The first ever Science Show in 1975 (Radio National) had a segment on global warming and greenhouse gases.LOL!!! HAHAHA!
In the 1970s climate change was able to be determined as a phenomenon no longer due to chance.LOL!!! HAHAHA!
Wake up Sdajii..
(The concern about) climate change has been about since the 1970's.
You really are out of your depth here.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.
No!Neither side can be taken seriously, which is why the sceptics exist.
Where did they fail?Climate science is partially to blame for this, because it is their job to be genuine and unbiased, a task they have failed.
Except that it is you who are making a lot of noise drumming a very empty vessel.Dogmatic, irrational bleating isn't working, you may have noticed.
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.
Yes, you are its embodiment.Your post signature is very appropriate.
Your post signature is very appropriate.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
Ummm..what advantage is that?
The advantage we provide to foreign multinationals who pay exceptionally low rates of tax?
The advantage of completely missing the boat on a renewables industry?
The advantage of an energy network that has pandered to fossil fuels at the expense of renewables policy?
The advantage of high electricity prices because we have failed to plan for a renewables economy?
The advantage of water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events, all due to changing our climate at an unprecedented rate?
I am sure I missed some, so please fill me in.
The money has been available and so have the alternatives, so you are just drowning in your own non-argument.No. We can do both. The money that we would be throwing away can be used to seek alternatives.
Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics.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).
You cannot use what there is not. But your response ignores the real point of there never being a price on carbon.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.
That makes no sense at all as it is a policy framework that determines how the market operates. Please learn about the NEM.If our energy producers continue to use coal when there are cheaper options then they are doing their shareholders and customers a disservice.
You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.A complete non-sequitur to my argument.
Except it is just your claim.Which brings us back to where I entered this argument. NONE of these would have been prevented had Australia stopped using or exporting coal.
This attitude sums up where we are and why.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.
Except it is just your claim.
.Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics.
You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.
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.If (using a hypothetical breakdown) we sell $100 of coal overseas, that $100 is revenue to the nation at the top line.
And then continued to argue it.As I said I am done arguing the point,....
I can guarantee you that when Glencore or Anglo American, or even BMA sells that coal your figures look like a train wreck.Oh dear oh dear. If (using a hypothetical breakdown)....
You cannot reinvent principles of logic to suit your case, and rhetoric excludes the prospect of your points having any merit.Yes it can if they are rhetorical in nature, as yours were.
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.
Coal mining is not a manufacturing industry.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.
And then continued to argue it.
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.
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.
What does 14% mean ? Of that severely bleached mean ? And at 14% cover verses base of 100% ?
No, it showed you don't understand tax avoidance.Far from it, it just proved my point and your complete lack of understanding of government revenue.
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.
assumed $40 in profits per $100 in gross revenue
Lines, not in your post Smurf get blurred in this distinction. Blurred for ideology and to make the case.
In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on earnings.
"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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?