Carbon Dioxide Tax

[Bribie G]

Ok let's kick it off.

Here's a city in China, you've probably never heard of it - called Qingdao. Never heard of it myself. Here's a shot of a fairly small part of it.



Now let's zoom in to a small part of that small part of a middle-rung city in China



Wow look at all those high rises, probably typical of the breakneck development of cities in China nowadays. Imagine, if this is just a small area of a small part of a city, just how many areas there are like this. And how many BILLIONS of people live like this.


Now - question - without being at all racist. If all these admirable people decide to keep their TVs running a couple of hours longer to watch the World cup finals then would you agree that our carbon tax here (1.5% of the planet's population) is probably going to be the equivalent of throwing a pinch of dust into a gale force wind?


Discuss

:icon_cheers:

 

[drew9242]

My question is how much C02 the big brewerys produce? And wether they will get slogged the carbon tax aswell?

 

[Bribie G]

As posted in another thread, apart from heating - and breweries are very efficient with heat exchangers etc nowadays, the actual fermenting is carbon neutral because the CO2 given off is equivalent to the CO2 absorbed and used by the next crop of barley or polenta. Edit: polenta rhizomes for sale soon :icon_cheers:

However the point does arise - if our breweries are slugged with a carbon tax, what about beer produced in a country that does not have a carbon tax, being imported into Australia? For example San Miguel (not currently available because of the contract details with the Boags sale, but may come back in at some point) - just as an example.

So this would place polluting countries at an advantage one would think.

 

[drew9242]

Yes that is why it doesn't sound like a tax that will do anything to the carbon emissions, but it will ruin the Australian economy. Poor exporters who are having a hard time with the aussie dollar got another blow to deal with. And like you say, I can't see Australia tax importer for the carbon they produce. So imports will be even more on the rise.

I agree that we have to look after this world we live in. But am still skeptical that Carbon is causing climate change. I don't trust scientist when it comes to predicting the future. They can't even predict the weather in a weeks time, let alone in the next 100 years.

 

[bum]

China's renewable energy sector employs more people than than our entire population.

 

[Dave70]

Now - question - without being at all racist. If all these admirable people decide to keep their TVs running a couple of hours longer to watch the World cup finals then would you agree that our carbon tax here (1.5% of the planet's population) is probably going to be the equivalent of throwing a pinch of dust into a gale force wind?


Discuss

:icon_cheers:

Its to complicated an issue and I'm a simple man who's to slow at typing to tangle with it here. First it was about carbon emission trading between countries and getting in early to beat the rush, now...??

In any case -China's got an available defense force larger than the population of Queensland, a history that's been rolling for over 3500 years and a government who don't **** around. They want to run their TV's a little longer - even powering them with filthy brown Aussie coal? Who's gonna tell em to switch off?

Not to mention India, but the Chinese have their shit together better and are clearly the the next ber supremos.

Personally I welcome our soon to be communist overloads and will be enrolling my son in a Mandarin speaking classes as soon as practicable.
Lets face it. It's just a natural progression. Just imagine if those meddlers like the Dali Lama hadn't stuck their bibs in when Mao planted the flag in Tibet. We'd probably have a cable car leading to the a pressurized revolving restaurant atop of Everest by now. It's an international disgrace that all those poor tourists have shell out 75K of their hard earned to scale the thing when they could be gliding along on cables enjoying a relaxing tea ceremony.

 

[Bribie G]

The photos at the top of the page speak volumes. Housing shortage? No problems just bang up a few tens of thousands of apartments. None of this Australian Shit like Delfin sitting on land for decades and ekeing it out a few blocks at a time to keep the prices artificially inflated, while families sleep in cars. In China the directors of Delfin, Lend Lease etc would be taken out, shot in the back of the head and their families invoiced for the bullets.

 

[WarmBeer]

...In China the directors of Delfin, Lend Lease etc would be taken out, shot in the back of the head and their families invoiced for the bullets.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I am going to buy the biggest petrol guzzling car I can find, and start running over hippies

 

[Liam_snorkel]

You can start by running over lycra-clad cyclists. H8 those guys.

 

[bum]

Tour de France is way ahead of you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/1...hnny-hoogerland

 

[Malted]

Tour de France is way ahead of you.

Ba ha ha, when I read through it i thought there was a Sanchez and a Felcher. Turns out there was a Sanchez and a Flecher.


Um so back on topic then. Some rambling food for thought:
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act (called NGER) was enacted in 2007... The first reporting period was 1st July 2008. Greenhouse gasses, energy use & production etc are reported on.

"As a guide, businesses emitting more than 25 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or consuming more than 25 000 megawatts of electricity or 2.5 million litres of fuel in a year, can expect to be required to report"
That is a heck of a lot of gas, power or go-go juice. Who would have thought but a Milk Company actually tripped these thresholds.

"The NGER Act will underpin any future carbon pricing shemes by providing the emissions data to base reporting obligations on." http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting


So the story: Dirty, big businesses have already had to report emissions because the Gov't has snuck in the groundwork legislation well before now. I reckon a lot of these big businesses knew the writing was on the wall and have started refining their 'environmental practices' before we even get to a Carbon Tax. For example. the milk company was getting stuck into changing practices in 2009.

So Uncle Kev didn't get in until December 2007. I guess we can thank Johny Howard for bringing in the NGER since it came in September 2007. Joolya said "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead". 16 Aug 2010
Who do we blame if we don't like a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme/carbon pollution reduction scheme?

It is all the bloody bleading hearts who voted in so many bloody greens that they are directing both the parties. "I like a few greens for balance, but too many stinks" Malted 2011. No, for my money I am with Ducatiboy_stu, let's run over the bloody hippies!

I am going to buy the biggest petrol guzzling car I can find, and start running over hippies

 

[Malted]

Here's a one sided website for a chuckle http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/what-is-the-cprs/

One of my faves: the link to the climate skeptic shop

 

[Dave70]

Tour de France is way ahead of you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/1...hnny-hoogerland

Goodness me.

Bad? well yes. But it could have been much much worse..

 

[Dave70]

Who do we blame if we don't like a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme/carbon pollution reduction scheme?

Talk back radio.

 

[Lecterfan]

haha - I am not easily classed as "this" or "that"politically but I would think the main "problem" with Greens voters is they are not necessarily more or less ignorant than anyone else, they are just less apathetic (and I still purposively use the negative description over the positive).

If the lazy Aussie could realise that we have an honest to goodness (relatively) peaceful foundation of democratic principles in this country (which is something rare and beautiful to behold in many ways) we could achieve all manner of wonderful things. But no, we are global consumers first (although we consider ourselves patriotic Aussies- buying stickers made in Taiwan to put on our utes to prove it, consuming global goods at every turn) and voters second....well maybe not even second, but somewhere down the line. People complain that there is no meaningful political choice in this country (between mouthfuls of Mcdonalds that they are eating after buying a new tv at jb hifi which they needed because they just built a house with 6 bedrooms and each one needs a giant flat screen plasma). Well, maybe its time to sprinkle some viagra in the eyes to take a good hard look at ourselves and work out how easy that is to change.

I blame political apathy, and for that I blame domino 13,678, and for that I blame domino 13,677 etc etc... of course there is an argument to be made that causation is just a construct but, meh.

Is the CT good or bad? Dunno - but I do know you can't just say it's bad because other people aren't pulling their weight (therefore we might as well not either) - you can say it is globally/statistically ineffectual because of this, or you can say it is bad because of indirect economic consequences X,Y and Z; just not the first premise. Otherwise we might as well stop giving $20 donations to charities that need significantly more, and throw out human rights while you're at it (they don't do it, why should we? we could "solve" so many social issues in this country). An action has worth not solely in its consequence, but in its maxim.

Also, socially (and globally - look at civil rights movements), small, ineffectual changes need to be made first in order for attention to the issue to be raised (in turn it becomes an interesting argument if they were ineffectual because of long term consequences, but certainly in the immediate, short-term they were done because of the maxim if right and wrong). Is the environment an issue worth raising? Dunno. But if it IS then even a shit law that may be ineffectual and indirectly harmful in the immediate/short term may prove to have some socio-political worth in the future.

Still this is all in the interest of "discuss" from the OP. And politically I am not actually taking a stance, just wishing that the registered voters of this country actually appreciated the rights and freedoms that they have, rather than take them for granted.

Also: this is NOT directed anyone who has posted, just a rant - I started sampling the case swap beers and felt the need to let it all hang out haha. :beerbang:

 

[WarmBeer]

haha - I am not easily classed as "this" or "that"politically but I would think the main "problem" with Greens voters is they are not necessarily more or less ignorant than anyone else, they are just less apathetic (and I still purposively use the negative description over the positive).

If the lazy Aussie could realise that we have an honest to goodness (relatively) peaceful foundation of democratic principles in this country (which is something rare and beautiful to behold in many ways) we could achieve all manner of wonderful things. But no, we are global consumers first (although we consider ourselves patriotic Aussies- buying stickers made in Taiwan to put on our utes to prove it, consuming global goods at every turn) and voters second....well maybe not even second, but somewhere down the line. People complain that there is no meaningful political choice in this country (between mouthfuls of Mcdonalds that they are eating after buying a new tv at jb hifi which they needed because they just built a house with 6 bedrooms and each one needs a giant flat screen plasma). Well, maybe its time to sprinkle some viagra in the eyes to take a good hard look at ourselves and work out how easy that is to change.

I blame political apathy, and for that I blame domino 13,678, and for that I blame domino 13,677 etc etc... of course there is an argument to be made that causation is just a construct but, meh.

Is the CT good or bad? Dunno - but I do know you can't just say it's bad because other people aren't pulling their weight (therefore we might as well not either) - you can say it is globally/statistically ineffectual because of this, or you can say it is bad because of indirect economic consequences X,Y and Z; just not the first premise. Otherwise we might as well stop giving $20 donations to charities that need significantly more, and throw out human rights while you're at it (they don't do it, why should we? we could "solve" so many social issues in this country). An action has worth not solely in its consequence, but in its maxim.

Also, socially (and globally - look at civil rights movements), small, ineffectual changes need to be made first in order for attention to the issue to be raised (in turn it becomes an interesting argument if they were ineffectual because of long term consequences, but certainly in the immediate, short-term they were done because of the maxim if right and wrong). Is the environment an issue worth raising? Dunno. But if it IS then even a shit law that may be ineffectual and indirectly harmful in the immediate/short term may prove to have some socio-political worth in the future.

Still this is all in the interest of "discuss" from the OP. And politically I am not actually taking a stance, just wishing that the registered voters of this country actually appreciated the rights and freedoms that they have, rather than take them for granted.

Also: this is NOT directed anyone who has posted, just a rant - I started sampling the case swap beers and felt the need to let it all hang out haha. :beerbang:

Not bad for a hairy Ranga.

And I meant Lecterfan, not Julia Gillard

 

[Lecterfan]

Not bad for a hairy Ranga.

And I meant Lecterfan, not Julia Gillard

...the carpet doesn't match the curtains.


Can't speak for Joolya.

 

[Malted]

Talk back radio.

But Sir John has retired! Who wields the golden mike now?

 

[Malted]

Well, maybe its time to sprinkle some viagra in the eyes to take a good hard look at ourselves and work out how easy that is to change.

Wouldn't Viagra in the eyes actually blind you? If your eyelids retained blood/swelled/engorged then they would close over the eyes, hypothetically theorising.


As for the rest, well considered, well phrased and thought provoking. I do not agree with all of it but that did not make it any less entertaining.



@Bribey G: one would say a Carbon tax. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is just ONE form of undesirable carbon that governments are trying to legislate against. There are a lot of nasty carbon molecules.