What does the Carbon Tax mean for me?

[Eager]

Yeah, that's exactly the scaremongering that will come from the left as soon as an election is called. But are you telling the truth? Can you substantiate your statement of WC MkII?????

Watch This Space.

Let's have a little wager. Once the Coalition release their policies running up to the next election, if Workchoices (or whatever it will be called next time) is officially a part of their policy, you leave the forum. If it is not, then I'll go.

 

[Eager]

I thought you concluded that the majority of us were Greek and that you were superior.

Have you now decided that you're Greek too ?

Greeks bitch about their country (and riot in the streets) because they donna wanna paya da tax! Similarly, many people are upset here.

I'm happy to pay my way.

 

[Eager]

He was serious. Perhaps you should take his advice, unless of course you have something worthwhile to offer.

Why? What are you scared of?

 

[Eager]

Because you don't stay an affluent nation by allowing lunatics to deliberately inflict damage upon you.

In other words, Keep Your Hands Off My Stack.

 

[Eager]

Welcome to the Cuckoos nest Eager. You have already been introduced to most of the residents and I'm sure many others will come out soon.

Don't be too put off. I'm sure they are all basically harmless and at heart good people. Just we sometimes have some strikingly different concepts of "logic" "reality" and "common sense" . It gives us all something to think about.

Cheers

It's all good. I'm thinking of making a suggestion though. To better suit the needs of the vast majority here, perhaps Aussie Stock Forums should change its name to Clique Go The Shares, Boys, Clique Clique Clique...

 

[Calliope]

Why? What are you scared of?

Five inane posts in which you have contributed nothing, but smart-ar*e comments.

 

[Joe Blow]

Lets keep this thread on topic please.

Discuss the topic at hand rather than trying to provoke others.

 

[JTLP]

Not valid at all - This leftie knows how to make money quite well, thankyouyverymuch. BTW Julia, I've swung before too, from the introduction of the GST and for a while after. Statewise, it has always been about 50/50. But I simply cannot vote for a government led by Tony Rabbit.

Bwahahaha. The knife has well and truly cut and leftie deep.

I don't think lefties know what they stand for? Wealth reduction through taxes that will leave the poorer richer? Lol I feel like i'm spinning myself out!

 

[Smurf1976]

Meh, the numbers are clear. You can't meet the natural increase in energy consumption any other way.

Ultimately, we can't sustain constant growth ANY way be it through coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro or whatever.

That is the fundamental realisation which needs to set in. The target rate of GDP growth ultimately needs to be reduced to ZERO since constant growth at any rate is ultimately unsustainable on a finite planet.

It's really just a numbers game. You can have a high rate of growth from a low base but it doesn't work once the base becomes higher. Looking specifically at energy, it's worth considering that if Tasmania had sustained its' historic (1950's, 60's, 70's) energy growth rate then since 1980 we would:

1. Have dammed every river, stream and creek in the state
2. Fully developed the state's entire known coal resources
3. Be consuming Australia's entire domestic natural gas supply

Now that's just to keep the lights on in Tasmania with 0.5 million people. Do the same math for the much larger economies of Qld, NSW or Vic and it is truly frightening even if they did go down the nuclear track. They too have now reached the point where constant growth becomes increasingly impractical. Give it a few years and WA will end up in the same situation also.

10% per annum energy growth couldn't be sustained in Tas or Vic that was prettty clear 30 years ago (and the utilities themselves recognised it years before that by the way). But ultimately, even 1% growth can't be sustained anywhere once the base becomes large enough no matter what energy source you choose. If we continue constant growth then pretty soon we'll end up needing the entire output not just of a few reactors or coal plants but of the sun itself. Good luck trying to tap the entire output of the sun and bring that back to Earth. And just think of almighty mess we're going to make of the planet simply using that much energy (regardless of how we obtain it).

Constant growth isn't sustainable. Nuclear power (or clean coal, solar, hydro, wind, geothermal or anything else) doesn't change that reality. At best, it buys a bit of time but that's it.

My own preference is that we bring about a rational transition that fixes the real problem in an orderly manner which minimises the inevitable suffering that will result. Simply delaying the inevitable via nuclear power can only make things worse in the long run as does putting of any painful decision.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm really surprised you see the workings of a Carbon Levy in this way Smurf.

If the levy is successful there will be some big re engineering programs around new renewable power supplies. This is all manufacturing jobs surely? And the intention of the levy and the renewable energy fund is to drive new clean power technologies. I would have thought the skill sets would be similar to many/any jobs lost in the process ?

The thing about renewable energy is that virtually all forms of it are capital intensive to build but very cheap to operate. In layman's terms, that means they provide a lot of jobs during construction but virtually no ongoing employment once built.

Unless you count burning wood which is labour intensive, even large scale reneable energy power stations tend to have an operating staff of literally zero except during maintenance outages (which are also less frequent than with a coal-fired plant). There aren't many jobs running hydro, wind, large scale solar etc once they're built.

My point isn't about jobs mining coal or in power stations however, but about jobs in manufacturing industry. We close the steel, aluminium etc industries and replace it with short term employment building wind farms etc. Then what? There is ongoing employment, exports and wealth creation from smelters but there is little ongoing activity generating electricity from renewables (and without the smelters etc we won't be generating as much power anyway). Meanwhile production of metals will simply shift offshore - still using coal, still emitting CO2, but without economic benefit to Australia.

If you go back 30 years then one of the arguments from environmentalists against hydro development was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment once built. The same is true of most renewables (notable exception of wood). The counter argument at the time was that whilst generating power doesn't employ many, using it in industry certainly does and that's where the benefits arise. But if we close industry and shift to renewables then that wouldn't seem to create many long term jobs at all...

 

[Smurf1976]

EROEI does seem a useful way of describing it, 'do the math' looks to have some interesting things to say, I'll have to check it out some more. Mind you I still prefer $ as the unit, and profit/loss as the measure, since it embodies all resources including energy (labour, materials etc).

If EROEI is negative then it's not a net energy source no matter what the $.

I understand what you are saying, my point though is that oil at $100 or $20,000 has zero impact on EROEI. If the physics doesn't work then it doesn't work - no increase in price will change that.

Just as I can't catch a train to the moon no matter how much I pay, so too we can't gain energy from a process with negative EROEI no matter what the price in $. If EROEI is negative then by definition we're putting in more than we're getting out - it can't make an energy profit in the same way as spending $2 to earn $1 (gross) can't make a financial profit.

 

[tothemax6]

Ultimately, we can't sustain constant growth ANY way be it through coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro or whatever.

That is the fundamental realisation which needs to set in. The target rate of GDP growth ultimately needs to be reduced to ZERO since constant growth at any rate is ultimately unsustainable on a finite planet.

Constant growth isn't sustainable. Nuclear power (or clean coal, solar, hydro, wind, geothermal or anything else) doesn't change that reality. At best, it buys a bit of time but that's it.

My own preference is that we bring about a rational transition that fixes the real problem in an orderly manner which minimises the inevitable suffering that will result.

The solution you are looking for is extermination of the human species. There is non other.
You cannot control humans 'on the downside', if you will (i.e. reducing their consumption rate), with humans. And unless there are angels willing to do it, it won't happen.
In the hypothetical situation were say, a bunch of nations strangle their consumption rates, the rest of the worlds nations become more powerful, push the stranglers aside, grow, and more than make up for the consumption rate.
A pendulum is stable at the bottom of its swing, not the top.

If EROEI is negative then it's not a net energy source no matter what the $.

I understand what you are saying, my point though is that oil at $100 or $20,000 has zero impact on EROEI. If the physics doesn't work then it doesn't work - no increase in price will change that.

The increase in price creates pressure to develop alternative fuel sources (as per my oil vs coal example). EROEI is related to ROE. The ROE decreases as EROEI decreases, and vice versa. A negative EROEI fuel can only persist temporarily, and typically does so because of existing capital (i.e. in my trains example, even if it took oil to extract coal, at negative EROEI, it would still be done in the interim as capital investment moved from (lossy) trains to (profitable) trucks.
It's like saying 'burning walnut wood has negative EROEI' - but it is not a coincidence that the ROE on an energy company that did this would be massively negative as well.

If we must go grand-scheme, there is more than enough sources of energy in the universe to support exponential energy consumption increase by a small blip (humans & earth) for quite some time. Certainly longer than any individual human should be worried about. After all, the sun burns up at some point .

 

[Eager]

Five inane posts in which you have contributed nothing, but smart-ar*e comments.

You admit to being scared by my posts???????

Rather, perhaps you find opinions different to yours confronting.

 

[poverty]

For ME the carbon tax 'package' makes me around $2405 worse off per year. My wife is at uni and I'm the sole bread-winner. From memory the govco carbon tax calculator declares we're around $50 a year worse off, but it fails to mention the abolition of the dependent-spouse tax offset for spouses born after 1971 which is part of the package (the offset is $2355), so unless I decide to enlist the spousal services of a sugar-momma very soon we will be $2405 a year worse off on this new arrangement compared to what we previously were entitled to.

All this back and forth about families/pensioners etc being X amount of $100 up or down per year really makes me feel ill knowing the amount we will be disadvantaged is such a massive amount of our household takehome dollars. We with a moderate single income (55K) and no kids or plans to have them seem to fit exactly in the demographic that never receives a sheckle of assistance, student wife ineligible for HECS loan, existing entitlements to the tune of a few grand taken away to pay for carbon tax compensation for bludging families, pensioners and other welfare recipients and in return we get 'tax breaks' that could not even buy 2 slabs of beer for $70 on special at woolies. Thanks Wayne Swan!

 

[Eager]

Bwahahaha. The knife has well and truly cut and leftie deep.

I don't think lefties know what they stand for? Wealth reduction through taxes that will leave the poorer richer? Lol I feel like i'm spinning myself out!

Hasn't cut deep at all. Water off a duck's back in fact. One gets used to it from the herd.

There's one rightie in particular who I haven't got a clue what he stands for, and that's Abbott. I only know what he stands against....perhaps you can personally enlighten me?

Don't worry Mods and Admins: I'm only responding in kind.

Poverty - That doesn't sound right. I've never heard that the dependant spouse rebate had a cutoff age/date before. Are you sure that there are no other tax break schemes that your wife can partake in? I'd seek advice from Centrelink or even a tax accountant or similar to make sure you're getting what you can.

Again, it just doesn't sound right.

 

[poverty]

Poverty - That doesn't sound right. I've never heard that the dependant spouse rebate had a cutoff age/date before. Are you sure that there are no other tax break schemes that your wife can partake in? I'd seek advice from Centrelink or even a tax accountant or similar to make sure you're getting what you can.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/Content/00223292.htm&page=9

"On 11 May 2011, (as part of the 2010-11 Budget measures) the Treasurer announced changes to the dependent spouse tax offset. As announced, it is proposed that from 1 July 2011 only taxpayers with a dependent spouse born on or before 30 June 1971 will be eligible to claim this offset."

My wife was previously eligible, but since she's born in 1983 and they've moved the goalposts she is no longer.

 

[Smurf1976]

The solution you are looking for is extermination of the human species. There is non other.
You cannot control humans 'on the downside', if you will (i.e. reducing their consumption rate), with humans. And unless there are angels willing to do it, it won't happen.
In the hypothetical situation were say, a bunch of nations strangle their consumption rates, the rest of the worlds nations become more powerful, push the stranglers aside, grow, and more than make up for the consumption rate.
A pendulum is stable at the bottom of its swing, not the top.

Agreed with your comments BUT the earth is ultimately a finite resource. Humans and their resource use WILL stop growing whether we like it or not.

We have a finite amount of land. We have a finite quantity of every single resource available to us. At some point, constant growth would become physically impossible no matter what we tried.

At 4% per annum growth, the magic number that economists seem to like, Australia alone will be using 60% of the entire world's present oil output in 100 years time. Meanwile Adelaide will be larger than any city on Earth today, there will be 29,000 flights at Sydney airport every day which is one plane every 3 seconds and so on...

Good luck making that work. Can anyone honestly tell me that we're going to have 29,000 flights in Sydney every day? Or that Adelaide will have a population of 50 million? Present day concerns about aircraft noise (Sydney) or development in the parklands (Adelaide) will seem trivial compared to the havoc that even approaching those figures would create. It's just not going to happen no matter what economists and their fixation with GDP growth might wish for. Even at 1% growth, it still turns to poo eventually.

The increase in price creates pressure to develop alternative fuel sources (as per my oil vs coal example). EROEI is related to ROE. The ROE decreases as EROEI decreases, and vice versa.

Can't argue about that. Problem is, we're running out of energy sources with a high EROEI - that's the crux of it. Instead of getting a 100:1 return, we're going to have to accept 2:1 or something like that. The almost free ride is coming to an end and now we're going to have to divert quite a lot of human effort into energy production.

I can accept that technology may fix the energy problem in due course, although we're a bit late getting started given that oil is already becoming a problem. Maybe we'll get there in 20 years time, but it's going to be interesting in the meantime and that's what I'm worried about...

 

[drsmith]

Greeks bitch about their country (and riot in the streets) because they donna wanna paya da tax! Similarly, many people are upset here.

I'm happy to pay my way.

And happy for everyone else to pay your way too, or so it would seem.

That's the problem with the carbon tax and Labor's other taxes.

Don't worry Mods and Admins: I'm only responding in kind.

I doubt very much that you have the forum mods worried.

 

[IFocus]

IF, I'd almost begun to develop some respect for you at one stage when you demonstrated some objectivity. It's really not that hard. Maybe consider it again.

(

I shall limp on with the heavy burden of not having your respect..........

 

[IFocus]

Julia,

I can translate leftist doublespeak:

What IF is saying is that he has no answers to your question.

Finally a clever riposte.