Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Knobby22]

LOL!!! HAHAHA!

The first ever Science Show in 1975 (Radio National) had a segment on global warming and greenhouse gases.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0UGVEeZzpv5W6sJr8T4Gui

 

[rederob]

LOL!!! HAHAHA!

In the 1970s climate change was able to be determined as a phenomenon no longer due to chance.
Prior to that we knew the role of GHGs, but being able to prove that natural variability was no longer a driving force, given that irradiance was reasonably correlated with decades of warming trends, was a difficult ask: especially as aerosols played a role in suppressing the trend in the 20th century.
I realise these ideas are difficult for you to come to grips with, such is your unfamiliarity with climate science.

 

[Sdajii]

Wake up Sdajii..
(The concern about) climate change has been about since the 1970's.

Even if you want to move the goalposts as you guys constantly do, that's not at all correct either. The first person to express concern about it did so in the 1800s. In wasn't until about 40 years later that it started to become more spoken about, and in the mid to late 1980s it became more of a topical issue (along with environmentalism in general), but it didn't in any sense start in the 1970s.

If something goes with your narrative you guys accept it without question. 'Evidence' doesn't need to be backed up. Anything going against your narrative is dismissed by whatever means you see fit, and you're happy to use ad hominem and distraction techniques, or whatever else you feel like.

Sadly, the first part (acceptance of the agenda being pushed and rejection of real evidence) is often true of the other side too.

Anyone being genuine will reject and accept aspects of both sides, but as soon as any of it goes against their own side they are attacked irrationally.

Neither side can be taken seriously, which is why the sceptics exist. Both sides have failed to hold integrity, so neither can be believed. Climate science is partially to blame for this, because it is their job to be genuine and unbiased, a task they have failed. The mainstream media totally ruins it with massive exaggeration, and laymen blindly believing it and demanding that everyone unconditionally believing the nonsense creates the other side. This fuels a legitimate reason to question the narratives (once they are exaggerated, they can be legitimately shot down) and the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

Dogmatic, irrational bleating isn't working, you may have noticed.

 

[rederob]

Total rubbish again:

The first person to express concern about it did so in the 1800s. In wasn't until about 40 years later that it started to become more spoken about, and in the mid to late 1980s it became more of a topical issue (along with environmentalism in general), but it didn't in any sense start in the 1970s.

You really are out of your depth here.

Neither side can be taken seriously, which is why the sceptics exist.

No!
Sceptics exist because they are people who demand evidence.
You are a classic!
You cannot produce evidence and are a regular laughing stock given you keep claiming to have scientific knowledge.

Climate science is partially to blame for this, because it is their job to be genuine and unbiased, a task they have failed.

Where did they fail?
Please provide evidence.

Dogmatic, irrational bleating isn't working, you may have noticed.

Except that it is you who are making a lot of noise drumming a very empty vessel.
You are to science as Pauline Hanson is to politics.

 

[Sdajii]

Total rubbish again:
You really are out of your depth here.
No!
Sceptics exist because they are people who demand evidence.
You are a classic!
You cannot produce evidence and are a regular laughing stock given you keep claiming to have scientific knowledge.
Where did they fail?
Please provide evidence.
Except that it is you who are making a lot of noise drumming a very empty vessel.
You are to science as Pauline Hanson is to politics.

Your post signature is very appropriate.

 

[rederob]

Your post signature is very appropriate.

Yes, you are its embodiment.
Thanks.

 

[kahuna1]

Your post signature is very appropriate.

Said by a person with .... theories that two studies have at less than a million to one chance.

Even NASA cooks who think no one went to the moon seem sane.



I know you will not watch ... nor the other well people who deny even a temperature change or that 75% of the Great Barrier Reef IS GONE ... All of them .... all 55 Organizations on this are wrong.

Well according to some PS read the last line of my post script .... below ... not poor ... just Paranoid and delusional ..

 

[bellenuit]

It's a lame excuse because because it relies on the mentality of "if they can do, why can't we"?
It's also devoid of seeking alternatives that are smarter.

No. We can do both. The money that we would be throwing away can be used to seek alternatives.

Exactly where is this apparent revenue, in that it has been there for decades and not used or considered for your idea?
Truly pie in the sky!

It doesn't matter. It has been used for other purposes. Throwing it away is not an answer to anything.

It mostly provides jobs, not revenue.
It provides about 2% of all jobs.
Renewables delivers jobs in spades. A flow on from renewables projects is the supply chain/infrastructure. Billions of dollars are needed to just get the infrastructure in place for EVs, and that will provide more new jobs in coming years than the entire mining industry, not just coal.

Again, they are not mutually exclusive. And jobs do provide revenue to the country in two ways: taxes on wages and salaries and a reduction in social welfare costs (which makes more revenue available for other purposes).

Coal is the worst option and should be avoided at all costs because its long run costs are never factored in to present prices.
Indeed, it's the type of thinking that has us where we are today, facing an impending climate that will cost global economies trillions of dollars every year. And that's separate from the ecological damage that the planet continues to suffer ach day.

I agree. But not exporting our coal will not reduce coal consumption, which is what my main argument has been. Coal will still be used by those who buy it, but it will more likely be from a dirtier source than what we produce.

Except that we are using the most expensive energy option, and it's legacy costs keep making it more expensive. On the other hand, renewables keep getting cheaper on every metric except labour (and that's a factor common to both).

If our energy producers continue to use coal when there are cheaper options then they are doing their shareholders and customers a disservice. That still does not mean we should not export coal to those who want it or use it ourselves in those situations, where through geographic or other factors, it is cheaper.

Ummm..what advantage is that?
The advantage we provide to foreign multinationals who pay exceptionally low rates of tax?

A complete non-sequitur to my argument.

The advantage of completely missing the boat on a renewables industry?

Again a non-sequitur. Both are possible.

The advantage of an energy network that has pandered to fossil fuels at the expense of renewables policy?

Another non-sequitur. We could have had a renewables policy and still used and exported coal. China has a renewables policy and is a major coal user.

The advantage of high electricity prices because we have failed to plan for a renewables economy?

That is because we failed to plan for renewables, not because we use and export coal.

The advantage of water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events, all due to changing our climate at an unprecedented rate?

Which brings us back to where I entered this argument. NONE of these would have been prevented had Australia stopped using or exporting coal.

I am sure I missed some, so please fill me in.

Plenty. Coal is just one factor. We have an abundance of other minerals that the world doesn't have and exploiting these by mining them and exporting them either as raw materials or finished product also adds to CO2 production. Should we stop that too?

Apart from minerals, we are also a big agricultural producer. We know cattle produce high amounts of methane and it would obviously mean Australia could reduce our methane production if we stopped breeding cattle and just planted trees. However, there are plenty of countries that can fill the void our absence would create. On a global scale it wouldn't reduce methane produced, just shift where it is coming from.

Any way I am tired of this argument. The point I am trying to get across is that politically (globally) there is no will to get CO2 levels down to the level needed to stop a climate catastrophe of sorts. That being the case, we should do everything possible to strengthen our economy so that we are able to protect Australians and our resources in the event that there is a conflict of sorts (which is predicted should the s*** hit the fan). Throwing away the advantages we have when we know that they will have zero or negligible impact on CO2 or other pollutants globally does nothing but transfer jobs overseas and weaken our economy.

 

[rederob]

No. We can do both. The money that we would be throwing away can be used to seek alternatives.

The money has been available and so have the alternatives, so you are just drowning in your own non-argument.

Again, they are not mutually exclusive. And jobs do provide revenue to the country in two ways: taxes on wages and salaries and a reduction in social welfare costs (which makes more revenue available for other purposes).

Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics.

I agree. But not exporting our coal will not reduce coal consumption, which is what my main argument has been. Coal will still be used by those who buy it, but it will more likely be from a dirtier source than what we produce.

You cannot use what there is not. But your response ignores the real point of there never being a price on carbon.

If our energy producers continue to use coal when there are cheaper options then they are doing their shareholders and customers a disservice.

That makes no sense at all as it is a policy framework that determines how the market operates. Please learn about the NEM.

A complete non-sequitur to my argument.

You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.

Which brings us back to where I entered this argument. NONE of these would have been prevented had Australia stopped using or exporting coal.

Except it is just your claim.
And it again ignores that we did nothing to put a price on carbon.

Throwing away the advantages we have when we know that they will have zero or negligible impact on CO2 or other pollutants globally does nothing but transfer jobs overseas and weaken our economy.

This attitude sums up where we are and why.
It is the ideology of selfish greed from those who lack of care for those who come after us, couched in a series of excuses that ignore science, economics, and sustainability.

 

[bellenuit]

Except it is just your claim.

As I said I am done arguing the point, but if it is your belief that if Australia had stopped using and exporting coal we would not have had "water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events" than I can see we are poles apart in our understanding of the effect of CO2. If Australia's contribution to CO2 through coal usage and export can alone cause those events, then the climate change group needs not only to reduce it's CO2 targets but reduce global CO2 production to significantly less than what Australia on its own currently produces. In other words, pretty much stop everything.

Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics.

.

Oh dear oh dear. If (using a hypothetical breakdown) we sell $100 of coal overseas, that $100 is revenue to the nation at the top line. If $40 of that is profit before tax, then we should expect about 30% of that (assuming no carry forward losses), ie. $12, to become bottom line revenue to the government as company tax. Part of the remaining $28 will also flow to the government as revenue depending on how it is distributed (dividends locally and overseas, retained earnings) and how the dividend recipients are taxed. If another $30 of the top line $100 goes in salary and wages of the coal producers employees, a portion of that too will flow to the government as bottom line revenue again depending on how the recipients are taxed on their income. The remaining $30 might be to pay for materials etc, and a portion of that too will also end up as bottom line revenue to the government (through GST and the income taxes of the supplier's employees among other things). So top line export revenue of $100 becomes bottom line government revenue almost exclusively through the tax system at various levels along the way.

There is a reason the US equivalent to the ATO is called the Internal Revenue Service.

You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.

Yes it can if they are rhetorical in nature, as yours were. But if you feel you need to go to that level, you might want to rephrase that sentence for obvious grammatical reasons. I have no intention of joining you there.

 

[Smurf1976]

If (using a hypothetical breakdown) we sell $100 of coal overseas, that $100 is revenue to the nation at the top line.

I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.

Most of the production cost is incurred locally either directly or via contractors etc. Some imported inputs in some cases but they're relatively minor in % terms.

If the company is foreign owned then what goes overseas is the profit but there's still a net gain to Australia given that 100% of the money came from overseas sales and most of it doesn't end up as profit.

 

[rederob]

As I said I am done arguing the point,....

And then continued to argue it.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of global action.
And you don't have any idea what national action looks like: - granted we never put it in place, so that's what we have now and you think it has given us some "advantage"...really????

Oh dear oh dear. If (using a hypothetical breakdown)....

I can guarantee you that when Glencore or Anglo American, or even BMA sells that coal your figures look like a train wreck.

"In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."​

The tens of billions of corporate profit from multinationals which leaves Australia each year trickles a meagre few percentage points tax revenue.

Yes it can if they are rhetorical in nature, as yours were.

You cannot reinvent principles of logic to suit your case, and rhetoric excludes the prospect of your points having any merit.
However, you never showed what these advantages were that you claimed.
Your entire argument is a rerun of flawed thinking.

 

[kahuna1]

I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.

Most of the production cost is incurred locally either directly or via contractors etc. Some imported inputs in some cases but they're relatively minor in % terms.

If the company is foreign owned then what goes overseas is the profit but there's still a net gain to Australia given that 100% of the money came from overseas sales and most of it doesn't end up as profit.

Complex one, hate to admit I have both undergrad and post grad accounting. Not an accountant as such and never practiced to public. Have tax qualifications as well along with a lot of other useless paper.

I would agree with virtually all you said. This debate about manufacturing is one about labor costs being the factor in WHY manufacturing is mainly overseas. Labor intensive things are overseas for a reason, and paying someone $2- an hour verses $25-. Call centers same things. Lines, not in your post Smurf get blurred in this distinction. Blurred for ideology and to make the case.

Making shoes or clothes or call centers where humans are needed, will NOT come back via any power issue.

Energy intensive industries, the position of some is that by going Green some cost is incurred. I see this dogma and idiocy in the above arguments. It is akin to John Howard's claims that by going green we are in some way lumbering a higher COST per KM or MW hour upon ourselves. Trump does the same to support his massive donations via coal and gas industries. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

The economics of power generation ARE and have tipped the other way. Yes when Mr Howard was not so senile about 20 years ago, cost of generation say for Nuclear was even cheaper than most others if one ignored other issues. Solar was horribly expensive and so too other green forms.

Australia in its wisdom sold off its power transmission grids. Sold them overseas and sold them to owners now operating out of tax havens. We pay nearly the highest COSTS for these power lines globally, yet they DECLARE no profits here, claim losses and as such we get buggered both ways. Tax for multinationals is OPTIONAL right now in Australia right now. Tax SHOULD be paid on profits made here, but is often NOT. Apple sells 8 billion here, makes over 25% margin on sales so 2 billion here, profits, all we ask for is a small tax portion of that 30%, since the money to buy their crap came from here, leaving them to take 70% back home, but nope ... they instead of paying 600 million tax pay less than 50 million. It is however better than the power lone owners !! Origin even seems to pay no tax.

There is of course some issues with power when the sun doesn't shine, higher costs for say a solar thermal heat system that DOES operate 24 hours a day ... but taking out TRANSMISSION costs and line costs .... WHYALLA a steel plant is going 100% GREEN .... and it is ENERGY intensive in the EXTREME. If it can commercially produce steel, IN A HIGH COST LABOR economy, steel that is ECONOMIC and generates a profit, the discussion about Green power is ABSURD as to its economics not being viable.

On this thread, idiotic ideals have been put forward time and time and time again by what I would call idiotic if not bizarre claims. Conspiracy theories so insane that is makes people who believe we never went to the moon and 100,000 people involved at NASA in that mission and 400,000 in all the Apollo missions are lying. In 50 years not one has come forward to say its fake.

There are so many of these type of simply stupid conspiracy theories in evidence here, ones that CO2 in an atmosphere DOES not warm it. A simple experiment that conducted a billion times results in the same outcome, yet denied, by some here time and time again. Inf act 22 myths, stupid ones, idiotic and scientifically destroyed by irrefutable which is a word for impossibly to be challenged by anyone with an IQ over 40, are questioned and denied.

As to power storage and when the sun does not shire or wind not blow, solar thermal stores it for 24 hours via molten salts .. so an aside. Wind same thing, One DOES NOT rely upon one source and Hydro DOES NOT CARE ... if its used and the water flows when its DARK or light. Backup base load via GAS which is a bit quicker than COAL to get going, is IGNORED by zealots for one side. It is ignored that overall in the EU 20% of power is being generated via WIND, and if that is NOT blowing ... then Nuclear or Hydro or GAS or COAL is used. So if wind and solar mi provide power for 15 out of 24 hours, is that producing MORE or less CO2 ? If the alternative is coal fired and its used 9 hours instead of 24.

On this thread, one side, is debating with the other, and it is like debating with 14th century doctors about modern medicine. With ideas that, defy logic. Not being rude but when someone tells me CO2 cant be measured pre 1970 when ice cores have tiny bubbles of air trapped in them giving records back around a million years, I ask myself about sanity or am I dealing with internet trolls, mentally unsound people or just idiots or lobby groups for oil and gas interests.

Questioning satellite data since 1978 measuring say the suns output, the ice cover in arctic and antarctic, is really beyond any sane or rational denial. Yet here, alive and well, inside the modern world, it is to be ignored. IRREFUTABLE data from over 20 OTHER sources, in 20 other nations measure CO2 and Temperature and have done so for decades all with similar results and less clinical but still valid measures going back 150 years on temperature are to be ignored. One cant I thought ignore a machine in a satellite and its data for 40 years, not with any impartiality question it, and now 3 nations with similar satellites, or EU one is on behalf of 28 nations, so we have 20 PLUS measurements all saying similar if not identical things, and its ALL A CONSPIRACY. All of it.

Heating water, a simple experiment, is ignored, that it EXPANDS .... hence rising seas one way. Creates more water vapor, again greenhouse causing, ignored. EMPIRICAL and IRREFUTABLE experiments only the insane would, question, but alive and well the denial.

Even CO2 measured via satellite now, but one station I mentioned, with winds blowing over 16,000 km of SEA, and ALWAYS blowing over the sea doe to gulf streams and ways winds blow, somehow their results for 40 years to be ignored due to bush fires 4,000 km away or Volcanoes the closest relevant one is 17,000 km away as the wind blows.

I suppose, the modern internet gives life to it. I sadly as seen on a few pother threads, where Smurf followed, one guy worships one set of beliefs and in fact, I read his posts and he follows a guy who is an educator. I read his CV, I in fact KNEW and KNOW him. I would not post this on the thread as it would further annoy and possibly make him explode. This guy, whilst I am all for education, and not being too cruel, his CV and since I was the guy or one of them the largest customer of the company he worked for he was the LUNCH boy in effect, but his CV claims he was doing my job !!

Similar here, the myths of climate change, and I have examined over the years all 30 or so of them. Shared the research here, with a decent impartial guy who did the same, found the source, looked at the facts, looked at the background and then the science and in that impartial science and time and time again we are easily able to refute without breaking a sweat these claims. A political science major or a media degree, does not make you a climate expert. I am not that, but, when presented the case by 50,000 scientists as I shared, I tend not to listen to Facebook for science or Instagram or wherever the hell the other stuff comes from.

Economics of electricity generation via Green sources ONCE was more expensive, NOT the case today. In the USA they are NOT building wind farms for any goverment subsidy. They do so for economic reasons. Issues over reliability in a system with a mix of generation types is somewhat idiotic. If Hydro and release of water does not give a damm, a pun, if its on at night, or day, the same amount of water is available for release either way and of its releasing 20% of capacity whilst sun and wind work and 100% when its NOT working, the argument of the economically illiterate is that it DOES NOT WORK. Or a coal station or gas one working 8 hours a day instead of 24 is NOT saving CO2 ?

My question would be, does it hurt to be that stupid ? Even suggesting their is NO NET CO2 saving ?

I would ask John Howard or Trump, or anyone who claimed jobs are lost when per KW hour they compete and COSTS are even falling. Does it hurt ? Badly ? Or is it a fog they live in ?
Donald Dementia is very very very smart and knows all about it ... he told me via twitter !!

I might add, battery storage of Wind and solar power costs is falling and I expect within 10-15 years to be able to STORE excess power at a low per KW cost in batteries that last 50 plus years at ULTRA LOW per KW cost overall.

This is the future and the breakthroughs in battery storage are stunning of late and I expect at some stage within 20 years, community based power grids via rooftop installations to be common. No more long transmission lines for a lot of it. But what do I know, its all fake ... fake economics, fake news and I am stupid being on the side of 50,000 scientists in the climate change debate.

tax wise ... I note the above post as I typed ... Australia like the rest of the world has an issue of tax theft and evasion. GLencore is a disgrace as is Chevron here, Apple I mentioned ... Microsoft books 600 million of 3.6 billion on sales here and avoids 3 billion in GST so 300 million tax wise .,. then instead of paying tax on 900 million NET profit or 270 million tax pays about 20 million, Theft of 550 million a year ... thanks mr Gates ... you dick.

Glencorp, comparing it to RIO or BHP via turnover and similar profit margins if not identical, it pays 10% ... YES 10% of the tax here they do. I would strip it of all mining leases and assets. Tax office is on the way to doing this, and one of my pet areas of helping them. But they dodge and defy laws. Same for the Tech ones and Google books most sales via Singapore and avoids both GST and company tax on profits.

Some or their lobby groups argue they have intellectual property or whatever ... being USA based allows them to rape our nation to the tune of 30 billion a year. Since their R+D costs are included in the Net Profit after tax margin of over 25% and we mere are asking for 30% of the profits after all costs and R+D are subtracted ... we get around 3% if not LESS. Power grids ... NO tax ... NONE ... LNG massive export of resources, NOT a cent so far paid in tax here on profits.

It is a topic for another thread. Tax one and economics of it. USA is being propped up by taking 1-2% of GDP of most nations via not paying tax there. Its not helping USA tax its just flowing into the companies hence the s+p 5-- nearly double pre GFC high and ours and most others equities at sucky sucky levels.

 

[rederob]

I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.

Coal mining is not a manufacturing industry.
It's an extraction industry, and there is no value adding prior to export.
And with multinationals it is a money extraction process as well as most profits are repatriated overseas.

 

[bellenuit]

And then continued to argue it.

It was a different point.

I can guarantee you that when Glencore or Anglo American, or even BMA sells that coal your figures look like a train wreck.
"In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."The tens of billions of corporate profit from multinationals which leaves Australia each year trickles a meagre few percentage points tax revenue.

Far from it, it just proved my point and your complete lack of understanding of government revenue.

I had used hypothetical figures but assumed $40 in profits per $100 in gross revenue to Glencore. Their corporate tax rate for that year was 18.6%. So if all their after tax profits were repatriated, then $32.56 per $100 is repatriated at the corporate level. But it seems, according to your figures, that just $1.06 per $100 in revenue was repatriated at the corporate level.

So the balance, $98.94 per $100 in your case, and $67.44 per $100 stays in the country. There will be leakage from that as some of that will be after tax executive and key employee salaries that might be repatriated overseas if that is where they are based and of course any imports (goods and services) that were directly (though Glencore) or indirectly (through its suppliers) used in getting that $100 in revenue.

The net, after removing the leakage, mostly ends up as Government revenue though the taxation system. It will be accrued to the government (state and federal) through royalties (where applicable), GST, employee personal income taxes, payroll taxes etc. Even employee after tax pay is also not excluded from the accrual as it too is spent on goods and services that attract tax to the government. Also included are external supplies and services used by Glencore in the production of that $100 in revenue. Machinery they buy, though a cost to them, is revenue to the supplier and thus will also have taxation revenue benefits to the government in a similar manner to that supplier as the $100 revenue was to Glencore. None of this is double dipping, but represents the total government revenue attributable to that $100 in Glencore revenue.

You seem to be working on the erroneous assumption that government revenue from that $100 gross corporate revenue is just the corporate tax paid, but it is not. The benefits to the government, its revenue take in other words, is all the tax revenue that flows from the $100, which is considerable. In fact better than I had assumed by using your figures.

 

[Struzball]

I personally think ... 14% ,,, IS a pretty awful number !!

How about YOU ?

Stating its at 25% or so ... is factual and backed UP. If anything ultra conservative.

I agree with you, coral cover is about 25%. Based on recent AIMS surveys.

What does 14% mean ? Of that severely bleached mean ? And at 14% cover verses base of 100% ?

When was coral cover ever at 100%? That's improbable, if not impossible.

Coral cover at 25% does not mean there has been a loss of 75%, if that's what you believe.
1985 coral cover according to AIMS was about 30%. So that's a 16.6% loss in coral ((30% - 25%) / 30% = 16.6%) based on those figures, between 1985 and 2017. Figures are rough, if they can even truly be compared, but they seem to be comparable between surveys, in my opinion.

 

[rederob]

Far from it, it just proved my point and your complete lack of understanding of government revenue.

No, it showed you don't understand tax avoidance.
So as not to pay a reasonable rate of tax (a revenue stream to government), Glencore has continued to inflate its debt by billions of dollars.
In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on earnings.
Why not compare what Glencore pays in tax to what BHP pays in tax and you will work out how multinationals repatriate the wealth of nations into their corporate coffers.

 

[kahuna1]

tax wise ... I note the above post as I typed ... Australia like the rest of the world has an issue of tax theft and evasion. GLencore is a disgrace as is Chevron here, Apple I mentioned ... Microsoft books 600 million of 3.6 billion on sales here and avoids 3 billion in GST so 300 million tax wise .,. then instead of paying tax on 900 million NET profit or 270 million tax pays about 20 million, Theft of 550 million a year ... thanks mr Gates ... you dick.

Glencorp, comparing it to RIO or BHP via turnover and similar profit margins if not identical, it pays 10% ... YES 10% of the tax here they do. I would strip it of all mining leases and assets. Tax office is on the way to doing this, and one of my pet areas of helping them. But they dodge and defy laws. Same for the Tech ones and Google books most sales via Singapore and avoids both GST and company tax on profits.

Some or their lobby groups argue they have intellectual property or whatever ... being USA based allows them to rape our nation to the tune of 30 billion a year. Since their R+D costs are included in the Net Profit after tax margin of over 25% and we mere are asking for 30% of the profits after all costs and R+D are subtracted ... we get around 3% if not LESS. Power grids ... NO tax ... NONE ... LNG massive export of resources, NOT a cent so far paid in tax here on profits.

It is a topic for another thread. Tax one and economics of it. USA is being propped up by taking 1-2% of GDP of most nations via not paying tax there. Its not helping USA tax its just flowing into the companies hence the s+p 5-- nearly double pre GFC high and ours and most others equities at sucky sucky levels.

HOW ABOUT THE REAL NUMBERS ... rather than opinion or NON FACT.

https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-...b443b4-d0bb-4a88-a189-4523dbcd7f15/details?q=

Tax office 2017 TAX numbers.
Glencore via 3 entites 2017 income 16.9 billion .... taxable income 1.7 billion .... TAX PAID ... 11 million

Tax rate ... on 1.7 billion is LESS than 1% ... LESS ...
ATO is not happy and neither am I.

BHP Billiton income ... 37.9 billion ... profit 11.4 billion and TAX paid ... 3.271 billion PAID ....
or around 30% ON PROFITS ...

On BHP joint sub ... a coal one ... to show how big a crook Glencore is ...
BHP BILLITON MITSUI COAL PTY LTD Income 1.362 billion PROFIT ... 502.4 million TAX PAID ... 148.6 million ... AGAIN just under 30% on profits ...

I don't need to do RIO its the same as BHP ...

A subsidiary of BHP joint venture with 5% of the turnover of Glencore pays 14 times MORE tax.

Speaking from a perch about someones LACK of understanding about goverment finances when you have NO FACTS .... NO IDEA of facts ... is what it is.

assumed $40 in profits per $100 in gross revenue

Oh really .... well from the above its NET profit is close to 33% and GROSS is EBIT ... which I would assume is close to 60% NOT 40% ...

In the case of GLENCORE ... GLENCORE INVESTMENT PTY LIMITED
it rapes Australia to the tune of 500 MILLION a year in unpaid taxes via various means.

In this case, a tax haven in Switzerland and a corrupt CEO ... and ATO struggling to deal with their form of theft and in this case, to be exact, Glencore has lumped Australia with a debt for its assets and other things that ... has seen the assets here being charged funding for things at what appear to be INSANE and fake transfer pricing costs into a tax haven with 5% tax. One side you save 30% tax here, stuff Australia and the other side declare a profit at 5% ... to enrich yourself.

I vote send him to jail. Is that being to exact with data facts and numbers ? ATO is the source, its their data.

This thread is arguing about irrefutable experiments and data and now tax stuff that ... is available and NOT the subject of someones opinion, conspiracy theory or pet delusion. Some even dispute chemical reactions on this thread.

Stuff me.

 

[Smurf1976]

Lines, not in your post Smurf get blurred in this distinction. Blurred for ideology and to make the case.

Responding to your overall post I'll note that most of those on the "technical" side of the energy industry / debate tend to see the CO2 issue as a challenge to be resolved. One that's more difficult than the public tends to perceive, it's not simply a matter of building wind farms and that's all there is to do, but one that's certainly solvable and really just a matter of working it out and then getting on with it. Nothing needs to be invented, it's just a design and construction task really.

Those who own existing coal-fired generation are also mostly not an obstacle. There's one or two exceptions but broadly speaking, there's no real opposition coming from the owners of existing assets to the idea that they're going to become obsolete.

What they do want however is to fully understand what's happening and that includes what their competitors are doing and there are both technical and economic reasons for that. Economic because they don't want to blow their money. Technical because having multiple operators exit all at once is a seriously bad idea, it needs to be a staged process aligning with the construction of new things which may not necessarily be owned by the same company. That's where things start to get more difficult since the economic ideologues really don't like that idea although there are workarounds in practice albeit imperfect ones.

Where you will hear most of the screaming coming from is those seeking to play politics as such, mostly they're actual politicians or aspiring ones, or who are seeking to divert attention from other things. Things which could broadly be categorised as either their own stuff ups or the question of where rather a lot of money has gone noting that those two points are related.

 

[bellenuit]

In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on earnings.

You seem to be out of your depth in this area. Using your figures:

"In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."

So their earnings were $296M and the tax paid thereon was $55M. Thus, as I stated, they paid 18.6% tax on Earnings. I don't know where you get the less than 2%.

So as not to pay a reasonable rate of tax (a revenue stream to government), Glencore has continued to inflate its debt by billions of dollars.

Debt is not a tax deduction. Interest thereon is, if the debt was taken on for income producing purposes.

And you still do not seem to understand that Government revenue from Glencore's gross revenue is not just the corporate tax paid, but all the tax upon all the inputs that make up the costs associated with the company's revenue, both direct and indirect through suppliers; employee income tax, payroll tax, net GST, etc.