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

Where in the hell is Australia heading?

Jump to new

There is hyperbole, then there is just plain nonsense.

What?
 

I don't support coal seem gas, or suburbs being built on farmland with good soil. But using farmland as a carbon sink means no cattle (talking more top end).It doesn't help when you get paid not to raise cattle and basically have the land do nothing. Oh wait I mean land sucking up carbon and saving the planet.
 


I heard of a farmer recently who was happy with carbon tax as he will plant trees on his properties and get carbon credits. Lovely for him, but this will come at the expense of those who are working in the cities and suburbs who do not have land space to plant trees.

It does seem like a money-go-round except I don't think it will find it's way back to the workers who are funding this scam.

And this is an article from last year explaining how some are set to make millions from climate change:

From the London Evening Standard by Sri Carmichael:

Tony Blair is set to earn millions of pounds advising an American businessman on how to make money from tackling climate change.
Click to expand...

More here: Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser
 
sptrawler said:
I am sure smurph will give a thorough answer when he gets on line.
Click to expand...
One comment that I'll put "out there" is this one.

In the 1980's most states built too many new power stations, to the point that even relatively new plants were permanently closed at the end of the decade as a means of partially dealing with this surplus.

The effects of this were profound:

1. It resulted in a huge "use more power" push and built-in higher energy use and emissions into the economy for years to come.

2. It sent the electricity utilities close to broke and ultimately resulted in most of them ceasing to exist as such.

3. We are now still very heavily reliant on these 1980's power stations, which are not much more efficient than the 1960's plants they replaced.

Had we not built too many new plants and instead continued running the older ones for longer, those older plants would now be approaching the end of thier useful life and a huge opportunity would exist to build new state of the art plants (which produce significantly less CO2 than the 1980's ones we have now) to replace them. Instead, we blew a fortune to build the replacements 25 years too early and they aren't much more efficient than what they replaced.

4. Amidst the almost total stoppage of new construction after the over-building and also the privatisation of much of the industry, the Australian research and design capability was largely destroyed. That's a real problem when there is now a desire to improve environmental performance and you are dealing with brown coal that has properties unique to Australia. Losing the R&D is perhaps the single worst thing to have happened in that regard.

A big part of the problem with reducing CO2 emissions is the huge amount of "baggage" the industry carries as a result of previous poor decision making. My point is not to whinge about the past, but rather to point out that any decision whcih affects the supply of energy will have an impact for at least the next 3 decades and quite likely longer. :twocents
 

Just seems stupidly unproductive and very inward looking (carbon tax) as a whole. I find it even more stupid that we will pay other countries to do the same.
 

Brilliant, with all these farmers growing trees for carbon credits and other farmers growing biomass for power generation when the sun isn't shining. Where are the farmers and land that are going to be growing food?
Oh they will probably be the Chinese and Indian farms in Australia, exporting food to their own countries while they burn our coal.LOL
 

The average Australian does not realise the importance of good quality land for agriculture.

If "city folk" actually knew where all the $$$$$ they saw were coming from, they would protect mining and farming.

Instead, shut inside their mcmansions or their townhouses, they walk through their urban jungle of cafes and retail offerings, and demand action on "climate change" which is nothing more than an imaginary fantasy which helps them feel better about their involvement in the world.

Australians are a very naive lot.

Let us burn OUR coal. Let us DEMAND cheap electricity.

Why not? How much is petrol in the middle east?
 
Below is official Liberal policy - I admit I don't understand how it works, I'm pretty sure its not growing trees but can someone explain??


Soil Carbon – A Once in a Century Replenishment of our Soils
The single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction in Australia is through bio-sequestration and the replenishment of soil carbon in particular. Significantly increasing soil carbon levels also boosts agricultural productivity and water efficiency.


The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13.
 

Have a look at this site.
www.amazingcarbon.com

joea
 
ghotib said:
Smurf commented on this plan in the hysterical thread. Overall he gave it 97 out of 100 and thought it could work with a few tweaks. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=642456&viewfull=1#post642456
Click to expand...
I should clarify my comments as relating to the technical side rather than financial. Yes, technically it's not impossible to have a predominantly renewable electricity supply.

Finanically it is however quite expensive to do so in most cases and that is where the problem exists (only real exceptions being any place with abundant hydro or geothermal).
 

Pretty terrible. This is why we need to ban immigration, and legislate that everyone must use English for all signs/posters/advertisements/etc.

Smurf1976 said:
The situation isn't as severe nationally but the same principle applies. There is simply no point in building any new source of supply with a production cost above the lowest value use of electricity - market supply and demand 101 there.
Click to expand...

Hence the ETS? Your post is all great and all, but you didn't address my question - how if not with an ETS do we switch to green energy?
 
Starcraftmazter said:
Pretty terrible. This is why we need to ban immigration, and legislate that everyone must use English for all signs/posters/advertisements/etc....?
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

However, I thought your ilk would like to let everyone arriving here by leaky boat into the community with all expenses paid for a life time if they so choose. Plus their relatives. And where learning English doesn't seem convenient and now it appears they want to enforce the same oppressive laws from which they were supposedly fleeing...
 
Fom Starcraftmazter
Hence the ETS? Your post is all great and all, but you didn't address my question - how if not with an ETS do we switch to green energy?

One way would be for the Government instead of wasting $40billion dollars, of tax payers money, on the N.B.N then privatising it after 5 years.
They could have spent the money on building these supposed solar/ salt storage power stations that are going to save the planet, our biggest moral challenge, then privatised them.
But they know the same as you and I that at this point in time it is pie in the sky, but using the hype to gather a new tax with no measureable outcomes is easy.
One would think there would be far more benefit for Australia if we were the worlds first to have base load renewable energy. That would put Julia, Bob and the rest of the entourage in the history books.
LOL what a joke it's the muppet show.
 
http://www.themonthly.com.au/thomas-friedman-melbourne-town-hall-3657

This is Thomas Friedmans recent lecture, for the few of you that didn't attened any of the live events this is for you. Any body who wants to gel aspects of this talk and the thinking of Sir Ken Robinson and work by Phillip K Howard when contributing to this thread, critical or otherwise, would be doing a great service.

As a personal note. please point out to me the negatives in the forceing the owners of Olimpic Dam to Value add on shore (enrich) the uranium oxide- from yellow cake to glod bricks.
 
Interesting interview on the first segment of Bolt's show today with Sinclair Davidson, Economics Professor at RMIT University on the difficulties that come with stagflation.

The interview starts around the 4 minute mark for those who don't like Bolt...


 

That's because you are incapable of not generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...

sptrawler said:
They could have spent the money on building these supposed solar/ salt storage power stations that are going to save the planet, our biggest moral challenge, then privatised them.
Click to expand...

Okey, now please explain how exactly they are supposed to make money without an ETS when coal electricity is cheaper? Further, please prove why your proposed massive cost to taxpayers for building said power plants is cheaper than a once off inflationary effect of the ETS.

This is supposed to be a forum for investors, but it seems like many people here have no idea about basic economics
 
Starcraftmazter said:
That's because you are incapable of not generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...
Click to expand...


Basic primary school lesson for a smarty pants full of propaganda:

Two negatives make a positive....


This is supposed to be a forum for investors, but it seems like many people here have no idea about basic economics
Click to expand...

Wow, how condescending.

The people here clearly have far more common sense than you have the brains to recognise. One doesn't have to be a scientist or an economist to know when politicians are trying to be dishonest and mislead with partial truths.

But it is strange how propaganda people like you are popping up all over various forums with an aim to put down anyone who doesn't agree with this government. Tactics are very similar and often downright rude and condescending to other posters. Rather than people being stupid as you posted, most don't like to be seen to be uncaring, etc and you, and your ilk, are taking advantage of them, imo.

The plan of attack seems to be:

Attack Abbott
  • Get Turnbull back into coalition leadership seemingly for a weaker coalition
  • Attack Murdoch to gain public support for politically controlled media
  • Treat people like idots who don't want carbon pricing or ETS
  • Treat people like idots who don't like the Malaysian deal
  • Treat people like idots who would like a new election to stop this awful minority
  • Treat people like idots who don't want our children being brain washed in primacy school with political propaganda

Will add more to the list as SCM reminds me...

And, when a government needs the sort of propaganda that you spew out here,
it is clearly NOT telling voters the truth.
 
Definition of PROGAGANDA:

prop·a·gan·da Noun

1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.


I have found any sort of reasonable debate with the likes of propaganda plants are impossible due to the condescention they dish out and the way they misinterpret other's posts. And they love to keep exchanges going - gives them more opportunity to keep spewing out their propaganda.

They are easy to spot...
 

That is selective quoting, maybe you could have added the rest of my qoute where I said it was pie in the sky, but that wouldn't have helped with your cheap shot would it?
This is supposed to be a forum for investors, however this thread is general chat on the way OUR Government is spending OUR money.
This government went to the last election with the N.B.N on the table and copped a huge voter backlash, but still continued on with it, spending OUR money on something we didn't want. Or so the polls would indicate.
Now they are back in with a minority Government they decide to increase our marginal tax rates and impose an onerous tax on our economy, without putting it to a vote.
This is a carry over from the way the trade unions run where the rank and file are manipulated for the unions ends independent of the memebers wishes (why they are against secret ballots). That arrogant behaviour is one of the major reasons for the demise of the unions as the members become disenfranchised.
The Government is elected to run the country and that requires us to contribute taxes to fund it. When the majority disagree with what THEIR taxes are being spent on you get a voter backlash as can be seen in the opinion polls.
But the blind arrogance of this Government, which was put on notice last election, continues to ignore the people they are representing. That takes a certain type of inwardly focused person to be able to reconcile that, but that is probably why you appear to have an affinity for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...