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

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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....