Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

And it's "aeroplane" in this country.

[De_flieger]

I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW that you claim exists, and i'm still waiting, waiting...

Here is NASAs view:Climate Change: Evidence
Here is a direct quote from ExxonMobil, from their website in the section discussing climate change:

Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.

You can see this, and a lot of other information here ExxonMobil
And here is the statement on the Shell website

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

You can see this statement here: Climate change | Environment & Society

With NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement, is that enough evidence for you? I havent looked at the other oil company websites but those two are massive corporations that have enormous financial interests in fossil fuel consumption and production, and if they had credible evidence against AGW it would be shouted from the rooftops in a campaign that would make a federal election campaign look understated.

Both NASA and ExxonMobil also provide citations for their statements, allowing you to find and read all of the publications and evidence for yourself if so desired.

[De_flieger]

I’ve asked you at least twice now to explain how the Carbon Tax will reduce CO₂ emissions when the end users according to you and the Gillard government will be compensated almost 100% for its cost. The whole idea of this tax is to reduce CO₂emissions by making it more expensive for everyone

If companies are charged an extra $1 for the carbon emitted on every widget they produce, and consumers are given tax breaks or assistance to cover their extra costs in purchasing their weekly widgets, the money goes round in a circle and nothing is gained. If the company then changes their processes to a low-carbon emission method/power source, and now only pays 50c per widget they can either make more profit, or cut costs and gaining a real competitive advantage against other companies using the older more polluting technologies or processes. This in turn will give the company a big advantage, and if they choose to pass the lower cost on to the consumer a benefit for the consumer. This gives us market forces acting to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide emitted.

[eagle 86]

P......
As I said before, you obviously have enough money to afford luxuries well out of reach of the average joe - new racket to impress the other chaps and chapess's down at T'rack. I don't care how you got your money - inheritance - work hard - luck - good on you. But what irritates me about you is that you appear to not have any concern for the vast majority that are far worse off than you. By the way is the CPL for go or just for show?
GAGS
E86

[404 Titan]

De_flieger

What makes you think companies will upgrade their processes to a lower carbon base beyond what they would normally do with normal plant upgrades etc, in a properly functioning free market economy? What also makes you think for one second companies will pass on savings made with a reduction in carbon taxes?

As I have said without a substantial carbon tax impost on the end user, i.e. the consumer, all the carbon tax achieves is further wealth redistribution.

Please don’t get me started with oil companies and their investments in the renewable energy sector. Shell made a substantial investment in the early 2000’s only to sell almost all of it at the height of the market boom in 2009. Mobil made a similar investment in the sector in 2009 after pressure from the Obama administration. In fact, climate legislation is likely a key driver in oil companies' decisions to invest in alternative-energy technologies and hence their talking up of the sector to bolster their investments. I can assure you that if they weren’t being forced to make these investments in renewable energy they wouldn’t be talking about carbon emissions the way they currently are.

[Towering Q]

Thanks for the links De_flieger , interesting reading.

I clicked on the Climate Policy Principles tab on the ExxonMobil site and found this statement at the end of the article...

It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches.

[peterc005]

@eagle 86 - never inherited a cent. Don't drink, smoke or gamble - just work hard.

My estimate is the Carbon Tax will add about $1.50 an hour (4.5 cents a litre for 35 litres an hour) to my flying - so who cares. How could anyone so miserable about $1.50 an hour survive in aviation?

The rise of China and India has added to global demand to oil and probably added 70 or 80 cents a litre to the cost of Avgas. Let's keep it all in perspective.

My degree is in Economics and my background is wholesale banking (treasury). I shouldn't waste my time on anonymous internet forums, but I keep seeing so many patently wrong and dumb things being written I feel compelled to say something for the sake of others who might see the postings and think they are credible.

There are so many rants on this forum by boorish, crazy and ill-informed people it gets tiring. In another thread here people criticised Flight Safety Magazine. It's a good read, relevant and FREE - and yet people (the same old nutters) criticised it.

Once again - my financial exposure to the Carbon Tax is tops $400 a year for everything and I have a lot more exposure than others here.

The $400 a year will not cause me any grief and I think it is well spent anyway as one method of helping to mitigate global warming to help leave a better world for my four kids.

[Frank Arouet]

My degree is in Economics and my background is wholesale banking (treasury).

And that my friends is why we have people such as M Turnbull and every other Merchant Banker supporting the concept despite their political affiliations.

Money, greed and corruption.

I've changed my mind about you peter, you're not a Troll, but a dangerous member of society trying to ingratiate yourself on PPRune where you are as welcome as a pork chop in a Synagogue.

[Sarcs]

There are so many rants on this forum by boorish, crazy and ill-informed people it gets tiring.

Breaking rule 101 "don't feed the troll" but some of the diatribe and thread drift coming out of pc5 is insulting!

Mate go find a forum that is more to your liking, I'm sure there are plenty of tree hugging, leftist sites out there that would love to have you contribute and would welcome a small donation so you can clear your carbon sins.

Before you p off this bit takes the cake..

The $400 a year will not cause me any grief and I think it is well spent anyway as one method of helping to mitigate global warming to help leave a better world for my four kids.

but I'm glad you feel better because you certainly aren't decreasing your carbon footprint!

[Chimbu chuckles]

So you must have links to empirical evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are warming the world/changing the climate dangerously then Pete?

Please enlighten us.

And I don't mean "I believe" or 'I am convinced" I mean accepted, empirical scientific data.

Not product from models either - real world data. I am sure as an educated man you will accept that computer models are only as good as the assumptions fed into them that modify the behaviour of the accepted physics that is also fed into them.

You see many of the people posting on this thread have done a LOT of reading and a few even have degrees in hard subjects. I have read the output from IPCC (as in the entire FAR for starters) and I studied physics.

I can tell you without fear of contradiction that atmospheric physics is very poorly understood. The IPCC FAR is chock FULL of scientists saying directly that their knowledge of various factors effecting climate is poor - clouds, warm water ocean upwellings, monsoons, aerosols etc.

The Summary For Policymakers on the other hand displays very little doubt that man is warming the world dangerously.

FAR is written by scientists - SFP is written by beaurocrats.

Here is one empirical scientific data point for you. Utterly uncontroversial and widely accepted as fact within the scientific community.

On every time scale atmospheric warming has occurred 800-1000yrs BEFORE atmospheric CO2 increased.

Here is another inconvenient fact - the GC Models have been unanimous in predicting warming whereas 6-7 years ago solar physicists were predicting cooling...and we have had cooling. I fly all over the world for a living and I have seen widespread cooling in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the ME and Europe in the last 4 years. We have all read the reports that show the same in North America. Mates who fly into Russia and NA regularly tell me they have seen the same there. Colder winters and cooler summers. Its REALLY obvious in the ME and EU/UK.

I was just talking to a mate in NZ today who was telling me that while washing his C185 in Wanaka a few days ago, just after lunchtime, his aircraft ended up completely covered in ice - born and raised in Wanaka and never seen that before - coldest June/July on record.

So the physics tells us run away dangerous warming is impossible - the scientists most closely associated with the IPCC and other world renown academies say, either, they are not sure or just plain discount the AGW hypothesis and the model outputs are diverging more and more from the reality we see around us.

Over the course of the last 120 odd years, where accurate records have been available, we have seen cyclical slight warming and cooling ending in 1998 at about a net +.7C, droughts and floods that have been both worse and less severe than recent ones, new records for coldest days/months on record but no new record highs (the hottest days in the last 10 years have only been 'hottest since 1930 something).

The satellite temperature record since the late 1970s when they were first put up has shown not a lot of anything happening, same with the weather balloons that have been going up since the 1950s, same with the argos system in the oceans.

So far EVERY alarmist prediction has proven false. Whether its Flannery predicting no more significant rain leading to moron pollies spending big on desalination just before flooding rains have swept across most of Australia - again, or IPCC predictions about glaciers in the Himalayas or Mt Kilimanjaro, polar bear extinctions, extinctions more generally, sea level rises that have not happened or where they have they are happening at rates of 1/10th the alarmist predictions...it goes on and one.

Not to mention those emails

But hey - if you wanna donate money to hopeless causes you are perfectly free to do so - it is YOUR RIGHT.

But excuse me for pointing out that it is an indication of the closet totalitarian in you to expect EVERYONE else to do so whether they want to or not.

A huge % of the Australian population that used to believe mankind was warming the world dangerously (because they had never given it much thought - and I include myself in that %) now DON'T. As a result the ALP/Greens will be removed from the levers of power soon - at least - more likely they will be decimated politically for a generation or more.

But fear not - you will still be free to 'invest' money in renewables, donate to the less well off, or whatever floats your boat.

So will the rest of us - IF IT FLOATS OURS.

[De_flieger]

Titan 404
What you're saying is correct, noone will force companies to upgrade their processes and they certainly dont have to. If Joes Widgets can save $100,000 by not upgrading their equipment, and over the life of the plant that will cost them $50,000 in carbon taxes, well working that out is what the accountants are employed for.

What makes me think companies will pass on the costs or savings they make? Simple - outside of a monopoly/cartel situation, one company can pass on the savings, and offer their product cheaper, and people will buy it! For example, Eagle 86 can go to a cheaper cafe that isnt putting up the price of coffee by 50c a cup and hoping people will blame the carbon tax, leaving him more of his $10 to cover all of his weekly expenses. How he can cover the running costs of an aircraft as well out of that is an exercise for another day...

Towering Q Yeah, I thought the multiple places where ExxonMobil stated their support for a carbon tax as the best way to allow market forces to drive a reduction in carbon emissions was interesting, but it was hard enough writing my earlier posts from the iPhone and I couldnt fit everything in!

I saw the first impact of the carbon tax today though... looking through my first payslip for the financial year I paid $26 dollars less tax than on the last payslip of last financial year - that is, an extra $26 into my bank account on effectively the same taxable income (slight variations due to minor differences in hours worked, but insignificant here). The reason was due to the increase in the tax-free threshold to $18,000 as part of the other changes to the tax system in conjunction with the introduction of the carbon tax. Before I am accused of being a ultra-light glider pilot flying paper darts from a commune in Outer Tofuville - not that it should matter anyway - nope, lowly-paid turboprop FO with the assorted licences that go along with it .

[De_flieger]

So you must have links to empirical evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are warming the world/changing the climate dangerously then Pete?

Please enlighten us.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Its empirical evidence. It lists real world data. They cite their sources.

and we have had cooling. I fly all over the world for a living and I have seen widespread cooling in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the ME and Europe in the last 4 years. We have all read the reports that show the same in North America. Mates who fly into Russia and NA regularly tell me they have seen the same there. Colder winters and cooler summers. Its REALLY obvious in the ME and EU/UK.

What reports? NASA and NOAA have specifically said that, with records to back it up, that

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6

And your statement

Over the course of the last 120 odd years, where accurate records have been available, we have seen cyclical slight warming and cooling ending in 1998 at about a net +.7C, droughts and floods that have been both worse and less severe than recent ones, new records for coldest days/months on record but no new record highs (the hottest days in the last 10 years have only been 'hottest since 1930 something).

is incorrect.
Have a look at State of the Climate , the monthly NOAA State Of The Climate report. It is a report on the weather observations made throughout the US and the world, and opens with "May 2012 global temperatures were second-warmest on record". One interesting point they make is that May 2012 was the 327th consecutive month with a global average temperature above the 20th century average. (Thats since February 1985) Thats not based on models or guesswork, that is based solely on observations and measurements made over the last century and a bit.

I was just talking to a mate in NZ today who was telling me that while washing his C185 in Wanaka a few days ago, just after lunchtime, his aircraft ended up completely covered in ice - born and raised in Wanaka and never seen that before - coldest June/July on record.

That sounds suspiciously like an anecdote as opposed to empirical evidence to me!

[Frank Arouet]

75% of people surveyed, (yes I can quote those figures like any politician), believe global warming/ climate change is a load of crock. Probably that amount of people obviously don't believe a tax will fix that imaginative problem. In Europe they call it the "hot air tax".

I stand out as an example of that group opposing it's imposition.

Carbon trading is linked to an old Jewish proverb;

"Anything you get for nothing, and sell for anything, makes for 100% profit".

It's a confidence trick of the highest order. Be careful who you vote for next time. And no, The Greens are not considered rational in any way shape or form.

[Jabawocky]

De Flieger

You have to understand that the data produced by these agencies is flawed.

See now, they produce temperature records from a small selection, I don't recall exactly but say something like 20% of the recording stations that were once captured.

Now that would be fine if it was a truly representitive selection.

Trouble is that in the state of California 3 of the 4 reference points are SFO airport some where on the concrete beaches of somewhere south of LA, somewhere else I don't recall now that was equally "environment" affected and one out in the country.

None in the high country at all.

Now when you compare one data set to another, even if nothing changed, what kind of trend result do you think you would get??? I'll give you a clue, it is + and not by a small amount.

Have a look at the global temp charts for Bolivia, damned near warmer than Queensland......WTF??? I know why, do you?

These things have been gone over time and time again, so long ago I am now over even trying to remember the finer details.

Maybe Chuckles does, he is clever like that.

I once believed that we could be causing change.....but the more I used my head and looked around at the facts.....The result was not in favour of AGW.

Put in simple terms, if man made CO2 was significant, and dispute the small amount we contribute, CO2 has been climbing quite impressively, the Temps have not and have defied the obvious link. Well how can that be???? Impossible?

Temp leads CO2, by several hundred years, ask a proper paleoclimatologist! If you do not know one, trust me, I do. The only credible one in this country.

We are living in the noise band of millions of years of data......FACT!

Nitey Nite!

[De_flieger]

Hey Jabawocky, I have heard those criticisms of the data, and was a legitimate criticism, but recently debunked.

Are you familiar with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project? It is funded in part by the Koch brothers, who are billionaire industrialists active in conservative politics and the project employs among their senior staff a couple of key figures identified as climate skeptics. The effects of temperature measurement station quality was the subject of a specific study they carried out, and it was proven, quite conclusively, that the station quality issues could be quantified, and did not bias the results of the temperature analysis. The paper they produced, which is accessible here http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf is a straightforward read that sets out its data set and demonstrates how the results were obtained. They specifically look at the location and number of temperature measurement stations and assess their quality based on a number of factors such as surrounds, local slopes and local heat sources such as concrete areas, carparks etc. Their conclusions were

Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates of land surface average monthly temperature trends. No similar study is possible for the rest of the world because we do not have indicators of good/bad station quality; however, the lack of a significant difference in US stations suggests that such effects may be minimal.

They have another paper that looks at the heat island effect, which can be read here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf and shows that the heat island effect that some people claims invalidate data supporting global warming trends, does not exist in the manner claimed by those who identify as global warming/climate change "skeptics". Both these papers are relatively easy reads as scientific papers go, but if you're in a hurry skipping to the conclusions will give you the gist.

Global temp charts for Bolivia being warmer than Queensland? I havent seen them, where did you find them? And if Bolivia is warming up and you know why, do tell! Who is the paleoclimatologist you're referring to? Surely theres more than one credible paleoclimatologist in the whole country, and if theyre making that claim they should be happy enough to be identified.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via De_flieger;
...shows that the heat island effect that some people claims invalidate data supporting global warming trends, does not exist in the manner claimed by those who identify as global warming/climate change "skeptics"...

Lets get the basics done, ah will have a closer look later at "the manner claimed"..


This is reference Melbourne...

"...The urban heat island (UHI) effect refers to the phenomenon whereby a metropolitan or built up area is significantly warmer than its surrounding areas. In some cases, the UHI effect makes average urban daytime air temperatures around 5-6°C higher than the surrounding rural areas in summer..."


Cooling the urban heat island with more reflective roofs





.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via Towering Q;

Thanks for the links De_flieger , interesting reading.

I clicked on the Climate Policy Principles tab on the ExxonMobil site and found this statement at the end of the article...

Wot, the oil companys the good guys now...







.

[Towering Q]

Wot, the oil companys the good guys now

Yes Binghi, the thought had crossed my mind too.

[Jabawocky]

Yeah take a look at those maps of the world with red blotches all over them. Bolivia is red as bro!

Of course we know it's freezing as, why the difference......they take averages from really strange places, and it is something akin to a temp record for say the top of our snowys instead of being Jindabyne we use Amberley.

I am not joking, 1000 k away and at sea level.

Still today, I say it yesterday.

Prof Bob Carter. Suggest you spend a few hundred bucks and go to Townsville, buy him lunch, enjoy the sunshine and be willing to have an open discussion. He is not personally hell bent on an agenda, in fact he dragged himself into the debate about ten years back when some public comment was around by so called experts, that was completely wrong. It was his exact area of speciality too. He then discovered before he could make a public statement he needed to brush up on something like 40+ areas of science before he opened his mouth. Took him almost a year.

Research funding at the uni stopped shortly after, you know why, not because he was wrong, he was the victim of a political agenda. So today he works away retired but still doing research, on drilling ships taking geo samples and so on, and he is probably 74 now.

Great guy, no axe to grind, just has a good understanding of as many facets of science as anyone can on climate.

So when the theory is man made co2 is such a significant driver, and co2 continues to climb at a steep rate, how is it even possible to have cooling?

Go talk to Bob. give him my regards

[Jabawocky]

Oil companies like political parties have to be seen as "green" such is the swing of things.

It is nothing more than media spin. And potential funding grants