[Shaved Monkey]

The end game is to drive green investment and change habits.
anything is better than nothing

[papa moose]

The end game is to drive green investment and change habits.
anything is better than nothing

I agree with you mate but my distaste for the current state of aussie politics is magnified by viewing other threads in this forum.
If the ESAS doesn't roast us in the next few months then we will all be unemployed anyway because of the Euro collapse triggering 2008 v2.
So hopefully the Carbon Tax can solve global warming before any other triggers are pulled.
To mangle an old truism; slowly slowly, may catchy monkey but not if some other bastard shoots it first.

[sparky]

@ Laromi
I was quoting a previous post from FarQ3
The estimated 10 billions kitty is going to be raided on braindead schemes so that politicians
can cut a ribbon , proud as peacocks

alternatives energy are basicaly alternatives to the laws of thermodynamic and common sense
as for carbon trading , the whole of the financial press is totallly for
the only thing green about it is the greenbacks

[FarQ3]

Sparky, you obviously don't work in the energy industry where 'on regular occassion' ammounts of gas are burn't in a few hours in the name of maintaining production that equate to whole years of energy use for cities the size of Sydney. Have you ever seen a 600 million standard cubic feet per day flare being used to maximum capacity?

Us as individual consumers are only a very small part of the problem, no doubt though improvements can be made. Solar energy schemes have already made large inroads into residential energy use. How much energy is used by the tall glass buildings in the CBD in comparison with plebville? In Perth it's huge, commercial customers use more energy than all the residential areas of Perth combined.

It's fine for you to complain ... but at least our present government is trying to do 'something' which requires them to 'start somewhere' ... As far as policies go we only have this ... or the opposition's nothing!

Coal was exported from country to country in Europe centuries before Australia was even thought of, so I don't know where your 'Australia being the first country in the world for coal export' idea came from. Coal burning technology has come a long way in the past 40 years, imagine if some of that carbon tax money went into research that succeeded in making coal much cleaner ... Had you even thought of that Sparky?

There's many better people than you or I working on energy solutions, I'd like to see better funding and promotion of that work rather than sit back and proclaim "there is no reason to reduce polution" which seems to be what the denier's are spouting.

Large companies spend millions on accountants to reduce their tax ... there is NO reason why they won't spend money on efficiency to reduce thier carbon tax, the reduction in carbon tax then becomes PROFIT.

[sparky]

.
@FarQ3 "Sparky, you obviously don't work in the energy industry "

I do , I'm a licenced high voltage electrician ,worked in the Gulf and the north sea
did work in power plant steelworks , refineries and other industrial site
now I work in the biggest chemical plant in Sydney ,we use 6 Gigawatts of power

now and again the flare goes up , very impressive
but as I've said before there is very little efficiency to be had from manufacturing
except from closing them down and importing the stuff

Your point on downtown skylight is taken ,
our present government is try to do something , anything ,anyhow
that doesn't strike me as a good idea coming from people who have no clue
about industry and believe a workshop is ten people sitting around a table eating muffins

from the EIA
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/I ... id=1&aid=4
Australia share of coal export is 288 millions tons ......26.5 % of the total trade ,
the second exporter is Indonesia with 260 millions ....24 %

.

[sparky]

.
"Coal burning technology has come a long way in the past 40 years, imagine if some of that carbon tax money went into research that succeeded in making coal much cleaner "

Coal burning for power has nearly 200 years of history since 1829 , that was the sucess of stephenson rocket
while great improvement in the technology occured , by 1900 , the golden age of steam ,
progress in technology were incremental with decreasing returns
the best "new" technology for power generation is fluidized bed for burning low quality stuff
and pulverized coal injection to create a fireball which radiate better ,
it allow the thermal efficiency to reach close to its theoretical maximum .

efficiency depend on the quality of the fuel ,not on the process
anthracite is the absolute best with 95% carbon ,it is now exausted ,
then is thermal coal ,the seams are being depleted rather fast
next is brown coal as in Latrobe valley ,it is poluting rubbish but plentiful
lowest of the low is peat , wood chips and organic waste

Any tech must obey the laws of thermodynamics ,those laws have been formulated in the 17th and 18th centuries
they are absolute , and define the maximum efficiency of any system .
might as well argue about changing the law of gravity

[Arthur75]

CCS would truly be the worst investment possible (and I'm not an AGW skeptic at all), 30 40% loss in efficiency.
Two mountains blown up ? Just explode a third one in order to put a green sticker on the ernergy produced by the first two.
Typical airheadish rubbish.
Disgusting

[sparky]

.
I take it CCS refer to Carbon capture and underground re injection

Yep , it's usually dumb , but with the urge to throw money at a problem ,
complete lack of decent alternative solutions and some marginal positive results ,
that's good enough for any politician
the "best case" use is re-injecting in depleted oil fields to scrap residual oil
the CO2 come from the major electrical power plants
the economics are sooooo doggy , it take taxpayer money to make them look good

[FarQ3]

Sparky,

Just 60 years ago most coal powered machines were hand fed boilers. There has been a tremendous improvement in coal burning technology since then. Humans are inventors and sometimes come up with solutions to seemingly impossible problems. I would never bury my head in the sand so much as to not recognise the possiblities further research could uncover.

I read that you are a HV electrician. So am I in fact, also an instrument technician, a oil & gas plant operator and part time process engineering student. In my experience it is highly unlikely that someone working as just a HV electrician would really know how to recognise efficiency improvements in industrial plant processes, these guys are generally ignorant to production whereas instrument techs and process operators are always looking for restoration & improvements in plant optimisation & efficiency. You may however be the exception.

You remark that industrial flaring is 'very impressive'. Is that really your attitude or are you being sarcastic. What is the maximum flaring rate of this 'very impressive' flare you remark on?

The one thing we seem to agree on is energy useage, habits need to change. But keeping energy prices the same I don't think will encourage people to use less energy. The home insulation project was a great idea but not well implemented and we all know what happened there.

[AdTheNad]

Fee and dividend can NOT work, neither globally, nor nationally. It can not survive contact with the political process of any democratic country; and definitely can not survive contact with the political process of the two largest emitters; US and China.

Carbon tax is fine. But you have to be upfront and understand that it is a tax, and the revenues of that tax will not be simply redistributed. They will be used just as any other tax is; to shore up local political support, infrastructure projects, defense, payouts to large campaign contributors. That is political reality. Personally, I'd love to see a massive carbon tax that is passed in conjunction with a repeal of the income and/or estate taxes; with no change in the total revenue received by the government. That would put the tax directly on the sources of most societal expenses. You turn the key in your car, you pay, and you pay big. You set the thermostat to 72F in Winter up north, you pay, and you pay big. You run your company with inefficient fuel usage, your competitors will OBLITERATE you on prices because their cost of goods sold will be drastically lower than yours.

But payout dividend? We all die first.

This was getting a bit off topic for the GW thread so I've replied over here.

I don't see why you would say fee and dividend can not survive contact with the political process. It seems to me that compared to any other tax it is the least open to political manipulation. You set it up, divide the proceeds by 311 million then send out a cheque at the end of each month. Any politician who there after tried to scrap it would be absolutely mauled in the polls, and they could hardly divest it offering back handers to any connected parties. I don't think you have given a good reason to not have fee and dividend other than what I read between the lines. That you realise resources are finite and opting for a more equitable distribution you would be made worse off - ethics be damned.

You've mentioned repealing the estate tax before a few times, but never really explained why either. Presumably you stand to gain, or would like to see dynasties more formally recognised, as some people always do well in the feudal system?

To be fair, I also think we should get rid of estate taxes, and whatever the beneficiaries receive should be classed as income and taxed as such.

[AgentR11]

You set it up, divide the proceeds by 311 million then send out a cheque at the end of each month.

Massive redistribution of wealth. There is no way a middle class family would get more back than they pay. If they did, the tax wouldn't do anything to modify behavior.

Any politician who there after tried to scrap it would be absolutely mauled in the polls,

Not. Any politicians representing a poor or liberal district would get mauled for scrapping it; any politician representing a middle class or conservative district would get mauled for failing to scrap it. For a tax system to survive, it has to be tolerable to both political viewpoints, even if each wants to tweak it one way or the other. Fee and dividend can't share that principle. The income tax survives because its complicated and messy, and supports tomahawk missiles just as it supports HUD.

You've mentioned repealing the estate tax before a few times, but never really explained why either. Presumably you stand to gain, or would like to see dynasties more formally recognised, as some people always do well in the feudal system?

I'd gain a little, not a big deal to me personally; but its just always felt very "slimy" as a form of taxation. I'd much rather have an honest, annual federal property tax instead; means of production, paying their way, as they are used. (I'd make NO exceptions for charitable this and trust that though...) As it is, the current system feeds a whole "estate planning" industry with massive wasted effort trying to squeeze assets through every little hole and niche before death.

To be fair, I also think we should get rid of estate taxes, and whatever the beneficiaries receive should be classed as income and taxed as such.

That'd be about the same deal really. It comes in a lump, more or less, and would require the same sorts of insurance, planning, and hoop-jumping to keep businesses and family entities intact through the transition. Its the lumpiness of the expense that I'd like to squish; I don't much care what its called.

[sparky]

.
A bit late in the day admitedly
Farq3 , My original formation is as instrument tech ,
I got an associate diploma from the UTS when it still was the humble Sydney tech
because of reorganization and union issue we had to get our electrical licence
....damn the ETU , damn them !
Since the instrument tech are much smarter than mere wire jerkers ,we are after all the blue collar aristocracy I was prodded to also get the HV ticket , I am licenced to Earth and issue working permits
also I can spike cables to check that they are dead ( scary )

coal furnace efficiency I know a bit about it ,
all the big power generation units use multi stage steam turbines ,the furnaces are now using pulverized coal to create a ball of fire it does not touch the sides ,which is made of tube carrying the feed water , no more boilers
efficiency can reach above 50% if in a combined cycle

Boilers are for small stuff ,
a perfect thermal isolation is a bad idea since the thermal losses provide some stability of operation
efficiency is around 30% but depend on the use cycle


For the flare , there is ground flare for the liquids and torches for the gas
they are always on usually for security reasons ,
if there is a hiccup , all the hydrocarbons are burned , very very impressive

in the oil fields the torches are always on to burn the gasing out fraction
if it's a gas field same a small proportion is burned to provide a quick pressure drop in case of drama

[AdTheNad]

Massive redistribution of wealth. There is no way a middle class family would get more back than they pay. If they did, the tax wouldn't do anything to modify behavior.

No I think you are wrong. There are many people who would get back more, through all social strata. And with it would come a smug satisfaction. Think of all the people with a Prius - generally middle class people - who would get to feel even more superior of their neighbours, and mention it repeatedly, helping to drive change. This would have an almost instant effect on behaviour modification. Wondering if you should drive or bike to work today? Well, not only would you save money on gas, you would effectively be paid to cycle. Brilliant.

Any politicians representing a poor or liberal district would get mauled for scrapping it; any politician representing a middle class or conservative district would get mauled for failing to scrap it.

I disagree. As mentioned above, some middle class people will be better off and any progressives should recognise why it is needed. Although it may be a bit different in America, over here in the UK if the government ever tries to do anything that hurts people seen as disadvantaged it looks really bad for them. I think the "nasty party" meme for the Tories will be making a comeback shortly.

At the end of the day, the only way the impact from climate change can be reduced, is by leaving fossil fuels in the ground, or pulling CO2 back out of the air. By making fossil fuels more expensive now is the best chance to make alternatives financially viable. There is no fairer way, than by making the people who use the most fossil fuels pay the most, with the proceeds being shared by everyone who will be effected by climate change. And that is everyone, not just a few wealthy people who want to repeal estate taxes.

I'd much rather have an honest, annual federal property tax instead; means of production, paying their way, as they are used. (I'd make NO exceptions for charitable this and trust that though...)

Yes, you desperately need a progressive annual federal property tax. We really need a progressive annual federal wealth tax, but that might lead to capital flight, so I would just say property tax for now.

That'd be about the same deal really. It comes in a lump, more or less, and would require the same sorts of insurance, planning, and hoop-jumping to keep businesses and family entities intact through the transition. Its the lumpiness of the expense that I'd like to squish; I don't much care what its called.

No, no planning, no hoop-jumping. There are assets and someone owns them. If they are in a trust, someone still owns them. If a name isn't set against the assets, no one owns them and they should be federally seized. When all assets are registered as owned, and then they change hand, that should be treated as income and taxed as such. There can be a life time tax free allowance that is tied to inflation.

[AgentR11]

That'd be about the same deal really. It comes in a lump, more or less, and would require the same sorts of insurance, planning, and hoop-jumping to keep businesses and family entities intact through the transition. Its the lumpiness of the expense that I'd like to squish; I don't much care what its called.

No, no planning, no hoop-jumping. There are assets and someone owns them. If they are in a trust, someone still owns them. If a name isn't set against the assets, no one owns them and they should be federally seized. When all assets are registered as owned, and then they change hand, that should be treated as income and taxed as such. There can be a life time tax free allowance that is tied to inflation.

And because they would be taxed as income, and the income would come as a large lump, the owners of said assets most certainly WOULD do planning and hoop jumping inorder to minimize the tax bill as best as possible, and insure that liquid assets were available to pay that bill. My point is that the lumpiness is what is stupid and creates unnecessary waste. If you want to collect 100k on a million in assets; then collect it smoothly across that asset's life; not as one lump when the owner dies and hands it off to the next generation.

[AgentR11]

I split my reply to separate the topics. (estate tax and carbon tax)

Massive redistribution of wealth. There is no way a middle class family would get more back than they pay. If they did, the tax wouldn't do anything to modify behavior.

No I think you are wrong. There are many people who would get back more, through all social strata. And with it would come a smug satisfaction. Think of all the people with a Prius - generally middle class people - who would get to feel even more superior of their neighbours, and mention it repeatedly, helping to drive change. This would have an almost instant effect on behaviour modification. Wondering if you should drive or bike to work today? Well, not only would you save money on gas, you would effectively be paid to cycle. Brilliant.

So focused on transportation energy use; but that isn't the majority of energy used by a typical middle class household. Most is very difficult to avoid using, and it has to be taxed, and if its taxed enough to create a mitigating response, it will also be much higher than what they would get back.

Now, I like the notion of a Carbon Tax, but *ONLY* if total receipts by the government do not increase. So, if the government is going to do payouts based upon those total carbon receipts, then other government programs will need to be cut, and other taxes will need to be reduced in order to prevent receipts from rising. That is how all conservatives will view it, and how a good number of moderate democrats will view it. Which is why I suggested the numbers I did for what would be required to pass a fee and dividend. If such an election happened, you could clearly state that the electorate wanted a real change. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there is no where near that level of desire, nor are those kinds of election numbers remotely realistic for the next few cycles at least.

At the end of the day, the only way the impact from climate change can be reduced, is by leaving fossil fuels in the ground, or pulling CO2 back out of the air. By making fossil fuels more expensive now is the best chance to make alternatives financially viable.

Though I'm of the opinion that its too late, I still support this line of thought; however, I think the window for doing it openly with a tax has closed, probably forever. If only because proposals acceptable to the left are anathema to the right, and those that would be acceptable to the right are anathema to the left. Our species would rather burn than compromise apparently.

There is no fairer way, than by making the people who use the most fossil fuels pay the most, with the proceeds being shared by everyone who will be effected by climate change. And that is everyone, not just a few wealthy people who want to repeal estate taxes.

I only use the estate tax thing in this context to irritate and make a parallel with exactly how the dividend would be viewed by conservatives. The dividend model is outrageous beyond description. A more realistic proposal would be balancing the receipts from the carbon tax with a deduction against AGI; so no one would be getting checks, but for those who currently pay taxes, their total tax paid to the government would remain approximately the same; and they'd have a financial incentive to tip the scale in their favor by adopting efficiency strategies. You could divvy out the per return deduction level based upon previous years receipts from the carbon tax in order to insure that it is always revenue neutral without writing government checks to anyone.

[Graeme]

Carbon pricing a global trend: Westpac

Australia's second biggest bank says it's time to get on board the global trend of carbon pricing and tackle the nation's emissions growth.


Geoff Rousel, executive director of Westpac's commodities, carbon and energy trading group, told AAP carbon pricing was the "single most effective mechanism" to cut emissions.

The first report of the Australian Energy Market Operator, released on Friday, showed business was already responding, with a 2.4 per cent drop in energy use in 2011/12.

The drop was driven by lower industrial energy use, greater use of rooftop solar cells and consumers turning off lights and appliances, and it came despite GDP remaining strong.

"A lot of business and industry we talk to now do view a price on carbon as inevitable - this is part of a global energy revolution," Mr Rousel said.

Mr Rousel said businesses must question any cost increases by suppliers attributed to the carbon price to make sure they are not exaggerated.

smh

[Timo]

Hopefully, the rest of the world will show the way toward sustainably responsible capitalism before the US, China, and India take us all over the edge to the point of no return. It's a paradigm shift that's long, long overdue. It's also inevitable, if us humans hope to live much longer on this planet.

[Graeme]

Timo, Thanks for your post. You might be interested in this ABC interview of Professor Garnaut, who advocated the introduction of an Australian carbon tax in 2008.

Carbon tax 'economically efficient': Garnaut

EMMA ALBERICI: Now I'm curious to know what you make of the current nature of the political debate surrounding the introduction of the carbon tax, something that you found in 2008 and again just last year that was to be in Australia's best national interest.

ROSS GARNAUT: Yes, well, it's an extraordinary atmosphere in which this discussion of a serious public policy issue is being carried out. Most things are being trivialised, the whole debate's being treated as a football game with a lot more focus on the scores.

Don't want to trivialise the importance of football, but this is a really serious long-term issue for the country. And it's a complicated one.

There's a package of measures that came through the Parliament that involve raising a price on carbon, collecting quite a lot of revenue for that, giving quite large tax cuts in a way that improves economic efficiency, substantial family payments, support for trade-exposed industries, support for renewable energy and it's very hard to get a serious discussion of the package as a whole.

Similarly, what Australia does takes place in an international context. We're the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per person in the developed world and we should be a little bit sensitive to that fact and sensitive to what others are doing.

And when I was preparing my second report, there was a lot of focus in the public discussion about how China and the United States weren't doing much. Well, they're actually both doing quite a lot now and you wouldn't know it. There's just no place for real analysis of international developments in the Australian policy discussion on this matter.

EMMA ALBERICI: Well let's take some specifics on the discussion. The Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says it will raise every family's cost of living, it will make every job less secure, but it won't help the environment. In fact he claims that Australia's emissions will be 8 per cent higher by 2020.

ROSS GARNAUT: Well, there are three propositions there. On the first of those, it will raise the cost of living by a small amount. On the second of those, it will not make every job less secure.

It will make some jobs more secure. And it will very substantially reduce emissions below what they would otherwise have been, and in addition puts us in a very strong position at low cost to increase our effort and reduce emissions more if and when action in the rest of the world requires us to do so.

EMMA ALBERICI: Alright. Well you in your 2011 update of the Climate Change Review, you make the point that a market-based approach like that which the Gillard Government has introduced will cost Australians substantially less than a regulatory approach like that advocated by Tony Abbott. Can you tell us how did you arrive at that conclusion?

ABC

[Graeme]

5 Things We Learned about Day 1 of the Australia Carbon Price…

And how the carbon price compares to mobile phone spending and other taxes
A wee bit of context always helps. This graph below from The Australia Institute highlights how the carbon price compares to revenue from the GST, fuel excise and other taxes, and how it compares to household spending on mobile phones, fast food and other things. It’s fairly self-explanatory.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Let the evidence speak for itself on the effect of carbon taxes

Taking the time to review that evidence shows that B.C.’s climate policies (including the carbon tax) are starting to push down fossil fuel consumption. Let’s take a look at some of the major questions Donnelly raises:

Is B.C.’s carbon tax working to reduce emissions?

The main purpose of the carbon tax is to encourage people and businesses to use cleaner sources of energy, and to use energy as efficiently as possible. So, to get an idea about whether B.C.’s carbon tax is working, we first need to look at the consumption of coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel in the province. Statistics published by the B.C. government last week show that the carbon tax and other climate change policies are having a positive impact.

The end-use demand for fossil fuels is down in the province, and it has been dropping faster than the Canadian average, implying that B.C.’s efforts to reduce emissions are delivering results.

s B.C.’s carbon tax having an impact on the economy?

When the carbon tax was introduced in 2008, there were plenty of doomsday forecasts that B.C.’s economy would come crashing down. While B.C. has had its share of economic struggles, the simple reality is that there is no evidence indicating the province’s carbon tax is negatively impacting the economy.



B.C. is not alone in taxing carbon, and the experiences of countries like Sweden and Finland — countries that implemented similar policies more than two decades ago — offer useful lessons for our province. The general message coming from those jurisdictions is that while carbon taxes are not a silver bullet, they’ve helped the environment without harming the economy. A study of seven European countries that implemented environmental taxes in the 1990s found that greenhouse gas emissions were down from two to six per cent, and the overall effect on gross domestic product had been negligible.

vancouversun