Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

I'm under the impression that most car manufacturers are going fully EVs and many by 2035. Suck it up.

 

The manufacturers dump their ICE on Australia because they can make o big profit on old technology and still bring down their overall CO2 commitments.

 

Europe will apply a suitable carbon tax on Australian products because this government doesn't care about the environment. I wish it would happen now instead of 2025.

 

Australia is the laggard country when it comes to climate change and it doesn't seem surprising from the many comments here. There's no hope for the future with these attitudes.

---

dabbler wrote:

---

ICE are heavily subsidized anyway 

 

Sir please explain how ICE are heavily subsidized.

Without diesel powered trucks big and small, how will shops get their stock?

Every litre of fuel sold has a 43 cpl excise and GST @ 10%, some states have a road user tax for E Vehicles, when the lost revenue from fuel sales I can see a road user levy of 15-20 cents per kilometer driven being collected quarterly by the states RTA.

Gundog wrote:

---

dabbler wrote:

---

ICE are heavily subsidized anyway 

 

Sir please explain how ICE are heavily subsidized.

Without diesel powered trucks big and small, how will shops get their stock?

Every litre of fuel sold has a 43 cpl excise and GST @ 10%, some states have a road user tax for E Vehicles, when the lost revenue from fuel sales I can see a road user levy of 15-20 cents per kilometer driven being collected quarterly by the states RTA.

---

Here are two links to ponder gundog. Yes, ICE users in many forms are being subsidized. 

https://thedriven.io/2021/05/17/coalition-to-spend-2-3-billion-to-ensure-australians-keep-driving-petrol-cars/amp/

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/and-the-award-for-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidy-goes-to-the-fuel-tax-credit-scheme/

You asked how will goods be delivered without diesel powered vehicles. Not sure why because that's not the topic, however the so called last minute mile delivery is perfectly suited to electric trucking. We are no different from most countries, we're highly urbanised.  The majority of the population lives in large cities and many if those other countries happily use alternates to diesel powered trucking for urban areas. No one has seriously suggested Australia needs to abandon diesel powered long haul transport but for sone reason the anti-EV crowd like to bring it up whether relevant or not. BTW, I've never heard of a transport company that didn't use the taxation system to full advantage when it comes to their operational costs.

Sadly this country disbanded much of it's train infrastructure, something which was perfectly suited to distribution between urban hubs.

dabbler wrote:

---

 No one has seriously suggested Australia needs to abandon diesel powered long haul transport

 

---

Of course they have. 

The conversion of heavy & long range transport away from diesel to hydrogen electric will happen MUCH faster than the conversion of cars away from petrol and diesel.

Why? because it will be economically viable to do so due to much lower running costs.

Mining haul trucks are converting NOW.

Semis will follow.

Busses have started.

Not in some far away place, but HERE in Australia.

Australian-first as central Queensland's Emerald bus company ditches diesel for hydrogen - ABC News

Who still uses film cameras?

Cheers,

Peter

dogbox wrote:

why would you want to impose any new taxes on our country that would hinder us , 

---

 To force this government to have better climate change policies. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

dogbox wrote:

why would you want to impose any new taxes on our country that would hinder us , 

---

 To force this government to have better climate change policies. I thought that was fairly obvious.

---

The truck loads of water coal needs for processing & the 500 litres a week going up in steam in turbines for the average family.

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Plenty of water in the ocean. Just takes some more electricity to make it pure.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 Good morning Peter,

For every solution there is always a problem.

Warren-Pat_01 wrote:

---

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works. No, I don't mind the push for eVs (the perfect cars for cities) but hydrogen is a different matter.

To produce hydrogen, electrolysis is used. To get the hydrogen, water is required - lots of it. Where will that come from, especially in times of drought, severe drought? Australia, afterall is the driest continent. Will the desalination plants that major cities had to build not so long ago, be kicked into life? Or will cars carry another tank under them to collect the moisture out of exhaust pipes?

Just a thought.

---

 Hi Warren,

Have to agree wholeheartedly with your post.

EVs in cities with supporting infrastructure will be beneficial.

The manufacturing and storage of Hydrogen is not as simple as some would make out.

dogbox wrote:

---

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

 

dogbox wrote:

why would you want to impose any new taxes on our country that would hinder us , 

---

 To force this government to have better climate change policies. I thought that was fairly obvious.

---

 

i think you might have said something when you said "THIS" government . makes it sound more like a political agenda
we are a small part of the world community, not the biggest polluters by any means but you sound like you would like us to foot the bill while others continue to pollute ; if we imposed an excessive export tax on our coal /oil / gas exports our customers would soon find a cheaper probably less quality source so probably more pollution. it takes time to change how a country sources its power supplies and the demand will only get higher as we change to EV as they will require to be charged mostly i would guess in off peak hours (when the sun don't shine) so solar power must be stored if the winds don't blow . we are moving away from fossil fuels but we are also becoming more efficient in how we use them with improving emission levels. the use of hydrogen as a fuel source seems to have a few fans

---

 It is a political agenda. We have the technologies to reduce CO2e emissions. It's the politicians that are stopping the progress.

The reason why the EU is going to apply carbon taxes on imports from Australia is because they have done the right thing by having a carbon tax and it's unfair to the EU manufacturers to foot the bill when Australian imports get away Scott free. It's fair to everyone to apply a tax on those who do not have decent carbon policies.

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Warren-Pat_01 wrote:

---

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works. No, I don't mind the push for eVs (the perfect cars for cities) but hydrogen is a different matter.

To produce hydrogen, electrolysis is used. To get the hydrogen, water is required - lots of it. Where will that come from, especially in times of drought, severe drought? Australia, afterall is the driest continent. Will the desalination plants that major cities had to build not so long ago, be kicked into life? Or will cars carry another tank under them to collect the moisture out of exhaust pipes?

Just a thought.

---

 Hi Warren,

Have to agree wholeheartedly with your post.

EVs in cities with supporting infrastructure will be beneficial.

The manufacturing and storage of Hydrogen is not as simple as some would make out.

---

 Twiggy Forest, not the pathetic political parties in Australia, is investing in the investigation of ammonia for storage and transport of hydrogen. He's been lobbying the state governments because the federal government would rather subsidise fossil fuels than renewables.

Thank goodness for decent thinking business people and state governments.

I see all these questions/arguments as to NOT use new technologies that are better for the planet. The point is that we have to do something or our children will be the first generation that is NOT better off than their parent's.

Yes, it will take time to switch. There will be hurdles to overcome. But we must start investing in the technologies and solutions rather than the status quo of fossil fuels.

Australia is in a unique situation where we have unpopulated 'huge tracts of land'. Here we can have massive renewable energy developments that can export to the world via HVDC cables or hydrogen technologies. As long as we can consider the environmental and cultural impacts of those areas before development then all Australians will benefit.

However, federal governments that won't step on the toes of their masters and who still have their heads in the sand will only inhibit this possibility.

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Hey Buzz,

When Australia or any country for that matter is forced into paying a tax, where do you think that money comes from? We, the people pay the tax.

But and this is a real big but, when Australia is forced to pay this tax to fix pollution in sympathy with global warming or climate control, where does this money actually go?
Maybe the EU puts this money in a big bank to help underprivileged countries build power stations so they too have an industry, so then they can be taxed.
Is there somewhere in the world that has a really great big thermostat control that when adjusted, lowers or raises the daily temperature.
I dont think so.
Politicians make decisions based on where the next vote is coming from and when a politician stands to lose thousands of votes from workers employed in coal and mining and its ancillary industries then a meeting of piss ant countries in the EU wont have much swing at our next election.
Taxing the workers of any country wont be a popular decision.
I don't know why countries like Australia even bother attending these meetings.

---

 Great post Rob,but I think that the response to the comment in your last sentence is provided by the highlighted comment a few lines above it. Too many dipsticks swallowing the rubbish dished up by the media,and they vote."Climate change" is a natural event,and has been occurring for many millions of years.Cheers

For arguments sake that climate change was natural & we let thing rip.

Why not intervene this natural change to suit our needs.

yobarr wrote:

---

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Hey Buzz,

When Australia or any country for that matter is forced into paying a tax, where do you think that money comes from? We, the people pay the tax.

But and this is a real big but, when Australia is forced to pay this tax to fix pollution in sympathy with global warming or climate control, where does this money actually go?
Maybe the EU puts this money in a big bank to help underprivileged countries build power stations so they too have an industry, so then they can be taxed.
Is there somewhere in the world that has a really great big thermostat control that when adjusted, lowers or raises the daily temperature.
I dont think so.
Politicians make decisions based on where the next vote is coming from and when a politician stands to lose thousands of votes from workers employed in coal and mining and its ancillary industries then a meeting of piss ant countries in the EU wont have much swing at our next election.
Taxing the workers of any country wont be a popular decision.
I don't know why countries like Australia even bother attending these meetings.

---

 Great post Rob,but I think that the response to the comment in your last sentence is provided by the highlighted comment a few lines above it. Too many dipsticks swallowing the rubbish dished up by the media,and they vote."Climate change" is a natural event,and has been occurring for many millions of years.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Tuesday 16th of November 2021 11:43:15 AM

---

 Hi Yobarr 

Our pollies here are not thinking anymore forward than about a three year maximum.

Three years is not a long time for most of them to recruit an entirely new voter base to suit a change in direction wether they want to support the extensive use of billy carts or the development of the new climate friendly push bike.

Telling a family in Aus that they will lose their livelihood in favour of what some tearful representative from a country that most of us have never even heard of, is proposing for the whole world, is not the way to be voted back in.

I am not opposed to developments and research from blokes like Twiggy as long as it his money that is used. At the end though Twiggy is a businessman first and to keep on side with a government whose state contains the major part of his business is good business, so to speak.

To pay a tax to the EU because they say we have to do that to fix the worlds seasonal weather that has existed for centuries is not a good investment from either a country or its tax paying workers.

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Hey Buzz,

When Australia or any country for that matter is forced into paying a tax, where do you think that money comes from? We, the people pay the tax.

The tax is applied to the products when sold in the EU. It's just like tariffs.

But and this is a real big but, when Australia is forced to pay this tax to fix pollution in sympathy with global warming or climate control, where does this money actually go?

 

The money goes to the EU government in which the product is sold.

Maybe the EU puts this money in a big bank to help underprivileged countries build power stations so they too have an industry, so then they can be taxed.

Is there somewhere in the world that has a really great big thermostat control that when adjusted, lowers or raises the daily temperature.
I dont think so.

 

You are right, there is no big thermostat. It's the responsibility of all governments to contribute to the reduction of climate change.

Politicians make decisions based on where the next vote is coming from and when a politician stands to lose thousands of votes from workers employed in coal and mining and its ancillary industries then a meeting of piss ant countries in the EU wont have much swing at our next election.

 

One can only hope that would be the case because the majority of Australians believe that the government should do more about climate change. Unfortunately, the politicians are more influenced by the super rich and do what they want them to do.

Taxing the workers of any country wont be a popular decision.
I dont know why countries like Australia even bother attending those meetings.

 

So they can bring down the final wording of the agreements and thus continue with their CO2e emissions. It would be better for the world if Australia DIDN'T attend.

---

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

For arguments sake that climate change was natural & we let thing rip.

Why not intervene this natural change to suit our needs.

 

---

 For another arguments sake, just suppose the IPCC, that has assessed tens of thousands of scientific climate reports, is right in it's assessment that:

"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."

That doesn't agree with emminant climate scientist, Alan Jones, but just say the IPCC IS right. If we DON'T do anything about climate change our children will suffer and have to foot the bill to fix the environment, not for themselves, but for their children. It costs more to fix climate change than to prevent it.

Do we really want to risk our children's lives on the possibility that the majority of experts COULD be wrong? Or is it better to try and fix the problem before it gets worse?

Humans have NEVER lived in a warmer climate than what we are now in and about to have, so why let it happen whether it's natural or human induced? I can understand that selfless people, who don't have children, couldn't care less, but surely the majority of people have children or family?

Good post. By the way, if they do make a dual cab Rivian ute does that mean it will look twice as ugly? and how many do you think we will see way out at dingo piss creek?

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Buzz,

You said this;

The reason why the EU is going to apply carbon taxes on imports from Australia is because they have done the right thing by having a carbon tax and it's unfair to the EU manufacturers to foot the bill when Australian imports get away Scott free. It's fair to everyone to apply a tax on those who do not have decent carbon policies.

..

So the penalty called a tax is paid by Australia to the EU.
Was this because we didnt agree to stop cutting down trees to build houses or is this purely just based on the fact that Australia and a few others have coal that other countries want.

Tax, tariffs, whatever they want to call it. I've already said why the EU will impose a carbon tax on Australian imports. The EU has implemented a carbon trading scheme to reduce CO2e emissions. Australia hasn't. If Australian companies wants to trade in the EU then their products will have to pay the tax/tariff. It's not that hard to understand.

Sounds just a little bit one sided to me.

 

It's not one sided. It's leveling international trade.

Last I checked some countries in that EU are stony broke.

Maybe Twiggy should send the EU a bill for his costs for the development that he is currently undertaking.

Maybe us Australians should keep Twiggys technology and then front up to the next meeting of the group (EU) that has no solution but taxing those they dont agree with, and claim to have the smallest carbon footprint per number of population.
Could Australia then tax the EU.?

The Australian business community have been lobbying the government for years to have a concisive climate policies so that they can get on with doing business.

I'm sure Twiggy will make money out of selling his businesses clean energy. How he does that I'm not sure.

 

Forgive me for thinking this but I do think that your comments are based on politics.

You also said this with a capital *S* on the word Scott.;

Imports get away *Scott* free.

I agreed that this is political. It is the useless politicians who are NOT implementing a decent climate policy.

You do me honor in saying that I made a clever twist but I, originally, didn't intend it, but I'll take the compliment. I meant to use the saying 'get away with it Scott free' however it is spelt.

I don't see the Labor party having decent climate policies either but it is the politicians job to implement decent climate policies and thats why it is political.

Maybe a typo maybe a clever twist in the quote.

Regardless of your view, while the media continue to misrepresent the seasonal weather and promote it as climate change in this country, the gullible will go along with it but unfortunately our children are being bombarded with this crap all the time

 

Regardless of your view whilst the media continue to honestly represent climate change issues and events, the well informed will appreciate the information. Fortunately our children are being well informed of the issues and situation. Unfortunately, they will suffer because the old generation are to set in their ways to see the lies they are fed by the politicians. Waiting for that generation to die off before something is done is not beneficial because climate change must be addressed now.

In years to come when when Chinese control of our country is looming the media will come on and tell us all how bad our government was for giving all our profits and technology to the EU.
( I wonder will we all say * Yeah, bloody government *

 

Wow! That's a big jump but I see that you managed to say that you want China to govern Australia.

Think about what you are really leaving for future generations in Australia.

The cost of EVs is only a small part of the overall picture.

 

I do, every day and I apologise to my children that their future is being destroyed by my generation. Yes, EVs, renewable energy, saving biodiversity, etcetera are just a small step to saving the planet but we have to start now and not wait for the climate deniers to die off. Then will be too late.

---