Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

That's about the only thing that does make sense with carbon tax. How else does the UN get money without imposing a tax of some sort on all developed nations and they get a percentage. I have heard that the UN would get 10% of any carbon tax proceeds - something that is not talked about too much.

The UN would need funds to pay their representatives. Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....

Yes sails, that 10% was a commitment made at Cancun by Greg Combet together with the $599 million give away and the Labor Government have kept very quiet about that one.

The Un is pro GREEN and Rudd is a member of the UN Climate Change committee.

I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.

 

[sails]

Yes sails, that 10% was a commitment made at Cancun by Greg Combet together with the $599 million give away and the Labor Government have kept very quiet about that one.

The Un is pro GREEN and Rudd is a member of the UN Climate Change committee.

I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.

Yes, imo no point until China and the US do something (IF it's actually going to do any good for carbon emissions). But if it's money for the UN, then that's a whole different issue and likely won't matter on the order that countries come on line. Look at the chart below - China and the US are the fast rising blue and purple lines. The UK is barely seen down the bottom of the chart:

Click here for Wikipedia's 2011 world carbon emissions

Chart above from rom Bolt's blog

 

[DB008]

Common, we shouldn't be so harsh on our Government, they did try.....

Abbott (Nine News) - Cost of Australia's delegation to Copenhagen

Presenter: It’s the figure Kevin Rudd didn’t want you to know. Nine News can reveal how much it cost taxpayers to send the PM and a huge team of Government officials to the Copenhagen climate conference.

Chloe Bugelly: The climate change conference was supposed to change the world. It didn’t, but it did rack up an enormous bill for taxpayers.

Andrew Bolt: Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure and a farce.

Chloe Bugelly: We spent almost $1.5 million ($1,429,707) sending a delegation to Copenhagen. That’s our money up in smoke. And that doesn’t include the cost of the PM’s jet which industry experts say cost $15,000 an hour to run.

Tony Abbott: I think there was something like 1800 tonnes of carbon dioxide created by this trip.

Mexico Summit
Climate delegation cost questioned

THE Gillard government spent more than $360,000 of taxpayer funds to send a 38-member delegation to last year's United Nations climate change conference in Mexico.

Despite the failure of the previous Copenhagen meeting in December 2009, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, parliamentary secretary Mark Dreyfus, South Australian Premier Mike Rann and their advisers all flew business class to Cancun for the meeting.

The party was joined by 20 staff from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, four people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, three officials from AusAid and IT support from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The delegation was also assisted by an additional three Mexico-based DFAT staff and they all stayed in a beachside and golf resort called “Moon Palace”, where the conference was held.

The figures, obtained through the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, also showed the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency spent $3 million on overseas travel in 2010.

 

[DB008]

Per Capita, Australia's CO is the highest (from this graph), but TOTAL emissions, Australia is a blip on the screen.

 

[sails]

Per capita is, of course, going to be much larger for Australia because of our deserts, sweeping plains, rugged mountain ranges, etc.

So, even if we look at per capita, it means that Aussies are going to have to pay many times more than a country such as China per person and yet do next to nothing for carbon reduction in Australia.

I think the idea that this is far more to do with the UN picking up 10% of carbon tax is the thing that makes the most sense. How much of this goes to to transfer wealth from developed countries to help undeveloped nations adapt to "global warming" and how much the UN retains for it's own use remains to be seen, IMO.

An article from TheWest Feb 2011 with information that seems to be kept fairly quiet:
Carbon tax billions to help poor nations

The Gillard Government is party to a UN agreement which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about 10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations will go into a Green Climate Fund.

Even when Ms Gillard was denying there would be a carbon tax last August, her government had committed to spend $599 million on climate change handouts over the current three-year Budget period, mainly in the Pacific and South-East Asia. About $470 million has already been allocated.

 

[Smurf1976]

Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.

Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.

A more relevant figure would be GDP per capita, excluding that which arises from financial speculation and other non-"real economy" activity. That's a pretty good measure of total resource consumption that overcomes the offshoring issue.

 

[Julia]

The UN would need funds to pay their representatives. Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....

Including Our Kevvie when he eventually gets that coveted seat at the UN.

I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.

Noco, Ms Gillard, her very self, said this or a phrase to that effect when she announced the community forum on climate change, or whatever it was called. That's one more thought bubble from the government that appears to have died quietly.
Such a sentiment has now been conveniently overlooked.
What are our journalists doing????
They're on the whole such pathetic acolytes of e.g. Flannery and Garnaut.

Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.

Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.

That's really interesting, Smurf. Can you expand on this a bit? How does this work and what sort of industries/ companies are engaged in this?

 

[ghotib]

Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.

Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.

A more relevant figure would be GDP per capita, excluding that which arises from financial speculation and other non-"real economy" activity. That's a pretty good measure of total resource consumption that overcomes the offshoring issue.

Are you talking about where carbon emissions from e.g. Australian coal sent to China are, or would be, taken into account? I've had trouble finding information about this; I think it's one of the areas that is discussed at length in international meetings such as Cancun and Copenhagen, but the details are implemented locally. I'd be very interested in sources of information.

 

[Smurf1976]

That's really interesting, Smurf. Can you expand on this a bit? How does this work and what sort of industries/ companies are engaged in this?

There are many industries (most notably aluminium) which are hugely energy intensive and whose production is primarily (or solely) for export markets.

For example, about 15% of all electricity generated in Victoria is used to produce aluminium and it's similar in Qld and NSW. Aluminium isn't the only example, but it is individually the largest. In Tasmania it's even more extreme with a bit over 50% of all electricity consumed going into either the newsprint mill or one of the big 3 electrometallurgical plants (aluminium, zinc, ferro alloys). Add in mining and other manufacturing and that figure rises to about two thirds of total consumption.

The key point is that these plants are always built where electricity is cheap. The ONLY reason they exist in NSW, Vic or Tas at all is due to cheap electricity. That is the sole reason those industries exist in those states, and the only real reason they are in Australia at all. They were built because of cheap power, and they will be relocated if that situation changes.

I doubt the average person realises the economics of this. We're not talking about a factory that gets a power bill in addition to all other expenses. No, we're talking about a situation where electricity is by far the largest cost of production, to the point that it becomes the primary factor in determining where such businesses should operate. If it's a choice between high wages but cheap power, or cheap wages but expensive power, then the cheap electricity wins. Hence why the're in Australia and jobs in these places generally pay pretty well.

In that context it's no secret that the aluminium industry is already underway with a pull out from Australia by means of a capital strike. That is, stop investing in the plants and gradually run them down until they eventually close once everything is worn out and completely out dated. That certainly seems to be what is going on already, and it is no surprise.

This de-industrialisation process has as its outcome replacing the smelters with the exprot of ores and coal for processing overseas (noting that most of the value comes about during processing, not mining). It doesn't reduce emissions but rather, it simply relocates them to a different country.

 

[macca]

So if we apply Smurfs smelting info to Danny's graphs we see that Australia's output reverts back to about average output per capita for emissions in developed societies.

Quite reasonable since the Greens refuse to allow us to build new dams for Hydro or Nuclear plants to produce electricity which would drop the figure dramatically.

I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.

 

[drsmith]

I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.

The following I would suggest is a reflection of the Greens fantasy world.



It's a very nice piece of music by the way, but some within the Greens have been listening to it for too long. I can see father Bob Brown in the guy with the serious look on his face at the end of the above clip. In that scene in the movie, he orders the other villagers back to their houses like they are children.

 

[Knobby22]

I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.

Not nice being known as the biggest polluters in the world per capita. Wouldn't like Europe to start sanctions agains us but as long as the USA does what it does then we shouldn't have too many problems.

We could reduce out per capita pollution pretty easily. Just get rid of our most inefficient brown coal power station and replace it with an efficient brown coal power station and we would probably drop below the USA.

 

[Smurf1976]

Quite reasonable since the Greens refuse to allow us to build new dams for Hydro or Nuclear plants to produce electricity which would drop the figure dramatically.

A few points...

Compared to the world as a whole, the Australian electricity industry has roughly half as much hydro and has no nuclear at all. If we simply used these two power sources at levels comparable to the global average, that would produce a drop in our emissions comparable to outright closing the entire brown coal industry.

I am not a fan of nuclear power for many reasons, the main three of which are that it is unsustainable, uneconomical and an unnecessary risk. But it can't be denied that it produces far less CO2 than any form of fossil fuel generation.

As for hydro, when people say "renewable" what they really mean in practice, in terms of power generation that is actually in use, is hydro. Pick any country that claims a high % of renewable electricity and you'll find that the vast majority of that is from hydro.

Now, we had that debate 30 years ago and I'm not going to try and start it here (though it never really died in the minds of many and there's still plenty of flow gauges on undammed rivers...). But suffice to say that if we want flowing rivers then there's price to pay for that, and that price is higher CO2 emissions.

All that said, I still think geothermal holds great potential. Given all the money that government throws at this, that and something else, I'd like to see some taxpayer backing of this one. Not necessarily nationalisation, but I'm thinking more in terms of incentives. Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants) with an output not less than 500 MW.

Geothermal potentially really is a game changer and it's certainly got more chance of being commercially viable than uranium. I'm no socialist, but it's a fact that it took government (specifically the Vic and Tas state governments) to get both brown coal and hydro up and running in Australia on a decent scale where private enterprise had failed and I do think we need to look at doing the same with geothermal. It's got to be a better use of my taxes than batts, halls and plasmas.

 

[orr]

. Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants)

I look at a map when thinking along these lines and scribe an arch from Port Augusta up Through the Copper Basin and onto South central Queensland linking those Geothermal and Solar Thermal Tenements and think "High Voltage D.C inter-connector" And ask why Not, and answer myself, a tragically conservative electorate component that's been convinced or convinced themselves that this type of proposal to assist a sustainable future Australian industry is all part of a Greeny Commo world Government plot. These same 'Thinkers', with adept use of the 'right' mental gymnastics and pre Copernican Alchemy,are able easily surmount advanced scientific method, whilst firmly clinging to the slipperiest of snake oil 'sails'men to ease their frying nerves.
Just the mention of Geothermal they run shrieking into the street, arms flailing
"Flannery Flannery Flannery"

 

[wayneL]

. Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants)

I look at a map when thinking along these lines and scribe an arch from Port Augusta up Through the Copper Basin and onto South central Queensland linking those Geothermal and Solar Thermal Tenements and think "High Voltage D.C inter-connector" And ask why Not, and answer myself, a tragically conservative electorate component that's been convinced or convinced themselves that this type of proposal to assist a sustainable future Australian industry is all part of a Greeny Commo world Government plot. These same 'Thinkers', with adept use of the 'right' mental gymnastics and pre Copernican Alchemy,are able easily surmount advanced scientific method, whilst firmly clinging to the slipperiest of snake oil 'sails'men to ease their frying nerves.
Just the mention of Geothermal they run shrieking into the street, arms flailing
"Flannery Flannery Flannery"

Nice rant orr. It is shame it was wasted on such BS.

Conservatives are against geothermal? I'm not a conservative, but I find this a bit hard to believe.

IIRC (and I'm certainly not au fait with this and stand to be corrected), it is the Greens putting roadblocks in front of many alternative energy sources.

 

[wayneL]

FYI

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...al-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html

Kyoto deal loses four big nations
May 29, 2011

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.....

....They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html#ixzz1Nn7ECGgl

 

[sails]

...We could reduce out per capita pollution pretty easily. Just get rid of our most inefficient brown coal power station and replace it with an efficient brown coal power station and we would probably drop below the USA.

Trouble with per capita is that we need a higher population to reduce the per capita percentage. But then we increase our percentage of world carbon emissions. Doesn't make sense to me.

Smurf has come up with a solution. Check out his posts...

 

[Knobby22]

Trouble with per capita is that we need a higher population to reduce the per capita percentage. But then we increase our percentage of world carbon emissions. Doesn't make sense to me.

Smurf has come up with a solution. Check out his posts...

Sort of true. Canada is beating us despite the fact they need heaps of energy just to keep warm and a similar mining issue. I'm sure we could do better with a bit of thought.
I like Geothermal but the one geothermal plant we tried recently failed. I think the scientists and engineers are still trying to understand all the problems.

I was at a meeting at work recently which showed a solar powered desalination plant that is being used around the world including Germany. The only electricity it requires is a small pump to get the water from the sea into the plant.

Why we don't have them in Australia is probably due to poor decisions or lobbying by the big US firms who have the filtration technology we have chosen. We need better people!

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Some interesting points raised here...

Alan Jones speaks to Professor Timothy Ball about climate change and the Galileo Movement.

 

[IFocus]

I just love the rubbish The Australian puts out

"West waves goodbye to its biggest dry"

Its about a farmer who got 15mm of rain at York and can start seeding.


Mean while

The Water Corporation said the rain was welcome but more was needed to make any difference to critically low dam levels in Perth, where water storage is just 22 per cent capacity.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-its-biggest-dry/story-e6frg8y6-1226066001623