what penalty's are in place for them.
so all your doing is exporting the carbon not reducing it, if the scheem only applied to australia and what is imported then it would have a much better chance at reducing the amount of carbon, but business force's wont allow this as this actully means reducing the amount of carbon produced not just making it someone else's problem and getting the feel good factor.
so at the end of the day id rather a carbon tax with a fully clear system where every single cent goes and the accountability that goes with it (which is how all government money should be) to help develop new technolgy.


as for the future if they can get cold fusion to work large scale for power plants then that will be the future, solar needs the storage systems to come down in price to make it a viable alternative, in the meantime prob the best alternative we have avilable is made in melbourne BlueGen (http://www.bluegen.info/) its not something that will work everywhere as you need natural gas but

[ramblingboy42]

This exactly where funds from carbon offsets should be going.....to support projects like this.
Petratherm shelves Paralana geothermal project in outback SA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/petratherm-shelves-paralana-geothermal-project/5611990'section=sa)

[Lionel]

Did you see Four Corners on ABC this week?

I just watched a recording of this program, having just returned from a UK trip. I was hoping that it would be informative, & go into the actual performance capability of these solar storage methods.

Instead, it was mostly pushing the ABC's anti-coalition agenda. Heavily politicised questions asked by Stephen Long of US Renewable energy advocates abounded. Long seemed to be more interested in rubbishing the Abbott government than making an informative program on renewable energy.

I lost interest very quickly.

Cheers,

Lionel

[frantic]

Your last paragraph , Frantic , is business economics and has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon trading schemes.

ROFL, a cost to manufacture that only applies to you, goes up yearly,and not imports is both business economics and a carbon credit scheme. The accountants will sit and say if we move this xyz plant or section of our production line that uses/emits a majority of the carbon to India or China we will save Co2 credit cost x number we would have used, and can still increase production whilst technically reducing Co2 output at our home base. When in reality they are producing far more by shipping alone, ignoring the lower or total lack of pollution controls in the new Chinese or Indian plant.
Show me any link that states business will stay where it is not only more expensive, but any growth is limited if not potentially halted by rising costs.

[ramblingboy42]

rant and bleed....rant and bleed.

I'm yet to see the companies that have suffered....can you show me.....not hyperbole...facts.

Most companies pay more for their rubbish disposal than their carbon offsets.

[ramblingboy42]

Unfortunately (honestly) , I cannot separate Australian political comments from an article like this that shows we are heading in the wrong direction.

at the time this was written we still had carbon pricing.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Ffederal-politics%2Fpolitical-news%2Ftony-abbott-missing-signs-of-worlds-switch-to-carbon-trading-experts-say-20140609-39t8q.html&ei=nZnNU5qMIo-n8AWhpYDwBw&usg=AFQjCNG6N8Ey0_KHJPW2x5VpxOJK09gB8g&sig2=jeJdG7N0Mf1XYgihUJFX0w&bvm=bv.71198958,d.dGc

[frantic]

rant and bleed....rant and bleed.

I'm yet to see the companies that have suffered....can you show me.....not hyperbole...facts.

Most companies pay more for their rubbish disposal than their carbon offsets.

I ask for any link for you to back your statement, you refuse?
Here's one to back mine, steel production in the EU and the effects of an increasing credit cost.
EU Emissions Trading Scheme Phase III: Implications for the European Steel Industry (http://www.crugroup.com/about-cru/cruinsight/EU_Emissions_Trading_Scheme_Phase_III)

On top of this the EU has gone through a giant slump in production compared with China who have continued to grow at 5-10% a year so they will easily crack the 700million ton mark for steel production (global total is about 1.2 billion).
The problem environmentaly is Chinese steel emits around 3tons of Co2 per hot rolled coil ton compared to Japan, Australia or EU emissions of 2-2.3tons.
When this tax was introduced in Australia, it along with cheap Govt subsidised imports from china caused BSL to halve production in 2011 which meant in real terms a global increase of 1 million tons of carbon in the atmosphere by shifting production to china along with a few thousand jobs and billions in exports taken from Australia. BSL could not say this as they along with one steel had "adjustment incentives " to help with the scheme that they kept regardless of production levels, as long as they made some steel.

Now rambling your second post with a sun herald link is a bit "light" on details, do us and yourself a favour and show us the Chinese scams, oops scheme.
As I've pointed out before their scheme has NO LIMIT!
So basically they can continue to increase production and emissions, just not as much per item.
Back to steel, they can put in some of the western world's emission reduction methods cut Co2 per ton from 3-3.5 phrct down to 2.8 phrct which is still above row, and increase production by whatever they can sell. They can also sell the credits for reducing their emissions further increasing their profits.

[ramblingboy42]

Implications and analysis indicators is what that link is about.

Does not name one company suffering.

Frantic if you want "us" to see (sic) chinese scams, show it yourself.

I'm not about scams, I'm about carbon pricing , which is showing itself world wide to be value adding to industry , not detrimental.

[frantic]

Actually it names a whole sector.:D
Gives you their exit/ loss point and the reasons.:D

China.
http://www.ieta.org/assets/Reports/EmissionsTradingAroundTheWorld/edf_ieta_china_case_study_september_2013.pdf
Basically break down the numbers and YOU tell me where the benefit is.
They have based their reduction on carbon per GDP unit , now they are aiming for 17% over 5 years and 45% over 15 years, problem is their economy had grown consistently at 9-12% so :
5 years growth (at about 9%)= 67 percent increase in GDP subtract 17% less emissions per UNIT of GDP means their co2 emissions INCREASE by 39%!
Do you want to do the 15 year plan? ;)
15 years growth at 10 % to make it easy, will end up increasing their carbon emissions by about 130%.
They are going to try and slow their emissions, basically so they can breathe, but not limit them like us.

[ramblingboy42]

I cannot see any companies listed there suffering from their ETS.

You see a trend here?

Happy with outcomes and projections......

Carbon trading is a good thing.

Why is Australia the only country in the world taking a backward step.

When I was a soldier , one of the things we took great pride in was our coat of arms.

Two animals that can't take a backward step.

Our government doesn't follow our coat of arms.

Most of those noddies don't even know what it means.

[frantic]

I cannot see any companies listed there suffering from their ETS.

You see a trend here?

Happy with outcomes and projections......

Carbon trading is a good thing.

Why is Australia the only country in the world taking a backward step.

When I was a soldier , one of the things we took great pride in was our coat of arms.

Two animals that can't take a backward step.

Our government doesn't follow our coat of arms.

Most of those noddies don't even know what it means.


Opps, an ENTIRE sector is not one company, sorry, ill just go apologise to the 400,000 steel workers in the EU!
EU Emissions Trading Scheme Phase III: Implications for the European Steel Industry (http://www.crugroup.com/about-cru/cruinsight/EU_Emissions_Trading_Scheme_Phase_III)


BSL is a company whose products you pass daily;) a $23/ton of carbon tax/credit(2.3ton of carbon/ton of steel for us and EU so $50 credits per ton of steel) was a majority of the profit if not all the profit from a ton of hot rolled coil.
At $20-30 euro a carbon ton it is all the profit from a European steel maker, or basically 90% of them will be closed swamped by chinese steel.


We can disagree on which govt took a backward step, Gillard caving in to Brown or Abbott actually doing one of his election promises, rare as that may be.

And no comment on the actual chinese scheme, not the fantasy.:twisted:

[Mick_Marsh]

Basically all it did was limit heavy industry and the higher carbon sectors out of the E.U , shifted their production to china/india(increasing unemployment in the E.U and U.K) and increased the pollution as those countries are not only more inefficient but also have far lower pollution laws if any and the good are then required to be shipped thousands of miles to the consumer.
Got to say, I agree with Mr frantic on this one.
I work for a company that split off it's high energy using ecologically damaging carbon producing part of their process and sent it off shore to Indonesia. They are now clean and green. Good on them.

Oh, a few hundred jobs went off shore and the Indonesians are now pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere but we reduced our carbon footprint. That's a good thing, right?

[ramblingboy42]

That's not what it's about.

It's not about moving a polluting business to another country.

If you know what carbon trading or ets is why did you give me that example?

[frantic]

That's not what it's about.

It's not about moving a polluting business to another country.

If you know what carbon trading or ets is why did you give me that example?

It's not what it's about to you.

In reality that's what's happening, BSL now still roll 2 million tons of steel in its various Asian mills but it is now Chinese steel with 30-50% more carbon a ton. We used to ship Australian made steel to Indonesia Thailand, etc now those jobs and revenue are gone.
In Mick's case do you think they are using the same pollution controls in Indonesia as here? And then throw in the extra Co2 from transportation for good measure.
But you keep discounting entire sectors as "not relevant".
Steel, concrete, plastics, aluminium etc

[ramblingboy42]

What?

Now you are including the downfall of the Australian steel industry as attributable to the Carbon Offset Trading Scheme?

Clutch at straws by all means, but don't be utterly ridiculous.

If you can show me profit/loss statements from a company suffering badly as a result of a Carbon Offset Trading Scheme I will accept your viewpoint , but you want ME to produce some evidence to you.

That evidence has already been produced and shows the success of the Carbon Offset Trading Scheme producing very good results here in Australia before it was repealed.

I'm unsure why you are clinging so tight to your viewpoint while hundreds of countries around the world are now successfully and voluntarily involved in a carbon trading or ETS scheme.

[frantic]

Please show us an example of a few dozen (not even the hundred you claim)countries with an ets who's total carbon consumption including imports has fallen from introduction to pre GFC?

I actually gave you the entire steel sectors profit and loss points and an ets 's potential impact in the EU. You refused to accept that.
You cannot accept my example or Mick's example of carbon shedding but produce no evidence to the contrary.

[Mick_Marsh]

No rambles.
I think Mr frantic and I agree on this.

What is being said in this thread, since the introduction of the carbon tax, is there has been a drop in the carbon output of Australia. This is what you are arguing and have posted links that support your point of view. I think we all agree with that.
You propose that the reduction of carbon output is solely because of the carbon tax. A rather simplified view.
Mr frantic and I can see the more complex explanation for the observed reduction in Australia's production in greenhouse gasses.
Due to the onerous regulations and taxes imposed on companies that have environmentally destructive processes in their manufacturing, these companies have been splitting off these parts of their production and moving it off shore to countries that have no regard for their environment and have a less efficient and dirtier processes, as Mr frantic has demonstrated by using a European example. Moving this heavy industry off shore has also decreased the requirement of power in Australia but increased the demand for power in those overseas countries. When you look at Indonesia as an example, in order to build these power generation and processing plants, they are destroying rain forest to get land to build them.
Coupled with the carbon output of the ships taking the raw materials to this off shore processing plant and the shipping of the product back to Australia, the actual carbon footprint of Australia has increased. Due to the fact we are only measuring and taxing carbon emissions in Australia your example does not give a true overall picture of Australia’s carbon footprint.
I understand this may be a foreign concept but when discussing environmental issues, it should be looked at holistically.
Think globally.

[Chucaro]

Perhaps removing the products that contribute to unacceptable levels of pollution or processing which damage the environment from the free trade and other marketing agreements policies will be a fair way to go?
It will require some political will and cooperation by many countries but it can be possible.
All in all, IMO there is not one single "silver bullet" that van fix it.

[incisor]

oops


Economists are refuting the three big picture claims made by the government:
1) We have a budget emergency
2) We have a debt crisis and
3) The carbon tax was ruining the economy

Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists | Warwick Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/23/tony-abbott-achieves-the-impossible-unity-among-economists?CMP=soc_567)

[Chucaro]

Adding to Inc's post there are good opinions here about the CT

Carbon tax repealed: experts respond (http://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-repealed-experts-respond-29154)

[ramblingboy42]

oops



Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists | Warwick Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/23/tony-abbott-achieves-the-impossible-unity-among-economists?CMP=soc_567)



Inc , I really hope these deniers and argumentative types read this, it is very good, but I guess they will find some argument in there....sigh.

[Ean Austral]

What?

Now you are including the downfall of the Australian steel industry as attributable to the Carbon Offset Trading Scheme?

Clutch at straws by all means, but don't be utterly ridiculous.

If you can show me profit/loss statements from a company suffering badly as a result of a Carbon Offset Trading Scheme I will accept your viewpoint , but you want ME to produce some evidence to you.

That evidence has already been produced and shows the success of the Carbon Offset Trading Scheme producing very good results here in Australia before it was repealed.

I'm unsure why you are clinging so tight to your viewpoint while hundreds of countries around the world are now successfully and voluntarily involved in a carbon trading or ETS scheme.


Are there that many countries in the world ?


I always thought there was about 50 odd countries. Maybe I need to go back to school and pay attention this time.


Cheers Ean

[ramblingboy42]

Adding to Inc's post there are good opinions here about the CT

Carbon tax repealed: experts respond (http://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-repealed-experts-respond-29154)

Arthur , that article should be compulsory reading for all Australians....I'm sure a few here may start to read it but won't finish it because it will totally shred every argument they have put up against this thread.

[Chucaro]

Are there that many countries in the world ?


I always thought there was about 50 odd countries. Maybe I need to go back to school and pay attention this time.


Cheers Ean


50 odd :eek: which you are considering countries, the English speaking ones only? :p

[Ean Austral]

Inc , I really hope these deniers and argumentative types read this, it is very good, but I guess they will find some argument in there....sigh.


Well I guess I will get labelled a denier, even though I agree there are many good point to an ETS but it needs major improvements from the system we had.


I thought the Governor of the reserve bank recently stated that the economy couldn't sustain the governments spending policy's.


I don't have the link to post, but I remember listening to the last board meeting and am sure this was said.


I am happy to be proven wrong.


Cheers Ean

[ramblingboy42]

There are 196 countries in the world.

192 states signed onto the original Kyoto protocol.

[Chucaro]

Arthur , that article should be compulsory reading for all Australians....I'm sure a few here may start to read it but won't finish it because it will totally shred every argument they have put up against this thread.

Perhaps the people mentioned in the article are sponsored by interested parties in the industry :p hummmm :D

[Ean Austral]

50 odd :eek: which you are considering countries, the English speaking ones only? :p


Google was my friend .... 195 ... guess that's less than hundreds, so im sorta right.


Knew I should have paid more attention at school, well actually I payed lots of attention at school....to the girls...


Cheers Ean

[Chucaro]

There are 196 countries in the world.

192 states signed onto the original Kyoto protocol.

Or 201 by a tight interpretation of the Montevideo Conventions.

[RVR110]

There are 196 countries in the world.

192 states signed onto the original Kyoto protocol.Including Tasmania?

Edit: Oh, crap. I promised myself that I would not get involved in this thread.

[Chucaro]

........then again if we are going by the domain suffix like au, de,uy there are 243 countries :)
But we take into consideration what it is going now in Irak we have to add a couple more :D
Bugger!!! who cares......

[frantic]

Still not one example of a few of your "hundreds of countries" that actually reduced emissions from ETS introduction to 2007 GFC ?

Who to believe from your own posts?
This one :
Carbon tax repealed: experts respond (http://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-repealed-experts-respond-29154)

Or this one from you in post 44: The true cost of carbon offsets (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-true-cost-of-carbon-offsets-20140709-zt0wa.html)
I'll use a few quotes from the article you posted , but obviously didn't read past first few paragraphs. ;)

Before the European carbon price crashed, my firm did very well out of the Clean Development Mechanism. The mainstay of the firm’s success was the development and trading of credits from Chinese wind-power projects. China dominated the supply of UN offsets. It exported billions of tonnes in UN-approved offsets, earning billions of euros from the expansion of renewable energy while its carbon emissions from fossil-fuel generators continued to soar.

And here's the crunch line from ramblings cited expert on carbon trading;

Did my UN carbon offsets represent ''genuine reductions?'' No, they did not, and I should know.


Read more: The true cost of carbon offsets (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-true-cost-of-carbon-offsets-20140709-zt0wa.html#ixzz38KZLhtXK)

[Chucaro]

This thread is as close as the one in the past with a religion topic!
There are the believers and the no believers and it is going on and on :D

[PhilipA]

This is appropriate IMHO.
Monty Python - Dead Parrot - YouTube

Regards Philip A

[frantic]

This thread is as close as the one in the past with a religion topic!
There are the believers and the no believers and it is going on and on :D

Wrong , labelling a person a "non believer " because they find fault in your solution is like arguing with a patient who accepts the diagnosis, but investigates the success ratio for the recommended treatment and find the survival ratios terrible. They then investigate other methods to treat the problem.

Global warming exists, but there are "fanatics" who will only accept one way of dealing with it , even when their own evidence states it is failing! When the only countries to have actually reduced total emissions ( including imports) are those who's economies have collapsed, there is an obvious problem. The longer we ignore it, the worse it will get.

[Chucaro]

What I have done!! frantic, take it easy mate you are getting worse than me when under the side effects of caffeine ( and that it is bad, ask some fellow members :D)
I just made the comment :p to try to defuse a argument.

Cheers

[Mick_Marsh]

This thread is as close as the one in the past with a religion topic!
There are the believers and the no believers and it is going on and on :D
The thread is not religious, Chucky. What are you on about?
If you feel there is an inappropriate post, report it. I know I don't need to tell you that.

This is yet another thread on this topic or related topics. If you know where they're going to head, and you don't like it, why keep starting them?

[Chucaro]

The thread is not religious, Chucky. What are you on about?
If you feel there is an inappropriate post, report it. I know I don't need to tell you that.

This is yet another thread on this topic or related topics. If you know where they're going to head, and you don't like it, why keep starting them?

It have to be something in the water that you are driking to come with that post.
I am not complaining Mick, I just mentioned religion as an example of a type of topic that we never going to arrive to an agreement.
I have made the comment with the symbol :p to reinforce that I was not serious about it.
.

Have a Bex ;)

[Mick_Marsh]

It have to be something in the water that you are driking to come with that post.
Have a Bex ;)
What with, water?

[JDNSW]

Just a brief note - in the news after the repeql of the carbon tax, our local airline announced that the repeal would mean a direct improvement on their bottom line of (from memory) about $2million, which would actully work out higher as they planned on lowering fares, resulting in more passengers. This does not sound like a lot, but they are not a large business.

John

[vnx205]

The thread is not religious, Chucky. What are you on about?

Another forum that I often visit has a blanket ban on religious debates. They don't define religious debates as debates about religion.

They define them as debates about topics where people have their own views that they are not prepared to change no matter what anyone else says. They involve topics where people's views are based on purely personal opinion or faith rather than evidence.

Examples of religious debates would be Holden vs Ford, your football code vs every other football code, your football team vs every other football team, Windows vs Apple, and Labor vs Coalition. It is probably obvious that debates about religion would also meet their criteria for being a "religious debate".

There have been a lot of topics debated here that would fall into that category of "religious debates".

Perhaps that was the sort of point Chucaro was trying to make. :)

[Chucaro]

Another forum that I often visit has a blanket ban on religious debates. They don't define religious debates as debates about religion.

They define them as debates about topics where people have their own views that they are not prepared to change no matter what anyone else says. They involve topics where people's views are based on purely personal opinion or faith rather than evidence.

Examples of religious debates would be Holden vs Ford, your football code vs every other football code, your football team vs every other football team, Windows vs Apple, and Labor vs Coalition. It is probably obvious that debates about religion would also meet their criteria for being a "religious debate".

There have been a lot of topics debated here that would fall into that category of "religious debates".

Perhaps that was the sort of point Chucaro was trying to make. :)

You just have dropped a bomb! You can forget to be in the moderators XMS card list :D

[Mick_Marsh]

Another forum that I often visit has a blanket ban on religious debates. They don't define religious debates as debates about religion.

They define them as debates about topics where people have their own views that they are not prepared to change no matter what anyone else says. They involve topics where people's views are based on purely personal opinion or faith rather than evidence.

Examples of religious debates would be Holden vs Ford, your football code vs every other football code, your football team vs every other football team, Windows vs Apple, and Labor vs Coalition. It is probably obvious that debates about religion would also meet their criteria for being a "religious debate".

There have been a lot of topics debated here that would fall into that category of "religious debates".

Perhaps that was the sort of point Chucaro was trying to make. :)
Interesting you should say. The way I see it, I have posted verifiable fact to argue agailnst the carbon tax. The oposing side has posted disinformation and opinion to argue for it.
To follow your definition "They define them as debates about topics where people have their own views that they are not prepared to change no matter what anyone else says. They involve topics where people's views are based on purely personal opinion or faith rather than evidence.", all the posts supporting my side of the debate should remain and those opposing should be deleted. I'd be happy with that.

For the record, I like both Holdens and Fords. I turned up at a fellow forumites home who was rather surprised I was in a Commodore. "I thought you were a Ford man!" he exclaimed.
I find it insulting someone would think I was so narrow minded as to dismiss an excellent vehicle with a blue oval when I drive an excellent vehicle with a lion.
There was a post earlier, here it is:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/201359-why-australian-businesses-should-back-carbon-pricing-12.html#post2188114
I was quite insulted that the poster assumed that, because I oppose the carbon tax, that I must support direct action. I don't.

By all means, have an opinion but, in a debate, be expected to back it up with verifiable research and data. Otherwise it's just opinion which, according to vnx205, should be deleted.

[bob10]

This makes more sense than the lot of you. Unbelievers!, Bob


Funniest bit of 'life of brian' - YouTube

[ramblingboy42]

Readers may note that neither Arthur nor myself have become angry nor personal to any other poster in this thread.

To Inc.....are you brave enough to put up the article you were given? Perhaps put it up and lock the thread. Brave may be wrong word. Astute enough not too , perhaps.

as far as I am concerned this thread can be closed and removed. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[vnx205]

Otherwise it's just opinion which, according to vnx205, should be deleted.

That is an interesting interpretation of my post. :D

I wasn't recommending that anyone's post should be deleted.

I didn't intend my comment to be taken as referring to either side of the current debate.

I wasn't expressing an opinion about the merits of either side of the debate.

I wasn't recommending that the AULRO forum should follow the lead of the Whirlpool forum and ban religious debates.

All I was attempting to do was describe the rules on another forum because I thought it might have clarified Chucaro's use of the word "religious" or "religion".

I offered no opinion about whether a ban on "religious debates" was desirable. I didn't even claim that this particular debate was a "religious debate".

Some posts present fact, some present opinions. I wasn't really doing either. I was just trying to offer an explanation which might have clarified what I believed may have been a misunderstanding.

However, I am pleased that there is someone else who doesn't feel that it is a necessary part of being Australian to be either a Ford or a Holden fanatic. You have your way of demonstrating that by driving both. I have my way of demonstrating it by driving neither. :p

[ramblingboy42]

THE AUSTRALIAN CARBON TAX WAS EXEMPLARY......

agreeable commentary here....
Down Under, a Carbon Tax Goes Down - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/carbon-tax-goes)

[bob10]

I have found the answer, inherent in our society, really, Bob


Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube

[frantic]

THE AUSTRALIAN CARBON TAX WAS EXEMPLARY......

agreeable commentary here....
Down Under, a Carbon Tax Goes Down - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/carbon-tax-goes)



Another opinion,,,,,no study or facts to back it,hmmmmm,,,, which one to believe, this latest from you or your expert who made a living from selling carbon crappits to the E.U, from your post 44:
:twisted:

Did my UN carbon offsets represent ''genuine reductions?'' No, they did not, and I should know.


Read more: The true cost of carbon offsets (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-true-cost-of-carbon-offsets-20140709-zt0wa.html#ixzz38KZLhtXK)

[ramblingboy42]

you can fight this all the way to your grave , Frantic , but it's not going to go in the direction you hope.

it is getting bigger everywhere , may as well admit it has merit , as so many others around the world are doing.

[Chucaro]

That is an interesting interpretation of my post. :D

I wasn't recommending that anyone's post should be deleted.

I didn't intend my comment to be taken as referring to either side of the current debate.

I wasn't expressing an opinion about the merits of either side of the debate.

I wasn't recommending that the AULRO forum should follow the lead of the Whirlpool forum and ban religious debates.

All I was attempting to do was describe the rules on another forum because I thought it might have clarified Chucaro's use of the word "religious" or "religion".

I offered no opinion about whether a ban on "religious debates" was desirable. I didn't even claim that this particular debate was a "religious debate".

Some posts present fact, some present opinions. I wasn't really doing either. I was just trying to offer an explanation which might have clarified what I believed may have been a misunderstanding.

However, I am pleased that there is someone else who doesn't feel that it is a necessary part of being Australian to be either a Ford or a Holden fanatic. You have your way of demonstrating that by driving both. I have my way of demonstrating it by driving neither. :p

I am glad that you have posted the attached posts!
Many of my posts are taken in the wrong way and I was under the impression that was my English but this proves that it is not.
It appears to me that many posts are read and interpreted in a selective way which it is far away of what the original author have try to put across.

[Chucaro]

Big fall in electricity sector emissions since carbon tax (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/big-fall-in-electricity-sector-emissions-since-carbon-tax-20140205-320a6.html)

The article is based in " These Opinions"
This reduction, revealed in the September-quarter National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (http://images.smh.com.au/file/2014/02/05/5132566/ghgstatssept.pdf?rand=1391555867144)
Published by the Australian Government


CARBON emissions from the electricity sector have dived in the first six months under the carbon tax, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/emissions-drop-signals-fall-in-carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995)

[Tombie]

This thread is like all the others on such topics; pathetic :D

Those with an agenda
Those who believe
Those who doubt
Those who are unsure

One thing blatantly obvious...

People have no respect for one another's opinions.

Those who are adamant are just as pig headed, boorish and rude as those who question or doubt their argument.

And I haven't seen a single mention of one ****ing Land Rover yet.... :D

Want to push a political/Environmental opinion? Why can't you do that on a political forum or an environmental forum?!

Let's get back to discussing Carbon emitting, fossil fuel consuming, Land Rovers...

It seems for some it's the only common ground!

[Tombie]

Sigh!!!

[Chucaro]

Tombie, you have not include the casual stirrer that come to "put a bit more wood in the fire" :)

[bob10]

C'mon fellas, admit it. no one on this forum really has a clue, about global warming, or climate change. Most posts go in the general direction of the political leaning of the person posting. And as for keeping to the land rover theme on here all the time? bit like living on Pitcairn Island, if you get my drift. Bob

[jasonedu]

that is true - but does not mean they are worthless.

We could have a scheme that guaranteed 100% that every unit represented a ton of abatement but such a scheme would be so expensive to setup, run and report on no-one would bother.

So maybe each unit represents 900kg of abatement? maybe its 999kg? its still better than doing nothing.

The same problems he talks about are also just as applicable to Direct Action - all that is an offset scheme like the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism. Additionality is still an issue. What direct action adds is the government will contract to buy the abatement.




Another opinion,,,,,no study or facts to back it,hmmmmm,,,, which one to believe, this latest from you or your expert who made a living from selling carbon crappits to the E.U, from your post 44:
:twisted:

Did my UN carbon offsets represent ''genuine reductions?'' No, they did not, and I should know.


Read more: The true cost of carbon offsets (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-true-cost-of-carbon-offsets-20140709-zt0wa.html#ixzz38KZLhtXK)

[jasonedu]

Pricing has been used to solve many problems. for example the acid rain program in the United States.

You can also read Greg Hunts thesis. I am sure it has examples :-)

I also just googled as you suggested.

"Carbon dioxide emissions relating to imports rose 23 per cent from 1997 to a peak in 2004 and in 2011 were 12 per cent lower than 1997. Emissions associated with imports from China increased by 90 per cent from 1997 to 2011, peaking in 2007. Emissions relating to the consumption of goods and services produced in the UK have decreased by 8 per cent since 1997."

But the problem of carbon leakage is real. In Australia we dealt with this by giving subsidies to exporters that had energy intensive processes such as aluminium production. In effect they got most of their units for free.

The reality is the exchange rate fluctuations of any exporters has a far bigger impact of production than the carbon price. I don't know of any large company that went overseas due to the Carbon Price. A few went bust but they were going bust anyway.






What global evidence?
We all hear market will reduce this , credits will do that, but the "evidence" points in the opposite direction when you look at a countries total carbon consumption including imports.
The U.K and E.U over the course of their carbon trading scheme had pop growth around 13%, but their carbon output when you included imports was between 15-47% HIGHER, depending upon which report you believe , over a 26 year period to the GFC. I've put up numerous links in this thread, do a google on U.K carbon consumption including imports. It shows the flaws.


Basically all it did was limit heavy industry and the higher carbon sectors out of the E.U , shifted their production to china/india(increasing unemployment in the E.U and U.K) and increased the pollution as those countries are not only more inefficient but also have far lower pollution laws if any and the good are then required to be shipped thousands of miles to the consumer.

[jasonedu]

I'm sorry but this is not research. It is an opinion of a consultancy that probably gets its funding from the industry. These think tanks and consultancies are a dime a dozen and are really nothing but fronts that allow companies to buy information they want to hear.




Opps, an ENTIRE sector is not one company, sorry, ill just go apologise to the 400,000 steel workers in the EU!
EU Emissions Trading Scheme Phase III: Implications for the European Steel Industry (http://www.crugroup.com/about-cru/cruinsight/EU_Emissions_Trading_Scheme_Phase_III)

[frantic]

So far 3 more opinions with not a shred of evidence to back your claims up jasonedu :twisted:
Just another prophet spouting their beliefs :p

[ramblingboy42]

back to square one.

this must be understood...it is the guts of the whole matter.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carbonneutral.com%2Fknowledge-centre%2Fcarbon-offsetting-explained&ei=zZLRU-PTC9CMuASNzYHoBw&usg=AFQjCNFklZoC8aY1GZmrN9px6w59balbaw&sig2=rvgQmrKbDRUAFxiZaFAeQw&bvm=bv.71778758,d.c2E

[Chucaro]

Harvard historian: strategy of climate science denial groups 'extremely successful' (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/jul/25/harvard-historian-strategy-of-climate-science-denial-groups-extremely-successful)

[ramblingboy42]

I will read her novel , but I would really love to see her write her book on the changes that need to be made.

[Mick_Marsh]

I'm sorry but this is not research. It is an opinion of a consultancy that probably gets its funding from the industry. These think tanks and consultancies are a dime a dozen and are really nothing but fronts that allow companies to buy information they want to hear.
Hallelujah brother!

Have a read of the first five posts of this thread.


I'm sorry but this is not research. It is an opinion of a consultancy that probably gets its funding from the industry.
Oh, what evidence do you offer to support this opinion? I would like to evaluate it.

[Mick_Marsh]

back to square one.

this must be understood...it is the guts of the whole matter.
http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carbonneutral.com%2Fknowledge-centre%2Fcarbon-offsetting-explained&ei=zZLRU-PTC9CMuASNzYHoBw&usg=AFQjCNFklZoC8aY1GZmrN9px6w59balbaw&sig2=rvgQmrKbDRUAFxiZaFAeQw&bvm=bv.71778758,d.c2E
What's wrong with you rambles? You're puting up links that support my opinion.

[frantic]

Pricing has been used to solve many problems. for example the acid rain program in the United States.

You can also read Greg Hunts thesis. I am sure it has examples :-)

I also just googled as you suggested.

"Carbon dioxide emissions relating to imports rose 23 per cent from 1997 to a peak in 2004 and in 2011 were 12 per cent lower than 1997. Emissions associated with imports from China increased by 90 per cent from 1997 to 2011, peaking in 2007. Emissions relating to the consumption of goods and services produced in the UK have decreased by 8 per cent since 1997."

But the problem of carbon leakage is real. In Australia we dealt with this by giving subsidies to exporters that had energy intensive processes such as aluminium production. In effect they got most of their units for free.

The reality is the exchange rate fluctuations of any exporters has a far bigger impact of production than the carbon price. I don't know of any large company that went overseas due to the Carbon Price. A few went bust but they were going bust anyway.

You forgot the total figures. 30% increase in the uk's carbon emissions to 2007 but only 13% population growth.
Now obviously no business suffered, I mean local production fell by 8% according to your figures, local consumption of imports rose 90% but only 13% population growth. The numbers you've given and the psalms your preaching don't align.:twisted:
One thing that ramblings expert on carbon trading(post 44 and I've quoted him several times) got right was there is no point to any ets unless their is a global cap on emissions.
The other problem is even with a carbon scheme in place in china, there is no cap, far from it.
You go through the Chinese emissions plan details, basically it's a 67% increase (instead of a projected Doubling)in emissions over a 5 year term, with a long term 15 year plan that could result in a best case of tripling their Co2 output, that's reduced from a projected 5 times increase. Their 5 year plan is to reduce by 17% per unit of gdp and 45% reduction over 15years, combine this with their average gdp growth of 9-12% and it's a recipie for disaster.
Add in the EU who have virtually doubled imports since their ets began and are to scared of a diplomatic incident to apply a carbon tax/fee to The the Chinese imports, and we have another load of hands on the wheel driving towards a carbon cliff.
P. S why would the EU have stopped buying carbon credits from china from 2012 if they where such a great thing for the world? :twisted:

Chucaro, nobody on here has denied warming, just the solutions

Now acid rain pricing was shown to be less effective than traditional legislation used in the EU, wiki said 40%reduction in sulphur compared to 70% via legislation. Poor example. Secondly it should have done better as it's a captive market, unlike the EU, where you cannot import high Co2 producing power from neighbouring countries.

[jasonedu]

huh? trying reading them again.


So far 3 more opinions with not a shred of evidence to back your claims up jasonedu :twisted:
Just another prophet spouting their beliefs :p

[jasonedu]

they have not published or peer reviewed the publication. basic scientific method.

they are also a consultancy that sell their services to the mineral industry. therefore they have an interest in being on message as if they were not they would not exist.

Do you need more?


Hallelujah brother!

Have a read of the first five posts of this thread.


Oh, what evidence do you offer to support this opinion? I would like to evaluate it.

[jasonedu]

growth to 2007 and then they fell. The EU ETS started in 2005 so it can't really be blamed for the increase in emissions to 2007 can it. Honestly not sure why you don't think this adds up?

I agree with your other points around a global cap. but you need to recognise not all carbon leaks as well - you may cut emissions by 100 and 10 goes overseas - you are still better off. I haven't seen evidence of leakage in Australia - Im sure it has happened but have heard nothing saying this has been significant.

Do you have a reference for the non acceptance of Kyoto units (or Chinese units) in the EU-ETS? I see trades in CER's are the time and the European commission website says they can be used. Not sure where this information came from.




You forgot the total figures. 30% increase in the uk's carbon emissions to 2007 but only 13% population growth.
Now obviously no business suffered, I mean local production fell by 8% according to your figures, local consumption of imports rose 90% but only 13% population growth. The numbers you've given and the psalms your preaching don't align.:twisted:
One thing that ramblings expert on carbon trading(post 44 and I've quoted him several times) got right was there is no point to any ets unless their is a global cap on emissions.
The other problem is even with a carbon scheme in place in china, there is no cap, far from it.
You go through the Chinese emissions plan details, basically it's a 67% increase (instead of a projected Doubling)in emissions over a 5 year term, with a long term 15 year plan that could result in a best case of tripling their Co2 output, that's reduced from a projected 5 times increase. Their 5 year plan is to reduce by 17% per unit of gdp and 45% reduction over 15years, combine this with their average gdp growth of 9-12% and it's a recipie for disaster.
Add in the EU who have virtually doubled imports since their ets began and are to scared of a diplomatic incident to apply a carbon tax/fee to The the Chinese imports, and we have another load of hands on the wheel driving towards a carbon cliff.
P. S why would the EU have stopped buying carbon credits from china from 2012 if they where such a great thing for the world? :twisted:

Chucaro, nobody on here has denied warming, just the solutions

Now acid rain pricing was shown to be less effective than traditional legislation used in the EU, wiki said 40%reduction in sulphur compared to 70% via legislation. Poor example. Secondly it should have done better as it's a captive market, unlike the EU, where you cannot import high Co2 producing power from neighbouring countries.

[jasonedu]

when facts fail go the person.


So far 3 more opinions with not a shred of evidence to back your claims up jasonedu :twisted:
Just another prophet spouting their beliefs :p

[Mick_Marsh]

they have not published or peer reviewed the publication. basic scientific method.
True. An argument your side of the fence usually has trouble understanding


they are also a consultancy that sell their services to the mineral industry. therefore they have an interest in being on message as if they were not they would not exist.
Yes, they are a consultancy that sell their services to the mineral industry. They are paid for accurate, researched information. If they didn't give this, the industry would go elsewhere. You see, the industry are paying them for information for the industry, not information for the public. That is a differentiation I'm sure you will understand.
From the CRU website.

Editorial independence
All our services, from metals cost databases to full-scale global mining consultancy projects, benefit from our strictly observed policy of total editorial independence.
It’s your guarantee that the research and advice you receive from CRU can be relied upon without question.

Of course you would weight it accordingly. Having worked for some years in the minerals and resource industry, I would say it was reasonably accurate


Do you need more?
No. I commend you for practicing due diligence.
Did you happen to read the first few posts of the thread?

[Ean Austral]

I always have to laugh to myself when I read of arguments being backed up by scientific and economic data, and the people behind that data. How depends on which data you believe then its the gospel.


I was involved in a fishery that was told by CSIRO scientist and economists that major changes were needed and over fishing was a real issue and it was happening.


We argued and argued and even ended up in the high court at one stage, and we were told that these people (CSIRO) were world leaders in their field, even tho we had people that could argue the opposite.


The judges in the court decision decided in their eyes the government scientist and economist were correct and major changes were made, and over the years after our fishery working with them and then taking the lead ourselves we were accredited with MSC ( Marine Stewardship Council ) accreditation. This is about the highest a fishery can achieve and is recognised world wide, even by the WWF. payed for by the operators in the fishery I will add, with no government subsidy.


Its funny how these scientist were the same people whose theories on fish stocks were used to allocate fish quota to the so called SUPER TRAWLER , but all of a sudden the public don't like the thought of a super trawler , so borderline hysteria and bad publicity starts and HEY no super trawler... Even though the operators of that trawler were trying to do what the best fisheries scientist/economist in the world at determining fish stocks said was ok to do.


Sound Familiar.


Cheers Ean

[Chucaro]

Another thing with the scientist establishment it is that when one or few of them "think out of the square" and going against the view from some institutions they are discredited even if they have been holding high positions in those organizations.
Reminds me on of my favorite topics "Science Set Free" by Rupert Sheldrake

[frantic]

growth to 2007 and then they fell. The EU ETS started in 2005 so it can't really be blamed for the increase in emissions to 2007 can it. Honestly not sure why you don't think this adds up?

I agree with your other points around a global cap. but you need to recognise not all carbon leaks as well - you may cut emissions by 100 and 10 goes overseas - you are still better off. I haven't seen evidence of leakage in Australia - Im sure it has happened but have heard nothing saying this has been significant.

Do you have a reference for the non acceptance of Kyoto units (or Chinese units) in the EU-ETS? I see trades in CER's are the time and the European commission website says they can be used. Not sure where this information came from.

Post 44 by ramblingboy quoted by me also............
In an effort to support its own flagging carbon price, the European Union no longer imports offsets from Chinese projects approved by the UN after 2012.
Another link

EU buyers backing out of Chinese carbon credit commitments | News on environment, business sustainability and cleantech in Asia (http://www.cleanbiz.asia/news/eu-buyers-backing-out-chinese-carbon-credit-commitments#.U9Mkk70_4m8The)
EU ets is based around reducing emissions from 1990.

Reread my posts, Mick's posts, steel industry analysts. A $20+ carbon price takes a majority of profit out of it, combine that with China fixing their exchange rate and it's all loss, loss of profit, loss of jobs with the only increase in emissions.
My example alone was a 6 million ton leak of carbon, that turns into a 8 million ton emission.

[Chucaro]

Sydney and Melbourne going green despite uncertainty over future of Renewable Energy Target (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-26/sydney-and-melbourne-going-green-despite-ret-uncertainty/5625976) :cool:

I like this approach instead of getting bog looking into what other countries are doing or debating the issue and not doing nothing about it.
Just image if they were to look at what will do Brisbane, Perth or any other city in Australia or in the world.
Nothing will happen!
Good on them! :clap2::clap2:

Quote:
The review into the country's RET is expected to make its recommendations next week.

But when it comes to going green, Melbourne and Sydney are on the same page and are determined to make it happen, whatever direction Canberra takes.

The cities are rolling out solar panels, installing LED light systems and designing energy efficient buildings.

Sydney plans to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 while Melbourne aims to have zero net emissions in just five-and-a-half years.