The carbon tax is wonderful

[woodbe]

what the gov want to introduce is a tax and NOT a CTS i.e. the polluter pays the tax regardless and can't offset that by buying carbon credits.

They say they want a CTS but they are starting with a Tax - the ETS comes later after everyone realises that the world did not end after all.

[Greg Ward]

No one is suggesting the world will end, all they are saying is that this is an unnecessary impost on Australian business and homes that will have no affect on the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

If the Government wants to have new taxes, that's OK. But that's a separate discussion
Greg

[Ozkaban]

I'm a bit late to this debate, and apologies if I've not read every word of some of the longer posts...

My view is that while there is a need to reduce emissions, and not necessarily just CO2, I'm just not convinced a new tax will achieve that.

A few years ago, we had petrol climb from about 85c/l to about $1.60-1.70c/l in about 5 years. That's doubling the cost. The reduction in fuel usage was about 5%. That's it. Why? Because we still need our cars and trucks. Because there isn't a good enough alternative.

If a carbon emission reduction is to be effective, then jacking up electricity prices isn't going to achieve much - there needs to be an alternative. Sure there are other technologies such as solar, etc in the same way there are other methods of transport to cars, but at the end of the day I need to use electricity in my home and so I will just have to suck it up and pay more. I am already fairly efficient with power in the house, but increasing the price by whatever % isn't really going to change that much.

Change may come, but it will be slow because the incentive isn't there - making consumers pay more will just mean consumers pay more, nothing else.

Cheers,
Dave

[woodbe]

If the Government wants to have new taxes, that's OK. But that's a separate discussion
Greg

True, except as far as I can tell, the government has made it the same discussion. It's an attempt to do something about carbon emissions with a tax.

And there are plenty of people beating this up as if it is the end of the world.

[Greg Ward]

They once used to have a window tax and as far as I can see, the carbon tax fits into the same stupid mould.
The way things are going, the greens will bring back the window tax as they let out heat and will increase global warming

[Greg Ward]

Besides solar panels the state govt is advocating that far western schools use trees to help ventilate and limit heat instead of using air conditioners ... refer Daily Telegraph last Tues 20 Sept... Greg's wife

[Greg Ward]

I've had my thread hijacked when I went out to cover all the window with pine panels!
Greg

[woodbe]

I've had my thread hijacked when I went out to cover all the window with pine panels!
Greg

Haha!

Well, whatever. The State Government is right. If you stop the heat from getting inside in the first place by shading the building, then you don't need as much air-conditioning...

Should be in the specs: Plant trees 20 years before building. :wink:

[Bushmiller]

Haha!

Well, whatever. The State Government is right. If you stop the heat from getting inside in the first place by shading the building, then you don't need as much air-conditioning...

Should be in the specs: Plant trees 20 years before building. :wink:

Not only that, they have to be deciduous. For winter warmth!

Regards
Paul

[jimbur]

They once used to have a window tax and as far as I can see, the carbon tax fits into the same stupid mould.

Actually the window tax is a good example of how a tax can work (admittedly not what they wanted at the time). People cut down on windows, perhaps they'll do the same with carbon.
Cheers,
Jim

[damian]

The trouble is the impost, beit tax or permits, has to be about $40/tonne to make even gas worthwhile. So in fact it won't shut any coal generators down, at the very best it'll export our pollution mitigation with our polluters buying permits offshore.

If you believe the government can spend the revenue collected efficiently and effectively it may yield some useful programs via the new bureaucracies the government is setting up to administer the funds, but on past performance I'm not expectig that to happen. Rather more likely another jobs for labour mates scheme like the NBN.

The trouble with planting trees near buildings is increased maintenance, which may cost more than the power to run the air conditioners. Maybe not, I haven't run the numbers.

Incidentally refering back to the various self generating discussions, it would be interesting to look at the viability of biodiesel generator. 1 hectare of oil palms can yield up to 4700 liters of oil. be interesting to see how that plus a generator and battery bank would stack up to some of the alternatives.

[Greg Ward]

I watched a programme on how 'green' Germany is yesterday.

1. They have feed in tarrifs. You get paid 3X the retail price of electricity produced by your solar cells fed into the grid than you pay when you re-purchase electricity from the grid. This is great economics (and was copied by our wonderful labour NSW government before being canned as increasing electricity costs to everyone else by 10% or more) and means the rest of the community in Germany is subsidising the rich who can afford to pruchase the hardware

2. One town had gone green and proudly stated they were getting their electricity from solar, a few windmills AND hydro electric. Now..... this wasn't a new hydro scheme, they were just buying their electricity from an established one.... so the whole thing is a pea and thimble exercise. The hydro scheme was providing green energy anyway into the grid. Now they buy the electricity..... and suddenly they are green!

I just wish those pushing alternative energy would be honest; admit it is an expensive exercise and agree to pay the real cost of the green energy they are foisting on the community, thus putting their money where their mouths is. They should stop kidding themselves and trying to kid us, especially the young who are vulnerable to emotional claptrap.

Then they can have the moral high ground and condescend to us all from on high. But at least we won't have to pay for their principles.


Greg.

Greg

[woodbe]

These are valid points Greg, you cannot kick start a change in the community or economy without throwing some money at it.

If you look at the solar subsidies in Germany per head of population and compare it to the fossil fuel industry subsidies in Australia per head of population its easy to see why its so hard to get alternative energy started in Australia - our governments say one thing but quietly do the opposite. Even the support they do give is subject to knee jerk changes that result in enormous economic turmoil. Its no surprise that companies like the Solar Shop are hitting the wall under those circumstances.

Germany has a massive export business in Solar, we have almost none - our ideas left the country for lack of government support and now we're buying the resulting products back at a premium.

Don't forget that most of our country and population are about 20° closer to the equator than anywhere in Germany. That Germany can make a fist of Solar and create an industry with such lean insolation shines a light on our own lack of direction in that area.

woodbe.

[Bushmiller]

Incidentally refering back to the various self generating discussions, it would be interesting to look at the viability of biodiesel generator. 1 hectare of oil palms can yield up to 4700 liters of oil. be interesting to see how that plus a generator and battery bank would stack up to some of the alternatives.

Damian

Irrespective of how competitive this might be, I am not convinced of the wisdom in turning agricultural land formerly used for growing food into land for fuel production. As I have mentioned elsewhere, food is an equally contentious issue, although at least part of the problem is the uneven disritibution around the world.

Regards
Paul

[artme]

Just a point of interest

I was watching a program the other night where figures were being thrown around cocerning carbon emissions.

What I hadn't known to that point was the very act of mining, particularly open cut,of coal releases large amounts of "greenhouse gases".

[damian]

Damian

Irrespective of how competitive this might be, I am not convinced of the wisdom in turning agricultural land formerly used for growing food into land for fuel production. As I have mentioned elsewhere, food is an equally contentious issue, although at least part of the problem is the uneven disritibution around the world.

Regards
Paul

Yep, if you read back through my comments I've made the point at length that as petrol went up the US swapped to ethanol in a big way, pushing up hte price of corn and thus many processed foods in the US. They literally had poor people IN THE US having to cut back on food purchases. If it has that impact there how will it impact undeveloped countries ? We also see poppies and coffe being grown in preference to food in some undeveloped countries and creating food price increases.

That isn't what I was contemplating.

My plan is to sell my properties in Brisbane, move to small acreage, probably in a NSW coastal area, and go off grid. With the yield density of oil palms you may be able to produce enough bio diesel on site to meet your energy needs, say with an acres of planting. What I was saying is it'd be intersting to run the numbers on that scenerio.

artme:

Quite right. Massive amounts of methane are released from coal seams. This is what blew up that mine in NZ last year (last year?), and it's basically what they are drawing off in coal seam gas mining. In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.

[Bushmiller]

artme:

In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.

I used to live in NSW near an underground mine. They had huge problems with both underground water and methane gas. They built a huge water containment dam for the water they pumped out and issued the miners with wet suits because of the water they had to travel through to reach the coal face. That partially solved the water problem.

In the end, despite the installation of two more ventilation shafts much larger than the original vents, the mine was shut down as it was deemed to be unsafe.

The primary problem was that their original test bores had failed to identify the level of both the water and methane concentrations.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

That isn't what I was contemplating.

My plan is to sell my properties in Brisbane, move to small acreage, probably in a NSW coastal area, and go off grid. With the yield density of oil palms you may be able to produce enough bio diesel on site to meet your energy needs, say with an acres of planting. What I was saying is it'd be intersting to run the numbers on that scenerio.


I at least partially got the wrong end of the stick there. I just wish it was the first time I have ever done that:rolleyes:.

If some of the issues are price, sustainability and the environment you may be ok on the first two, but with the last one you still have emissions to contend with.

However, if you are interested in the bio diesel path, have you looked at recycling the waste oil product from the fish and chip shops? I think you may even have made reference to this in the past, but in any event, it may be cheaper still, not require the same level of energy input and not take up agricultural land.

This is always assuming the government doesn't cotton on and impose a tax:(.

Lastly, this may be viable for you in your situation, but it is not a proposition for the vast majority of the population and if we are considering the national problem we do need to find a more universal solution. nevertheless it would be an interesting exercise.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

I'm used to being misunderstood :) As long as you give me the opportunity to explain myself before you lop my head off so at least I'm executed for something I meant..... :)

Spent cooking oil is almost fought over these days. Many people with older diesel cars have cottoned onto it as a cheap fuel. Minimal processing and if you sweet talk the shopkeeper it's free! Much better than $1.50 a liter at the bowser.

The main reason I was thinking about the diesel option is the blugen thing. I'm still shocked at the cost of gas vs electricity output of that device, so it got me thinking about other assumptions we make, like that growing oil and burning it in a diesel generator must be dearer than other options.

[bluegum30]

Massive amounts of methane are released from coal seams. This is what blew up that mine in NZ last year (last year?), and it's basically what they are drawing off in coal seam gas mining. In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.
__________________

Damian i think i recall you worked in mining,the question that's on my mind is why don't they salvage this methane and we use it ,or is it only a small amount .

[damian]

Until recently gas was a waste product because we had no way of shipping it offshore. When you bought it you were basically paying for the infrastructure/delivery not the gas.

Now we have gas terminals and ships to cart it and the price overseas has gone up we're being sucked in to world parity pricing again (we know from experience how that ends).

The seam gas in mines isn't straightforward to capture. You either extract it after it's diluted with air or you interfere with the main game, shearing off coal to sell. Gas has a value but it's not that high yet. At some point it might become economic, but I don't think we're there yet.

I have never worked for a mining company, I worked in research and testing for the coal industry for some years. I am not in any way beholding to them, and it would never shift my opinion on anything. I will say I won't identify my current employer. They are imbeciles, but they are vindictive vengeful imbiciles, and I'm not quite ready yet to get sacked from this circus. I would never defend them though :) I just don't like some of the misinformation spread in propoganda so I perk up on coal to set the record straight from time to time. I'm equally ready the point out their sins, like f'ng coal seam gas mining....

Hope that clears it up.

[Ken-67]

Point 1. most Australian, when talking about Gillard, or even thinking about her, start to get steamed up and irate.
Point 2. when a person gets irate, they breath faster and heavier, thus expelling more carbon dioxide.
Solution. Get rid of Julia Gillard, and we will immediately reduce carbon (dioxide) emissions by half.

[Greg Ward]

I think she is wonderful.
She has given all Australians a common purpose and has helped bind us together in the same way the NSW Labor party assisted all in NSW to think as one.
Greg

[Wood en I]

Point 1. most Australian, when talking about Gillard, or even thinking about her, start to get steamed up and irate.
Point 2. when a person gets irate, they breath faster and heavier, thus expelling more carbon dioxide.
Solution. Get rid of Julia Gillard, and we will immediately reduce carbon (dioxide) emissions by half.


What he said.

[kraits]

if there are genuine conserns about carbon emisions why are we utilising uranium in this country?
here's an idea, lets stop importing products from the real polluters and make the products here but, in a greener fashion.think about it, more jobs for australians, more tax dollars for gillard without the introduction of a carbon tax, we all win.

[ColW]

here's an idea, lets stop importing products from the real polluters and make the products here

We will never see a labor government install such a level of protectionism, it would
likely send wages and conditions crashing, and send us on a collision course with
all sorts of free trade agreements, but individually we can make those choices.

[artme]

Have to agree with you Col, particularly since we seem to be the only donkeys playing on th very small level part of the level playing field!

We have heard many arguments for "green energy", one of them being job creation. I would like to see this particular argument proved.

I think a good argument for a carbon tax is that it is intended to reduce our reliance on transportable fossil fuels.To me this is no bad thing. I Would like to see extra levies on petrol and diesel. This would force people to be more circumspect about their fuel consumption and eventuall force people into purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles or, better still shift more people to use public transport.

Of course this would require a rethink on public transport services and the fares charged. Perhaps, to begin with, the providers of public transport could be given tax relief on fuel and vehicle purchases whil extra taxes or fees are charged for owners of prvate vehicles .


OK fellas, the scrum has been fed!!:D

[Bob38S]

Have to agree with you Col, particularly since we seem to be the only donkeys playing on th very small level part of the level playing field!

We have heard many arguments for "green energy", one of them being job creation. I would like to see this particular argument proved.

I think a good argument for a carbon tax is that it is intended to reduce our reliance on transportable fossil fuels.To me this is no bad thing. I Would like to see extra levies on petrol and diesel. This would force people to be more circumspect about their fuel consumption and eventuall force people into purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles or, better still shift more people to use public transport.

Of course this would require a rethink on public transport services and the fares charged. Perhaps, to begin with, the providers of public transport could be given tax relief on fuel and vehicle purchases whil extra taxes or fees are charged for owners of prvate vehicles .


OK fellas, the scrum has been fed!!:D

Hang on a minute - not all of us live in the big smoke.

Public transport = very limited in area, frequency and basically only daylight hours.
Rail = miles away
Fares - don't even start - try getting a flight from a regional centre which is only served by one outfit - it is cheaper to fly Brisbane to Adelaide than Hervey Bay to Brisbane.

I could go on but you get the idea.

[woodbe]

Hang on a minute - not all of us live in the big smoke.

Public transport = very limited in area, frequency and basically only daylight hours.
Rail = miles away
Fares - don't even start - try getting a flight from a regional centre which is only served by one outfit - it is cheaper to fly Brisbane to Adelaide than Hervey Bay to Brisbane.

I could go on but you get the idea.

I get where you're heading, but I don't think you get the idea.

For public transport to work, it has to solve the issues you raise. You're right to claim it doesn't currently do that for any of us, but if it did we would be a lot less reliant on our private transportation. The reason it doesn't do it now, is that Australia has under invested in this sort of infrastructure for many decades.

Public transport works well when it's done right. We don't have much of that in Australia, but there is some light at the end of some very long and dark tunnels. I would suggest the TransPerth N/S rail link as one example of good planning and execution.

Visit almost any city in Europe to have your eyes opened.

woodbe.

[damian]

I live 10 hilly kms from the nearest bus stop.

The trouble with deploying PT in Australia is that outside the cities our population is so thinly spread it's unviable. There is no comparible place on earth that has made public transport work. The numbers just won't fly.

The free trade thing is funny. The boarders were mostly opened by Hawke, our "great reformer". Most of our manufacturing closed during his rein, instead of collecting tarriffs we now subsidise the auto industry to a ridiculous extent, real wages dropped, unions became bigger and less relevant to the membership (and more overtly corrupt), the "entrepeneurs" made a lot of money, poverty doubled between 84 and 94, and for their final act the recession we had to have sent many people out of their homes and bankrupt.

But Labour is a socialist party representing the working class...isn't it ?

[woodbe]

I live 10 hilly kms from the nearest bus stop.

The trouble with deploying PT in Australia is that outside the cities our population is so thinly spread it's unviable. There is no comparible place on earth that has made public transport work. The numbers just won't fly.

There are plenty of examples of cities around the world with populations like ours that enjoy really good public transport.

I agree that it isn't easy to provide good PT to rural areas, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing of any consequence in both the cities (where most of the daily trips are undertaken anyway) and the rural areas.

Basically, if you have a crappy system, it won't get enough use to justify maintaining and extending it. That's why our system is a shambles. The potential customers tend to invest in private transport instead. It would now take a long time and a lot of public funds to build a system that would attract people back from private transport.

woodbe.

[damian]

yes but hammering fuel prices or regos penalises people in rural areas while offering them no viable alternative. That's the point Bob and I are trying to make.

If we were really serious about this the government would move ALL non geographically sensitive government positions out of ALL cities. The funny thing is it'd be revenue positive as office and facility rents are lower away from CBD's. People would still have to commute but the distances may be short and the absence of traffic would mean fuel consumption would decrease, not to mention the benifits to cost of living and quality of life for everyone.

[Bushmiller]

Public transport appears to be poor in major population centres. If you travel away from those centres it is no longer poor, it is either non-existant or close to non-existant.

By all means offer fuel incentives to public transport companies, but why penalise the population who live in country areas? That part of the population already pays more for most products around. Do they need a further imposition?

The nearest major centre to me (where there is some modest public transport) is 80km away. I am fortunate in that I don't have worry too much about travelling in, although my nature is such that I limit my travel and save up the reasons to travel that distance.

However, there would be many people in my region who just would not be able make the trip.

We seem to be locked into penalties as opposed to incentives.

I was once told, a long time ago, that Australia was a lucky country because everybody (a slight exaggeration) owned a car. The person imparting this knowledge smiled and said, "Actually, if you want to go anywhere, you have to own a car!"

Regards
Paul

[woodbe]

yes but hammering fuel prices or regos penalises people in rural areas while offering them no viable alternative. That's the point Bob and I are trying to make.


Oh. So sorry. I thought you were trying to say that good public transport is not possible in this country. Thanks for clearing that up.

feel free to carry on! :D

woodbe.

[kraits]

why can't anyone see that it's not about saving the environment, it's all about revenue raising, tax's, another tax, big deal, call it carbon tax or what you will, they are going to tax us on things your grandfather wouldn't and couldn't have thought of.

why do we accept it? imagine if they tried this in italy or Sth korea or some other country where there not afraid to start a riot and burn things when the government tries to exploit them. she'll be right mate, sure, no worries. cost of power going up, fuel going up, even trying to put water meters on farmers dams here in s.a, one day dont be suprised if we let it go your going to be wearing a metre on your face and been charge for the air you breath.

carbon tax is for mugs that beleive the governments propaganda and lies.this isn't what our forefather fought for in the great wars, this is criminal and its been sold to us by a facsist government and were letting it happen.

[Bob38S]

yes but hammering fuel prices or regos penalises people in rural areas while offering them no viable alternative. That's the point Bob and I are trying to make.

...

:2tsup:

[artme]

The public transport "system" is problematic, as some of you have pointed out. Part of the problem in this country is that we have enjoyed cheap personal transport forever and now that fuel prices are rising people are just begining to feel the pain and inconvenience. The reaction has ben totally predictable.

No one wants to penalise those who live in non urban areas, and that needs to be dealt with. The fact remains though, that the VAST majority of Australians live in ever spreading urban areas that should have good public trnasport. And yet, da after day we see endless lines of cars with single occupants traversing our cities. Crazy!!

I have been through Europe and a fair portion of South America and the States.

Public Transport in Europe is excellent, as Woodbe says. It is also very good in places like Rio de Janeiro, Sao Palo, Curitiba, Santiago, Valparaiso and Buenos Aires. New York is a breeze on public transport as is San Francisco and, from my limited experience, Los Angeles.

I wonder how effective it would be to provide FREE public transport in some circumstances and we would them be able to judge the savings in infrastructure costs, maintenance, and pollution.

Another of our problems is that public transport always seems to be an afterthought in the planning of cities and their spread.What is wrong with planning the transport routes first and then building around them? There is a brilliant example of this in Curitiba , Brasil.

MAybe I need to become the Minister for Transport.:q

[damian]

I got moved into the cbd this year. I've been living weekdays at my partners place at chapel hill, 9.5 kms from the cbd, and taking the bus.

This morning it took me 90 minutes to get to work.

It costs $3.70ish each way, I get coughed on, knocked about, incenced at the queue jumpers seat hoggers and other rude behaviour, and of course it's unreliable and uncomfortable.

In the 80's a calculation was done on sydney's trains and they found the railways would lose the same amount if they ran them for free. I suspect with the translink debarcle the same would apply to brisbane transport. The only good thing to come of it is the higher fairs ahve stopped so many people taking the bus I now get on the first one that comes (instead of it being full and driving by) and usually get a seat.

I am desperately trying to find another job to get out of the cbd. It's awful and terribly depressing.

Before you offer the usual smug, ill considered greenie solutions like walking or cycling my knees are stuffed. I can barely walk any distance so bikes and footpaths are out of the question, and with the imbecils on Brisbane's roads I'm not motorcycling either.

Perhapse we could convince the greenies to mass suicide for the good of the enviroment. That'd solve my problem.

It's possible the PT system could be fixed but it'd be nice if we went back to the pre war society where most people lived a few miles from work and both were more evenly distributed, ie decentralise (and sack all the desk pilots in the public service).

Extra cranky today. Apart from my miserable commute I've got barrett's syndrome apparently. Pathology results monday. Sigh.

[woodbe]

Before you offer the usual smug, ill considered greenie solutions like walking or cycling my knees are stuffed. I can barely walk any distance so bikes and footpaths are out of the question, and with the imbecils on Brisbane's roads I'm not motorcycling either.

I thought you didn't want to discuss PT?

All, or most of your PT problems would be cured by replacing the current system with one designed to actually cater for the load. The unpleasantness you describe is surely a symptom of an inadequate system.

Hope your health improves!

woodbe.

[damian]

I thought you didn't want to discuss PT?

No. No no no, no ....no no no..no.

I am all for public transport, the issue is with penalising people who don't use it and specifically people who have good reason not to use it.

The rural situation has already been mentioned. I have wrecked knees and walking to and from bus stops totals 2 kms a day. Sometimes I spend the whole weekend sitting down trying to recover from ym enforced walks. There are other people with other resons not to travel on it.

I've always been a big fan of the carrot rather than the stick. Unfortunately our politicians are so busy channelling our taxes into the pockets of their mates there isn't enough to put to good use providing social services we need, and PT is one of those.



All, or most of your PT problems would be cured by replacing the current system with one designed to actually cater for the load. The unpleasantness you describe is surely a symptom of an inadequate system.

Hope your health improves!

woodbe.

I agree, but someone has to pay for it, and my reading of the public service is that there is tremendous waste, nepotism and corruption at all levels of government. I worked for the NSW state government when I was young and have come back to the qld state public service more recently. I was utterly shocked (cynical though I am) at just what a basket case the place is. you could probably sack 3/4 of the people and not miss them.

Anyway...

[Ken-67]

I agree, but someone has to pay for it, and my reading of the public service is that there is tremendous waste, nepotism and corruption at all levels of government. I worked for the NSW state government when I was young and have come back to the qld state public service more recently. I was utterly shocked (cynical though I am) at just what a basket case the place is. you could probably sack 3/4 of the people and not miss them.

Anyway...

This reminds me of a story, years ago, when the 'workers' in a state government head office decided on an extended strike. Only a skeleton staff was left to deal with the public. After 24 hours they went back, not because they had won their claims, but because they realised the public had not noticed any difference in the service.
:doh:

[bluegum30]

''This reminds me of a story, years ago, when the 'workers' in a state government head office decided on an extended strike. Only a skeleton staff was left to deal with the public. After 24 hours they went back, not because they had won their claims, but because they realised the public had not noticed any difference in the service.''

More of these Ken67,please this cracked me up.:D

[Bushmiller]

Attention, attention Ken67, you are threatening to de-rail this thread:wink:.

........but I laughed too:D.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Potentially funny but it's been around for decades and I'm pretty sure it's an urban myth. :)

[jimbur]

Potentially funny but it's been around for decades and I'm pretty sure it's an urban myth. :)
Like the one where the construction worker was taken to court for cruelty to animals when he kicked a tortoise to death. His excuse was that it was following him around!!
Cheers,
Jim

[underfoot]

Potentially funny but it's been around for decades and I'm pretty sure it's an urban myth. :)
slightly off topic ...but Pt Maquarie (on the mid nth coast) has sacked its council and has been under administration ..(for various reasons) for a couple of years now..... many locals would like to vote in the administrators at the next election...

[powderpost]

During the past six months, I emailed six politicians on both sides and asked the same questions,

"Does Australia contribute 1.5% to the world level of air pollution? Are we aiming to half that? Does that mean in five years we, Australia, only contributes .75%? Does that warrant the trauma created by a carbon tax?"

All the answers were politically orientated, and completely ignored the questions. We are in deep shyte.

I still believe, as has already been mentioned, we should formulate a proposition and sell it to the world. But then again, that would be like the "level playing field", that was sold to us not to long back.
Jim

[Greg Ward]

Can we arrange them to take over the Federal Government as well?
They need more than administration, they need locking up.
Greg

[damian]

Just remember your neighbours hired them.

If people were properly educated, taught to think for themselves and to take even a casual interest before an election we would have a far better class of representative.

Each day the courier mail prints a column of opinions on the topic of the day by people in the street. It is one of the most horrifying things I've ever read. Both the level of ignorance and the vague and emotive motivations for their positions are just dreadful.

I really don't care if people disagree with me. I'm happy to respect and defend any well considered opinion. It's the ignorance that kills me.

[q9]

I got moved into the cbd this year. I've been living weekdays at my partners place at chapel hill, 9.5 kms from the cbd, and taking the bus.


There's your problem. You're not "in" the cbd if you are 9.5 k's out of it. Unless you are on a trainline serviced every 15minutes, you are too far away.



...It's possible the PT system could be fixed but it'd be nice if we went back to the pre war society where most people lived a few miles from work

...and you've solved your own problem :)

I "live" in toowoomba, but anytime I work in the city, I look for accomodation within walking distance. It doesn't really matter what it costs, as the time saved out of my day is well worth it.

I'd get weird comments from people that couldn't understand how I could drive back to toowoomba at weekends - it is so far away (2 hours on a slow day). Yet they'd happily sit on a bus for an hour - hour and a half EACH way, EVERY day of the week...which is crazier?

[Bushmiller]

I think for much of the time, we choose where we live like we choose our cars, totally inappropriately:).

Perhaps if money were not an object we would choose better, but probably not. Most of us are forced to live according to our budget. For good reason inner city areas are beyond the budget of most people. There is really no option, in the larger cities, but to commute.

I work directly with four colleagues. I live the closest to work which is about 15km (it takes me 15mins to get to work) two others are 55km away, the third is 65km away and the last one 85km. These other four live on the same route so they share the driving. It is their choice to live further afield. Even the one that lives 85km away is home in just over an hour after he leaves work.

When I last lived in a major city I was able to walk to work quicker than I could drive (and, no, that is not a reflection on my driving ability). The one way road systems were such that I had to drive in the opposite direction first to get to work.

I don't think we should be too critical of where anybody lives in relation to their work, but governments need to recognise that once they place financial impositions on travelling they are under an obligation to provide viable alternative travel. In Oz they have not really done this, as Damian has pointed out primarily because of the distances involved and, relatively speaking, the low population.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

I "live" in toowoomba, but anytime I work in the city, I look for accomodation within walking distance. It doesn't really matter what it costs, as the time saved out of my day is well worth it.

I'd get weird comments from people that couldn't understand how I could drive back to toowoomba at weekends - it is so far away (2 hours on a slow day). Yet they'd happily sit on a bus for an hour - hour and a half EACH way, EVERY day of the week...which is crazier?

People live and work where they do for a variety of reasons.

I was previously stationed in a suburb of Ipswich and the chap at the next desk drove from Toowoomba every day. He couldn't live in brisbane for the week not only because of the cost but being away from the wife and kids for 5 days at a time.

My house is 30 kms out. There is NO PT withing 10 kms, unless you count taxis.

It's quite common to travel 2 hours each way in Sydney. I'm taking between and hour and one and a half hours each way to travel a lousy 10 kms.

I don't presume to judge peoples life choices, what I do question is that our society has allowed itself to become so CBD centric. There are many people who would happily leave the cities if they could find work in rural areas.

I'm big on carrots, not so on sticks.

[Bushmiller]

There are many people who would happily leave the cities if they could find work in rural areas.



damian

Now there's a subject that is worthy of it's own thread if you would like to put it up. The question being whether they really would leave for work.:)

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Well if I ever find someone silly enough to buy my properties in Brisbane I'll be going with no work. I can just about get by without a job so I'm unusual in that respect, but I have heard people say time and again they only moved to the city, and indeed from NZ, because of the work opportunities.

Most of the people in the coal fields wouldn't live there without the big $.

I think it's safe to say if they could get a decent job with a decent wage in a nice scenic country town many would be off like a shot, especially those with a wife/family. Maybe young people want the excitment....such as it is.

I don't know. I don't understand how anyone votes for the labour party so I guess I'm out of touch with a signifigant portion of the population.

[Greg Ward]

No you're not
Thugs, bullies, criminals, do-gooders and misfits. They run our country and our councils and the labor party is loved by the lazy and the poor, misguided in their attraction, only a strong business community can generate wealth.

Greece is an example of how a country can be stuffed through poor government, a bloated public service, unaffordable pensions and benefits and strong union power.

We could be heading their way unless we have a change of Government soon. Thankfully Victoria, NSW and WA have got rid of their albatross Governments.

Greg


I don't know. I don't understand how anyone votes for the labour party so I guess I'm out of touch with a signifigant portion of the population.[/QUOTE]

[Waldo]

:whs: (Greg) And I'll join the ranks of being out of touch too Damian.

[rrobor]

People look at issues and say they are to hard. People suggest there will be job losses. They get up in arms and destroy the new.
Well what is this, Its the industrial revolution in the UK. They smashed the looms and did all sorts to stop progress. Well it didnt work then, and it wont work now.
We know man is using energy beyond that that can be sustained. We know man is tossing crap into the air beyond that that can be sustained.
So the questiion is simple, what do you want to do about that.
Its not a question of tree hugging or stopping progress.
Man has a unique gift, he can see the past and predict the future. He also has the gift of innovaion and invention. So should the two centuaries between 1900 and 2100 be the disaster years for man.
Man can not kill the planet, all he can do is kill himself and the majority of life that exists on it now.
The planet will recover to see out its days, whether man is there at the end or not, is our choice now.
argueing the toss as to climate change is arguing against the majority. Or the weather changes we are now seeing. Snow in NZ or rain in Queensland. No one can predict what the changes will be, all we can say is they will get more violent more often, and more deadly.

[Waldo]

Will they?

[damian]

"true believers". I think that lends a clue.

There was a time when workers were terribly exploited by their employers/landlords or whatever. The unions and the labour party played an important role in reining that in.

The trouble is that as far as I've seen socialist organisations tend to be lead by corrupt or incompetant despots. Every socilist government that I can recall degenerated into totalitarian dictatorship. You could forgive them incompetance if thier motives were true, but the unions have degenerated into unaccountable overtly and utterly corrupt institutions with only a casual interest in the members, and of course the labour representatives are drawn from this.

Hawke's government was a tremendous shift. They were probably the most radical right wing government we have had. The word radical in that sentence is always a problem, but their intentions were tainted further by their corruption and possibly a lack of understanding of what those "reforms" would bring, a few years of untethered economic boom followed by a tragic fall which damaged many peoples lives. The amalgamation of the unions resulted in them being divorced from members, the accord brought a drop in real wages. All the while the ruthless pillaged the country for thier own gain. We had a manufacturing industry once.

The labour party had learned that to win and hold government they could ignore their traditional base (who would never vote coalition) and focus spin, pork and "policy" on the socialist elites and perhaps a snow job to pick up some middle class votes. The results was 13 (?) years of labour and social devastation. The BOS notes a doubling of poverty in Australia between 1984 and 1994. So much for socialism.

Extreme capitalism brings a different evil. As I've said before I believe in moderation and balance, it just seems to me labour make a bigger hash of things than the coalition do. I have no great affection for either.

Howard's gun laws were dreadful, tiered hex, middle class welfare, a litany of disasters, but not on the scale of Hawke and now Rudd/Gillard.

2c.

[Bushmiller]

Some of you have found it incredible that anyone could vote labour. Others have pointed to how Labour might have good intentions, but arguably fail to deliver.

It is not easy. Some governments are blessed with good fortune that is no doing of their own (Howard) and others suffer disasters which are also no doing of their own (Gillard). Having said that the Gillard regime does seem to be making even more of a hash than most.

I have made no secret that not only am I a swinging voter, but also I only ever vote people out. I have never voted anybody in. Although I voted labour at the last election I would vote Liberal at the next if they can see their way to removing Abbott.

It is very unfortunate, but quite human, that politicians rarely do what is best for the nation as a whole. Their primarly concern is to keep themselves in office. Their argument is that only by doing the latter can they do the former. Maybe. Probably not as self-interest is a powerful player.

What is there after politics for an ex MP? Unless you have completed the pre-requisite terms of office (three I think) there is only what you did before. If you were wealthy or a lawyer, there is only further prosperity. If you were a tradesman probably nothing much unless you leave out your spell in parliament from your CV .

I am just trying to point out why politicians behave the way they do. Also see the well known phrase at the bottom of my post.

Regards
Paul

[justinmcf]

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.
Maybe if they spent 3 months on a construction site in the middle of summer, doing hard yakka, they might appreciate better what they should be doing as politicians.
I tune out to the petty whinging and bickering that is thrown down our throats on the idiot box every bloody night of the week.

Lawyer's make pretty decent coin, a lot more than politicians.
I find it hard to believe them, when they preach about making the country/world a better place for mankind, etc, etc.

Maybe it's the whole power trip thing, flying first class for free, chauffeur driven cars. Free this, free that!
The politicians these days behave more like rockstars than public servants.

What do you blokes reckon?
Why would you become a politician if you already are a practising lawyer?

Justin.

[Bushmiller]

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.


Justin

I don't know the stats either. I currently work with an ex MP. He is an electrician by trade. I was talking from personal experience in my earlier post.

My one time accountant is also the leader of a political party.

Why do they do it? Good question.

Regards
Paul

[underfoot]

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.
.
Yeah...me neither...I know a couple and have come to the conclusion that ...the desire to become a politician should automatically exclude you from ever becoming one

[Poppa]

I live in the Southern Highlands and work in the Sydney CBD. I made the decision to return to working in Sydney over 3 years ago, and at the time I evaluated what my options were regarding transport. I could take the train to and from Bowral each day - 5 hours per day on a train. Or I could drive to work each day - roughly 5 hours per day in the car (which I could reduce if I left home each morning at 5am and then didn't drive home again until 7pm - but that would leave me with less than 8.5 hours per day at home).

I knew that in my field any job I took would mean a minimum of 10 hours a day at work. So I decided that I would stay up in the city during the week, in spite of that meaning that I would not see my family during the week. It took me a year or two to get used to that emotional upheaval, but I still think it was the right decision.

Then I looked at options for living in the city during the week. Given the appalling state of PT in Sydney after 15 years of being mis-managed by the most corrupt and incompetent state government in Australia, I decided that I would live close enough to the CBD to walk to work. And that is what I do.

Would I choose to live up here if I didn't have to work to support my family? No, not in a pink fit. Would I prefer to be able to work close enough to my family so that I didn't have to live apart from them during the week? Absolutely. Unfortunately my circumstances are what they are (there are reasons which I won't go into), and thus I live the way I have to live.

If anyone believes that the government will do good things with the money that they collect with the carbon tax then they should look at how the government spends the tax they already collect. Wake up people - this is another tax! They'll do the same with this lot of money that they do with the rest of it - waste whatever they can't steal.

[Bushmiller]

Undie

I suspect it is a power quest in at least some measure. It is an authority that is handed to them when they are successful in winning an election.

However there are then a couple of problems. Firstly they are bound by the policies of their political persuasion ( and arguably without which they would not have been successful) whether they believe them or not. Therein lies the potential for their first deception.

Secondly, just because they were sufficiently articulate and persuasive enough to become elected, it does not mean they have any real ability. How does that old story go? The one that says in a company structure we are promoted to our own level of incompetence.

Clearly in politics that can happen very quickly. They can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk Then we are stuck with them and if they are in a safe seat we are stuck with them for a very long time.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Sick as a dog this week.

The trouble is to get into parliament you can either run as an independent and be limited in what you can achieve (unless you get a hung parliament) or you go up through the party system.

Labour - lawyer (flowery language, paper shuffling and lies), union official (corruption and thuggery), suck up get elected and held to ransom by party officials and factions. Anyone well intentioned bailed early, and well you see what's left.

Coalition - lawyer (see above), businessman (white collar thief), beholding to back room party officials and corporate mates all of whom expect payback.

So if you've hung around long enough to be a sitting member your either incompetant and incapable of getting a better paid job, an egomaniac/power mad, setting yourself up for cushy jobs post parliment (Beatie et al), filling up your swiss bank account (Hawke et al).

Unfortunately the system has sunk to the point where it prohibits anyone representative of the wider community actually getting power. The last one IMO was Gorton.

Apart from the oppressive invasion of privacy, the tremendous weight given to image and spin, the party system itself is riddled with thugs and thieves.

I'll say it again. The occupy protests are a complete waste of time, badly targeted and pointing at the wrong people. What we need is an electors education protest, driving some reality and engagement into the minds of the disinterested voters. We need the great majority of voters to:

understand the basics of how the system works

know ahead of the next election what each candidate in their electorate stands for

have some idea of where they stand on the issues

to then vote for a representative who reflects their ideas, whatever they may be.

Until we get there we might as well live in a dictatorship.

[Bushmiller]

I have a little information on solar power, as in that which you place on your roof and if you have got it right feed into the grid.

We had a solar power representative come around and give us a talk. So if I can put forward some of the information in point form:

The states have used their allocation of subsidised solar energy with the exception of QLD.

The RECs (renewable energy certificates, which is the means by which you may be entitled to assistence), vary in number according to the solar zone you live in and in value because they are traded on the share market. Currently they are around $28. A month or so ago they were $22, but during their history they have fluctuated.

44c is the price for feeding back into the grid set by the government, but some retailers are offering more. This is at their discretion and normally is a result of competition. Where we are there is only one retailer available so it's 44c, but in other areas it could be 50c.

Where a price has been set, it should continue even though the scheme is no longer available.

I asked about how long 44c would be paid and there is for the moment some ambiguity here. The solar company's representative said until 2028. I checked with Ergon and they said it was up for review all the time and there was no guarantee.

I checked on the net with the Electricity Act 2008 (ammended) and in Part 3, section 10 and section 11 it appears to say that whatever price is contracted, will continue until 2028 or for twenty years. I have to pursue this one on Monday as I was unable to get back to Ergon today.

The tarrif (44c) is paid on any surplus power fed into the grid. Not on the aggregate and not on gross power generated.

I still have to check whether I would be entitled to off peak hot water if I enetered into this scheme. I believe this may disappear.

There are three types of PV (photovoltaic) panels

Mono Crystalline. These are the best, will be more expensive, require fewer panels for a given output and will have the best longevity (also reflected in the longest guarantees.)

Poly Crystalline. The next best and still worth considering.

Thin Film. Very cheap. Be wary. You may not even be getting what you are paying for here. To my mind you need them to last a minimum of twenty years. It seems unlikely these will last. Also their production of power is significantly less than the other two types of cell.

Hope this will help anybody contemplating embarking on this scheme.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Great information, thanks!

[Bushmiller]

Just a little extra information following another couple of phone calls.

The federal government sets the subsidy. It is 44c per kwh. It is set in concrete untill 2028 as the ammended electricty act of 2008 states. If the act was repealed or altered this could change the rate, but it would need an act of parliament.

In reality I can't imagine this happening for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the government has to reduce it's carbon emissions somehow and this was also a commitment made under the Kyoto arrangement.

Secondly, the 44c subsidy is fixed and while it looks very attractive for the moment, by 2028 I would expect the price the consumer pays for electricity to be in excess of that. It could easily be 50c per kwh.

However that would mean your system, assuming it is still functioning, would be saving that off your bill. Any excess generated would presumeably (my guess) be bought at the wholesale rate, which might by that time be 10c to 15c per kwh.

The wholesale price of electricity varies from state to state, but on average for the year, at this time, is around 3c to 4c per kwh! Currently our retail price to the consumer is 22c.

Regards
Paul

[woodbe]

The federal government sets the subsidy. It is 44c per kwh. It is set in concrete untill 2028 as the ammended electricty act of 2008 states. If the act was repealed or altered this could change the rate, but it would need an act of parliament.


I think you will find that it is the State and Territory Governments who set the subsidy. There's a good table of the current situation state by state (http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/feedintariff.php#fit-table) on the energymatters website.

I wouldn't hold too much stead on the ending date of the programs as long as you have peace of mind until theoretical payback. It looks pretty certain that the price we pay for power by then will be well in excess of the FIT. If the government holds the solar generators to the FIT (and don't adjust the rate) it may even land up as a disadvantage: Maybe in 20 years we could pay 60c+ and get 44c; doesn't look so good then.

woodbe

[Bushmiller]

Woodbe

A good link.

One of the reasons only QLD still has the scheme available is that it elected to use a net feed in tarrif. In other words at any moment of the day excess generation above your useage is bought by the retailer at 44c (Ergon for example in our area).

Other states, but not all, had a gross feed tarrif which meant that all power generated was bought at the feed in tarrif (44c) and any power consumed was paid for at the normal rate (around 22c). This was clearly most attractive and arguably over generous. It is probably the main reason that the allocation was used fairly quickly in those states.

On the subject of future electricty pricing, if the rate goes to, for arguments sake 50c per kwh, your solar system will be saving you that much. This would be power for free if the system paid for itself during the intervening years.

The only thing it will not be doing is earning you significant income. Your electricty bill, depending on your system's capability will be subsidised.

Regards
Paul

[woodbe]

On the subject of future electricty pricing, if the rate goes to, for arguments sake 50c per kwh, your solar system will be saving you that much. This would be power for free if the system paid for itself during the intervening years.

Paul,

If the FIT remains at 44c and the price for power goes to 50c, then you would get 6c less for every kwh you export than what you pay for the power you import. In a NET FIT meter, these are separate registers in the meter, and are read separately by the meter reader. Whether this eliminates the bill depends upon the size of the system and the amounts imported and exported.

Installations that produce the same kwh as consumed over a year would then go from a net income situation to a net expense situation. Those that just manage to eliminate their bill currently will see it steadily grow as the power prices rise (assuming their consumption remains the same)

At any rate, it would certainly offset part of the bill but it would not be as overwhelmingly positive as the current scenario in the states that still offer FIT to new installations.

woodbe

[Bushmiller]

Woodbe

That is pretty much correct. In addition to changes in the cost of power there are a few other variables.

Different households have differing consumptions of electricity and differing times as to when that power might be used.

Take a household with two people where both work during the day. During the hours of 9 to 4 when most of the solar energy is generated, nearly all that energy will be fed into the grid. Probably the only consumtion would be from the fridge and that would be minimal (no one opening the door). This would provide the best result for the consumer.

However, take a household where there is a family of five with only one adult working and three small children at home and the oucome is very different. Usage during the day is now high and possibly no generation is returned to the grid.

Ideally solar users should manage their power so that daytime consumption is minimised. Once the retail price per kwh exceeds the feed in tarrif the philosophy should be reversed.

In practice this would be difficult to achieve 100% and there would only be a tendency to have either day or night bias.

Off-peak tarrifs also further complicate how the use of power should be managed.

Regards
Paul

[woodbe]

Yep. Once the cost of power exceeds the FIT, you're better off if your generated power gets used in the home than exported only to be re-imported later. Not so easy for most.

Dunno how they manage offpeak in Qld (I thought they used time-of-use instead of offpeak up there?) but down here offpeak is a separate meter, separate power circuit in the home, and a separate line on the bill. The offpeak circuit is remotely turned on for several hours a night by the electricity authority.

woodbe