Just shutup and get back to digging that ore westie. NSW needs more lcd tvs Stat.
Labor's carbon tax lie
- Thread starter drsmith
- Start date
Just shutup and get back to digging that ore westie. NSW needs more lcd tvs Stat.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,884
I understand exactly what you mean. Exactly...
What you will likely see is:
1. General cost cutting etc
2. Commencement of a capital strike
3. Cessation of all except very short term maintenance of the oldest part of the plant (if there are multiple production lines of differing ages) or alternatively of the whole plant.
4. Partial closure, either one (of multiple) production line or part of the process (Eg no longer completing all process steps on site or simply scaling down production). Physical demolition of structures commences during this phase.
5. Complete closure of the site.
That's pretty much how these things go and you could pretty much say that every energy intensive industry in the country would be at step 2 right now, indeed some seem to be quite open about it.
The staged closure maximises profit from the remaining working life of the equipment and avoids negative publicity associated with single mass job loss events. You might have 2000 people working at a site today, but that will be down to 100 by the time closure as such is finally announced.
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Can anyone tell me why we are doing this when we actually create only 1.23% of the worlds pollution?
And PUUUULLLEAAAASE don't go on about "per capita" blah blah blah. Red Herring.
Shouldnt India, China and USA be leading the way?
China is building more coal fired power stations to cope with demand. Yes yes yes they are decomissioning OLD technology coal fored power stations. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
About 70% of the electricity consumed in India is generated by thermal power plants, 21% by hydroelectric power plants and 4% by nuclear power plants. SO the pollution comes from from the transport system. Hundreds of millions of old diesel engines continuously burning away diesel which has anything between 150 to 190 times the amount of sulphur out European diesel has. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
Leaves the USA - During winter months, 49 percent of soot and other particle pollution in Sacramento is caused by burning wood in fireplaces and wood stoves. Hmmmm and what about the oil burners they use for heating all the time? So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
Anybody got a sensible answer?
And PUUUULLLEAAAASE don't go on about "per capita" blah blah blah. Red Herring.
Shouldnt India, China and USA be leading the way?
China is building more coal fired power stations to cope with demand. Yes yes yes they are decomissioning OLD technology coal fored power stations. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
About 70% of the electricity consumed in India is generated by thermal power plants, 21% by hydroelectric power plants and 4% by nuclear power plants. SO the pollution comes from from the transport system. Hundreds of millions of old diesel engines continuously burning away diesel which has anything between 150 to 190 times the amount of sulphur out European diesel has. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
Leaves the USA - During winter months, 49 percent of soot and other particle pollution in Sacramento is caused by burning wood in fireplaces and wood stoves. Hmmmm and what about the oil burners they use for heating all the time? So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.
Anybody got a sensible answer?
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
And this is what Governments do well - Propaganda.
Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....
The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’
I guess there are other ways to skin a cat
Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....
....In a perfect world, a good government would make sure it’s people had all the useful facts, so they could decide where they wanted to put their resources.
In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Answer: 0.039% or about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)
In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Responses: Nearly all people thought it was “20% – 40%”, the highest said 75%, and the lowest estimated 2% – 10%.
Answer: 0.039% or about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Responses: All said ’No’ or they ‘couldn’t remember’.
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Responses: Most estimated it to be 25% to 75%, and answers ranged up to 100%. Only four people thought it was 2 to 10%.
Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Responses: Ranged from 1% to 20%.
Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Responses: All but one thought it is a pollutant, at least to some degree.
Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Responses: Almost all did not know of any evidence. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)
The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’
I guess there are other ways to skin a cat
- Joined
- 22 June 2008
- Posts
- 561
- Reactions
- 0
Here's what some of the big boys will do, send their energy intensive processes over to China(or other) and then import the finished(or near finished) product for distribution or final assembly............oh wait, many have already done that
That's it, we'll be the clean green consumer country and just pay other countries to pollute.........what's that saying, "don't s#!t in your own back yard"........think we should add to that "don't s#!t in your neighbors back yard either"
Seriously all I can see from a carbon tax is business will shift their carbon intensive processes overseas. The point of it(I assume) was to force businesses to invest in more efficient and low or no carbon invention. Can't really see that happening for product based companies, only those who can't outsource will have any incentive and even then all they'll likely do is just pass on the cost and do jack.
So really, how does this tax drive invention. The whole world has been inventing more efficient processes and products for years. As resources are reduced they will increase their efforts as the need has increased........after all, necessity is the mother of invention. You want to reduce our footprint, kill off the population, otherwise accept that we need to s#!t somewhere(metaphorically speaking).
The industrialization of the world is pollution intensive, I believe we as a world will move to lower pollutive living over time. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate can deny that. The real question is de we really need to perform radical unproven surgery to cure the patient of the common flu or will a course of antibiotics suffice.
IMHO it's still unproven how much of an effect we as humans have on "climate change", and as such it's a bit silly to assume we can have any substantial effect on reducing such perceivable effects. The worlds climate has been changing one way or the other for billions of years, I think looking at a ~50yr portion of that and assuming you know it all is a bit naive. Then again maybe this is all being driven by a conspiracy with some hidden agenda that won't become clear until it's too late
My
Cheers
That's it, we'll be the clean green consumer country and just pay other countries to pollute.........what's that saying, "don't s#!t in your own back yard"........think we should add to that "don't s#!t in your neighbors back yard either"
Seriously all I can see from a carbon tax is business will shift their carbon intensive processes overseas. The point of it(I assume) was to force businesses to invest in more efficient and low or no carbon invention. Can't really see that happening for product based companies, only those who can't outsource will have any incentive and even then all they'll likely do is just pass on the cost and do jack.
So really, how does this tax drive invention. The whole world has been inventing more efficient processes and products for years. As resources are reduced they will increase their efforts as the need has increased........after all, necessity is the mother of invention. You want to reduce our footprint, kill off the population, otherwise accept that we need to s#!t somewhere(metaphorically speaking).
The industrialization of the world is pollution intensive, I believe we as a world will move to lower pollutive living over time. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate can deny that. The real question is de we really need to perform radical unproven surgery to cure the patient of the common flu or will a course of antibiotics suffice.
IMHO it's still unproven how much of an effect we as humans have on "climate change", and as such it's a bit silly to assume we can have any substantial effect on reducing such perceivable effects. The worlds climate has been changing one way or the other for billions of years, I think looking at a ~50yr portion of that and assuming you know it all is a bit naive. Then again maybe this is all being driven by a conspiracy with some hidden agenda that won't become clear until it's too late
My
Cheers
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
Eastern states free loaders, ripped of the pink batts and schools programs then shill screams about it, time to change the rabbit proof fence into some thing more substantial.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...states-gst-split/story-fn59niix-1226012260487
My God Ifocus, you're not quoting a lib are you
Out of interest how are they at running the state?
Nvm just checked , Labor lad thought it was a bit odd from you
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
The Gillard Government's carbon tax will help the nation's most vulnerable people, the Brotherhood of St Laurence says.
The surprise support from the charity that fights poverty is a big boost for Prime Minister Julia Gillard as she battles Opposition claims the tax will hurt consumers.
Brotherhood executive director Tony Nicholson said critics were wrong to say it was simply a choice between a tax that would mean a hefty rise in electricity bills and no increase by doing nothing.
"It's a false choice if ever there was one," he said. "We are all already paying for the cost of doing nothing and the burden is falling hardest on those with the least money."
Mr Nicholson said electricity prices had risen by 30 per cent in the past five years "without a tax or carbon price in sight" and the poor were "paying through the neck".
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...rs-carbon-tax/comments-e6frf7l6-1226014380311
Couldn't this have the potential to adversely effect the Brotherhoods employment services through the job network? Less employed people, less wages, higher taxes, more poverty etc...
I know what the old CEO of the Brotherhood would say. He would be too busy having his cookies and eating them too.
The surprise support from the charity that fights poverty is a big boost for Prime Minister Julia Gillard as she battles Opposition claims the tax will hurt consumers.
Brotherhood executive director Tony Nicholson said critics were wrong to say it was simply a choice between a tax that would mean a hefty rise in electricity bills and no increase by doing nothing.
"It's a false choice if ever there was one," he said. "We are all already paying for the cost of doing nothing and the burden is falling hardest on those with the least money."
Mr Nicholson said electricity prices had risen by 30 per cent in the past five years "without a tax or carbon price in sight" and the poor were "paying through the neck".
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...rs-carbon-tax/comments-e6frf7l6-1226014380311
Couldn't this have the potential to adversely effect the Brotherhoods employment services through the job network? Less employed people, less wages, higher taxes, more poverty etc...
I know what the old CEO of the Brotherhood would say. He would be too busy having his cookies and eating them too.
Last edited by a moderator:
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
My God Ifocus, you're not quoting a lib are you
Out of interest how are they at running the state?
Nvm just checked , Labor lad thought it was a bit odd from you
Barnett's OK rest of the state liberals are complete numskulls funny enough the Nationals have been a brake on some of the more draconian laws.
They only exist because of the shambles that are state Labor.
This is a real concern
Low life shock jocks scum bags would do any thing for a $
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-the-coalitions-rage-20110302-1bey4.html#poll
NSW is about to ditch labor. It’s the same case here in regards to state labor being an absolute joke. Will be interesting to see how the big BO (Barry) goes with running it.
As for Windsor, the worst quoted threat I saw was along the lines of "I hope you die, you're a pig" yada yada. I didn't know 'hoping' someone dies is now a threat. Seems a touch soft and a media ho to further his position. No excuse for threats made on anyone though, no matter what level of frustration. John Howard received more death threats from union members, anti-war protestors, and boat people supporters then this current government put together. So it happens on both sides.
Agree that shock jocks go to far.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,609
- Reactions
- 6,401
Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.
He is, some of the fantastic outfits he has worn over the years are just legendary, and having a personal guard containing women only is so cool. It's bad luck he is as crazy as cut snake.
Have to say though, when I think of the word snappy dresser, Barnaby joyce does NOT come to mind.
Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
Voters would be naive in the extreme to be conned by the ALP leadership, or MP Windsor, or MP Oakshott, in this '..poor me, the big boys are picking on me..' posturing.Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.
Have you seen PM Gillard and ALP acolytes in action in Question Time? Under parliamentary privilege the Coalition are Satan and all the host of Hades. Did you watch how Windsor and Oakshott conducted themselves at the post-election roulette wheel? Too bad their poor duped rural electors.
Their bleatings are code for '..we're losing the argument, go for the sympathy vote..'.
How many death threats do you think Andrew Bolt gets.
Hi
Is there any chance that we can get you to be an advisor for both sides of government?
Problem Solved.
Cheers
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
Politics aside I think the tone in the public arena is wrong. the libs have clearly had a strategy to dog whistle the prejudices in the community there are votes in this. Abbott then nods and winks that its not right, this should not be the position of any political party leader in Australia IMHO I dont remember Howard (as wrong as he was) hiding behind other Liberal MPs like Abbott.
Inside the house I think both sides have slogged it out which is fine.
Not enough LOL, seriously I would even stand up for Bolt on the issue.
one would think a price on carbon would significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels/promote 'green' energy or energy alternatives however that is not the fact.
from here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au...tricity-pd20110302-EK7DC?OpenDocument&src=sph
The national energy resource assessment could hardly be more clear: “Electricity generation is projected to reach 366,000 gigawatt hours in 2029-30, an increase of 1.8 per cent per year. Coal is expected to continue to dominate Australia’s electricity generation with 43 per cent of the total but a shift to lower emissions energy sources is expected to result in significant increases in the use of gas (37 per cent) and renewables (19 per cent), particularly wind (12 per cent).”
Translated, what this means is that the current power generation role of coal, delivering around 200,000 GWh a year (some 80 per cent of the total) will be cut back by 2030 to deliver 157,000 GWh. (Forty-three per cent of a much larger demand – geddit?)
Today we are burning 50 million tonnes of black coal a year in Australia and about 70 million tonnes of brown coal.
and more information to show the clean alternatives are really not going to make up a huge contribution to our electricity needs
by 2029-30 generation from gas will be delivering 135,000 GWh annually with wind providing 44,000 GWh (about the current power output in Victoria) and hydro-electric systems (by then 70 years old) contributing 13,000 GWh. On this assessment, solar will be bringing up the rear (only 4,000 GWh) along with geothermal (6,000 GWh) and bioenergy (3,000 GWh).
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,884
Overall industry costs have risen, and efficiency has fallen, since de-regulation and the introduction of competition. That reality, not the lack of a carbon price, is what is sending power bills through the roof.
I am not keen on central planning or state owned business in principle, but I am absolutely in favour of it where electricity, water, public transport and so on are concerned. The track record is that the private sector ends up costing even more than public (actually, the old state-run electricity commissions were technically and financially the most efficient in the OECD amongst non-hydro systems (ie coal, gas) so it's not surprising that the "competitive" model is less efficient).
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
ABC Radio's PM programme this evening had an audio of part of Question Time today.
I just felt sick listening to it, i.e. that we pay these people to behave so absolutely pathetically.
When Ms Gillard is in full flight, raising her voice about an octave, I think of my late mother who would have said : "who is that dreadful shrew?"
Does Ms Gillard ever listen to a recording of herself? It would seem not.
I just can't believe anyone actually hearing that shrill outcry, in defiance of the Speaker's order, would think for a moment that such a performance could possibly endear the politician to the electorate.
During the time I've lived in Australia I can't think of any previous tie when politics has sunk to such an all time low.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
What on earth is going on here? Has the Brotherhood been privy to the yet to be publicly announced compensation measures which appear to show that people on very low incomes might even be better off?
If so, the Brotherhood should look beyond its nose.
When the GST was introduced, so was compensation for low income households.
It never kept pace with inflation.
So will it be, and even more, with the carbon tax as they have already made clear the cost will rise year on year.
How do these people get jobs with these organistions like the Brotherhood?
The current CEO at least seems like a government stooge, or alternatively he's simply not wide awake.
