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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
well said julia!

there is no new information on the topic to be studied on this thread, just the same old links to the same old sites that have been circulating for the past 5 (if not more) years on every forum you look at... (links to realclimate.com etc etc)...

thats why i dont like links... i believe that googleing is better as it will bring up sites showing both sides of the issue so you can study both the for and against points of view
 
Sails, thanks for this:

Many people seem to think that "Taxes are bad; therefore global warming is not happening" is a logical and convincing argument. As you point out, it's not.

Julia, I didn't say all Australians can make changes, but you seem to think that none of us can or should. You also seem to think that the only reason electricity prices are rising is a price on carbon that doesn't exist yet. As Smurf has pointed out more than once, electricity generation is in a decaying mess and a large part of the reason is that the industry has known for at least 10 years that they can't make financially responsible plans to replace aging systems until there's a reasonably stable system for pricing carbon emissions. Continuing to delay and dither will make electricity more expensive for everyone.

I was trying to suggest some ways that individuals can make a difference, however small, through changes that have more than one benefit. I'm also trying not to despair. It's so sad to see everyone waiting for everyone else to start fixing what looks increasingly like the ultimate tragedy of the commons.

Ghoti
 
Not at all unusual here in Tas to find people with $800, $1000, even $1200 power bills for the Winter quarter. Not unusual at all.

The conversation came up at work and I mentioned mine, $250, and got a few funny looks. The next lowest was almost double that amount and that was for someone with no electric heating at all.

Let's do some maths based on "typical" consumption:

Hot water, 5000 kWh per annum which is fairly normal for a 4 person household. There's $683.

Light and power at the "average" of 3600 kWh per annum. There's another $815.

Then there's another $350 for supply charges, payable without even having switched anything on.

So, normal lights and power, hot water and supply charges = $1848 per annum or $462 a quarter.

And now the big one, heating. Assuming it's a typical 3 bed house with room heating only (not central heating) then:

Electricity (portable heaters) - 12,000 kWh = $2718 per annum.

Electricity (hard wired fan heaters on discount rate) - 12,000 kWh = $1639 per annum.

Electricity (heat pump) - 4000 kWh = $546 per annum.

Wood - 6 tonnes = $510 (bought in summer) to $780 (bought in winter)

LPG - 24 cylinders = $3010 per annum.

Oil - 1650 litres = $2228 per annum.

So all up that's $2358, if you're willing to mess about with wood and remember to buy it in summer, all the way up to $4858 if you've got LPG and don't like shivering.

Bottom line is that if you are like me and can afford solar power, heat pump hot water, cook with gas and have a wood fire for heat then you're not going to use much electricity and so won't be overly concerned about the price.

But try telling that to someone stuck in a rental property with no insulation and expensive heating (portable fan heaters, oil, LPG). And that's exactly the situation in rather a lot of rental properties - landlords aren't known for worrying about the energy costs of tennants. Even public housing has expensive electric fan heaters. Due to this situation, it is no secret that a large portion of rentals are freezing during Winter simply because tennants can't afford the cost of heating. That is particularly so for those on lower incomes etc - you know, the people most likely to rent, rather than buy, a place to live.

Likewise it is the situation faced by a lot of pensioners etc in their own homes who can't afford to install heat pumps, solar and so on.

Now, before anyone points out that my figures are for Tasmania, that the population is only 2% of Australia, people should just get used to the cold etc...

According to official energy use statistics, Victorians use more heating per household than Tasmanians, The reason being that it is fairly common in Vic to heat the whole house with ducted heating, something that is not at all common in Tas. Now, Victoria does have a rather significant share of the national population, saved only by (presently) cheap gas in that state.

The whole CO2 thing sounds easy if you live in Sydney or Brisbane where incredibly low energy bills, under $1000 a year, are actually not uncommon. But it's somewhat different if you're going to be left shivering in the dark in Vic / Tas all winter or sweltering through summer in Adelaide.

Likewise petrol prices don't really matter if you live in Hobart and spend 10 minutes driving to work. But it's rather different if you're in part of Sydney with poor public transport and spend 2 hours a day commuting. Very different indeed.

I say all that as someone who first became interested in the whole issue of energy due largely to family circumstances at the time. I've been there, done that with no insulation, portable heaters and power bills that take a huge chunk of your (at the time low) income.

If you are retired, unemployed, disabled or whatever then you tend to be home far more than someone who works full time. And that means your energy consumption is higher as a result. Those most exposed to rising energy prices, are those already least able to pay. The rich will go solar etc or just pay the bill. The poor are already shivering through winter, and if energy gets more expensive they'll be taking cold showers and eating cold beans for dinner as well.

As for radiators, you'd only need to run ONE of them from the time the first person gets up in the morning until the last one goes to bed at night in order to run up a bill of $1000 for the quarter. And that's just for one radiator, which as anyone who lives in a cooler climate will know is certainly not going to keep more than one room warm.
 
Let's not forget that with Queensland's humidity in the summer, many people are going to need as much air conditioning as those in the Southern states use in heating in winter.

I doubt there are many parts of the country which would be unaffected by rising electricity prices.
 
I should have added that my point is not to boast that I can afford to do this whilst many can not, but rather that a very expensive energy source is actually ending up as a viable option given the soaring price of grid electricity.
 
What do you think all those Google results are if they're not links?
 
Julia said:
I assure you that it happens all the time. Why would you doubt what Smurf says? Where in the entire existence of this forum have you ever found Smurf to be other than completely factual and reasonable in what he says?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for what the Smurf says, however ya just cant call a 3K annual power bill "not unusual" according to this recent newspaper story (May 2010) the average Qld power bill after the next increase will be $2046

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...soars-240-a-year/story-fn5hj8qg-1225872739189

The price hike means the average annual household electricity bill will soar to $2046 in the new financial year. Energy Minister Stephen Robertson and the industry argued that the increase was to build and maintain infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Thus making a bill 50% higher rather unusual id say. seems that 2 adults living normally should average about 12 > 15 kwh per day.

Smurf1976 said:
Not at all unusual here in Tas to find people with $800, $1000, even $1200 power bills for the Winter quarter. Not unusual at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll agree that Australians don't usually live in Tasmania...so its not realistic to use Tassie "not unusual's" for the rest of the country...the other 97% of us.


Really...what sort of a life is it when its dominated by radiator heating :dunno: only people who like the cold should live in cold climates, my experience in the snowy Mountains was that if you don't like the heat/cold, prob best if you go somewhere more to your liking...or make a heap more money/stop whining about how much it costs you to keep warm/cool.
 
I hope people have time to write history books a hundred years hence, but if humans don't cut our carbon emissions, hard and soon, it's possible that much of the citizenry will be in situations that make today's disadvantage look like paradise and history books (books?) a forgotten luxury.

Stronger, more frequent storms, longer heat waves, bigger bushfires and greater floods: these things will all hit the poor harder than others because the poor have fewer protections and options. Poverty sucks. But ignoring other problems won't make poverty go away.

Ghoti
 
It has long been accepted that Qld power bills are low compared to most. They still have relatively cheap electricity for a start, and don't use that much of it. If average households in Qld are about to be paying $2K, then it doesn't take much of a stretch to find someone who is home all day in a cooler climate paying $3K.

And as I've said, Victorians use more heating per household than Tasmanians despite Vic being warmer. It's only the availability of (presently) cheap gas that makes this affordable. Hike the gas price up enough and then we'll hear screams in the national media. 0.5 million people in Tas can be ignored but ignoring 5 million in Vic would be a bit harder.

It's like you will find people who drive 20,000 KM each year, a figure that is significantly above the average. Some even do more than that. Just as you will find others who only travel 5,000 KM in the same period.

Just as I find it incredible that my neighbour manages to fill an 80 litre (the small ones) wheelie bin each week. Actually fill it up! I've no idea how anyone can create so much rubbish, but obviously it can be done. And of course some people have bigger bins.

Same with anything. I'm told that the average Australian drinks the equivalent of a bit under a carton (or slab if you prefer that term) of beer per month according to the stats. Some will think it ridiculous that anyone drinks that much, others literally buy a carton every week.

With anything, there is significant variation in consumption levels. And it's certainly not unsual for somone to spend $750 on a quarterly power bill - not unusual at all. Just as it's not that unusual to find someone with a very low bill, say $300. The "average" is comprised of individuals with hugely differing consumption levels. In some parts of the country, $300 wouldn't even be considered "low", indeed some would say it is "high" relative to local standards and their own usage.

And the "average" is also incresingly skewed by forced conservation. It's no secret that those with woodheaters (cheap) tend to turn the lounge into a sauna whilst those with expensive heating often have "rules" about using the heater unless they have enough money not to worry about it (in which case they probably have an economical heater anyway).

Rules for the heater? No heating on any day with a forecast maximum 15 degrees or above seems to be a fairly common one and I know quite a few (mostly elderly) who do live in that manner so as to reduce expenses. Others will pick a different temperature, perhaps 16 degrees, or will base it on a thermometer reading rather than a forecast. Others have a rule about not using any heater if it's not cloudy. And so on. It's an exercise in psychology and coping with forced conservation, not any science or other reason to not heat a room on any given day.

Fuel poverty is real in this country. It's most noticeable in the cooler areas during Winter where it creates outright misery, but no doubt it affects those in the warmer states in other ways too.

If you think energy is cheap then try living on a pension / unemployment benefits / working poor etc for a while. Try paying rent / mortgage on a casual income or earning $20 per hour. And so on. Rent, insurance, food, water, fuel and so on - none of it is getting cheaper and wages are not keeping up. But it's the power bills that send people to the welfare groups for help.

I say that as someone who earns more than the average wage and has relatively low living expenses. I can afford solar. I can afford a carbon tax if it comes in. I already walk more than I drive. But a great many people do not have those options and that's what I'm worried about.

If we're going to cut emissions, then simply taxing the poor who have little option, other than shivering in the dark, to cut their energy consumption seems a pretty poor way to go about it. But it's what we're already doing at the global level with oil, food etc so I have little doubt we'll do the same with power, gas etc too. Some go without, such that the rest can keep on consuming and feel good about supposedly having done something... by directly hurting others.

We need a better source of power, not a means of price-induced rationing that leaves some in the dark whilst the rest are relatively unaffected. We need engineering fixes to a problem, not a tax to price people out of the market.
 

Well said, except that all engineering solutions have an economics component. One of the functions of any system for pricing carbon emissions can, and should, be to provide funding to support consumers through the costs of changing to low or no emission power generation. You might remember that one of the Greens' objections to the Rudd govt. ETS was that it compensated power generators instead of end users. I don't know how reasonable that objection was, though the government's pathetic efforts at explaining, let alone selling, their scheme suggests there might have been something in it. Still that's history; it only matters now as a reminder that the economics of carbon pricing are not straightforward. "Simply taxing the poor" would be just as unfair and stupid as using the poor as an excuse to do nothing.

Ghoti
 
I share Dertys and Ghotlibs concern on the effectiveness of proposed carbon trading approaches to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have the required effect on global warming. The more one looks at the way business and finance works the more we can appreciate that gaming the system is the way to make money rather than actually producing the desired outcomes.

The critical point in my view is actually have a large enough group of people who recognise that there is enough evidence to say that CO2 induced global warming is real and an overwhelming threat to our lives that has to dealt with. And in that group there also has to be the business leaders who finally recognise that all the money in the world won't save their skins; they'll just get to die a few years later.

This forum is a microcosm of our society as it currently stands. A few members discuss the issue using the accumulated research and evidence from thousands of scientists around the world. Their unambiguous and unanimous verdict is that the world is warming rapidly and that human induced greenhouse gases are the principal reason.

Other members use arguments that have been repeated from organisations attempting to protect current greenhouse gas emitters that attempt to spread fear, confusion and doubt about the basis for scientists concerns. (Like others I went ad nauseum on these in earlier posts )

And in the end absolutely no-one wants to actually believe this is all true. (And that goes (in my understanding) for the scientists who actually research this field) So it's far more comfortable to ridicule it, dismiss it or ignore it.

Whatever uncertainties remain about the full picture of how human induced global warming will play out are minuscule in comparison to the devastation that will be caused if the current situation continues.

What to do? Again Derty hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that if decisive action had been taken 25 years ago when the first clear indications pf global warming were being observed we would be well on our way to a safer direction. But the asteroid is now much, much closer and diversion seems like a matter of prayer and blind luck (have the scientists mucked up the maths and the asteroid will just slip past us ?)

In the simplest most direct solutions, smurf and others have pointed out that engineering carbon free renewable energy systems and a huge reduction in overall resource use offer the most hopeful opportunities of averting global warming as well as addressing impending problems of peak oil and resource depletion. You don't have to be GW believer to go down those paths.

But of course such a path could also require the ultimate sacrifice in our current society - compromising our Freedom of Choice.
 

I too can afford a solar power system. I am having a 1.5kw system installed for about $3000 with rebates. I don't need it, but I love gimmicks. My power bill is under $100 per quarter, because the climate in which I live requires no artificial heating or cooling.

I know I am wasting money which won't be recovered in my lifetime. I also realise it takes about four years to offset the carbon generated producing the panel with the clean energy coming from the panel itself.

But what the hell. It may help a family living in my house after my demise.
 
Exactly.

Ditto on this.

Yes, the pat ourselves on the back stuff because 'we're helping to offset climate change' works well for the well heeled inner city greens. No worries for them about having to do without food or essential medication to pay the bloody carbon tax.


Whilst wishing you lots of fun with your new gimmick, Calliope, it's people like you who don't even believe in the need for the solar system, who are pushing up power bills for everyone else. All these subsidies have to be paid for and it's a large part of the reason why there have been so many increases.

And yes, I know ageing infrastructure needs to be upgraded etc etc, but only a couple of days ago Mr Combet announced the cessation of one of these heavily subsidised schemes for just the very reason I've given.
 
Hi.
I live in Miallo north of Port Douglas.
I would like to show the cost comparison of electricity of my property to the neighbour.
Both block 2 acres, have bores.
Neighbour has grid connect 1kWh system plus solar hot water.
Cost per quarter. Neighbour $394.
Me $407

I have AC units, but fans run mostly, as we have breeze.
I have two 22 inch screens for trading and run a computer about 10 hrs per day. I watch TV etc. I have two fridges and a deep freeze. (ones a beer fridge)
They run a fan, but computer and tv rarely used. They have a fridge.

The only reason I can fathom for the similar cost is I pump to a tank with bore, then have a small pump for house pressure. All fruit trees and garden gravitate. Salad vegetables produced 8 months a year.
While the neighbour has the bore pump as only pump. Each time a tap turns on, a large pump is started.

Basically I agree with is what written above.
The solar rebate scheme seems to be a bit of hoax. And a high cost to the tax payer.
Cheers
 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-one-year-early/story-fn59niix-1225963914109
The program had previously been attacked as a middle class welfare measure because the subsidies tended to favour the well-off and had minimal impact in reducing Australia’s emissions.
Click to expand...

I feel suitably chastened, but you must realise Julia that middle class welfare has been a large impost on the taxpayer since introduced by Howard and continued by Rudd and Gillard. None of it has come the way of people like me. Combet reckons reducing the rebates will reduce average power bills by $12 annually, while he is cooking up new ways to increase the bill.

I am well aware that these things will have minimal impact on Australia's emissions. They are simply a "look at me, I'm saving the world" gimmick like Prius cars.
 
ghotib said:
What do you think all those Google results are if they're not links?
Click to expand...

my mistake i meant to write "thats why i dont like posted links" as in the ones on forums like this, and nearly every other forum ive looked at on the topic... as they rarely provide any new info to the debate... usually just a link to 'how to convert a denier' page on a webpage like realclimate.com... who were also tarred by the same brush as Mr jones & co in the 'climategate' emails... birds of a feather...

why i prefer google is i can type in the issue being discussed and up comes current web pages with the LATEST info from BOTH sides of the arguement... not some pseudo-scientist wannabe's biased twisting of the facts to suit their own agenda... from my perspective most ppl on these forums make up their mind before reading all the arguments from both sides, then 'cherry pick' titbits of information to try and prove they are right...

a good example is mr derty's assertion that man made greenhouse gasses make up 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions... even this cherry picked piece of info is bollocks... heres why:

IF you leave out water vapor as a greenhouse gas/force then the man made percentage is actually 5%.... HOWEVER water vapour most definately IS a greenhouse gas/forcer SO when you include it the actual man made component drops to 0.18%... that was where (off the top of my head) i got the 0.2% content from (i know i originally put 0.02% my bad) anyhow like i said dont take my word for it... if you really do want to see a balanced view GOOGLE IT... and dont fall for the biased links from ppl who view the topic as a religion rather than an unproven scientific theory!
 

I was just responding to your claim that:
bandicoot76 said:
...CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere...
Click to expand...
I never asserted that anthropogenic CO2 makes up 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. I asserted that it makes up around 3% of the carbon dioxide emissions. Which it does.
 
The bottom line for me is that the taxpayer literally gave me a 1kW system. It cost me nothing more than a phone call. Even the stamp on the envelope to return the forms was supplied free.

I'd certainly agree that it wasn't the best use of the taxpayer's funds. But from a personal perspective, I'd be a fool to knock back something for nothing. Had I not taken it, they (government) would only waste the money on something else instead unfortunately. It's not as though they would actually put it into hospitals or something like that.
 
Smurf1976 said:
The bottom line for me is that the taxpayer literally gave me a 1kW system. It cost me nothing more than a phone call. Even the stamp on the envelope to return the forms was supplied free.
Click to expand...
Well, whoop de do, how good is that!

You might be right. I don't suppose the government would indeed have actually done something useful with those funds.

But my point was that many people who do not need this assistance have taken up these offers, thus pushing up electricity prices for those who do need the help that they are not getting.

People on low incomes often are renters so obviously they're not in a position to take advantage of this great offer.

I just think it's a very unfair distribution of taxpayer dollars, and from what I understand, to an end which has a dubious cost/benefit result.

It's also irritating for those who paid for their own solar systems long before the subsidies were offered.
 
I can't take advantage of it cost effectively because I'm on 3-phase power.

Western Power's approved list of 3-phase inverters are all around 10kw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
12K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...