As I have said , you will just have to wait and see.
You have to agree, Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.....The biggest tax in the world......All it did was to increase the cost of living by $550 to the working families of Australia.
So instead of trying to bring down the COALITION...why can't you give it a fair go?
Please note the COALITION is spelt with a "C" and not an "N".....That spelling of yours is becoming monotonous to say the least.
Yes, sorry mate.
But whatever we do, no matter if it was with the best intent, it has an adverse effect on someone.
Yep, China's going to increase the amount of non-fossil energy they use. No doubt about that.
Just wait until environmentalists realise that they're running around celebrating plan to build dams, dams and more dams plus a few reactors here and there too. Plus some wind farms and solar to keep everyone happy, but hydro and nuclear is the key to what they're doing overall.
but royalties from IP are a good substitute
Not all environmentalists are created equal. I much prefer nuclear to coal. Bring it on. Dams on the other hand... not so great.
Right. I should have said 'most', rather than 'all'.- it's not true that 'all of our trading partners weren't doing anything remotely similar'
It's the forward trajectory that's the concern. I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.- Our economy is absolutely fine. I'm not saying we should unduly punish it (I'm not even suggesting we do anything), but I do think Australian concerns about our economy and national debt are a bit overblown.
Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money. We are now needing to deal with that splurge.We are the only developed country not to have gone into recession.
Assuming you believe the threats of catastrophic warming.We're still going strong. Aussie dollar has fallen. Unemployment very low. I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a country doing better than us... If anyone can afford to take action, we can.
I was talking about our exports, not imports.I didn't think the statistic included our imports (that would be hugely misleading).
Yep, or simply that people would vote for anyone who wasn't Labor after six years of their bungling.The argument a lot of people stated re voting for Abbott was he was the least bad option.
It's the forward trajectory that's the concern. I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.
Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money. We are now needing to deal with that splurge.
I was talking about our exports, not imports.
I'm also not sure whether our bushfires are included in our 'emissions'. Someone who is more interested in the topic of climate change than I am will know.
we're the country that could most afford it.
The trouble with "IP royalties" is that it employs virtually nobody and provides benefits to very, very few.
Someone mines or manufactures something then that employs a lot of people on an ongoing basis.
Someone designs something, once, then collects the royalties for the next 20 years - that benefits basically nobody on an ongoing basis.
So there's a broader social issue there. Nobody who sold their IP then needs to employ process workers, truck drivers, tradesmen or even a manager in order to collect the royalties.
Your friend sounds like a realist.Thanks for the interesting points on nuclear and resources in Aus, Smurf.
It reminds me of what a friend dryly noted when our PM cut funding to science, education, etc: We're essentially left with mining and tourism, which is basically the definition of a third world country.
It seems you agree.
I personally would like to see a shift away from a resource-dependent economy, partly by encouraging our already successful industries such as biotech research and education. Perhaps climate policy would assist this change?
Yes it would be extremely difficult to achieve "growth & jobs" without a resource driven industry. Returning to life like the era prior to the Industrial Revolution when most things were made by hand would be challenging for the "developed" countries.Australia has a vested interest in fossil fuels, both in terms of the actual production of coal and gas (we're a net importer of oil) and in terms of continuing the demand for energy-intensive metals production either domestically or using Australian ore.
Take that away and, with manufacturing largely gone, it's debatable as to whether or not Australia would even be seen as a "wealthy" country at all or whether we'd be classified as a "developing" nation.
Even if we stop using so much coal etc locally, we desperately need others to keep using it. Just like the Saudi's need someone else to keep buying their oil (noting that they do have some programs in place aiming to cut domestic consumption, albeit not with a lot of success thus far but they're working on it).
Back in Feb 2014 - Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.
Not bad for Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.
Where did you derive those stats?
Have you got a link?
Over the first two years of operation of the carbon price (July 2012 to July 2014), carbon emissions are down by 29 million tonnes or 8.2 per cent across the National Electricity Market compared to the two years prior.
Abstract: Australia's carbon price has been in operation for two years. The electricity sector accounts for the majority of emissions covered under the scheme. This paper examines the impact of the carbon price on the electricity sector between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014, focusing on the National Electricity Market (NEM). Over this period, electricity demand in the NEM declined by 3.8 per cent, the emissions intensity of electricity supply by 4.6 per cent, and overall emissions by 8.2 per cent, compared to the two-year period before the carbon price. We detail observable changes in power demand and supply mix, and estimate the quantitative effect of the effect of the carbon price. We estimate that the carbon price led to an average 10 per cent increase in nominal retail household electricity prices, an average 15 per cent increase in industrial electricity prices and a 59 per cent increase in wholesale (spot) electricity prices. It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use. We estimate the demand reduction attributable to the carbon price at 2.5 to 4.2 TWh per year, about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of total electricity demand in the NEM. The carbon price markedly changed relative costs between different types of power plants. Emissions-intensive brown coal and black coal generators reduced output and 4GW of emissions-intensive generation capacity was taken offline. We estimate that these shifts in the supply mix resulted in a 16 to 28kg CO2/MWh reduction in the emissions intensity of power supply in the NEM, a reduction between 1.8 and 3.3 per cent. The combined impact attributable to the carbon price is estimated as a reduction of between 5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (3.2 to 5 per cent) in 2012/13 and between 6 and 9 million tonnes (3.5 to 5.6 per cent) in 2013/14, and between 11 and 17 million tonnes cumulatively. There are fundamental difficulties in attributing observed changes in demand and supply to specific causes, especially over the short term, and in this light we use conservative parameters in the estimation of the effect of the carbon price. We conclude that the carbon price has worked as expected in terms of its short-term impacts. However, its effect on investment in power generation assets has probably been limited, because of policy uncertainty about the continuation of the carbon pricing mechanism. For emissions pricing to have its full effect, a stable, long-term policy framework is needed.
You have indicated a substantial drop in emissions mainly from coal fired power stations.....these stations have been installing antipollution stacks for some time before the the carbon dioxide tax came into being...they take time to design and construct and most likely came into operation after the carbon dioxide tax was introduced but of course the Labor Party would take credit for it and the naive will believe them..
What about all the other industries...we don't have many left now of course as most of them have gone overseas.....If you like to whistle, I will point to the reason why industry has left Australia.
My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?
My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?
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?