# Carbon Trading: How does it work?



## korrupt_1 (17 July 2008)

Been hearing plenty about Carbon Trading lately.

I've heard that it will be (or already is) a tradable instrument on some exchanges?

So, we're going to be paying more tax to reduce carbon... how does this tax that I'm paying help clean the environment up?

Yeh, sure it will go to the companies that pollute so they can build better infrastructure to minimise carbon emissions, but who will regulate the money they receive?

You all know about "carbon offset credits"... why should I feel better by giving my hard earn money to some 'organisation' that will 'manage' it.... to me it feels like sinners buying forgiveness... "here, take my money,... i'm not guilty anymore. It's someone elses' problem now"

So back to the heading, how does carbon trading work? How is it 'tradable'? It's not like it's a desirable commodity is it?


----------



## Julia (17 July 2008)

Korrupt, here's an outline from one of the papers today.


----------



## moXJO (17 July 2008)

It works by all the costs being passed on to the consumer.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

One thing most people won't realise is that with total emissions now capped, it is completely pointless for anyone to make an uneconomic decision to reduce their emissions. 

No matter how much you cut your emissions, national emissions will remain exactly the same since they are effectively at a pre-determined level.

It's like saying that you're going to spend exactly $1000 this week. Then you go shopping and save $50 buying specials. All that means is you now need to blow another $50 on the pokies or whatever - you're spending a total of $1000 no matter what.

So what I'm saying is that in this new world we're headed into, make any decision to reduce emissions on purely economic grounds after the cost of carbon is included. Anything else is pointless.


----------



## juw177 (18 July 2008)

korrupt_1 said:


> You all know about "carbon offset credits"... why should I feel better by giving my hard earn money to some 'organisation' that will 'manage' it.... to me it feels like sinners buying forgiveness... "here, take my money,... i'm not guilty anymore. It's someone elses' problem now"




No, I think you are a bit confused. The businesses have to pay to pollute. Not us.

The only known method to stop humans from doing irresponsible things for a profit is to enforce a monetary penalty on it.

Carbon trading is a fair way to enforce it. The idea is businesses will invest in cleaner technologies to save carbon permit costs. But it is not without its problems of course.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

If the government were doing its job properly, we wouldn't need this thread.
We should all know how the proposed scheme is intended to work.
Apart from people like you, Smurf, I doubt many of us have any idea.
I'm just really taken aback at the projected 16% rise in electricity charges for a start!


----------



## Buddy (18 July 2008)

Juw, absolute rubbish.
Are you one of the left wing ideological driven bleeding hearts?
Let me correct you before anything else by stating that C02 in NOT a pollutant. In fact it essential for life on this planet! Have any of you dimwits ever thought of what would happen if CO2 levels went down instead of up?

This so called carbon tax is just that. Another tax.  It will do nothing to "save the world", and in fact we are probably heading for the biggest depression since Adam was in the caves, with this stupid idea.  It will do absolutely nothing to stop the increase in CO2 levels, let alone lower the total CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Now on to something more relevant to this thread.  Smurf, do you know how the coal export industry and LNG export industries are to be treated?  Are they to be "taxed" on the total content of the CO2 in their export product or just the CO2 that they emit in the the mining, treatment and export of the product?  If they are taxed on the total CO2 content then that is not fair! They are not the ones burning the product, it is the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.  They are the ones that should be taxed, not the exporter! Please correct me if I am wrong on this but I think my question justifies Julia's statement "If the government were doing its job properly........". Very few of us really understand the mumbo jumbo behind this scheme.  And that's hardly surprising, considering it has been invented by "economists, bureaucrats, and polies". By definition it was always going to be a big pile of rubbish.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

Julia said:


> If the government were doing its job properly, we wouldn't need this thread.
> We should all know how the proposed scheme is intended to work.
> Apart from people like you, Smurf, I doubt many of us have any idea.
> I'm just really taken aback at the projected 16% rise in electricity charges for a start!



Totally agreed that community understanding of this issue is very low and government needs to be doing better. 

Electricity generation is the single largest source of emissions and the one most easily cleaned up, hence the general focus on it. Easiest to clean up for two reasons - a few very large sources of the emissions (power stations) would be much easier to fit capture technology to than, say, 10 million cars. 

And you can use solar, wind, hydro etc to generate electricity with the consumer being unaware that anything has changed. It makes no difference if my computer is running on power from Morinna (a tiny 102 year old hydro plant in Tas), Loy Yang (a massive brown coal plant in Vic running since 1984) or Pelican Point (a medium size modern gas-fired plant in SA). 

You may not realise it, but if you live in Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas or SA and are on the grid then ultimately you're connected to Morinna, Loy Yang, Pelican Point and all the others. It's all one big system and 99.999% of people would have no idea which power station increased its output when they turned the toaster on this morning. And there's no reason for them to know, or care, since it's exactly the same thing being produced by all of them - electricity.

The industry generally makes investment decisions assuming the long term price of wholesale electricity to be about $40 per MWh. 

But if we add a $20 carbon cost (per tonne) then that will increase average industry costs to around $60 per MWh (it's close to 1 tonne of CO2 per MWh on average).

*And so $60 becomes the market price which consumers will pay and upon which decisions will be based. That's the key point of how this all works.*

So if you have the opportunity to build a renewable source of power at $55 then previously it wasn't economic and so you didn't build it. But now it's economic and so you build it. There's your CO2 saving. And because of the higher prices, consumers will find that solar hot water, insulation, heat pumps etc become more financially attractive and so more will be installed. More CO2 saved. 

The market price of the permits will adjust through normal market (like the ASX) operations to find that balance point where sufficient investment in CO2reduction occurs. So overall it's simply using a financial market to address an environmental problem. How the emission reductions occur will be determined by consumers and industry based on what makes financial sense. 

All the government is doing is this (my words) - "we've capped total emissions to x level and will issue permits for that. Up to you how you manage that situation - either buy permits at the market price or you can't pollute". 

Those who find it cheaper to cut emissions than buy permits will presumably do so, thus reducing emissions and demand for the permits. Those with a higher cost of cutting emissions (or who simply can't) will just pay up. So the emissions end up being limited to where the CO2 emission is of greatest economic value. 

As for fuel exports, it's emissions within Australia that count to my understanding. The trouble is with aluminium etc - all the emissions occur in Australia even when the consumption is overseas. At least with coal most of the emissions will be counted as being somewhere other than Australia. In the same way we, not Saudi Arabia, get the blame for petrol etc.

I don't know if that explanation is really going to help, but I'm trying. I should point out that I'm not advocating this scheme, only trying to explain how it works.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> Let me correct you before anything else by stating that C02 in NOT a pollutant. In fact it essential for life on this planet!




Yes, it’s essential for life (of plants), but needs to be kept at a natural, balanced level. People and animals breathe out CO2, and plants convert it back in to oxygen that we breathe, and the cycle continues. But people have increased this natural level of CO2 with all the burning of fossil fuels, and we’ve been cutting down the forests which are needed to absorb it. If this practice is allowed to continue, CO2 will increase at an ever increasing rate. We need to get the CO2 back to a sustainable level.



Buddy said:


> This so called carbon tax is just that. Another tax.  It will do nothing to "save the world", and in fact we are probably heading for the biggest depression since Adam was in the caves, with this stupid idea.  It will do absolutely nothing to stop the increase in CO2 levels, let alone lower the total CO2 content of the atmosphere.




So you know more about the situation than all the world’s experts in the climate science field? 

Any depression that happens will be the result of the sub-prime mortgage situation, and because of increasing energy costs. The increase in energy costs is being driven by an ever increasing global demand, and peak oil. Oil prices have increased enormously for a long time now, so is nothing to do with any carbon tax. The proposed carbon tax on petrol is 5c – that’s hardly going to make much difference at all, and is certainly not going to be the cause a depression.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Julia said:


> I'm just really taken aback at the projected 16% rise in electricity charges for a start!




Change to green electricity then. Or use less. It's not really going to add that much to the cost anyway - only like the cost of of cup of coffee per week.


----------



## lusk (18 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Electricity generation is the single largest source of emissions and the one most easily cleaned up, hence the general focus on it. Easiest to clean up for two reasons - a few very large sources of the emissions (power stations) would be much easier to fit capture technology to than, say, 10 million cars.




I can't understand why that just don't offer a few billion dollars to powerstations to sequestrate CO2 and get it over with or would that be too easy. Instead they decide to introduce something that could clip the wings of the economy and create headaches for everyone.


----------



## gfresh (18 July 2008)

I've been paying for "green" energy for a couple of years.. I don't mind paying extra, as one way or another we will anyhow. We are all paying extra as a result of environmental change anyhow in the price of our food, in the cost of water, the costs to fix these issues, and probably in our health care. This may only get worse. 

I think Smurf's explanation seems to make sense.. it think it will have some sort of effect over time, and the only real way to force people to be environmentally friendly, will be to cost them *not* to be so.  

Wasn't there some sort of offsetting idea as well? Where a company can choose to invest in environmentally friendly scheme (which may not be directly related to it's own business), to offset it's own emissions? This would I imagine spark at least some sort of carrot to try new technologies, and new forms of energy - which has been severely lagging in this country. 

In 20 years time we'll probably be all looking back, wondering how we got by without such a scheme (or whatever it ends up becoming), because frankly, the rest of the world will be doing the same. Maybe this scheme will turn out to be not ideal, but the population does want some sort of action, so which is it? 

I have already seen several (conservative) commentators from overseas comment that our stance is a positive step forward, and I don't think it will be long before other countries are adopting similar, because they're not so pig-headed as we are. Locally of course, this is the end of the world, the sky is falling in, and we're all going to be so poor it hurts. Oh it effects my money, what about me, poor me, I will suffer. Fear. Fear. Fear. 

Yes, the cost is a concern to me also in many ways, but I'll deal with it.. but the cliche "what is the greater concern" for our kids and grandkids if the planet is f'ed. They're the ones who will be worrying about it, not most of us, as we'll be gone. 

I know there are some older people who seem to dislike any form of change, and it will be pretty biased on any investment forum, however I think amongst some of the younger generation there is a real sense of "this is what needs to be done", even if it will cost them $$. Again, they will be the ones dealing with the consequences if absolutely nothing is done, so for those older to decide that it's a stupid idea seems heavy-handed.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

lusk said:


> I can't understand why that just don't offer a few billion dollars to powerstations to sequestrate CO2 and get it over with or would that be too easy. Instead they decide to introduce something that could clip the wings of the economy and create headaches for everyone.




What I can't understand is why George Bush is spending billions of $ on this Iraq war when he chould be using that money to reduce the Americans oil dependence instead. He has already spent in excess of $550 Billion on this war, and estimates suggest it could end up costing in excess of $1 Trillion!!! Just imagine how much good he could have done by spending it on fixing climate change instead.


----------



## Buddy (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Yes, it’s essential for life (of plants), but needs to be kept at a natural, balanced level. People and animals breathe out CO2, and plants convert it back in to oxygen that we breathe, and the cycle continues. But people have increased this natural level of CO2 with all the burning of fossil fuels, and we’ve been cutting down the forests which are needed to absorb it. If this practice is allowed to continue, CO2 will increase at an ever increasing rate. We need to get the CO2 back to a sustainable level.
> 
> 
> So you know more about the situation than all the world’s experts in the climate science field?
> ...




So where was I talking about petrol? I dont give a poop about petrol prices.  I am more concerned about the impact of this tax on business, mining, industrial production, export industry, etc. (And I'll leave Smurf to explain the issues with power generation & CO2 - he/she appears to have a very good understanding of that area). Yes, sure, the way various financial bodies are (mis)managing money, or should I say credit, is going to impact things.  But if you think this new tax in Australia is not going to adversely impact the above, you are dreaming.

And the answer to your second para is of course ......... Yes! And you are missing my first point chum. All I said was CO2 is not a pollutant.  Get it? 


Stop trying to lecture me m8. I have never said anything about CO2 levels, other than to say that if it was going in the oppposite direction we would be is real serious trouble. And before any more of you jump on my back, I am not saying that nothing should be done to lower CO2 levels, I am saying that this is the wrong approach, and governments will simply use this as a revenue scheme.  Already the current mob have said that (a) not all money collected will be used to promote alternative energy (with a view to lowering CO2 emmissions), and, (b) Krudd has admitted that he cannot provide any numbers on what this tax will do to CO2 levels.  So they are just doing it on a wing and a prayer!  Now that's a good way to run the place!

Anyway, this is irrelevant.  What I would really like to know is exactly how export industries (coal, LNG, food) are taxed? As Julia said,   "If the government were doing its job properly, we wouldn't need this thread." By the way, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and poops like a duck, what is it?  A duck!  Same goes for tax.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Change to green electricity then. Or use less. It's not really going to add that much to the cost anyway - only like the cost of of cup of coffee per week.



Unless you have some uncanny ability to know what I use electricity for, your suggestion that the additional cost will equate a cup of coffee is simply silly.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Unless you have some uncanny ability to know what I use electricity for, your suggestion that the additional cost will equate a cup of coffee is simply silly.




Well you never stated how much you use. That's about what it cost's for the average home consumer to switch to green electricity. But you could be running an aluminium smelter in your back yard for all I know - I can't be expected to know that.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> So where was I talking about petrol? I dont give a poop about petrol prices.  I am more concerned about the impact of this tax on business, mining, industrial production, export industry, etc. (And I'll leave Smurf to explain the issues with power generation & CO2 - he/she appears to have a very good understanding of that area). Yes, sure, the way various financial bodies are (mis)managing money, or should I say credit, is going to impact things.  But if you think this new tax in Australia is not going to adversely impact the above, you are dreaming.




It will have an impact, but I believe the impact will be MINIMAL compared the other issues I stated. If you don’t think that GLOBAL DEMAND is BY FAR the greatest cost contributor, then it’s YOU that’s dreaming and can’t see the blooming obvious.



Buddy said:


> And the answer to your second para is of course ......... Yes! And you are missing my first point chum. All I said was CO2 is not a pollutant.  Get it?




No, I didn’t miss your point, bud. It depends on the QUANTITY of it. In HIGH quantities it IS a pollutant. At NORMAL levels it’s not. Get it? Open a CO2 gas cylinder in your room and see just how long you live for!


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> So where was I talking about petrol? I dont give a poop about petrol prices.  I am more concerned about the impact of this tax on business, mining, industrial production, export industry, etc. (And I'll leave Smurf to explain the issues with power generation & CO2 - he/she appears to have a very good understanding of that area). Yes, sure, the way various financial bodies are (mis)managing money, or should I say credit, is going to impact things.  But if you think this new tax in Australia is not going to adversely impact the above, you are dreaming.




Ok, maybe you are referring to general business and not energy production. If so, then I think you would find that if some industry can't make the changes without enourmous cost, than the government will give most likely give them exemptions, as the last thing the government would want to do is destroy the enonomy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Change to green electricity then. Or use less. It's not really going to add that much to the cost anyway - only like the cost of of cup of coffee per week.



I should point out that it's a 50% rise in the wholesale power price and that is essentially what heavy industry is paying.

For example, power generator X currently has a contract for Y MW to supply Z with baseload energy at $34 per MWh. That represents about 24% of Z's total cost of doing business (that's total cost, not profit). They couldn't recover that loss even if they sacked literally half their workforce and somehow maintained production. And they can't increase their selling price unless globalisation and the free trade is undone first. 

So three options here. 1. Government assistance. 2. X (the power generator) takes the loss and drops their real price from $34 to $14 to offset a $20 carbon cost. 3. Z relocates to a country that has electricity around the present price (there's plenty to choose from) and simply ships the raw materials to there.

The above is a real situation in Australia. All I've done is removed the company names.

At the household level, there's a lot of regional variation too. If you're in a cool climate and don't have a heat pump or wood heater then you're in trouble big time. Already there are a lot of situations especially in Tas (and presumably Vic) with pensioners etc harming their health by shivering through winter. 

I know of quite a few situations where people limit their power use to, say, $50 a week and in a rental house with no insulation that doesn't come close to keeping you warm especially if you're home most of the time. 

But if you're in a warmer climate or have heat pump / gas / wood then it's not such a worry. 

Also some big regional economic differences too. 

Vic - The state's economy shouldn't suffer too much overall apart from the Latrobe Valley. 

SA and NT not such a big deal there apart from household poverty issues with air-conditioning especially in rentals with poor insulation. Uranium's a massive plus assuming the rest of the world follows at some point.

WA, NSW and Qld - here comes trouble. The gas industry will benefit in WA and Qld but just about everything else loses. The NSW government's financial house of cards seems to have caught fire - not exactly an unforeseen event.

Tas - Interesting times ahead - a lot of conflicting forces there. Politically, it's a very difficult situation for all parties and economically it's quite complex. Overall the state is better positioned economically for this than most of the rest. How government handles it will determine a lot of what happens.


----------



## Buddy (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> It will have an impact, but I believe the impact will be MINIMAL compared the other issues I stated. If you don’t think that GLOBAL DEMAND is BY FAR the greatest cost contributor, then it’s YOU that’s dreaming and can’t see the blooming obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn’t miss your point, bud. It depends on the QUANTITY of it. In HIGH quantities it IS a pollutant. At NORMAL levels it’s not. Get it? Open a CO2 gas cylinder in your room and see just how long you live for!




Dreaming am I Alter, and you certainly have one? 
So Don Voelte from Woodside must also be dreaming. Or should I say having nightmares.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24037785-601,00.html
So I guess you are saying $60B is minimal impact.  And from an industry that is part of the solution. Such great policy (not).

And CO2 is not a pollutant.  "Open a CO2 gas cylinder in your room and see just how long you live for!" is a ridiculous comparison and absurd.  No one ever in this debate has ever said that CO2 would get to those levels.  You are just fear mongering and talking rubbish!

I notice no one has answered my question yet.  More proof that what Julia says, is correct.  Which is the whole point of what this topic is supposed to be.

And I have another question for krudd, gannet, parret, duck, giblet and Co.  So, if you are going to tax exports, why are you not taxing imports from China where the CO2 is emitted in the first place? Now that would put the proverbial cat amongst the working family pidgeons.  Actually, its probably not a bad idea because it would make developed (first world) country industries more competitive - now that would have a positive impact on lowering overall CO2 levels. 

As I said in my last post - its a duck!


----------



## Buddy (18 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> WA, NSW and Qld - here comes trouble. The gas industry will benefit in WA and Qld but just about everything else loses. The NSW government's financial house of cards seems to have caught fire - not exactly an unforeseen event.




Smurf,
I dont understand why you say the gas industry willl benefit. How is that?  Do you know the answer to the question I posed - will gas exporters, such as Woodside, get taxed on the total CO2 level of their export or just the bit that they generate in the production? Likewise for coal exporters?
In my last post I quoted an article from The Australian, where Don Voelte talks about the impact on the LNG industry.  That hardly seems like a "benefit" to me.


----------



## korrupt_1 (18 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> No, I think you are a bit confused. The businesses have to pay to pollute. Not us.




Hi Juw177,

Look at this website I googled up:

http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Carbon-Offset

Read point #7


> Buy the offset! Most offset providers sell through the Internet, so you’ll be able to buy with a credit card and get confirmation of your new clean-living, clean-driving status within minutes.





My point is... who is going to regulate what we pay someone to 'clean the environment up'?... personally I think 'paying' for a carbon offset credit is a load of rubbish... where is my hard earned money going and how can I be sure that it's going to be spent on cleaning the environment up?


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Hi Smurf,

It’s good to see an intelligent, considered response on the issue. 



Smurf1976 said:


> I should point out that it's a 50% rise in the wholesale power price and that is essentially what heavy industry is paying.




That’s interesting. So how are the energy companies supplying green electricity for such a small additional fee for normal households? Is the government subsidising most of the cost? Surely they wouldn’t be selling it at a loss.

Well there seem to be quite a few issues that the government will need to address. Hopefully they’ll come up with some workable solution in the end.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Well you never stated how much you use. That's about what it cost's for the average home consumer to switch to green electricity. But you could be running an aluminium smelter in your back yard for all I know - I can't be expected to know that.



Household consumption varies hugely with lifestyle, climate and what energy sources are used. 

Following are figures are typical for a 3 bedroom house in Hobart, a relatively cool climate. Assume 2 adults, one working full time, one part time, and 2 children. No special measures taken to conserve energy other than insulation. No timers in the shower etc.

Space heating - 12,000 kWh per annum
Hot water - 5,000 kWh per annum
All other household energy - 5,000 kWh per annum.

So if all-electric they'll use about 22,000 kWh per annum. A fairly high rate of consumption by national standards but not unusual in a cool climate.

A heat pump for heating would bring this down to 14,000 kWh. 

Or using a wood heater for heating would bring the electricity use down to 10,000 kWh at the expense of typically 6 tonnes of wood.

On the other hand, if they have a wood heater, LPG cook top and heat pump water heater then they'd use only 6,000 kWh of electricity.

So there's a big difference in the same house depending on what energy source they use to heat the house, heat water and cook with. 

In places with piped natural gas, you could use that for all heat sources and get the total electricity consumption down to about 4,000 kWh per annum. Such figures are quite common in Victoria and other places with either cheap gas or a warm climate.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> Smurf,
> I dont understand why you say the gas industry willl benefit. How is that?



A boom in gas-fired power generation which will, in practice, be taxed at aout 40% the rate applying to coal-fired generation. That's due to higher efficiency and the lower carbon content of the gas.

This may not bring a net benefit to the gas industry considering the LNG issue, but it puts WA in a better position than a coal dependent state like NSW where it's all loss and no real offset. 

To my understanding, emissions from the LNG plant will count but emissions from actually burning the gas overseas don't.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Hi Smurf,
> 
> It’s good to see an intelligent, considered response on the issue.
> 
> ...



Electricity prices vary but typically it's around $150 per MWh for household use at continuous supply (not off-peak) rates. That does vary a lot around the country though.

But of that $150, only about a third of that is for the wholesale electricity. The rest is transmission, distribution (about 40% of the total cost), retail margin etc.

So if the wholesale price goes from $40 (coal) to $65 (bottom end for wind) then the $25 change doesn't make a huge difference at the household level - it becomes $150 versus $175.

It's like most things. The wholesale commodity is worth a lot less than the retail price once all the extras like (in the case of electricity) distribution, metering, retail, transmission etc are added in.

Trouble is, for industry they don't need distribution or much retail either. And baseload transmission and generation works out a lot cheaper than supplying the varying loads of households. So an extra $20 or $25 per MWh is a massive difference for industry.

In terms of industry, I'm refering to heavy industry like steel works, aluminium smelters, paper mills, zinc smelters etc and not the sorts of things you find in "industrial" areas of cities with lots of warehouses and the like.

For "green power", there's a hidden subsidy from fossil fuel generation in that it provides the back-up when the wind is not blowing etc. It's fine if 10% of the energy is green, but costs increase dramatically if you want (say) 50% of the total grid to be green power. And it would cost an outright fortune to go to 100%. 

Even oil tends to still be cheaper at those very high renewable % usage levels despite wind being a quarter the cost of oil at lower concentrations of use in the grid. In other words, the big problem is that the costs of green energy go UP as use increases, not down as applies to most industries.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> Dreaming am I Alter, and you certainly have one?




Well you just seemed to have such a great arrogance, that I thought I’d reply in a tone of voice that you may be able to understand.



Buddy said:


> And CO2 is not a pollutant.  "Open a CO2 gas cylinder in your room and see just how long you live for!" is a ridiculous comparison and absurd.  No one ever in this debate has ever said that CO2 would get to those levels.  You are just fear mongering and talking rubbish!




I never said it’d get to those levels - don’t be ridiculous! I was just making a point that it’s not totally harmless as you seem to be making out. You’re arguments about the ‘dangers’ of *lowering *CO2 are just as absurd!

We do know though that the levels we currently have are affecting the environment, and we need to reduce those levels. The world’s best scientists say it is so, and they would know much more about the issue that you or I, so we should believe what they say.

The cost of acting NOW will be much less than the cost of acting LATER, so the sooner we act the better. Short term pain for long term gain.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> What I can't understand is why George Bush is spending billions of $ on this Iraq war when he chould be using that money to reduce the Americans oil dependence instead. He has already spent in excess of $550 Billion on this war, and estimates suggest it could end up costing in excess of $1 Trillion!!! Just imagine how much good he could have done by spending it on fixing climate change instead.



Just think how much Australia could have achieved if we'd spent the past 16 years developing a proper energy policy rather than the ideologically driven step of making the industry "competitive" and less technically efficient in the process.

The "reforms" of the 1990's and this decade have delivered market prices no lower than those expected under a monopoly situation (except in Victoria) whilst lowering generator technical efficiency and increasing greenhouse gas emissions as a result.

With all the cost and effort of this system, we could have actually built some decent renewable generation instead. And we could be running the coal and gas plants for maximum efficiency and minimum emissions rather than maximum profit and to hell with emissions.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Just for everyone's info, these are the prices to switch to green household electricity:

You pay the same price you are paying now, plus:
$1.10 per week for 25% GreenPower
$2.20 per week for 50% GreenPower
$4.40 per week for 100% GreenPower

Source: Jackgreen Energy http://www.jackgreen.com.au


So $4.40 per week seems a pretty small price to pay for green electricity - not much more that the price of a cup of coffee.


----------



## Buddy (18 July 2008)

OK Ego,  I'll leave the deabate about CO2 levels to another thread.  Although I still maintain, even though it's hypothetical and quite improbable, that if CO2levels were to go down significantly, the impact would far worse that increasing CO2 levels. It's a throw away line though, OK? And I still maintain that it is annoying and quite improper use of the word to calll CO2 a pollutant.

I started off by calling the carbon tax, a tax.  It is. Its a duck, and its a tax.  And will have severe impact on Australia's economic wellbeing.  You are entitled to your opinion but there are many people who have the same opinion as I do, and see it as just another scheme by polies to get into your pocket. Sorry, I've been around too long to believe polies dont seize upon any opportunity to get into your pockets. 

Here's another reason why it's a tax: 
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/push_to_favour_low_income_households
So, I guess this means that poor people dont "pollute" (if you want to insist on using that word). Likewise, only poor people should get a rebate for solar installations. Does that mean poor people "pollute" more than rich people.  So, which one is it? I mean, the whole thing is just absurd, and reeks of the old labour ideological claptrap.

It's the wrong way to tackle the problem (yes, I agree there is a problem) and will do nothing to lower overall CO2 levels.  Meanwhile, the big "polluters" China, India and USA will take advantage of all the industries we have exported, and the levels will continue rising. You might all feel really good, shivering in the middle of winter, eating contaminated food from china, waiting for the dole cheque  that will have no value because the government will be bankrupt.  There are better ways to solve this problem.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Ok Buddy,

Sorry about before. I was just beginning to get pretty annoyed with your apparent attitude towards me. Whether that was intentional or not, I don’t know. I may have misread the situation. Anyway, let’s move past that.

Ok, you agree there’s a problem and something need to be done about it. Is this the best way to go about it though? Maybe not, I don’t know. At least the government has shown that they are serious about this issue. Howard would’ve done nothing about it.

Yes, it is a tax. Hopefully the tax is used to offset the carbon that we are paying for though – renewable energy research, planting tress, etc.

This scheme isn’t ‘set in stone’ yet though, is it? I’m sure the government will consult all industries to come to some workable compromise.

Should it be a tax? Business always goes for the cheapest option, so they won’t move to being any ‘greener’ unless there is a monetary incentive to do so. A tax does address that issue.

Everyone talks of the costs of going to a carbon future, but what about the benefits it will bring? There will be heaps of money to be made from green energy technologies in the future. Australia could become a world leader in these technologies, which would obviously be great for our economy in the world carbon future, which is obviously coming. We don’t want to be left behind. We should be trying to get a head start on the rest of the world.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Well you never stated how much you use. That's about what it cost's for the average home consumer to switch to green electricity. But you could be running an aluminium smelter in your back yard for all I know - I can't be expected to know that.



No you can't.  So probably best to stop making generalisations.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

For anyone who can be bothered reading it, here is an article from FNARENA/ShareCafe offering their summary of how things will work.
NB  The content is not offered with any endorsement or otherwise from me.

http://www.sharecafe.com.au/fnarena_news.asp?a=AV&ai=9457


----------



## chops_a_must (18 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A boom in gas-fired power generation which will, in practice, be taxed at aout 40% the rate applying to coal-fired generation. That's due to higher efficiency and the lower carbon content of the gas.
> 
> This may not bring a net benefit to the gas industry considering the LNG issue, but it puts WA in a better position than a coal dependent state like NSW where it's all loss and no real offset.



I think the first thing to realise about what WPL are saying, is that they whine the house down. Wouldn't be out of place in Geelong. 

The government here has forced gas producers in the north to sell gas at less than market cost, as a part of getting infrastructure etc. up there. WPL wouldn't exist if it weren't for the WA government over the years, and it's probably posturing to make sure it doesn't have to provide more gas to keep costs down here. They have a pretty big moral debt built up with the govt. and the know it.

If we are forced to pay true market price for the gas, it will be a different story however.

It's interesting, because the privatised Western Power here can't make a buck because of the costs, and because they are effectively subsidising true power costs. Massive price rises coming here regardless of carbon trading. It's really the least of the problems.



Smurf1976 said:


> For "green power", there's a hidden subsidy from fossil fuel generation in that it provides the back-up when the wind is not blowing etc. It's fine if 10% of the energy is green, but costs increase dramatically if you want (say) 50% of the total grid to be green power. And it would cost an outright fortune to go to 100%.



I disagree Smurf. Never been to Freo after 3pm where it isn't blowing consistently. For mine, in WA at least, wind offers the perfect peak power producing capacity. Hell, our coastal trees grow sideways because of it.


----------



## marklar (18 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> No, I think you are a bit confused. The businesses have to pay to pollute. Not us.



Rest assured that the consumer will pay.  The consumer ALWAYS pays!

The cynical side of me thinks status-quo is about the best we can expect (no nett change in emissions or costs) the realist in me thinks that someone will find a nice way to profit.  I've seen the results of SOX & PCI compliance and the entire industry that has formed around audits, consulting, advice, etc.

m.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> It's interesting, because the privatised Western Power here can't make a buck because of the costs, and because they are effectively subsidising true power costs. Massive price rises coming here regardless of carbon trading. It's really the least of the problems.
> 
> 
> I disagree Smurf. Never been to Freo after 3pm where it isn't blowing consistently. For mine, in WA at least, wind offers the perfect peak power producing capacity. Hell, our coastal trees grow sideways because of it.



The situation Western Power has been placed into guarantees financial failure. In short, let others take most of the baseload with plants running flat out and leave Western Power to make the system work and cope with peak load and the failure of others' plant. You could make that pay with a hydro system for sure (not that I'm saying you could build a hydro system in WA) but it doesn't work with the thermal plant they have.

As for wind, it might do that in Freo but it's basically the only place in the world if you're right. Being totally serious here, I'd expect Freo to become a totally heavy industrial zone absolutely dominated by wind farms within 15 years if it's true. Whatever else is there now (never been there so not sure) will go to make way for towers of both the wind and transmission line variety. Yes I'm being totally serious there - probably average 1 turbine a week until there's 500+.

For everyone else, wind runs typically 35% of the time and that's the problem. It's down to 15% in some overseas locations. There are parts of Tas where over 40% is possible but for most of Australia take 35% as about right. 

The effect on other power stations is simply to reduce their load factor (ie utilisation). That cuts revenue far more than it cuts costs (or emissions) so it doesn't really scale up. The exception there is with a large scale storage hydro system in which case wind integrates very well at no real economic penalty up to (if the grid load factor is high enough) 25 - 30% of total generation.


----------



## AlterEgo (19 July 2008)

Julia said:


> No you can't.  So probably best to stop making generalisations.




Why are you being so rude to me, Julia? I'm just trying to help by showing you an inexpensive alternative.

So what unusual case do you have that would require you to spend a vast amount more than I stated? Are you running a business? Because the fact remains that for a normal residential property the cost for green energy is only $4.40 per week above your normal bill. And source is as stated previously in this thread. You're claiming that "your suggestion that the additional cost will equate a cup of coffee is simply silly.", and I've shown you that your assumption was incorrect by showing you an energy provider that is offering it for that price. So I don't know what more you expect from me. I've backed up my claims, but rather than backing up yours, or admitting that you were wrong, you just choose to attack me instead. Very poor form, Julia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Just for everyone's info, these are the prices to switch to green household electricity:
> 
> You pay the same price you are paying now, plus:
> $1.10 per week for 25% GreenPower
> ...



I'd be careful with those figures.

Looking at their site, they seem to think that 1.5 MWh per annum for hot water is normal. Sorry, but that's only 30 - 40 litres per day once tank losses are counted. One short shower for one person is hardly what I'd consider normal usage. What's typical? About 4 MWh for a two person household, more for a larger household although it's not linear (so it's around 6 - 6.5  MWh for 4 people).

As for other power consumption, they give figures for 1.5, 5 and 8.5 MWh per annum. The 1.5 figure is for your bedsit with someone at work all day. Or a highly efficient house with gas for everything, natural light all day etc. 

5 would be a typical household without air-conditioning and that uses gas / wood / oil for heating. 8.5 MWh would be more reasonable if it's a typical all-electric house. 

So it's potentially quite a bit more than $4.40 per week depending on how much you're using. And of course if you're going for green power then you wouldn't want to be using gas etc to reduce your consumption as that would defeat the purpose.


----------



## AlterEgo (19 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd be careful with those figures.
> 
> Looking at their site, they seem to think that 1.5 MWh per annum for hot water is normal. Sorry, but that's only 30 - 40 litres per day once tank losses are counted. One short shower for one person is hardly what I'd consider normal usage. What's typical? About 4 MWh for a two person household, more for a larger household although it's not linear (so it's around 6 - 6.5  MWh for 4 people).
> 
> ...




Well my understanding is that the extra weekly rate is a fixed rate, not dependent on your usage. They have examples on the same website for up to 8.5MWh, and the additional figure still works out to the same $4.40 per week.


----------



## chops_a_must (19 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for wind, it might do that in Freo but it's basically the only place in the world if you're right. Being totally serious here, I'd expect Freo to become a totally heavy industrial zone absolutely dominated by wind farms within 15 years if it's true. Whatever else is there now (never been there so not sure) will go to make way for towers of both the wind and transmission line variety. Yes I'm being totally serious there - probably average 1 turbine a week until there's 500+.



Nah, it happens for 1000's of k's up the coast as well. Type in Geraldton trees to google for instance, really interesting. Some say the trees grow like that because of the wind, others because of aeroplanes: http://www.writerspen.com.au/ArticleCorner/GeraldtonTrees.html 

And nah, Freo wont become like that. The time for that has passed. There was a proposal to put wind towers up around the port a few years back (which I supported), because it was perfect for wind, but it got rejected at some level.

Land value is way too high in Freo for that, and sandgropers would never support it anyway. However, about 20k's worth of coastal development and marinas are likely between Freo and Rockingham. Billions upon billions being thrown around. Check it out if you like the drawings of developments and things. I find it quite fascinating really. A hell of a lot of dwellings and residents will call Freo home in the next decade or so.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Why are you being so rude to me, Julia? I'm just trying to help by showing you an inexpensive alternative.
> 
> So what unusual case do you have that would require you to spend a vast amount more than I stated? Are you running a business? Because the fact remains that for a normal residential property the cost for green energy is only $4.40 per week above your normal bill.



I won't enter the personal debate but a comment about individual energy consumption.

I moved into my present address on the 6th of January this year so I don't have a full year's data but there's enough to approximate my annual energy consumption. 

First some details. It's a fairly typical mid-1990's 3 bedroom brick house with metal roof located in suburban Hobart. Timber framed construction and timber floors, most covered with carpet. Fibreglass batts in the ceiling, foil in the walls, no underfloor insulation. 

Incandescent lights except the kitchen which is halogen. The previous owner must have been undecided on the heating - there's a wood heater plus a fairly low powered HydroHeat installation (ie a 3.5kW electric fan heater hard wired). Hot water is electric off-peak. Tastic in the bathroom. There's a spa but I rarely use it. Cooking is a bit unusual with a gas cooktop but the oven is electric. Only means of cooling is a simple fan.

And the energy consumption? Extrapolating the data I have so far and allowing for seasonal variation, I'd say it's about this:

Electricity total 21.57 MWh. 
3.58 MWh Light & Power (including the Tastic which I'd estimate at 0.22 MWh)
12.17 MWh HydroHeat (the electric space heater)
5.82 Off Peak (hot water).

In addition to that I'd estimate 3 tonnes of fire wood. That's about 13.5 MWh but 40% of that heat will go up the flue so it's about 8.1 MWh of actual heat put into the room. Smurf's a tad biased toward using the electric heater, but at only 3.5kW it's not up to the task during proper cold weather so some wood is needed. 

Gas - the first bottle is still going strong. I'd estimate it's only 20kg of LPG a year including the BBQ. That's about 0.28 MWh.

Petrol for the mower - about 0.05 MWh (5 litres).

So the grand total is somewhat a shocker. A grand total of 30 MWh not including the heat lost up the flue. And 68.3% of that total is for heating, 19.4% is hot water and the other 12.3% is everything else.

My energy use would drop by 70% simply by moving to Darwin. 

As for what I actually plan on doing to reduce consumption, no surprise for guessing there's quite a bit. Heat pump for heating, heat pump hot water and some better lighting. Floor insulation I'm looking at but there are some issues with doing it. Once that's all done I should end up down to about 12 MWh of electricity, gas and petrol use unchanged, wood no longer used. That's a long term plan though and will take a while to implement.

...

Some good news though. Yet another hydro plant in Tassie opened yesterday. It's absolutely tiny - only runs a few hundred houses - but every bit's a help. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2308176.htm


----------



## Julia (19 July 2008)

Smurf, I'm interested that you cite the use of a heat pump as a means of reducing your consumption. My power bill has gone up exponentially since I have using a heat pump.  Could you explain what you mean?

And thanks indeed for all your other informed explanations.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Smurf, I'm interested that you cite the use of a heat pump as a means of reducing your consumption. My power bill has gone up exponentially since I have using a heat pump.  Could you explain what you mean?



An ordinary (non-heat pump) electric heater is 100% efficient in turning electricity into heat. That is, you put 1kW of electricity in and you get 1kW of heat out.

But a heat pump does not itself produce heat. It simply extracts heat from the air (or some other source like water) and transfers that to the air or water that you want to heat. In doing this it produces about 3kW of useful heat into your room or water for every 1kW used to run the compressor. (That figure will vary with outside air temperature etc).

So assuming you want to put a fixed amount of heat into the room, water etc you will only need one third as much electricity to do it with a heat pump. If I want to put 12 MWh of heat into the house then an electric heater needs 12 MWh of electricity to do it. A heat pump will provide the same amount of heat using just 4 MWh of electricity. Hence it's cheaper to run.

Heat pumps have been heavily promoted by the electricity industry in Tas since the late 1980's for a simple reason. Put in an ordinary electric heater and consumers think it's great - until they get the bill. Then that heater is promptly removed and they go back to wood. But get them to spend $2000+ on a heat pump that costs little to run and you've got a long term customer for electricity, albeit a relatively small volume of it.

Given the serious air pollution problems when 60% of homes had wood heating during the 80's and early 90's, a move to electric heating is an environmental plus and there has been a government funded program encouraging it for this reason. (Since I also have electric heat, I only run the wood fire when it's really cold thus being able to burn the fire nice and hot which avoids visible smoke).

I don't have present figures, but over 25% of Tas homes would have heat pumps as the main source of heating and I'd estimate they're in at least 80% of newly built freestanding houses (units etc tend to be simple electric heaters due to cost cutting during construction). Over the past 30 years, the dominant form of heating has shifted from oil to wood to electric and now to electric heat pumps. With heating being 50% of household energy use in Tas and a significant household cost there's a strong incentive to use whatever is cheapest.  

In my own situation, it's not simply a case of swapping heaters. Unless I want to make the room look permanently like a construction site, I'll need to do quite a bit of work. Take out the wood heater, remove the hearth, replace the carpet, remove the ceiling fan that's in the way, install new lighting due to loss of the fan/light, patch up the holes in the ceiling from the wood heater flue and repaint. And then install the heat pump. 

For the electric heater, I could leave it in place on the wall or remove it. If I remove it then it's a complete repainting job as well since the fancy effect type paint would be virtually impossible to patch without making a mess of it. And there's no paint behind the heater plus a hole where the wiring comes through.

So I won't be doing all of this tomorrow. It's a longer term project that's more in the category of a small renovation than a simple change of heater. Obviously I'd be in more of a hurry if the existing heating was oil (by which I mean an oil burning heater not an electric oil-filled heater) as that would come to about $4500 a year. But $1500 a year total for the electric and wood versus $700 for the heat pump (no wood), a saving of $800 a year, isn't such a strong incentive to change in a hurry given all the work and expense involved. 

For the hot water, that again isn't simply a swap since the present HWS location is under the house and not suitable for a heat pump. So it makes sense to change when the existing one wears out and a plumber will be needed anyway rather than doing it straight away. Since a heat pump will save 65% versus typically a 50% saving with solar in Tas the heat pump is a winner - and it's a bit cheaper to buy and install too.

So in my situation it's cheaper and easier to pay to pollute for the moment but I'll be going green over a period of time. If carbon goes to $100 a tonne then that would put a rocket under my plans but at the moment there are others who can save emissions more easily than I can - and that's how carbon trading is supposed to work. I'm not actually adding any CO2 to the air by delaying, it's purely a financial issue now that carbon trading's a goer.

As for why Julia's power bill went up with the heat pump, I'm puzzled by that one. Was this a straight replacement of an ordinary electric heater / hot water system with a heat pump with no change in use? Or was it to replace gas / oil / wood or installed where no heating was installed before. Or has there been a change in use such as different temperature setting, running 24 hour heating instead of just a few hours a day etc? Or, is it in a warm climate running primarily for cooling where no cooling was installed before thus cancelling out any saving on heating costs? Or has the heat pump been connected to a continuous electricity tariff whereas you previously used off-peak? Lots of possibilities here but the heat pump should certainly be using less electricity than an ordinary electric heater providing the same amount of heat.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for why Julia's power bill went up with the heat pump, I'm puzzled by that one. Was this a straight replacement of an ordinary electric heater / hot water system with a heat pump with no change in use? Or was it to replace gas / oil / wood or installed where no heating was installed before. Or has there been a change in use such as different temperature setting, running 24 hour heating instead of just a few hours a day etc? Or, is it in a warm climate running primarily for cooling where no cooling was installed before thus cancelling out any saving on heating costs? Or has the heat pump been connected to a continuous electricity tariff whereas you previously used off-peak? Lots of possibilities here but the heat pump should certainly be using less electricity than an ordinary electric heater providing the same amount of heat.




Thanks, Smurf.  No, our heat pump was not replacing any existing system.
It was installed to heat the pool water.  So obviously I expected a considerably increased charge for the electricity.  Was just surprised at how much!   It wasn't practical to have it connected to off-peak supply as apparently they produce the most heat in the warmest time of the day which is full tariff.   I'm surprised that they are considered to be so efficient, given that the solar heating alone (with a roof temperature of about 45) (ambient temp about 26) will raise the water temperature in a 50,000 litre pool one degree in one hour, whereas the heat pump will take three hours in the same conditions to raise the water temperature the one degree.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Thanks, Smurf.  No, our heat pump was not replacing any existing system.
> It was installed to heat the pool water.  So obviously I expected a considerably increased charge for the electricity.  Was just surprised at how much!   It wasn't practical to have it connected to off-peak supply as apparently they produce the most heat in the warmest time of the day which is full tariff.   I'm surprised that they are considered to be so efficient, given that the solar heating alone (with a roof temperature of about 45) (ambient temp about 26) will raise the water temperature in a 50,000 litre pool one degree in one hour, whereas the heat pump will take three hours in the same conditions to raise the water temperature the one degree.



Efficiency in this context is simply a case of output compared to input with speed being ignored. 

Worth noting that it will take about 58 kWh to raise that pool temperature 1 degree. That's one impressive solar system you've got there! To put that in perspective, a split system air-conditioner usually has an output of 4 - 9 kW (input 1.3 - 3kW) and a plug in electric kettle is normally 2.4kW. So 58 kW is some serious heating and it wouldn't be cheap to buy a heat pump of the same output capacity. Your heat pump is probably closer to 20 kW output using 6 - 7 kW to run it plus whatever the water pumping uses.

To heat the pool 1 degree with the heat pump would require burning about 7.5kg of black coal to generate the power. That would be 22kg of coal if you used a simple electric resistance heater rather than the heat pump. And if you burned the coal directly in a small boiler at home you would need about 12kg plus the energy to transport the coal. So the heat pump is the more efficient one in terms of energy use - but with solar the energy is free so that's even better for suitable applications.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2008)

Interesting, Smurf.  Thanks for the explanation.
The efficiency of the solar system derives from the fact that there is about 160% of the pool's surface area in collector tubing on the roof.  When people complain that solar heating is ineffective it's because they rarely install enough collector tubing.


----------



## pan (20 July 2008)

Currently doing economics, found an article to do with basic economics and what emissions trading is all about.. 

http://economics.mrwood.com.au/article.asp?id=139


----------



## Buddy (21 July 2008)

I guess a few of you, if you read any of my posts, have gathered that this little bud doesnt think much of garnaut's scheme. Its a tax and is being used by the government polies and bureaucrats as a revenue gathering exercise. But I would like now raise another issue......

Even though I do not have any hard numbers, I would hazard a guess that the so called carbon emitters (power, mineral processing, transport, manufacturing, agricultural machines, etc) far outweigh the carbon soakers (a few wind generators, tree farms, and what else). Probably by orders of magnitude.  So all the emitters are going to be paying, collectively, a huge amount of tax to someone, whilst the few soakers get a few pennies.  So, where does all the money collected from the emitters go?  Maybe ultimately the whole thing may get into balance, when the emitters go bankrupt, all the jobs are exported to China/India and there is mass unemployment, whilst the soakers work out that the can make a buck out of this. But in the meantime there is a bucketful of money going into consolidated revenue.

See, the whole problem with this crazy idea, is that (as Julia says) the government hasn't explained the detail. And no one can question it because they have taken the high moral ground - to argue against it is heresy.  Maybe there some data around but I havn't seen it yet.  So when is the government going to explain:-
1) Exact cost of per tonne, of the carbon vouchers for both emitters and soakers.
2) Exact projections, by year, of reductions in CO2 (even krudd admits he cannot provide this data). If he can't do this, what exactly is the bleedin point?
3) Exact cost to the emitters, of how much tax revenue is involved
4) Exact benefit to the soakers, of how many tax vouchers they receive. And is it actual money in the pocket or a rebate against tax that they would/might pay. 
5) How about a balance sheet, and benefit statement. (And "benefit statement" is not defined as some half assed greeny feel good motherhood statement). I want to see data!

See, its a duck.  A Tax.


----------



## r34ztune (21 July 2008)

I agree with the scheme in principle, however when you consider Aust makes up for 1-2% of total emissions, it is going to have little effect unless the major players come on board ie- china and india. Why should we cut our own throats just to set an example to the rest of the world? Brace for worse times ahead, we should of known Labour is in power.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2008)

r34ztune said:


> I agree with the scheme in principle, however when you consider Aust makes up for 1-2% of total emissions, it is going to have little effect unless the major players come on board ie- china and india. Why should we cut our own throats just to set an example to the rest of the world? Brace for worse times ahead, we should of known Labour is in power.




Do we have 1-2% of the world's population? That'd be a good reason why, and a place to start your questioning...


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

Buddy, I share your scepticism.  At the same time as announcing that there would be a scheme, the government should have clearly set out how it would work.  I don't think they really know.   (Very funny parody on last week's Clark and Dawe segment on the 7.30 Report, btw.)

As far as where the money will go, I think Garnaut suggested that quite a large percentage of it (?50%) should be used to compensate householders for the increased cost of living.  (I'd believe that when I found the money in my bank account.) Not sure about the rest.  Vaguely think he suggested some be retained for R & D.

I can't believe the Opposition are not all over this lack of detail from the government.  It's a first class opportunity to score some points and they are too engrossed in their own petty squabbles about the miniscule differences between what Nelson and Turnbull have said.

So far it seems to have been left up to business to raise objections, e.g. Qantas.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2008)

Julia said:


> I can't believe the Opposition are not all over this lack of detail from the government.  It's a first class opportunity to score some points and they are too engrossed in their own petty squabbles about the miniscule differences between what Nelson and Turnbull have said.



Because they can't even make up their mind and have been shown to be incredibly inconsistent, whilst trying to walk both sides of the street.


----------



## r34ztune (21 July 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Do we have 1-2% of the world's population? That'd be a good reason why, and a place to start your questioning...




what point are you trying to make?


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2008)

r34ztune said:


> what point are you trying to make?



Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it...


----------



## Julia (21 July 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it...



Nothing foolish about not knowing everything.  Don't know why you couldn't have simply answered the question.

The point that Chops_a_must would have made if he could have been bothered is that Australia's percentage of the world's population is a mere 0.32%.  So therefore the climate change fanatics can say we are producing more emissions per head of population than some other countries.

Hope this helps.


----------



## korrupt_1 (21 July 2008)

pan said:


> Currently doing economics, found an article to do with basic economics and what emissions trading is all about..
> 
> http://economics.mrwood.com.au/article.asp?id=139




Great link... putting it in terms of 'donuts' makes it all clear now... LOL...


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Nothing foolish about not knowing everything.  Don't know why you couldn't have simply answered the question.
> 
> The point that Chops_a_must would have made if he could have been bothered is that Australia's percentage of the world's population is a mere 0.32%.  So therefore the climate change fanatics can say we are producing more emissions per head of population than some other countries.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Would have thought that that was implied.

The point being if you couldn't understand what I said, you really aren't going to get what you just said. And it's not just _some_ other countries Julia. :


----------



## r34ztune (22 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Nothing foolish about not knowing everything.  Don't know why you couldn't have simply answered the question.
> 
> The point that Chops_a_must would have made if he could have been bothered is that Australia's percentage of the world's population is a mere 0.32%.  So therefore the climate change fanatics can say we are producing more emissions per head of population than some other countries.
> 
> Hope this helps.




China emits 25% less emmisions per head than US, and 50% less versus UK, does this make China less of a worry? My initial point was Australia is a small player in this, why should we jump on board early, face increased costs, and pay the price for setting an example, while the big players refuse to get on board.


----------



## CommonSense1967 (13 July 2011)

Can anybody shine a light on this for me (or give me a sensible explanation).
To me the numbers don't add up!
We pollute the world with +-30 billion tons of CO2 per year extra than nature puts in the air by it self.(and still rising)
The world still has about 30 percent of woodlands left on its landmass that is above the water, this can absorb (convert) about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year. Unfortunately we are reducing it at an alarming rate, which doesn't help.
The oceans and seas can absorb CO2 as well and absorbs about 11 billion tons of CO2 per year. Nobody knows how long oceans and seas will be able to do so.
So we are creating 14 billion of CO2 per year more than we can naturally expose of.
Even if we would plant all the landmass with trees, we are not able to absorb the 30 billion tonnes of CO2.
So to me the numbers don't add up. I might not have taken all the factors in consideration. One thing that more CO2 in the air allows for aswell is quicker growth of plants, between 15 and 30 percent (this depents on also on how much nitrogen is in the soil).
So how does a trading system works if you have CO2 emissions on one side and not enough natural resources on the otherside to neutaralise them.
The only way to prevent CO2 emmisions enter into the atmosphere, is by having a good look at ourselves, because we are all the cause (yes including me) of what is hapening to our planet right now. All these things that we create around ourselfs, that we so called can't live without. The whole throw away societies that we create and embrace, are they making us happy? Is this how we want to live, isolated in our little cocoons (houses), scared of anything and everything outside. People conning eachother to get ahead, polititions lying to everbody that want to hear their crap as long as they can get into power and once in power making sure they confuse the hell out of everybody by creating difficult systems (carbon tax or carbon trading) to come up with the money to warrant their own existance.
I think it is a good time to have a look at ourselves and ask ourselves what can we change to make this world a better place. It all comes down to excepting the fact that we are all part of the problem, so we all need to come together to fix it.
This problem can't be fixed on a goverment level (it will not be fixed by a carbon tax or  carbon trading), it has to be fixed at community levels with availible technoligies.
That said I don't think we will have much luck, just looking at history. We probably destroy man kind, but the earth will go and revive itself from mankind.


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

These abatements seems crazy.  We are talking about serious billions of dollars here that this government wants to see sent to who knows where and to be spent by whoever to pay some sort of penance for the air we breathe, our bush fires, our farting cows or any other naturally occouring co2.

And according to the second article here, it would seem that trading carbon is not actually going to reduce emissions.  It is simply a transfer of wealth for other countries to spend as the choose.  And it is a major transfer of taxpayer supplied funds, imo.

Surely this will only discourage people to work when they are taxed to support other nations?  Let alone the additional 10% of carbon tax that is supposedly going to the UN.

Is the ALP trying to reduce Australia to a third world country?  Is this just a big wealth leveller so that those who train and work hard will have to support those who do not - even in other countries?

This is unbelievably stupid, imo...



Full article from the HeraldSun by Terry McCrann: *Paying foreigners for our power* 



> But the single craziest aspect of  the  carbon (dioxide) tax lunacy is that it actually aims to have us paying perhaps $4 billion a year to foreigners just for the right to keep our lights on.
> 
> We wouldn't actually get anything tangible for the $4 billion - that's around $170 for every Australian, $680 a year for a family of four. Just the 'right' to keep producing electricity from our coal-fired power stations.




and

Full article from the Telegraph by Simon Benson: *$57 billion to clean up others' backyards*



> POLLUTERS will be spending $1500 per person on foreign carbon credits just so the nation can meet its ambitious target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
> 
> But Australia's own domestic carbon emissions will have barely changed from the levels being belched out today.
> 
> The long-term scenario revealed in Treasury's own modelling on the carbon tax shows that Australian polluters will be spending $57 billion a year on clean energy projects in other countries by 2050 to meet our own pollution abatement targets.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2011)

sails said:


> These abatements seems crazy.  We are talking about serious billions of dollars here that this government wants to see sent to who knows where and to be spent by whoever to pay some sort of penance for the air we breathe, our bush fires, our farting cows or any other naturally occouring co2.




International trading of offsets etc was a key part of the Kyoto protocol (1997) and is a key part of the Euro emissions trading scheme and will be an important part of the Australian scheme and every other scheme to follow....always was going to be and always will be, this information has been freely available to everyone for 15 years.

Its based on the reality that all country's and economy's are a little different, at different stages of development etc and can participate in a global emission's trading scheme in different ways all the while under one rule set (Kyoto protocol) 

Good news is that its a 2 way street and Australia can expect to see massive forestry offset investment from internationals wanting to store carbon, in forests, in Australia and invest in clean energy projects etc to earn offsets to be used internationally.


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

Kyoto is not having a lot of luck with the bigger co2 emitting countries - and we are quite small at 1.3% of global co2 emissions:

From ClimateSpecatator by Yang Fuqiang & Ang Li: *Kyoto coma*



> Japan, Russia and Canada have made clear that they will not be making any undertakings under Kyoto’s second commitment period – the mooted second phase of the global climate agreement,




and

From Gulf News by Mohammad Abdel Raouf: *Climate change talks in cold freeze*



> *It is worth mentioning that the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters — China and the US — are not bound by the Kyoto Protoco*l




Perhaps this fad is coming to an end and people in other countries are losing faith or interest in it.  It doesn't inspire one with confidence.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2011)

sails said:


> Kyoto is not having a lot of luck with the bigger co2 emitting countries - and we are quite small at 1.3% of global co2 emissions:
> 
> Perhaps this fad is coming to an end and people in other countries are losing faith or interest in it.  It doesn't inspire one with confidence.




Yep an almost 20 year fad that just wont go away...Howard and Bush simply pretended, or stupidly thought it would just go away, many on the right side of Australian politics just can believe its actually about to happen, hell ive waited almost 20 years to see this finally come about, the inevitability of it coming to fruition.

For the people with vision its not losing momentum, its not going to just go away, its not a blackberry or a yo yo or a Y2K kind of Fad that will just disappear....change like this is dam hard to achieve at any level but the political, social and scientific momentum continues.

For the record China signed up on the 29th May 1998 and ratified on the 30th August 2002..China was a key negotiator and active on the leadership front of the group of 77 (G77)

191 country's have signed on since 1998 and there has been 17 major COP meetings and countless other smaller international COP lead up meetings, Kyoto and the GHG/Global warming industry is clearly on its last legs...well im sure it is according to AM talk back radio. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

http://www.g77.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Cynical  - did you actually read the article or even the excerpts I posted?

There is losing interest in the second phase of Kyoto.  The initial signing had a sunset clause (as I understand it) and runs out in 2012.

Let me try again and I will take those quotes out of italics in case you have having difficulting reading it.  It is in bold below:

*"Japan, Russia and Canada have made clear that they will not be making any undertakings under Kyoto’s second commitment period ...*

and
*
It is worth mentioning that the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters ”” China and the US ”” are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol "*


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...For the people with vision its not losing momentum, its not going to just go away, its not a blackberry or a yo yo or a Y2K kind of Fad that will just disappear....change like this is dam hard to achieve at any level but the political, social and scientific momentum continues....






There may still be people with "vision" to take over the world by stealth  but they are becomming increasingly in the minority and the general public are tiring of the nonsense and now becomming angry in Australia that their hard earned dollars are going to be stolen from them.

Gillard's pathetic little blubbery cry was unbelievable.  She wants to plunder our economy and our hip pockets and then cries like a spoilt brat because no-one likes her any more.  Kindergarten behaviour...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 July 2011)

I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion on the prospects for COZ (CO2 group), a carbon sink company.

from their website:  "CO2 Australia can help companies reduce their tax liability by establishing forest carbon sinks".

I have a small holding.  A fundamental long term position - unusual for me.

Interesting case studies here:  http://www.co2australia.com.au/page/index.php?sectionID=6695&pageID=6803


----------



## iRod (15 July 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion on the prospects for COZ (CO2 group), a carbon sink company.
> ....
> I have a small holding.  A fundamental long term position - unusual for me.
> 
> http://www.co2australia.com.au/page/index.php?sectionID=6695&pageID=6803




Hi Gringotts,
I also got a small parcel to hang onto for a suitable time to offload.

IMHO, this company business (disregarding climate change or carbon tax) is about rejuvenating  farm land & if done to benefit the farmer it's no bad thing. 

I see the Climate Change as a convenient way to 'spruik' the business regardless if CC's real or not.  And I see the selling of renewable certificates or whatever they are as another method to promote the business (of tree planting) - when they can be sold like gift cards - I see them as no more than playing on the guilt trip of one's 'carbon footprint' & the the shame of a friend or relative's. All in all a very smart marketing ploy. Not unlike a  movie or fashion fad or whatever!

Don't get me wrong I'm quite happy to go to a greenies meeting & tell them I'm a "Skeptic" or "Jetseter" (the highest individual  gift card @ $160!)

http://www.yonderr.com.au/offset-gifts.html

And suggest to them all if they really believe in CC, then they should each buy one 4 me!:

Is that OK ie. legal??

As far as whether the whole business is viable I don't really know. As long as I can sell the share higher than what I bought them for is all that matters to me.

I expect the next spike in renewable s will be when the legislation gets debated  & presumably passed in Aug. And then if all goes according to plan get a "fat wad off cash" from the Bob Brown Slush fund. As it will be high on his "favourites" list.


Regards


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

Can't see why not? Paulownia Management has been doing it for years as well as Elders. My only concern is that it might suffer the same fate as the tea tree farm fiasco. But it has the Brown stamp of approval so it should all be good.


----------

