Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

Hi Col,

Would you be able to explain the 'accepted theory'

Thanks

Im sure if you are really interested in the facts you'd research it yourself, but then again you could be genuine or just trying to bait, here is a link to a simple beginners guide on the "accepted theory" of the enhanced greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP-tg4atr5M

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im sure if you are really interested in the facts you'd research it yourself, but then again you could be genuine or just trying to bait, here is a link to a simple beginners guide on the "accepted theory" of the enhanced greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP-tg4atr5M

"accepted theory" = 5 minute youtube clip... oh I forgot "it was a beginners guide", you've got to be kidding?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im sure if you are really interested in the facts you'd research it yourself, but then again you could be genuine or just trying to bait, here is a link to a simple beginners guide on the "accepted theory" of the enhanced greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP-tg4atr5M

Wow. The oversimplification of the video is astounding. Are they kidding?

This one has as much credibility http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Yl3...1&feature=fvwp

[olfella]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

As we import the equivalent of approx. 150 million barrels of crude (or petrol products) per year @ $15 billion then it would make sense to make this product dearer to try and increase the efficient use of it. After all, we can land australian LPG in suburbia for 64 cents a litre

I'm with you Bob - and it never made sense why they poured millions of our money developing the 'hybrid' car. Just a grab for cash as there are a lot better ways to manage the carbon issue without having a tax!!

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Wow. The oversimplification of the video is astounding. Are they kidding?

i was a little disappointed - i expected to hear "hi, i'm troy mclure"

Originally Posted by uranium_death

I propose a boogie man tax.

we need a bear patrol tax first - i have a rock that will keep tigers away though; it can be yours for $5

[colinl]

We could start with this from here And there is a review of evidence here

"Scientists have been debating this question for about 20 years now. As one of the world's leading climate scientists, Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, puts it, the current scientific view of global warming is: "based on decades of research and thousands of studies. The extraordinary consensus reached is seen in the statements of many international and national professional bodies which have extensively and critically assessed the scientific evidence."
Prof. Rahmstorf has compiled a very useful climate change fact sheet (PDF format) summarizing the evidence in a couple of pages. The BBC has produced a handy website on global warming with a section called Evidence, which contains charts showing climate trends over the last few years. Browse those charts and you will see that Earth's temperature has increased systematically over the last century, sea levels have rised significantly, and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased almost exponentially. Most climate scientists believe these things are connected: they consider that the burning fuels cause the carbon dioxide emissions, which make the temperature increase, which causes the sea levels to rise. (If you want to see lots more charts, take a look at Global Warming Art.)

Since records of the weather date back only a hundred years or so, how can scientists confidently make claims that the climate has been changing over a much longer period? In turns out that Earth keeps a natural record of its own climate in many surprising ways. For example, as ice has formed year upon year at the poles, old ice has been buried underneath with bubbles of air trapped inside it. The bubbles act as a record of what the air was like on Earth when the ice formed—and thus what the climate was like in years gone by. Using drills, scientists can extract ice cores (long thin pipes full of ice), study the air bubbles at different depths, and calculate how much carbon dioxide they contain. If they figure out how old the ice is, they can use an ice core as a kind of graph of how carbon dioxide has changed over time. Scientists can also study changes in the climate using ocean sediments, samples of buried pollen, and other, once-living matter. Research like this can tell us what the climate was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Although most scientists believe in global warming, it's important to note that a minority do not. Some agree that Earth is warming but not that fossil-fuel burning and carbon dioxide emissions are responsible. The "climate-change skeptics" argue that increases in Earth's temperature are either not happening at all or may be caused by other things, including natural variations in the climate that have been happening for millennia. In recent years, however, fewer and fewer scientists have dissented from the widely held position that global warming and climate change are really happening. People could still be wrong about global warming—but that's becoming increasingly unlikely."[URL=Is climate change really happening?

Scientists have been debating this question for about 20 years now. As one of the world's leading climate scientists, Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, puts it, the current scientific view of global warming is: "based on decades of research and thousands of studies. The extraordinary consensus reached is seen in the statements of many international and national professional bodies which have extensively and critically assessed the scientific evidence."
Prof. Rahmstorf has compiled a very useful climate change fact sheet (PDF format) summarizing the evidence in a couple of pages. The BBC has produced a handy website on global warming with a section called Evidence, which contains charts showing climate trends over the last few years. Browse those charts and you will see that Earth's temperature has increased systematically over the last century, sea levels have rised significantly, and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased almost exponentially. Most climate scientists believe these things are connected: they consider that the burning fuels cause the carbon dioxide emissions, which make the temperature increase, which causes the sea levels to rise. (If you want to see lots more charts, take a look at Global Warming Art.)

Since records of the weather date back only a hundred years or so, how can scientists confidently make claims that the climate has been changing over a much longer period? In turns out that Earth keeps a natural record of its own climate in many surprising ways. For example, as ice has formed year upon year at the poles, old ice has been buried underneath with bubbles of air trapped inside it. The bubbles act as a record of what the air was like on Earth when the ice formed—and thus what the climate was like in years gone by. Using drills, scientists can extract ice cores (long thin pipes full of ice), study the air bubbles at different depths, and calculate how much carbon dioxide they contain. If they figure out how old the ice is, they can use an ice core as a kind of graph of how carbon dioxide has changed over time. Scientists can also study changes in the climate using ocean sediments, samples of buried pollen, and other, once-living matter. Research like this can tell us what the climate was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Although most scientists believe in global warming, it's important to note that a minority do not. Some agree that Earth is warming but not that fossil-fuel burning and carbon dioxide emissions are responsible. The "climate-change skeptics" argue that increases in Earth's temperature are either not happening at all or may be caused by other things, including natural variations in the climate that have been happening for millennia. In recent years, however, fewer and fewer scientists have dissented from the widely held position that global warming and climate change are really happening. People could still be wrong about global warming—but that's becoming increasingly unlikely.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Wow. The oversimplification of the video is astounding. Are they kidding?

This one has as much credibility http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Yl3...1&feature=fvwp

Yes, its simple, but it appeared you wanted some basic info, but I was obviously wrong, you are an expert on the subject already and were just looking to try and bait someone.

Overall, I dont see anything wrong with the video(and it appears that you cant find particular fault in any of the science presented either), what parts to do you want more explicit information on?

If you need info on the actual wavelength of the em spectrum that causes the asymmetric resonance of the co2 molecule or want detailed calculations involving boltzmann's law on emissitivity and emission rates from the earth's different surfaces, then there are more advanced readings that could be recommended.

But Im guessing that is not your aim at all?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by colinl

Professor Stephen Bennington, the project’s lead scientist, said: ‘In some senses, hydrogen is the perfect fuel. It has three times more energy than petrol per unit of weight, and when it burns, it produces nothing but water.

How would they work out a way to tax water vapour emissions?

[cheap]

Thanks for those 'informed' one-sided websites, here is one you can use to help balance the argument...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, its simple, but it appeared you wanted some basic info, but I was obviously wrong, you are an expert on the subject already and were just looking to try and bait someone.

Overall, I dont see anything wrong with the video(and it appears that you cant find particular fault in any of the science presented either), what parts to do you want more explicit information on?

If you need info on the actual wavelength of the em spectrum that causes the asymmetric resonance of the co2 molecule or want detailed calculations involving boltzmann's law on emissitivity and emission rates from the earth's different surfaces, then there are more advanced readings that could be recommended.

But Im guessing that is not your aim at all?

I did not ask for an explanation, cheap did.

I believe we are responsible for environmental destruction, the poisoning of waterways and the air. I do not believe introducing a tax which does not have the capacity to reduce human CO2 output will make any difference to the global climate. We live in a country which accounts for 3% of total CO2 output? Why has the PM decided we should put out neck out? I'm very suspicious indeed.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by colinl

Can I email her my support


I've been called a bit of greeny on here before. I never really thought of myself that way, but then I did go and buy a 3.7kw solar energy set up for my house and a solar hot water service. I have endless fun running the pool pump, all the ceiling fans, big plasma TV and still watching my meter run backward as I pump electricity back into the grid at 44c per KW.

May I ask why you went with a 3.7kw solar energy setup? Did it have something to do with the rebates or RECS the government was offering? I also have a solar setup, and a big part of decision for me was the amount it was subsidised by the government (to me it helped make the decision viable) I note a lot of households now have solar panels so the scheme was working by providing some Aussie households the opportunity to invest in solar. Interesting that from July 1 the scheme is being de tuned and possibly abandoned.

Carbon tax wont achieve anything except increase the cost of any locally made product. Farmers and manufacturers will be hit with increased costs (power/energy costs to transport costs) these will be passed on to retailers (who have their own increased costs) and all this in turn will be passed on to the consumers (which is all of us) Add to the the costs of administrating this tax and basically you might as well send all our farming and manufacturing off shore.

It doesnt matter how "green" you are, you could have a 3.7Kw solar setup, collect your own rainwater and have a push bike as your only means of transport. You will still pay for this carbon tax.

If you really think carbon tax will help save the enviroment, did the alcopop tax stop teens from binge drinking? This is just another money grab, it has nothing to do with the enviroment (the power companies, who are polluting will be compensated so they will not be out of pocket, its only the consumer who will be out of pocket) If the government trully wants to improve the enviroment they would not be axing the solar rebate scheme or RECS. Oh and another way to reduce pollution, reduce congestion and increase speed limits.

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/se...227-1ba1s.html

Setting price will create '34,000 jobs' Adam Morton
February 28, 2011

A CARBON price aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 could help create 34,000 jobs in regional Australia, research says.

To be launched today by independent MP Tony Windsor, the report by the Climate Institute predicts that a substantial carbon price, backed by renewable energy policies, would trigger tens of billions of dollars of investment in geothermal, large-scale solar, bio-energy, hydro, wind and gas.

In Victoria, the number of people employed in the electricity industry was projected to increase over the next two decades despite some job losses as coal-fired power plants closed.

Advertisement: Story continues below The new jobs would be concentrated in the state's Western District, central highlands and the Mallee.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the report, based on work conducted by consultants SKM-MMA and Ernst & Young, showed that clean-energy projects could provide an economic foundation to support strong regional populations.

It challenged claims that tackling climate change would cost jobs and hurt the economy.

"It is important we have a discussion about the costs and how to manage them, but it is also important to look at the benefits and how you achieve those," Mr Connor said.

Mr Windsor said the report showed regional Australia could be a big winner as renewable energy projects were developed.

It is estimated nearly 6900 new electricity industry jobs could be created in Victoria by 2030.

Nearly 4600 would be in power plant construction and about 1200 in manufacturing. More than 1000 would be permanent roles running new plants.

The total number of jobs in the industry would rise over the next five years as wind and gas plants were built, dip in the second half of the decade, but then grow dramatically after 2020 as more clean-energy technologies became commercially viable.

The report suggests about 40 per cent of Victoria's electricity could come from clean sources by 2030, up from 5 per cent today.

Gas-fired power, with about a third the emissions of brown coal, would also expand dramatically to provide about a third of the state's electricity.

Specific projections for Victoria include:

■ More than 1500 jobs created in wind and geothermal energy in the south-west around Warrnambool, Portland and Hamilton.
■ Nearly 1200 new jobs relating to building and running large-scale solar plants in the Mallee.
■ About 600 new jobs in wind in the central highlands around Ballarat and Bendigo.
■ In the Latrobe Valley, the loss of about 500 permanent jobs in coal power, but the creation of 720 construction jobs building new gas and renewable plants.

The modelling does not consider the impact of the possible implementation of carbon capture and storage technology.

The jobs figures are based on a carbon price starting at $47 in 2012, the national 20 per cent renewable energy target, and policies to encourage clean technologies, including loan guarantees and tax credits.

The research won the support of the ACTU and several energy companies.

Tony Maher, the president of the mining and energy union, applauded the Climate Institute for focusing on jobs, skills and training as the key to Australia cutting emissions.

[GOLDIE]

can some one tell me how it is going to create these jobs.as it is going to cost many more thousands.


Ian

[MAD]

I'd like to see the maths behind this 25% reduction in emissions.

[XWGT]

I think we might have taxed the wrong nation / continent.

20 million Australians consumption versus 6 billion............and we're the only one with a tax?

Ok...........

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by XWGT

I think we might have taxed the wrong nation / continent.

20 million Australians consumption versus 6 billion............and we're the only one with a tax?

Ok...........

You'll find Denmark have had it since 1971.

[cheap]

34,000 jobs?

So lets hypothetically turn off the nasty Liddell power station. Not wanting to cause massive black-outs, we will replace Liddel with a solar power station, we could even use the "best of bread" Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park power station in Spain as a guide.

There is one small problem.

Lidell produces 2,000 MW 7x24x365
Olmedilla produces a nominal 60 MW

Anyone see the problem yet?

We'd have to build an equivalent of 32 Olmedilla's to replace just Lidell! Maybe that where the 34,000 jobs come from?

In fact, the worlds 49 largest solar power generation plants (plants larger than 20MW), their combined generation totals 1654 MW - reference wiki. One moderately sized coal/gas or nuclear power station exceeds their entire output.

Wind generation has similar "poor" power generation characteristics.

Maybe I've got my maths wrong, maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, I'll invite anyone to help me understand how the heck "green" energy via this tax is going to keep the lights on?

[GOLDIE]

they cant it is just a tax to dig themselves out of a hole like the mining tax was going to be.

They have no money and need to find new ways to getit.


Ian

[AndrewR_AUII]

Unless this is applied GLOBALLY, big business is simply going to move manufacturing off shore to countries which don't have a tax... and I'm looking in the direction of China/India etc whose environmental reputations are not as good.

My feeling is that Australia's interests would be better served with a carrot rather than a stick: Greater incentives for 'green' research, development and investment.
Technologies such as Geothermal, solar, wind and Nuclear can all play a role - but as yet, they all need to mature further to be real competitors for fossil fuels.

IF Australia could develop technologies that are competitive, then we have the potential to actually earn from it - IF we resist the temptation to sell off the rights for a bargain basement price as we have in the past...

On the subject at hand: There must be a much greater investment in research to alternative fuels. Making a switch to electric or fuels such as Hydrogen will take decades... there needs to be an alternative that can be used in current vehicles.
Biofuels will play a role, but the crop-based ones then become a competitor for food crops. One that is interesting is to use algae as a source.

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

You'll find Denmark have had it since 1971.

Denmark knew about climate change in 1971?

Why did they take so long to enlighten the rest of the world?

I feel much better now. Australia and Denmark making all the difference :-)

[cheap]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Denmark knew about climate change in 1971?

Why did they take so long to enlighten the rest of the world?

I feel much better now. Australia and Denmark making all the difference :-)

Denmark = Hans Christian Andersen = Fairy tales = Carbon Tax

It is that simple!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Denmark knew about climate change in 1971?

Why did they take so long to enlighten the rest of the world?

Actually the concept has been around for a long time. But back then the scare scaremongering being pushed was that the world was heading for another ice age and that we needed to burn more carbon the warm the world up.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

Thanks for those 'informed' one-sided websites, here is one you can use to help balance the argument...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

The other side of the argument?

That is part of the problem that the government faces, people think there is actually divide on the science here, the denialist campaign is working well indeed!

There is no “other side” that is presenting science that challenges the current agw prognosis. What we have is a campaign of misinformation and deceit by some very persistent and well funded organisations.

The approach has been summed up recently in: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/li...loses-comment/

It is also clear to me that the so-called ‘skeptics’ are allowed to make up whatever they want at will without consequence, and create a large but ill-thought out laundry list, and that we must play this game or else we’re being ‘dogmatic.’ If a climate scientist make one mistake, or a date gets screwed up in the middle of a 1000 page document about glaciers, it will receive international attention. However, if ‘skeptics’ toss out 8 conspiracy theories, 10 logical fallacies, and 17 arguments with ZERO thought put into them, then it is a good thing that we get to hear all sides. Then, when one item on the bucket list is knocked down, they can just jump to the next item. In the meantime, they are just as valid as everyone else’s idea, since the criteria for acceptance is 101% certaintly in everything.

Perhaps read up on Anthony Watts and his website:
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=vi...Video&qid=2968
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Whether its spam emails about volcanoes or Anthony Watts spreading rubbish the tactics follow the pattern outlined above by Judith Curry. No doubt some or you will continue to be conned and present them just as the wattsupwiththat link was presented by cheap and hope that it wont get knocked down......go ahead I couldn’t be bothered!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

I did not ask for an explanation, cheap did

Sorry my mistake.

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

I believe we are responsible for environmental destruction, the poisoning of waterways and the air. I do not believe introducing a tax which does not have the capacity to reduce human CO2 output will make any difference to the global climate. We live in a country which accounts for 3% of total CO2 output? Why has the PM decided we should put out neck out? I'm very suspicious indeed.

We only emit 3% of the co2 so we shouldn’t do anything.
So provided we split the world into tiny countries where no country emits more than a couple of percent then no-one will need to do anything?

We are only 0.35% of the population of the planet but produce 3% of the co2(making us the highest per capita emitters on earth), does that sit well with you?

Most denialists look to excuse themselves from not having to do anything by pointing to the apparent extravagance carbon emissions of the pollies.
Dont you think other countries might take the same attitude with us if we also take the do as I say approach and not as I do.

Really this thread/discussion should be about how much we pay for carbon tax, in my view the figures already mentioned are very moderate indeed.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The other side of the argument?

That is part of the problem that the government faces, people think there is actually divide on the science here, the denialist campaign is working well indeed!

There is no “other side” that is presenting science that challenges the current agw prognosis. What we have is a campaign of misinformation and deceit by some very persistent and well funded organisations.

The approach has been summed up recently in: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/li...loses-comment/

It is also clear to me that the so-called ‘skeptics’ are allowed to make up whatever they want at will without consequence, and create a large but ill-thought out laundry list, and that we must play this game or else we’re being ‘dogmatic.’ If a climate scientist make one mistake, or a date gets screwed up in the middle of a 1000 page document about glaciers, it will receive international attention. However, if ‘skeptics’ toss out 8 conspiracy theories, 10 logical fallacies, and 17 arguments with ZERO thought put into them, then it is a good thing that we get to hear all sides. Then, when one item on the bucket list is knocked down, they can just jump to the next item. In the meantime, they are just as valid as everyone else’s idea, since the criteria for acceptance is 101% certaintly in everything.

Perhaps read up on Anthony Watts and his website:
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=vi...Video&qid=2968
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Whether its spam emails about volcanoes or Anthony Watts spreading rubbish the tactics follow the pattern outlined above by Judith Curry. No doubt some or you will continue to be conned and present them just as the wattsupwiththat link was presented by cheap and hope that it wont get knocked down......go ahead I couldn’t be bothered!

So, can you answer a question, what is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

Looking forward to your reply - have a nice day.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by MAD

How would they work out a way to tax water vapour emissions?

You have to admit, it sounds pretty good. More power, cheaper and synthetically made. The best thing is it will work with current car technology and by all accounts a very real option that isn't that far away from being marketed.

[colinl]

I'm with Sudszy on this. You can make all the claims you like. The reality is that the science is well accepted. Has been worked on by numerous researchers around the world over many decades. Not only is it well accepted by the science community, it is well accepted by the international community and their governments. The only area that hasn't been nutted out is who will have the long term strategic insight to take action.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by sudszy

We are only 0.35% of the population of the planet but produce 3% of the co2(making us the highest per capita emitters on earth), does that sit well with you?

Yes, because thats per person, there is other countries who contribute more in a TOTAL basis than us, so why should we have to lead the way?

New Zealand has a higher crime rate than the USA if you look at it per capita.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yes, because thats per person, there is other countries who contribute more in a TOTAL basis than us, so why should we have to lead the way?

New Zealand has a higher crime rate than the USA if you look at it per capita.

The trouble with this line of thought is that everyone sits back and says why should I be the first. Sometimes it just takes a bit of guts to do the right thing and set the ball rolling.

Is it such a bad thing to try and limit each persons carbon emissions to a level? If we each produce more carbon emissions than others do, regardless of country boundaries, it could be argued that we have a moral imperative to show we are willing to change, even though our national emissions are lower than other counties.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by colinl

You have to admit, it sounds pretty good. More power, cheaper and synthetically made. The best thing is it will work with current car technology and by all accounts a very real option that isn't that far away from being marketed.

Yes it does sound good, but water vapour is a the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and when the scientists realise that water vapour emitted from car exhausts is compounding the naturally occurring water vapour in the atmosphere, what will the gov do?
Tax us on water consumption under the guise of climate change, when all along we were told it was CO2 doing the damage?