Do you think the carbon tax will effect the Grey Nomads?????
jack biggles said
03:02 PM Jul 13, 2011
More smoke @ mirrors stuff . They keep movin the goal posts & shufflin their bloody lies . Wouldn't it be interesting to see what the majority of Aussies want. So much for democracy when the party with the least votes lays down with the devil to form a govt. To hell with these bastards
BobnBev said
08:12 AM Jul 14, 2011
JB, , you have not said anything that makes sence, They call it spin.. Think about the world we live in as people not a party you vote for.. What will you do to lessen your carbon foot print... That is the question to ask your self.... Not how much the gov. will give you .. Rember JFK. said "its not what your "world" can do for you ,But what you can do for your world" A small change of words but the message is the same and we all live here ,Right! tell me if im wrong.. Bob
jack biggles said
06:18 AM Jul 16, 2011
Sorry for not making any sense Bob, I'm typing on a telephone. I'm not buying the global warming nonsense mate. Other than that I have well & truly done my service for this nation with heaps of blood sweat & tears & a banged up injury to boot. A self funded retiree now I push almost 40k per year in tax into the govt coffers & I offset my so called carbon emissions by living completely off solar except where weather causes me to fire geni & try to limit the amount of time I bury my foot to the firewall of my oil burning v8, but am occassionly forced to do so when I see some shady scum suckin pollie onthe pedestrian crossing up ahead.
Sorry bud, don't take it personally but there's a load of nonsense out there & it's not wot I've written here.
You want to compared scars old mate, I can see mine everytime I look in the mirror & they were incurred whilst doing my bit for the greater good of all.
Now tell me a good reason why I should cut my other nut out & give it to these grubs.
Regards jb
Nicholstones said
11:54 AM Jul 17, 2011
JB, We all feel for you having been injured serving your country, and wish you the very best.
but.... that doesn't really have much to do with climate change. With being almost self-sufficient power-wise, and being a self-funded retiree, you will be unlikely to be much worse off with the proposed carbon tax at all, maybe even better off. Certainly ain't going to cost you any anatomy!
Cruising Granny said
01:34 PM Jul 17, 2011
To do my bit for the carbon emission I plant gardens of trees and shrubs. Carbon emissions or the proposed tax are no reflection on anyone who has served their country, injured or not. We can all do out bit every day. I don't believe in global warming or emissions trading taxes. The climate has been cyclic forever. Man has had an impact on the planet forever. Science, technology and development have given us a great place to live in. Once upon a time people did their washing by hand. Now they use energy hungry washing machines. Do you want to go back to hand-washing? Once upon a time man used carbon-emitting horses. Now we use carbon-emitting vehicles. The downside is development has also taken up valuable land, and turned it into an energy-sucking environment. We've cleared carbon-dependent trees and other vegetation to make way for development and greedy industry. There must be a balance, but the carbon tax is not it. Make a foot print. Plant a tree.
jack biggles said
03:34 PM Jul 17, 2011
Nicholstones wrote:
JB, We all feel for you having been injured serving your country, and wish you the very best.
but.... that doesn't really have much to do with climate change. With being almost self-sufficient power-wise, and being a self-funded retiree, you will be unlikely to be much worse off with the proposed carbon tax at all, maybe even better off. Certainly ain't going to cost you any anatomy!
Sorry NS,
I wouldn't offer such information about myself if I hadn't been asked by someone else here to consider what I can do for society etc.
I think you might need to consider the wider picture when it comes to considering this new tax. Do u think large transport companies are going to take a hit to their profits or pass extra costs down the chain to the consumer?
Perhaps I'm wrong but experience tells me there more to this
jack biggles said
04:47 PM Jul 17, 2011
Cruising Granny wrote:
Carbon emissions or the proposed tax are no reflection on anyone who has served their country, injured or not.
I would imagine a few people will keep grabbing hold of my comments, perhaps taking them out of contex.
I made my comments because I was asked to consider what I could do for society. I slightly objected to that because I feel Ive given more than my pound of flesh.
I don't buy this carbon nonesense but besides that a greenie would probably think that I am fairly lean when it comes to a footprint. The whole damn thing annoys me so much I think I might start driving a bit more, get those 8 cylinders pumping out some more emissions & I might even just drive over a tree or too
Cruising Granny said
05:05 PM Jul 17, 2011
I too feel there's more to this proposed tax than we see and hear. If the government was serious about actual carbon emissions they'd tax the emissions as they come out, not as they go in as fuel. I'm sure there's technology out there which could measure output. There must be scientifically acceptable levels of output. If any industry exceeds this acceptable output, then they be fined and penalised, until they actually reduce that excessive output. This morning's media review on Channel 10 revealed one of the target fuels is brown coal and the electricity it's used to generate. For some reason I'm suspicious about who is feeding the information to the PM and her subjects. I have a feeling there's a budding industry behind all this. On the surface the goal seems to be to reduce greenhouse gasses to save the planet and stop "global warming". Deep down I feel an energy producer waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity to introduce its wares. I'd like to see the scientific proof justifying the carbon tax, without the Greens emotional spin. Then I'd like to see the scientific outcome of reducing carbon emissions. Then I'd like to see the financial gain in revenue, vs the financial compensation of "peter public". I don't think I'll live that long.
-- Edited by Cruising Granny on Sunday 17th of July 2011 05:06:04 PM
biggles said
12:30 PM Jul 18, 2011
My rule of thumb is - If you hit an animal with a stick, it will turn on you.........
-- Edited by biggles on Monday 18th of July 2011 12:31:07 PM
Nicholstones said
05:18 PM Jul 18, 2011
Cruising Granny wrote:
I too feel there's more to this proposed tax than we see and hear. If the government was serious about actual carbon emissions they'd tax the emissions as they come out, not as they go in as fuel. I'm sure there's technology out there which could measure output. There must be scientifically acceptable levels of output. If any industry exceeds this acceptable output, then they be fined and penalised, until they actually reduce that excessive output. This morning's media review on Channel 10 revealed one of the target fuels is brown coal and the electricity it's used to generate. For some reason I'm suspicious about who is feeding the information to the PM and her subjects. I have a feeling there's a budding industry behind all this. On the surface the goal seems to be to reduce greenhouse gasses to save the planet and stop "global warming". Deep down I feel an energy producer waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity to introduce its wares. I'd like to see the scientific proof justifying the carbon tax, without the Greens emotional spin. Then I'd like to see the scientific outcome of reducing carbon emissions. Then I'd like to see the financial gain in revenue, vs the financial compensation of "peter public". I don't think I'll live that long.
-- Edited by Cruising Granny on Sunday 17th of July 2011 05:06:04 PM
CG, the proposed tax IS taxing emissions, not fuel. That's why the future of brown coal is looking a bit uncertain - because power stations fueled by this usually have the most emissions for the amount of power generated. Some are cleaner than others - that's why Hazelwood in Victoria is likely to have to pay the most, because the power plant creates more emissions per kilowatt generated than any other in Australia. If they cleaned up the plant then they would reduce the tax they paid, but my understanding is that it is so old that it would cost more to put in new technology for this than it would be worth. The idea is to drive the uptake of new, cleaner technology as the power created becomes more economical compared to the old technology.
There is indeed well established technology and techniques to measure carbon output, and that is what the tax will be based on. I understand one of the reasons the number of companies targetted was reduced to 500 instead of the original 1,000 that was talked about is that some of the companies at the bottom end of the 1,000 are in industries that don't have agreed measurement tools yet, whereas the top 500 can all be measured.
Let's hope there is at least one (hopefully many) energy producer in the wings waiting to pounce with their wares, that is the whole point. Wouldn't it be wonderful if in 20 years time the majority of Australia's energy needs was generated by some technique we haven't even thought of or heard about yet, that didn't deplete the earth's non-renewable resources and didn't pump pollution into the air. And wouldn't it be even more wonderful if we made money out of exporting that energy or that technique to other countries, instead of having been so late weaning ourselves off coal dependence that we ended up having to pay some other country to use the technology they invented.
Cruising Granny said
05:50 PM Jul 18, 2011
So how do we control and tax the carbone dioxide emissions from volcanoes? If they're taxing the emissions, why are they adding the carbon tax to fuel before it's burnt? If we cut all carbon emissions know to man the trees and other vegetation will die. Then what will generat the oxygen we breath. Think about this. It's just another emotional damn tax the red-head can't really justify, because the Greens say so. Just like the flood levy, live cattle export, illegal boat people. If she makes another knee jerk decision she'll have to have surgery for damaged cartliges. She's publicly pronouncing herself arrogant and stupid.
Nicholstones said
10:30 PM Jul 18, 2011
Volcanoes? Guess we just have to try and do the things we can, and not just give up because there are some things we can't control. No-one is suggesting we remove all CO2 in the world, just trying to cut back to a point the global weather systems can cope with.
jack biggles said
12:49 PM Jul 19, 2011
Gillard & her cronies are edging onto being dead in the water - good riddance. Hopefully the carbon tax gets jammed up their tails on the way out !
Two Strays said
10:56 PM Jul 20, 2011
I have unsuccessfully tried to ascertain to what extent the amount of carbon is absorbed by one square kilometre of the Australian bush. The so called experts can tell me that I put (x) number of black balloons into the atmosphere but are unable to tell me of carbon absoption. Going by the vast expanses of Australian bush I have seen during my travels around this country, I believe we must be close to carbon neutral.
Has any one got the latest information on carbon absorption in relation to carbon production?
Regards
Ma said
11:59 PM Jul 20, 2011
I very much doubt there would be ANYONE who could answer that question TS
biggles said
10:56 AM Jul 22, 2011
If they shut down coal burning power stations, what clean energy supply could generate that sort of power in summer, but more importantly in winter??? shorter hours of daylight. If the water desal plant goes online soon it will need more power stations to be built. That another thing we in Victoria have to fund for the next 30+ years also, when the new pipeline needs to be used it will need megawatts to pump the water through it. we are not building anymore new dams so no new water generating capabilities - Bob Brown has seen to that....
jack biggles said
02:36 PM Jul 22, 2011
Hi biggles, image basically giving the KEYs of the country formally known as the lucky country to that imbecile
That is the question to ask your self....
Not how much the gov. will give you ..
Rember JFK. said "its not what your "world" can do for you ,But what you can do for your world"
A small change of words but the message is the same and we all live here ,Right! tell me if im wrong..
Bob
but.... that doesn't really have much to do with climate change. With being almost self-sufficient power-wise, and being a self-funded retiree, you will be unlikely to be much worse off with the proposed carbon tax at all, maybe even better off. Certainly ain't going to cost you any anatomy!
Carbon emissions or the proposed tax are no reflection on anyone who has served their country, injured or not. We can all do out bit every day.
I don't believe in global warming or emissions trading taxes.
The climate has been cyclic forever. Man has had an impact on the planet forever.
Science, technology and development have given us a great place to live in. Once upon a time people did their washing by hand. Now they use energy hungry washing machines. Do you want to go back to hand-washing?
Once upon a time man used carbon-emitting horses. Now we use carbon-emitting vehicles.
The downside is development has also taken up valuable land, and turned it into an energy-sucking environment.
We've cleared carbon-dependent trees and other vegetation to make way for development and greedy industry.
There must be a balance, but the carbon tax is not it.
Make a foot print. Plant a tree.
I would imagine a few people will keep grabbing hold of my comments, perhaps taking them out of contex.
I made my comments because I was asked to consider what I could do for society. I slightly objected to that because I feel Ive given more than my pound of flesh.
I don't buy this carbon nonesense but besides that a greenie would probably think that I am fairly lean when it comes to a footprint. The whole damn thing annoys me so much I think I might start driving a bit more, get those 8 cylinders pumping out some more emissions & I might even just drive over a tree or too
If the government was serious about actual carbon emissions they'd tax the emissions as they come out, not as they go in as fuel.
I'm sure there's technology out there which could measure output. There must be scientifically acceptable levels of output. If any industry exceeds this acceptable output, then they be fined and penalised, until they actually reduce that excessive output.
This morning's media review on Channel 10 revealed one of the target fuels is brown coal and the electricity it's used to generate.
For some reason I'm suspicious about who is feeding the information to the PM and her subjects.
I have a feeling there's a budding industry behind all this. On the surface the goal seems to be to reduce greenhouse gasses to save the planet and stop "global warming".
Deep down I feel an energy producer waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity to introduce its wares.
I'd like to see the scientific proof justifying the carbon tax, without the Greens emotional spin. Then I'd like to see the scientific outcome of reducing carbon emissions.
Then I'd like to see the financial gain in revenue, vs the financial compensation of "peter public".
I don't think I'll live that long.
-- Edited by Cruising Granny on Sunday 17th of July 2011 05:06:04 PM
My rule of thumb is - If you hit an animal with a stick, it will turn on you.........
-- Edited by biggles on Monday 18th of July 2011 12:31:07 PM
CG, the proposed tax IS taxing emissions, not fuel. That's why the future of brown coal is looking a bit uncertain - because power stations fueled by this usually have the most emissions for the amount of power generated. Some are cleaner than others - that's why Hazelwood in Victoria is likely to have to pay the most, because the power plant creates more emissions per kilowatt generated than any other in Australia. If they cleaned up the plant then they would reduce the tax they paid, but my understanding is that it is so old that it would cost more to put in new technology for this than it would be worth. The idea is to drive the uptake of new, cleaner technology as the power created becomes more economical compared to the old technology.
There is indeed well established technology and techniques to measure carbon output, and that is what the tax will be based on. I understand one of the reasons the number of companies targetted was reduced to 500 instead of the original 1,000 that was talked about is that some of the companies at the bottom end of the 1,000 are in industries that don't have agreed measurement tools yet, whereas the top 500 can all be measured.
Let's hope there is at least one (hopefully many) energy producer in the wings waiting to pounce with their wares, that is the whole point. Wouldn't it be wonderful if in 20 years time the majority of Australia's energy needs was generated by some technique we haven't even thought of or heard about yet, that didn't deplete the earth's non-renewable resources and didn't pump pollution into the air. And wouldn't it be even more wonderful if we made money out of exporting that energy or that technique to other countries, instead of having been so late weaning ourselves off coal dependence that we ended up having to pay some other country to use the technology they invented.
If they're taxing the emissions, why are they adding the carbon tax to fuel before it's burnt?
If we cut all carbon emissions know to man the trees and other vegetation will die. Then what will generat the oxygen we breath.
Think about this.
It's just another emotional damn tax the red-head can't really justify, because the Greens say so. Just like the flood levy, live cattle export, illegal boat people. If she makes another knee jerk decision she'll have to have surgery for damaged cartliges.
She's publicly pronouncing herself arrogant and stupid.
Has any one got the latest information on carbon absorption in relation to carbon production?
Regards
I very much doubt there would be ANYONE who could answer that question TS