This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Emissions Trading

Jump to new
Industry pollutes a hell of a lot more than we do. But they have all sorts of bullsh*t schemes to offset their carbon emission levels.

For example: buying carbon credits

Lets say BHP pumped 2000 tonnes of carbon into the air in 2009, they would only be allowed to have 80% of that figure once the new carbon emission laws are introduced in 2010.

Since they can't possibly do that without a significant detrimental affect on their day-to-day production, what they can do, is buy carbon credits.

So BHP simply purchases the equivalent 20% emissions in carbon credits, which means they still get to pump out 2000 tonnes of emissions in 2010.

In other words, this legislation will have absolutely no affect on emissions in the short term, but it will affect everyday Australians in terms of financial cost only, particularly the lower class, pensioners, the unemployed, etc etc.
 
I think the problem is if it is cheaper for big companies to move offshore and then still pump out as much pollution as they like. Or send materials offshore to be refined in a country that does not have emissions trading scheme etc. Kind of defeats the purpose of emissions trading in the first place.

So risk to us is loss of a few jobs with the possibility that the big companies still pollute as much as they do now but without us knowing. Suppose look to Europe for what to expect.
 
So far, I have only flicked through Treasury's Low Pollution Future document (the Summary) but I see some shortcommings so far. I supose the brief given to them was to only model the cost side of the equation, and the potential impact on C02 levels. OK, big deal. The issue I want to raise is ......what about the other side of the equation. That is, the TAX side!

Where is the modelling on:-
1) How much revenue is raised by this TAX, from year 1 onwards? Yes OK, I know all the political waffle about how this is supposed to promote non CO2 industries. But when is someone (Treasury?) going to tell me how much money these turkeys are collecting?
2) They talk about carbon trading, of one side of the equation against the other. (BTW ASFers, we need to work out how to plunder this scheme - there's some dosh to be made here.) But anyway.....There is no way that government is not having their fingure in this pie, and presumably they are collecting the dosh from those companies that do not offset with credits. I want to know how that is going to work. None of this has been explained in the general media or population yet. I know all the backroom chappies (lawyers, ecomonists, engineers, and general plunderers) have knowledge on all this. But how about sharing it with muggins here.
2) So then, after these turkeys collect all (how much???????) this revenue from CO2 emitters. Where does it go? Is it distributed to worthy causes (ME)? How do non CO2 emitting companies/people get a share of the dosh? How much does it cost to administer? How many people will it take to administer? That and more... this is making me tired.

Whilst the report tells a story, it is only part of the story. It is about time 747 came clean on the whole picture. Not with his usual blah, blah, blah, but with proper modelling by say, Treasury. Come on kev, go awn, tell us, tell us. You little twit.
 
I hope it is not all bad as in posts above.
For example Co producing electricity will have to produce some clean energy, wind, solar.
It costs more so they charge me bit more - and here is my contribution to carbon trading, but as end result there is not so much carbon produced.

It supposedly is more expensive for Cos that cannot green up their production and looks that they will have to go out of business as their production will become artificially too expensive.

Our cost for that? Lost jobs, increased imports.

If people become too frustrated government will be changed.

On the other hand if global warming is going to wipe us out, some pain now can extend our grip on this planed.

But some scientists reckon that we might just prevent or diminish next Ice Age, as they used to come every 10,000 years and we are overdue for one right now.

As with trading, time will tell
 
Buddy said:
(BTW ASFers, we need to work out how to plunder this scheme - there's some dosh to be made here.)
Click to expand...
Long carbon credit. Corner the market while it is fresh and unregulated. Squeeze the big polluters like Porsche squeezed VW shorters (except that we will have no mercy!)
 

Yep this was one of the great things about the Kyoto treaty...it allowed for business
as usual, via offsets (carbon credits), polluters could just go on polluting as long as
they had the necessary offsets.

If only the liberals had embraced the inevitable ten years ago...we would be so much
further down this road.

gav said:
how much does a 'carbon credit' cost?
Click to expand...

The real cost of an Australian forestry offset is about $7 > $9 a tonne...retail about $20 > $30
 
I think this carbon trading is the greatest load of b****x I have heard in a long time.

Its remind me of the tulip trading mania where a small number of people who thought themselves better than the ordinary folk went bust trading on a bunch of flowers.

China?
India?
US in a downturn.

Will they trade cc's or just manipulate their price and pump out more pollutants.

Finance and tree hugging should not be joined.

Lets get serious.

gg
 
Emissions are calculated in tonnes of CO2, and it might be calculated that 1 tonne is worth $5 or $10

Current emissions will have to be reduced by say 10 or 20% by certain date.

Some Co-s might be able to reduce more than they have to, so they will have a surplus
Other Co-s might not be able to reduce enough, so to meet target they will have to purchase some credits to avoid penalty.

My interpretation of carbon trading might be incorrect, but this is how I see it.
 
What will the guvmint be doing with the money raised from carbon credits?
 
I fear that after initially money are used for noble projects like tree planting to offset emissions, later gradually it’ll get syphoned to revenue same as petrol excise is and any other specific purpose charged levy/tax.
 
Reealjrd said:
What is emission trading?Can anybody explain me about it.
Click to expand...

It's basically another sneaky way for companies to profit off the whole "global warming" bandwagon.

Yes, global warming might be real but there are so many bull**** schemes out there that will achieve nothing in practice that I'm cynical about the whole thing. I believe we should be reducing emissions, not trading them.
 
Agreed but HOW do we actually go about a meaningful reduction in emissions?

Households aren't the major source so that doesn't work.

Energy intensive industry competes globally and doesn't set the price of the products it sells. Relocating to China etc doesn't lead to lower emissions?

So HOW do we cut emissions?

Only answers I can come up with, other than the proposed trading scheme are:

A. Effective end to globalisation. Tariffs and import quotas back on practically everything. Local production costs will increase as emissions are cut but Australian industry will have guaranteed market with Australian consumers unable to buy polluting imported products.

OR

B. Nationalise the electricity industry and simply shift generation to cleaner sources. Shield industry that has to compete globally (ie all energy intensive industry) from the costs by outright subsidies at the expense of small business and domestic consumers (or taxpayers).

Worth noting in the context of option (B) that de-regulation and privatisation has seen ordinary households generally face higher bills whilst it's also lowered the operating efficiency of power generation to the point that average emissions for all electricity generated across Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic, Tas and SA in fact exceeds the emissions that would result from 100% coal-fired generation using 30 year old plant that's being run efficiently. But we've got newer plants, hydro and gas in there as well.

Why? Because the "competitive" market directly lowers the technical efficiency (energy efficiency) of generation, a point that was well understood by engineers long before politicians forced this idea through. If you want efficient generation then there's a critical element - planning the day to day operations to maximise efficiency. The competitive market works directly against that by the very nature of it being competitive. Now there's something to think about...

Neither option seems attractive in many ways but has anyone got a better idea that actually works?
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Is there anyone who can easily explain the carbon trading scheme? Perhaps a pictorial diagram, graph or something.
Click to expand...

This is the best I can do, Its not a graph, you see farting is the main problem. gg
 

Attachments

  • farting.gif
    39.5 KB · Views: 92
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
328
SirRumpole
Trading US Stocks
Replies
3
Views
2K
karenjones
K
Interesting odcasts
Replies
0
Views
291
wayneL
The Ute is Dead
Replies
11
Views
845
wayneL
Little Leo's Roadside Stall
Replies
1
Views
208
wayneL
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...