Carbon Tax. Well someone had to bring it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

The last I read was in the first 2yrs it falls $4bn short. We are also assuming that the figure on the rising costs being passed on are correct.
This is where the ACCC will need to pull its finger out.

As I said, I am not the full bottle on it, but who is, and I am only looking at it from my own personal impact..Time will tell.

I just feel that attacking the so called big polluters head on would be a far better approach.

Cheers Ean

---

Ean,

Assuming you are staying in the fishing industry, you should look at applying for EITE (Emissions intensive trade exposed) status (NFI what your chances are).

Quote:

---

5.2.2 How will assistance be provided?

The Government will allocate, free of charge, Australian carbon permits to the most emissions‑intensive and trade‑exposed industries. This will shield eligible businesses from the full impact of a carbon price, while retaining strong incentives to reduce carbon pollution.

There will be two categories of assistance. The most emissions‑intensive and trade‑exposed activities will initially be eligible for 94.5 per cent shielding from the carbon price. A second category of assistance will provide an initial shielding level of 66 per cent of the carbon price. This will apply to activities assessed as having a lower risk of carbon leakage. LNG projects will also receive a supplementary allocation to ensure an effective assistance rate of 50 per cent, in recognition of the wide dispersion of emissions among some prospective LNG developments.

The assistance rates will be reduced by a ‘carbon productivity contribution’ of 1.3 per cent a year to provide additional incentives over time for these industries to reduce pollution.

---

Since the fishing industry exports most of its product and its CO2 is basically 100% diesel use which is hard to reduce (maybe you will get subsidies for newer, more efficient engines??? :D ).

NB - most of this thread has ignored the fact that the aluminium and steel industries will get a 95% reduction/exemption (at least initially).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

NB - most of this thread has ignored the fact that the aluminium and steel industries will get a 95% reduction/exemption (at least initially).

---

thanks for pointing this out. There is that typically far divide between the detail of the argument vs the overall philosophical debate vs the pure politics (ie which side of the fence). Granted most on here would be analysing the detail :eek:

How do you measure 1 t of carbon emissions ? or any for that matter.

Is it done on a formular or is there equipment that can do it.


Cheers Ean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

How do you measure 1 t of carbon emissions ? or any for that matter.

Is it done on a formular or is there equipment that can do it.


Cheers Ean

---

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint"]Carbon footprint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PN G" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG/400px-Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG"@@A MEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d3/Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG/400px-Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG[/ame]
www.eqlomg.com/images/ease_brochure.pdf
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/ACT_P..._footprint.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

How do you measure 1 t of carbon emissions ? or any for that matter.

Is it done on a formular or is there equipment that can do it.


Cheers Ean

---

It is measured based on inputs and outputs. e.g. in your (business) case, 99.99% of your direct carbon emissions will be due to diesel fuel use. There are already calculations of co2e emissions per litre (or gallon) of diesel fuel burnt. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm

Electricity and road freight would be other (indirect) sources, but the power companies and transport companies will account for that themselves (I would imagine).

With CO2 emissions so high with coal fired power stations, why aren't we building nuclear power stations. We can't, because that is another socialist/left wing taboo. This carbon tax is socialism by other means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ugu80

With CO2 emissions so high with coal fired power stations, why aren't we building nuclear power stations. We can't, because that is another socialist/left wing taboo. This carbon tax is socialism by other means.

---

Or maybe opossed to a ignorant/right wing solution :D
It is neighder of the 2 is just freedom of choice and the right to not risk a damage that will last for hundred of years like in the following countries:

Brazil

September 13, 1987 – Goiania accident. Four fatalities and 245 other people received serious radiation contamination.[2]

Canada

December 12, 1952 NRX accident
May 24, 1958 the NRU accident National Research Universal Reactor
February 20, 1990 Daniel George Maston placed a sample of heavy water into a "sport mix" drink dispenser in an industrial lunch zone. Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Operation s

Costa Rica

1996 – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica. Thirteen fatalities and 114 other patients received an overdose of radiation.[3]

Greenland

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash.[4]

India

April 2010 - Mayapuri radiological accident, India, one fatality.[5]

Japan

March 1, 1954 – Daigo Fukuryū Maru, one fatality.
September 30, 1999 – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, two fatalities.[6]
August 9, 2004 – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe. The accident was the worst nuclear disaster of Japan up until that time, excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Five fatalities.[6]
March 12, 2011 – Fukushima. Level 7 nuclear accident on the INES. Three of the reactors at Fukushima I overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive material into the air.[7]

Mexico

1962 – Radiation accident in Mexico City, four fatalities.

Morocco

March 1984 – Radiation accident in Morocco, eight fatalities.[8] 　

Panama

August 2000 to March 2001 - Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama; 17 patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[9][10]

Soviet Union/Russia

29 September 1957 – Mayak nuclear waste storage tank explosion at Chelyabinsk. Two hundred plus fatalities and this figure is a conservative estimate; 270,000 people were exposed to dangerous radiation levels. Over thirty small communities had been removed from Soviet maps between 1958 and 1991.[11] (INES level 6).[12]
July 4, 1961 – Soviet submarine K-19 accident. Eight fatalities and more than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[13]
May 24, 1968 - Soviet submarine K-27 accident. Nine fatalities and 83 people were injured.[10]
5 October 1982 - Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaidjan, USSR. Five fatalities and 13 injuries.[10]
August 10, 1985 – Soviet submarine K-431 accident. Ten fatalities and 49 other people suffered radiation injuries.[14]
April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl disaster. See below in the section on Ukraine. In 1986, the Ukrainian SSR was part of the Soviet Union.
6 April 1993 - accident at the Tomsk-7 Reprocessing Complex, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[12]

Spain

1966 Palomares B-52 crash.[15]
December 1990 – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza. Eleven fatalities and 27 other patients were injured.[13]

Thailand

February 2000 - Three deaths and ten injuries resulted in Samut Prakarn when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled.[5]

Ukraine
April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl disaster. Fifty-six direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.

United Kingdom

October 8, 1957 - Windscale fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms, 33 cancer deaths

United States

August 21, 1945 – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr died at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
May 21, 1946 – Louis Slotin died.
December 30, 1958 - Cecil Kelley criticality accident, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[21]
1961 – (US Army) SL-1 accident resulted in three fatalities.
December 18, 1970 - After the Baneberry test at Yucca Flat, radioactive debris vented into the atmosphere, and 86 workers at the site were exposed to radiation.
1974-1976 - Columbus radiotherapy accident, 10 deaths and 88 injuries.[22][10]
1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Partial core meltdown, making it the most significant accident in U.S. history. No fatalities.[23]
1980 - Houston radiotherapy accident, 7 deaths.[22][10]

This list is incomplete and do not include the amount of teeritory affected for ever

RANT

We've all seen the "now De-bunked" article on hummer vs prius carbon footprint thing.

So if we think in real terms, Aluminium, = 7t co2 per 1 tonne of ally, remember that ally is much lighter than steel so a cubic measurement weighs only slightly in favour of steel. Add to this equation, the concept of a nuclear power plant running the aluminium plant and presto, ally is much better for the environment.

Now take note of the prius side of the hummer v prius article and the truths of it. and say LR vs Prius.
My old Disco, 823k before it was expensive to repair (transfer case, rear diff, gearbox needed a rebuild, engine was great)
overall the car was 45k per year. 5,625l of diesel per year (averaged) the oil in the last 10 years was recycled and bio-diesel was sourced as often as possible. In all it was reliable and never needed much repairing.

Take a prius 150k km warranty on the battery, ie 300k expected service life (assumed) 3x battery replacements, in same life time, assume same amount of repairs (actual, not cost of said repairs as prius is far more expensive) the prius would have 2500l of petrol per year (approx) and hey presto, the LR wins by far. Purely based on emissions of driving the distances.

Instead of a carbon tax, ban US cars and hybrids including electric vehicles in australia as diesel wins by far. Environment saved.
Have The RANGA choked and burnt to death in a prius with bob brown. And more importantly put in nuclear power and lithium hydroxide filters on coal power plants.

Oh wait, i must be dreaming as lithium hydroxide is bad for the environment it has lithium. It just happens to be it has an expected usage life of infinite. As carbon washes out rather easily and creates carbon black so that wont do.

Bob along with a few other incidents of nuclear power, have corrupted most of err us, into thinking that nuclear is bad for the environment, yet the benefits far outweigh the risks in a "STABLE" tectonic region like Australia with the biggest thickest and by far largest granite plate in the world in which to bury any nuclear waste. Gee i guess my benchtops couldn't be made from re-whatchyoumacalledit stone that is from said mined granite.


As far as my carbon footprint goes, $0 per year on electricity, $250 per year on nat gas, lots on diesel as i don't have room to make bio diesel at home. AND I SELL BLOODY SOLAR POWER. Read: carbon negative. How many "GREENIES" can say that. oh i have a carbon neutral footprint, yeah until you take into account your food costs, mine is mostly grown at home, if not usually sourced (tried to source) as close as possible to home including meat yes that tasty tasty meat its why we have canines and incisors.

Shove your pro carbon tax where it belongs, Abbott although might not be correct in the scheme he is proposing is by far more correct than the ALP-Green party BS.

Oh and i have done more than my fair share of research, if i want to sell a solar power plant of 5MW or more, i get government funding, if i want to sell a plant to eliminate a factories usage, its paid for out of their own pocket before anything gets installed. Until now, I have finally (thousands of phone calls and many thousands of e-mails) found a financier for this bracket you know the $50k-50M bracket where most business fit into.
I am an environmentalist, just don't dare call me a greenie.....
LRFTW :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeebuz

Abbott although might not be correct in the scheme he is proposing is by far more correct than the ALP-Green party BS.

---

By far more correct? Sorry to burst your "fair share of research" bubble, but 89% of economists would have to disagree with you...

The following document (attached) arrived in my email box this afternoon. Just a little to long to post in full but well worth a read. Certainly the most common sense I have seen written on the carbon tax.

Cheers
KarlB