Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel [Archive]

Frank Arouet

9th May 2012, 10:37

I agree with just about every scientist in the world that the current warming of the planet is our doing

Bull****! and stupid, stupid "Hyper Bowl".

No cuts to the only "estimated" end of year profit/loss bottom line at 30JUN 2013, include research and development, once spent on medical implications to an ageing population, but now spent on "proving the science" that the quoted hyperventilate whenever they get the chance.

Rip it out of Defence, after all the house hasn't burn't down before, so why do we need insurance. (apologies to Mr Joyce).

sic:
It was recentlywritten- “this is yesterday's party destroying tomorrows future,it's average intelligence is on par with the children of lord of theflies and at the first sign of trouble, out come the long knives.Socialists/ Labor are the last western scourge. A party ofsuperficial solutions to non existent problems attracting fools,halfwits and bleeding hearts that can barely see through mistly eyes.

Labor policies are notjust wrong, they are dumb. This party whose core ideology has been sothoroughly discredited they will pretend to be something they are notto gain power and hide their true prosperity destruction agenda”.

It is truly amazingthat people actually admit to being followers of this party and whono doubt will continue to vote for them irrespective of the depth ofcorruption and putrifying decay.

It's as if they can'tafford a lobotomy and following Labor dogma is cheaper and achievesthe same aim.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 10:43

You know what....what a CROC of ****!.

Baswell, I normally readily agree with you, but not on this.

The ONLY thing europe will do is sit back and watch to see in how many ways this will destroy us. We are test pilots for the whole world!!!!!.
-----------------------------------------------

I cannot begin to compare this with the GST like anyone else. The GST is transparent. I can see how much I was charged, how much I need to charge out and how much I need to pay the tax man.

This Tax in its nature, is hidden. You can only ESTIMATE IT. The cost impost on ANY business is going to be huge and widely variable. Even the cost of estimating it is out of control...and beleive you me, the time I have already spent trying to accomodate it = 1 months production for myself alone...thank christ i get my advice in this area for 'free' under barter.

Forget its impost on families as being small, because the impost on business is going to be so large that the families won't have jobs to pay the dang tax anyway.

Lets have a look at my own businesses expenses just for a minute, just to show where every business in Aust is at. I'll stick with the 3% unit suggested, as its wrong, and appears is going to be closer to 7.5 %

Power. 225 pcm. (50% of that is spent running my 'green' equipment anyway.) So we can add your suggested 3% to that.

Telephone. $60 pcm. Do we add 3% to that...surely the power use is lower than that increase.

I'll group the question on the next couple, as they are variable usage.
Paint. avg $57 per litre. (we just had a 4% rise due to security costs assoc with controlled substances(read terrorism measures))
Sand paper. average $49 per pack
Masking paper $42 per roll
..........the real list is 4 pages long.
Waste disposal. $38 pcm.

So do we just add 3% to that? or do we add 3% to the cost of the product, allow 2.1% for delivery charge increases, another 11.7% for the resulting GST BONUS?

Or do i sit tight on my current hourly rate until i am able to ascertain by what % i am going broke by?

The early projections, pretty much all based on assumptions, is that my hourly rate will move from $70 +GST to more than 115 +

Can you see me surviving on that? Are you going to spend 115 ph having me restore your volkswagon beetle when it needs 200 hours of work (low figure for a turn key resto)

Seriously! I will be 300% better off renting a factory in china and including the freight on your car in my price...and i'll still be cheaper than having it done in OZ.

And if I am not mad enough, This years budget has been handed down. It includes the projected 'income' from the carbon tax. Take a look at how much of that is intended to be spent on green projects, i.e wind farms, solar technology, clean coal etc. I'm too scared to look, but u can bet your Fat A that its less than 10%.

If it was 100% then i'd STFU. this is nothing more than revenue for the current and future wally's world governments.

Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against working to help the environment. I am no greenie, but prefer to be regarded as nature concious.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 10:46

I don't think the GST is that great, but at least lil johnny howler had the cajones to take it as a policy to an election

Ex FSO GRIFFO

9th May 2012, 10:50

Oh Dear Jab,

There are some here who will say...Not Him again!! However......

When Dick got rid of 'Good Ole F.S.', part of the mantra was that you (we) will now get rid of the tax on AVGAS that was used to provide the funding for F.S. - 2 cents /litre or something like that - wasn't it..??

You know - 'Your Safety Will Be..... etc etc.. Cost You LESS"...??

At least, then, you (we) got 'something of value' for our 2c's worth..!!

Now, we pay much much more, and get much much less, including losing the subsidy of 'cheap' - free maps and charts.

I would just LURVE to have a system, where I 'mandated' that you (we) all HAVE to purchase various maps and charts and then I CHARGE YOU (us) whatever I like..!! After all, I just HAVE to show a PROFIT!!

And, did I mention - I'M F#@*in GREEDY!!!
'Tis just another form of taxation where the mandated authority has to show a 'profit' to the shareholder - The Govmint!!
BOTH PARTIES hold us in the same 'esteem'.....and NEITHER of them have Gumption nor clear cut policies!!!!

And, Jab, re, "and I am not a Clive Palmer by any stretch", Clive told me only yesterday that he borrowed a 'modest sum' from you....only recently...

Rant over...I'm orf to the fridge....
:yuk::yuk:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

9th May 2012, 10:53

ALL PUMPS SHOULD READ -

Fuel - 50 C / Litre...PLUS GUVMINT TAXES!!!

:eek::yuk::yuk:

baswell

9th May 2012, 11:10

Yup, I mean it, carbon is a problem, a tax might help, and if it doesn't, we're still one of the lowest tax countries in the world, now with some more much needed revenue. And the tax is probably fairer than at first sight. Companies will simply pass the cost on to consumers.

Paying more for AVGAS sucks, but energy is probably better spent on seeing if we can get some investment back into aviation from the extra revenue.

As a business man, the last thing I want is lower taxes and less public services. How is that working out for the US? The pitiful wages to the majority of the population, which they then have to spend on services the government doesn't provide anymore so they can't afford to buy the goods and services from their own, or any, employers which thus have to lend them money via credit cards or mortgages funded by their employees 401(k) plans until it all blows up. (The only way they can keep it going is by colluding with OPEC to require payment for oil in USD.)

Yes, keep government honest, but judging them simply by tax rates going up or down (did I mention they are some of the lowest in the world?) is not the way to do it.

It is economic outcome that counts. And as far as I can tell, we have one of the best economies and greatest prosperity of any country in the world.

strim

9th May 2012, 11:11

It's 2012. We shouldn't be burning things to make electricity.

Only $$ will force change.

Then there will be more oil to burn in our flying machines.

Neville Nobody

9th May 2012, 11:48

I don't think the GST is that great, but at least lil johnny howler had the cajones to take it as a policy to an election

True, although to be fair to Julia when she said there was to be no carbon tax was it a core promise or non core promise? :} "Never ever be a GST" ring a bell anybody?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

9th May 2012, 11:55

Strim,

IF we can 'grow it', and then burn it in our 'flying machines', then I reckon I would say 'that is sustainable'.....and, GO FOR IT!!

BUT, forgive us the taxes that simply put us out of business...

And, if ya worried about the so called 'carbon' that 'WE' are supposed to be putting into the atmosphere...there have been 'Geological Periods' in the past where the carbon in the atmosphere was MUCH MUCH MORE than it is now.

Do you know, that a looong time ago (Admittedly..), OZ was covered in ICE??

And, at another time, OZ was covered in 'Tropical Vegetation'..??

Maybe 'WE' are simply in the middle of an 'ongoing process'....

IF you don't believe that, do a bit of research and find out just how 'ULURU' came to be where it it ....and why..??

:eek::eek:

peterc005

9th May 2012, 11:55

The reality is that the Carbon Tax will have a negligible cost on most of us, including Aviators.

We need to do reduce the use of carbon based energy sources and the conventional economic wisdom is that making it dearer will encourage people to consume less.

The net financial cost for most of us will be less than five bucks a week.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 11:55

Really Baswell?

I don't mind paying my taxes. Taxes serve to provide services. Basic principle. Even a dumb tin basher like me can understand that.

The govmints (thanx griffo) budget has allocated a coupla hundred million for dental health. The ONLY people that will benefit from that are collingwood supporters (thanx Gold FM). I WON'T see a brass razoo of that...despite my need. Kaz3g and metalman2 know me personally, and they will back me up that I could use some of that govmint assistance.

I dropped my private health cover some time ago. Dental health has long been an issue of mine, so when i took private cover, i chased down one with the best cover in that area. After spending $1400 per year for said cover, my fangs are still screwed, even after the health insurance paid its bit, i still couldn't afford the work needed to be done.,,,and that work is due to a failed govmint trial on dealing with what is now known as ADHD..or some other similar chemical code.

You can take your support for this tax and shove it up your kyber. I see nothing in it to help ALL Australians, and it gives a sour lip service to helping the environment.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 11:57

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 12:01

"Never ever be a GST" ring a bell anybody?

Bloody oaf it does. Paul Keating took that to an election. Howler promised otherwise...with a whole boatload of sweeteners and beat him on it. Like i said earlier (and i hate howard) at least he had the balls to be honest about his plans to get elected upon

gobbledock

9th May 2012, 12:23

F#ck Gillard and her motley crew of blood sucking spin producing parasites.

Interesting to see a couple of people talking GST figures of 11% and 13%. Don't laugh, it will end up happening. These turds (Labor an Liberal) don't give a damn about the impact on the aviation community, it's subsidiaries and the flow on effect any incoming or potential change will have on the broader sector of business throughout this country. No decisions these grubs make ever impacts them. Politicians receive some of the following perks:

• Special superannuation entitlements so that any changes that effect you and I remain just that - changes that negatively affect you and I, they the Politicians, remain free from any grief, different rule set.
• Carbon tax and it's effect on electricity - No problem! Politicians receive generous allowances and entitlements in which electricity costs at their personal residence are met, by the taxpayer of course, under the pretense that
the Pollie does 'work from home'.
• Fuel - Aagh yes that old chestnut. A bit of pre election ACCC hocus pocus sees the Ranga flexing her miniscule muscle against the so-called nasty oil barrons and their amazing ability to rip us off blind. More political bull****, the government reaps a filthy amount of revenue from fuel, and the higher it is priced the more they reap. But don't panic, Pollies get free cars and don't pay for servicing, fuel, rego, insurance, tyres, nor do they lose money through depreciation, so hell yeah let's go for it boys and let's increase rego and let us allow insurance to skyrocket because we, the Pollies, don't have to pay anything!
• Now, job losses, everywhere - Industry is bleeding and jobs are dissapearing everywhere. But hey, who cares, Politicians don't cut back staff, you dont see a reduction in the Senate or in Minister numbers do you? Of course not. And as
for paycuts, think again. If a Politician enters a higher personal income tax
bracket they shuffle the deck and raise their 'living away allowances' and a host of other 'payments' to 'compensate' for the loss. No surprise really, but us lowlifes don't get that same privilege now do we?

So as has been said many times throughout history human government is filled with self indulging, lying deceptive sh#tbags.
Thanks for nothing vermin.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 12:42

gobbles, you echo my thoughts very well.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 12:46

You do realise, that Keating (as much as I do love him) set the bar of Small Business = 50 employee's or less.

Unlike the current muppets, he at least recognised us! In reality, small business accounts for almost 80% of employment in this country.

I know i bagged ozzies who's favourite passtime is bagging their homeland, but the short story is, that the ONLY thing keeping me in australia is my parents.

gobbledock

9th May 2012, 13:03

I love this country as well, warts an all.
I am just nauseated by the direction this place us being taken by consecutive terms of utter mismanagement.

Back to the thread.........

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 13:05

i thought this was the thread.

you are nauseated? only that? I cannot think of a word that describes my feelings without using f*ck as 90% of the sentence

peterc005

9th May 2012, 13:09

The thread relates to the impact of Carbon Tax on Avgas.

The short answer is not much of a difference.

jas24zzk

9th May 2012, 13:13

don't worry. if dillard gets her way, avgas will represent 95% of your hire charge
and the poor old lames will be asked to take a paycut to keep GA affordable!

What LAME's are paid in the GA sector is a total joke!

Jabawocky

9th May 2012, 21:55

Peterc

Nahh not much, wild guess off the top of my head, jumbo load of kero maybe $12,500 every time she sucks up from the hydrant.

Now with the usual costs of doing business that is a big slug on top. Multiply this by every load every day.

baswell

9th May 2012, 23:40

the short story is, that the ONLY thing keeping me in australia is my parents.
Sounds like you have done your research, so tell me, things would be better in which country? And why?

poteroo

9th May 2012, 23:46

Socialism is a very attractive political theory until there's no more OP money to support it.
happy days,

Neville Nobody

10th May 2012, 00:06

Socialism is a very attractive political theory until there's no more OP money to support it.

Are you calling this current Government socialist?
Be reds under the beds next.

baswell

10th May 2012, 00:28

Socialism is a very attractive political theory until there's no more OP money to support it.
One can also say that corporatism (which is where we are now, capitalism isn't the correct term anymore) is a very attractive economic theory until all the money has been accumulated by only a few and nobody else has any money left to buy anything from them. (US being a good example of that)

So maybe we need to find a good balance between the two systems?

Neville Nobody

10th May 2012, 00:29

Nahh not much, wild guess off the top of my head, jumbo load of kero maybe $12,500 every time she sucks up from the hydrant.
The figure you quote is a percentage of how much upload?

De_flieger

10th May 2012, 01:02

For the sake of the discussion I'm using the absolute worst case figures, filling from completely empty dry tanks to 100% and the fuel capacity figures for the 747-8I from Wikipedia (it looks to have the largest fuel capacity of the 747 family).

Fuel today in Brisbane will set you back $1.6592 per litre of Avtur, so it will cost $403,385 to fill up 243,120 litres.

Using the quoted figure of an increase in excise from 3.556 cpl to 9.53cpl gives a change of 5.974 cpl, and the total cost goes from $403,385 to $417,909 - a change of $14,524, or 3.6%. With fuel being a proportion of the aircraft operating costs, the actual aircraft operating costs will increase by somewhat less again.

Realistically this scenario will never happen with fuel uploads being significantly less than the complete tank capacity every time - you'll never fill from empty (I hope!), and rarely fill to 100%, so the actual cost will be a fair bit lower. So in answer to your question NN - not very much! The numbers are big, but the proportions are small :8

peterc005

10th May 2012, 01:13

The Carbon Tax is a responsible thing to do in an effort to reduce carbon-based emissions.

Don't fuss about a few bucks now, think of our kids future and our responsibility to leave the world in a better place than we found it.

I think Julia Gillard is doing a good job and showing dignity in a difficult situation.

baswell

10th May 2012, 01:18

Fuel today in Brisbane will set you back $1.6592 per litre of Avtur,
Oh no it doesn't! :)

People that full up 747s do not pay the bowser price. They buy futures and options and play the fuel market. (except maybe Sheik Al-ur-oil-Dolari's private 747!)

Unless you work for them or the suppliers you won't know what each tank costs.

Delta has now resorted to buying their own refinery!

But you are right: expect low single-digit increases in ticket price to cover it.

By playing race-to-the-bottom on ticket prices for so long, the airlines have damaged themselves more than any tax ever could.

Captain Nomad

10th May 2012, 01:19

One of the things that bothers me is the cumulative nature of this tax. Think of situations like building a house and how many times over you are going to be paying this phoney tax...

Trees are felled in the forrest using stinking chainsaws and heavy machinery. Costs go up due to carbon emissions and are passed on to the sawmill. Sawmill cuts up your timber and passes on the extra carbon tax costs to the next person. Transport to the fabricator involves trucking transport. Their transport cost goes up as they pass on their carbon costs to the fabricator. Frame fabricator purchases more expensive timber and formes it into frames and adds on their carbon costs before selling on to the builder. Builder has to get frames transported to the building site. Increased transport costs again passed on to the cost of erecting your frame. But wait! The builder has to pass on his carbon expenses to you also.

Been counting? Yes, that's right. 6 Times over you are going to have to pay a stinking carbon tax just for this part of a building project. The best bit is that it is CUMULATIVE. Every component of the process ADDS a tax charge to the final product. How the heck can anybody reasonably forecast the full impact of a carbon tax for these sorts of situations? 3% - yeah right...! :rolleyes:

The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done with very little actually going to changing anything to do with the percieved problem. If that doesn't make you mad - it should... It is only an ignorant fool who would believe that this tax is magically going to be translated into all kinds of renewable 'planet friendly' energy solutions popping up all over the place.

De_flieger

10th May 2012, 01:43

Baswell - you're right there :) - I went with the prices quoted off the Shell website to get a feel for the total costs involved in the heavy metal ops and the relative change in fuel prices that would occur if I towed a 747 up to the gate and said "fill 'er up". Another example would be a PA-28 , expect a wet hire rate of around $200 per hour, maybe more, maybe less depending on where you go. (Plus ~$20 of GST) As nitpicker330 observed, 35L/h will cost you an extra $1.77 per hour - or just under 30 seconds of the hourly rate of the aircraft. You can easily save well more than this 30 seconds/$1.77 by leaning the engine out a bit rather than leaving it at full rich, picking an optimal cruising altitude or just navigating a bit more accurately! (not having a go at anyones nav skills, this was just my experience!)

Unfortunately when I was training the cost of hiring an aircraft tended to go up by $5 or $10 per hour easily every 6 months or so without the slightest hint of a carbon tax, so I would expect most people will not notice any real difference - this time the newsletters and invoices will explain the truly unfortunate and entirely unavoidable government-inflicted price rise (sarcasm alert) as due to the carbon tax, as opposed to whatever it was 6 or 12 months ago...maintenance costs, increased airways charges, pilots drinking the alcohol out of the standby compasses?

baswell

10th May 2012, 02:26

The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done
You are right, that's the part that makes me mad. Gillard should have just told them: "Suck it up, princess." But of course they will still jack up their prices because people expect that to happen with the carbon tax....

And that's not just with carbon tax. Licenses are still being handed out to build new coal and gas plants. We have enough of those. Just tell them: if you want to sell electricity, build wind, solar, hydro, whatever. They will complain and talk about taking their business elsewhere, yada yada yada, blah blah blah. In the end, they have shareholder to please and money to make and they'll do it.

Rusty1970

10th May 2012, 03:25

This is largely the least informed debate I have ever read.

If you're not keen on the tax, wait 3 years. After that time, it reverts to a floating price scheme - ie an emissions trading scheme. The "tax" will be gone and replaced with an ETS which Gillard did promise at the election (though nobody remembers that). So at worst, it is a broken promise for 3 years.

It will then be excatly the same as Europe, South Korea and China (yes China) among others have/are implementing. Even the 12th largest economy in the world - California - has one.

On July 1, most pilots, certainly those workiing for small business, will see extra money in the pay packets becuase their tax rate will go down, and prices will barely move. The sky will not fall in (just as it didn't with the GST despite the doom and gloom predictions and that had a much bigger impact on prices) and everyone without a political agenda or trying to fleece their customers will say "what was that all about?" and the caravan will move on.

Abbott will not repeal becuase he won't be able to. He can't reverse the tax cuts and pension increases because without the revenue generated from taxing the big polluters how will he pay for it. It is an egg almost impossible to unscramble.

In the meantime, business will do what business always does, they will try and reduce their input costs, so if their carbon intensive inputs are more expensive then they'll try to reduce them. It's called a price signal and it has worked time and time again. (BTW, transport fuel is exempt from to the person who was complaining about costs on costs - not being rude, just can't remember who it was.)

Seriously people, don't believe what the papers say, do a bit of original research. And wait until July 1. We'll still have the best performing economy, with low unemployment (even lower as of today), low inflation, high wages, good working conditions, good public facilties etc etc int the world.

As somebody once said. Australians are a funny lot. We know we live in the best country in the world, but everything is sh*t here.

alphacentauri

10th May 2012, 03:36

Baswell, I am not going to argue with you because, even though I don't agree with you, I do see where you are coming from.

I think what most people on here are angry about is that lack of choice. If the carbon tax is being introduced to force people to use less carbon (which is what I beleive it is intended to do) then what are my options for using less carbon?

For example, fuel. Oil based fuel = bad. Renewable fuel = good. I think eveybody would agree that saving the planet (if indeed it needs saving, but that is another argument) is a good idea. The problem comes when we park our plane/car at the bowser. Fuel has gone up, because the carbon tax has made it go up, and me being a good environmentalist wants to save the environment and some money.......what choice do I have? I can either buy oil based fuel or............... I can buy another oil based fuel.

And that is the point.

The idea is that one can pay the least amount of carbon tax based on choices you are willing to make about how much money you want to spend. If you can afford it then you can wreck carnage on the environment. If I want to be more environmental in my choices then I can pay less tax.

But at the moment, there are no choices in anything (electricity, gas, fuel) and being environemntal may cost more. We have no choice and that is what is Pi88ing people off!

The ultimate test of any tax is that there has to be away to pay less or little/none based on choices you can make. So Baswell, I will ask this. In my everyday living as a consumer how do I reduce the amount of carbon tax I will have to pay? without turning my house into a candle lit cave and converting my Subaru to peddle power?

Alpha

Jabawocky

10th May 2012, 05:07

Hey guys.....Think about this for a minute. :rolleyes:

The list price Vs the contract discount price means nothing. The EXCISE is on every litre.....so to fill your B748 it will be $14.5K more.

So my rough mental maths at $12.5K per load on a B744 and probably the A380 is about right.

peterc, have you noticed the alarmist AGW folk have vannished up their own hole in the ozone layer in recent years.

If you are worried about our kids, take the carbon tax now, invest it and hand it back to my kids in 20 years when this phoney crap is seen for what it is. Hang on, in 20 years I hope to be around to collect it.

baswell

10th May 2012, 05:18

If the carbon tax is being introduced to force people to use less carbon (which is what I beleive it is intended to do) then what are my options for using less carbon?
Replacing wasteful globes with energy saving ones and turning them off when you are not in the room. More efficient air conditioning (evaporative if not in a high humidity area) and set the temperature a degree or two higher. And don't leave so many appliances on standby. It will make a huge difference in your electricity bill.

And if you are using electric heating or hot water: really, do you hate your money that much?

And of course solar panels work exactly as advertised, but take an investment and some years to pay back. (But they WILL pay back many times over.)

As for aircraft, we should find a way to encourage more efficient engines. More Diesel/Jet-A1 piston power would be a good start for larger aircraft. For LSAs (including GA training!) the new Rotax 912iS is awesome. So much less fuel (compared to standard 912, let alone to other 100 HP engines) that despite its higher cost it almost pays for its own overhaul, let alone carbon tax.

There are so many savings right on our doorstep that the real crime is that we need a carbon tax to open our eyes to them.

PS: Candles are very polluting. It is the irony of Earth Hour; the candles many people end up burning send more carbon into the atmosphere than a couple of low energy globes would have done!

baswell

10th May 2012, 05:23

Hey guys.....Think about this for a minute.
You and De_Flieger are both right: you have the exact amount, De_Flieger just shows how little it adds to the ticket price, in percentage terms.

porch monkey

10th May 2012, 05:27

As seems to be the usual case, several of you miss the real point. MOST people don't mind paying a reasonable amount of tax. What is detestable, even despicable, is the comparison of that collected versus that which will be spent supposedly rectifying climate change. Whether you believe in it or not. This government, and others like it, are simply into the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution, nothing more, nothing less. I'll let you work out whose wealth is going to whom.......

alphacentauri

10th May 2012, 06:32

Baswell, I'm a renter. Most of those options are not available to me.

Neville Nobody

10th May 2012, 06:34

This government, and others like it, are simply into the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution
Look up socialist..............you think it applies to this Government?
The born to rule mob are out and proud :8

Jabawocky

10th May 2012, 07:03

porchie :D :ok:

Frank Arouet

10th May 2012, 07:55

Can't believe this thread is still going with the antagonists and same old protagonists locked in wasting bandwidth. The deal is done and until it's undone, discussion like this only serves to increase blood pressure.

We have a socialist/ communist/ meagalomaniac/ co-alition government that need "turfing" because any of them can't govern in their own right. The alternative has the numbers given the rest are moronic self serving individualistic poofters.:8

Jabawocky

10th May 2012, 10:18

Frank,

Are you off your medication mate......finally a post I agree with :ok:

Just joshin with ya :}

Reality is that GA struggles with costs as it is, and some folk might easily scoff at a 6.5CPL increase however look at any charter gig, flying school. I have a mate with the aforementioned increase of $60K+ to his business in jet fuel, his Avgas bill per year just went up $2000 and that is a tragedy as a fair chunk of that will be sharing at his expense (a very rare in Australia) Warbird. So go ask all the AWAL members how much spare coin they are willing to throw at sharing their passion with others.

As Porchie has pointed out, this is an unwanted, unfair and moronic tax.

For aviation it is really bad.:rolleyes:

Frank Arouet

10th May 2012, 10:39

Well, after watching Swan's budget speech and the opposition reply tonight, I understand where it all went wrong. The thing is, after balancing the two, and mainly directed to Swan;

WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME COBBER?

A QUICK APOLOGY!

"I apologise for the "poofter" remark. It was totally out of order and should have included Lesbians".

Lodown

10th May 2012, 21:43

The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done

Why? Because she's aware that it's all too easy for those large companies to depart Australian shores. The Labor government knows that it can tax people almost however much it likes while most people have a job with a little spending money.

Gillard should have just told them: "Suck it up, princess."
Your red undies are showing baswell.

Licenses are still being handed out to build new coal and gas plants.
Perhaps that's because solar and wind are roughly 4-10 times more expensive, intermittent on supply and fail to produce when power needs are highest.

The pitiful wages to the majority of the population, which they then have to spend on services the government doesn't provide anymore so they can't afford to buy the goods and services from their own, or any, employers which thus have to lend them money via credit cards or mortgages funded by their employees 401(k) plans until it all blows up. (The only way they can keep it going is by colluding with OPEC to require payment for oil in USD.)

WTF? Something against the US from all your worldly travels and in-depth observations? Pitiful wages to the majority of the population? What have you been smoking?

baswell

11th May 2012, 10:48

We have a socialist/ communist/ meagalomaniac/ co-alition government that need "turfing" because any of them can't govern in their own right.
You do realise that had one independent chosen them the, ehrm, coalition would have had to, ehrm, awkward, form yet another ... coalition!

You hear this a lot how "this government" isn't legitimate because they had to form a coalition. I wonder if the same people would have said the same thing if the coalition had to form, well, you know, a coalition with some of the independents.

Just saying'...

baswell

11th May 2012, 10:57

Because she's aware that it's all too easy for those large companies to depart Australian shores.
Really? BHP is magically going to find another huge heap of copper and Uranium? And Rio is going to find other people to sell electricity to and just pack up shop here?

Seriously, what major manufacturing is still left in Australia that would leave because of a tiny percentage increase in their cost?

Perhaps that's because solar and wind are roughly 4-10 times more expensive
Only if you care about short term return. In the long term, they are all cheaper.

intermittent on supply and fail to produce when power needs are highest
That's what we have enough existing fossil burning plants for. Nuclear is a great option for base load too.

Pitiful wages to the majority of the population?
If more than half of the households (yes, including multiple-income families) earn less than $40K/year, have no hope of a pension, child care financial help or medical insurance to speak of, then yes, I call that "pitiful".

You are not seriously trying to suggest the US economy (and the policies that created it) is all hunk-dory, right?

gobbledock

11th May 2012, 11:20

Thorium will be the next big ticket item. Cleaner than coal and safer than Uranium.
Although I think Baswell is a strange git I do agree with he/she that Rio and BHP are full of ****e, they aren't going anywhere. Too much coal to feed to third world countries who couldn't give a rats ass about global warming/climate/carbon/emissions etc etc. And now that Japan doesn't need our Uranium we can change the rules of the game and start flogging it to India who have promised to use it for energy purposes only and not for any of those nasty bombs!

Frank Arouet

11th May 2012, 12:40

You do realise that had one independent chosen them the, ehrm, coalition would have had to, ehrm, awkward, form yet another ... coalition!

Abbott is on record of saying if he puts the aboloition of the carbon tax to the senate more than twice, he "WILL CALL A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT", which for the sake of say, Thompson, he can achieve and put the prophecy to the vote.

Bring it on Cobber.

Poor Bas, backing loosers. Stewth mate get a grip.

Towering Q

11th May 2012, 13:09

Abbott is on record of saying if he puts the aboloition of the carbon tax to the senate more than twice, he "WILL CALL A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT",

Ah, weather vane Tony, who back in 2009 was quoted as saying, "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax."

gobbledock

11th May 2012, 13:19

Yes what great choices we have? A middle aged union hater who still wears his Sluggers around Manly or the red haired freak who is going to cop a Labor 'Guiness Book Of Records' hiding next election?

Hate to say it Australia but we are fu#ked.

Flying Binghi

11th May 2012, 13:36

.

via Rusty1970 #47; This is largely the least informed debate I have ever read.

Heh, caint have that Rusty1970 - we best inform yer then..:)

...it is a broken promise for 3 years...

It is not a broken promise, its an outright lie - and it wont last three years..:)

...It will then be excatly the same as Europe, South Korea and China (yes China) among others have/are implementing. Even the 12th largest economy in the world - California - has one...

Lets have a look-see...

Europe = basket case. Will the euro even survive ?

South Korea = Dunno ?

China = Tell me more about China doin a carbon tax. Do you believe them..:hmm:

California = Bankrupt. Just how bad... A couple of years ago there were plans for California to sell some parks to pay state employee wages... Business is leaving the state and moving to Texas etc...

...In the meantime, business will do what business always does, they will try and reduce their input costs, so if their carbon intensive inputs are more expensive then they'll try to reduce them...

Yes, more and more business will either send the jobs off shore or close..:hmm:

...Seriously people, don't believe what the papers say, do a bit of original research...

Anyone who has followed this subject here will know that I've been researching and debating this subject fairly intensly for years now.

In the beginning we had Al Gores carbon scam helped along by green hysteria and it just went down hill from there..... The whole carbon tax/trading is based on corruption.

Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research -

There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why.

.

Flying Binghi

11th May 2012, 13:44

.

via baswell #50; ...And of course solar panels work exactly as advertised...

Tell us more baswell, just what do the advertyzzin tell us ?

.

Lodown

11th May 2012, 20:43

Only if you care about short term return. In the long term, they are all cheaper.

I take it you are referring to the long term damage to Mother Gaia:rolleyes:, because the economics suck.
That's what we have enough existing fossil burning plants for.
You can't just flick on a switch and get a fossil fueled power plant to start up like a portable generator. It needs hours to wind up and wind down, which means it has to be running at close to normal output anyway in case wind and solar generation tail off. Fossil fueled power plants also run efficiently at constant output. Decrease and increase output like a car in city traffic and efficiency drops and "pollution" increases.
BTW, there's a difference between individual income and household income. Check it out.
Want to see a preview of what happens with the introduction of a CO2 tax? As Flying Binghi pointed out, look no further than California. The state is close to bankrupt and it has a business exodus for destinations east that rivals the gold rush to the region in 1849 (sarc).
Which country is going to be the first to leave the EU...Greece, France or Germany? Germany is refurbishing its coal generation program. It relied on PV and wind and is discontinuing nuclear, but the money is running out like water through a drainpipe and someone is starting to notice that unless they do something fast, there will be a desperate and dangerous shortage of power.

Frank Arouet

12th May 2012, 01:13

Speaking of solar panels, a quick question. If you shine 100 watts of light onto a solar panel, how many watts do you get back?

Lodown

12th May 2012, 01:27

Frank, is that an incandescent 100W light bulb, or the flourescent or LED equivalent?

Andy_RR

12th May 2012, 06:59

so....

...if this won't have much effect on the price of anything, how will it effect on our consumption and therefore the emissions of airborne carbon?

Of course, the toyota corollary to this is if the carbon tax does have some effect, it must make things more expensive, surely?

...and the problem with our economy isn't that it's socialist or corporatist or whatever. The main problem is that we are moving towards a centrally planned economy - we all know how well they worked out by the late '80s. I know for a fact that the centrally planned economy is the ambition because Juliar and her ilk keep banging on about how well the government is managing the economy. My guess is when it really turns pear-shaped, it will be all the excuse they are looking for to 'manage' it even more! :eek:

Frank Arouet

12th May 2012, 10:17

Frank, is that an incandescent 100W light bulb, or the flourescent or LED equivalent

I can't even spell half those words, but I'm guessing 100 Watts of equivalent solar light. Do you get 100 Watts back or less/ more than the 100 watts taken in? I do have an interest in solar powered aeroplanes, but can't believe how they work. Also a Toyota Prius with a Hybrid set up is fairly expensive, so what do I get back for the extra output of cash?

jas24zzk

12th May 2012, 10:22

so what do I get back for the extra output of cash?

A slow POS, that doesn't have that much of a lower fuel burn, uses more energy to build, and even more energy to dispose of, with it's resultant harmful chemicals etc....

and it won't tow the ski boat! :sad:

Ultralights

12th May 2012, 11:32

I recall Dr Karl on Jjj saying that at the equator, 1sm of surface area under direct sunlight will receive the equivalent of 1 watt of electricity in solar energy.

Andy_RR

12th May 2012, 14:17

More like 1kW, UL. A square metre of PV will give you about 150-200W of electricity on a good day in direct sunshine

Lodown

12th May 2012, 15:09

...with the sunlight striking at or close to perpendicular; no dust, scratches, bird crap, salt spray or pollen on the glass; at around 25C and absolutely no shadows of any size; straight out of the box (they lose about 5% output in the first year and about 1% every year thereafter). After about 25 to 30 years, the good ones are done. So far, there is no recycle program for them either, so at present, they end up at the dump.

More bad news for the Mother Gaia supporters: USA Oil Boom (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MadeInAmerica/oil-boom-creating-overnight-millionaires-kansas-us-energy/story?id=16297143#.T623iOhAYsd)

With traditional oil mining techniques, it is estimated that only about 5% of oil in the wells has been recovered. Frakking is opening up huge resources in the USA. Peak oil? Not in my lifetime and probably not in the lifetime of my great grandkids.

And we haven't even touched oil shale in the USA yet: recoverable oil equal to total world oil supply (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil)

Only if you care about short term return. In the long term, they are all cheaper.

Don't bet on the stock exchange baswell: Green Power Failure (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/)

Captain Nomad

13th May 2012, 03:21

Well, Rusty 1970 you reckon this is the least informed debate you have heard on this subject hey?

You were probably referring to my last post when you made this statement:
(BTW, transport fuel is exempt from to the person who was complaining about costs on costs - not being rude, just can't remember who it was.)

You know what? That is plain wrong. Aeromedical might be exempt but aviation transport fuel is most definitely going to be taxed. That's right, aviation - where technological developments are an industry imperative and where leaps and bounds in efficiency measures are made all the time - is being singled out for prime pickings while other less innovative sectors of transport get exempt (some only temporarily).

RAAA director Jim Davis is quoted in the latest AA edition as saying "The annual cost to RAAA members of the carbon tax, being imposed through an increase in the levy on aviation fuels, is estimated at over $20 million a year but it will bring no efficiency gains or reductions in emissions." (my bolding). That's right: estimated $20 million a year with absolutely ZERO environmental results to gain from it. That is why I call it a phoney tax!

You know what else? You might be partially right in that SOME transport will not be taxed. That's right, the vast sums of private motor vehicles. Also trucks will be exempt but only until 2014. That is the other big problem with this tax. Softly, softly approach and bring destruction by stealth. It might seem okay to start with and I'm not suggesting that the sky is going to fall in on July 1. However typical of the 'in the moment' generation, ignore the future consequences of where this will lead with subsequent changes and the fact that the 'set price' on carbon will only go up from the already inflated inaugural figures that are always being used with examples currently being bandied around. This tax IS going to cost with major consequences, and the most maddening thing is that there won't even be anything good to show for it...

Andy_RR

13th May 2012, 05:55

straight out of the box (they lose about 5% output in the first year and about 1% every year thereafter). After about 25 to 30 years, the good ones are done.

This looks a lot like anti-green rhetoric without much foundation. Spreading this kind of misinformation is merely ammunition for the rabid greenies.

The truth is, noone really knows the lifespan of solar PV, but it's certainly in the decades. How many is anyone's guess...

More here (http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP118_pg12_AskTheExperts_1)

Frank Arouet

13th May 2012, 06:55

I recall Dr Karl on Jjj saying that at the equator, 1sm of surface area under direct sunlight will receive the equivalent of 1 watt of electricity in solar energy. Well, I believe that bloke's rhetoric. Had dinner with him in 2004.

Spreading this kind of misinformation I thought Dr Karl's ideology was fairly green and he didn't appear to be evasive on any topics brought up in front of me.

But no wonder those electric aeroplanes need large wings. Not just the high aspect ratio, but somewhere to put the panels.

Quick EDIT to ask another.

How long do these new fangled battery's last, and what happens to them when they do die?

Aussie Bob

13th May 2012, 08:24

The truth is, noone really knows the lifespan of solar PV, but it's certainly in the decades. How many is anyone's guess...

Dream on Andy, after 20 odd years in the solar industry I have left a bit disillusioned. You see, all the panels I put in 10 - 15 odd years ago are failing and quite a few I have fitted in the last five years are on the way out. Some panels may last 25 years plus, but not all and in the case of the grid connect systems that are everywhere, the failure of a single panel will stop the entire array working until the faulty panel is replaced. Replacements are hard to come by, warranty service is abysmal, roofs are leaking and the whole shebang was/is sponsored by taxpayers. On top of that grid feed inverters are not as reliable as promised .... Further to that, the average grid feed punter would have no idea if their system was even working correctly.

I also agree with Lodown, output degradation starts when these things first see sun. This is why the 20 year guarantees you talk about are output related and at 10 years, the output guarantee is only 80%. Further tho this most solar manufacturers who offer 20 plus years of warranty haven't even been in the business 5 years!

Don't get me wrong though, I live with solar power, love making my own electricity and wouldn't take a grid connection if it was offered free. Unfortunately the unreliability and warranty issues have made long term solar folk slightly peeved.

The big problem is that electricity consumption per person is rising around 10% per annum and most people have absolutely no idea how much electricity they currently consume. Do you?

Andy_RR

13th May 2012, 09:08

Aussie Bob, you're saying that the taxpayer-funded solar-PV boondoggle funds all went towards buying low-quality ****e...?

That's never happened before!

:ugh:

Frank Arouet

13th May 2012, 09:16

electricity consumption per person is rising around 10% per annum

My kids have moved out and it's just me and the good wife, so mine's dropped, but priced have increased by more than that. I thought it was because of the abysmal prior NSW government's neglect of the infrastructure.

Perhaps the price rise has something to do with over grazing the paddock?

Perhaps not. I was wrong once. (that was the time I admitted I was wrong).

Aussie Bob

13th May 2012, 11:16

Aussie Bob, you're saying that the taxpayer-funded solar-PV boondoggle funds all went towards buying low-quality ****e...?

Sadly it seems so Andy, to cut costs, solar cells are getting much thinner, more brittle and of less substance. Manufacturing costs are shaved at every stage of manufacture in order to offer the end product at a compeditive price.

Frank, sady part of your power increase is due to the plethora of grid feed solar systems. Unfortunately the government dictated that the power companies must buy solar power from consumers at the retail price or higher. For just compensation the power companies were then allowed to charge everyone more. Much more ... In fact we pay more per kWh than most other folk in the western world and Jooliars tax will add more again.

Jabawocky

13th May 2012, 11:29

Indeed...........solar without STUPID subsidies, over the long term (total cost of ownership) and not paying the over inflated price like the 50-65c/kwh is not anywhere near viable.

When you consider the cost of install, cost of capital, cost of maintenace, the ROI is not so great is it. Do the numbers and be honest.

And if Aussie Bob is correct about the life span of new panels this is worse. The inverters are not a 25 year device, more like 7. Despite what they tell you in the adverts. I have been in the industrial control and inverter business for 24 years, believe me, the design life is not anywhere near what some folk claim.

Add to this a hail storm, or a lightning strike close by, corrossion and or other costs. The numbers get worse.

And when too many people in a given area are all pumping energy back to the grid, during the day when demand is lower in a housing area, you will pump less in than you hoped. Bugger again. I never thought of this, but a PV solar engineer did, and when he explained to me what is happening in some places I was quite surprised it had happened already.

Nobody mentioned that!

So just like Spain......we will soon see that while it works, it is not the great deal we were sold!

Government sponsored disasters.........:ugh:

Rusty1970

13th May 2012, 12:29

RAAA director Jim Davis is quoted in the latest AA edition as saying "The annual cost to RAAA members of the carbon tax, being imposed through an increase in the levy on aviation fuels, is estimated at over $20 million a year but it will bring no efficiency gains or reductions in emissions." (my bolding). That's right: estimated $20 million a year with absolutely ZERO environmental results to gain from it. That is why I call it a phoney tax!

I've not read the article so it is a little difficult for me to comment with any authority, but why does he claim no efficiency gains? If his members are shelling out $20 million as he claims, why is he not in the ear of regulators demanding gains in airspace efficiency (for example)? Surely now he has an argument.

$20 million seems like not that much to me. But per ticket, what's that, maybe $5. (>2 million pax a year with a roughly 50% revenue split bewteen pax and freight). Regional aviation has plenty of problems, the Carbon Tax will be barely a blip on the radar. I suspect Mr Davis has a philospohical objection. Couldn't possibly be John Sharp on the board of REX pulling the stings there?

And yes, I was talking about heavy transport.

Flying Binghi, don't make me quote the thousands of scientists that disagree with Mssrs Monkton, Bolt and Jones. One quote from one scientist. Next you'll be telling me smoking is good for you and vaccinations are bad because some other quack says so.

Europe is buggered essentially because they all refuse to pay tax. China and Korea,what can I say, if you don't believe, you don't believe. California is largely bankrupt because of the policies of the Republican Bush administration to do with energy. Not sure carbon pricing has anything to do with any of them.

Don't forget, both major parties have the same policy of CO2 reduction targets so don't think voting Lib suddenly means no policy of carbon reduction. The difference is with the Libs, it'll be your taxes going straight to polluters. You'll still pay, they'll just be paid for business as usual.

As Tony Abbott famously said "if you want to put a price on carbon why not do it with a simple tax".

Chimbu chuckles

13th May 2012, 13:44

Flying Binghi, don't make me quote the thousands of scientists that disagree with Mssrs Monkton, Bolt and Jones.

Ok then...How about you provide a link to empirical data that shows manmade CO2 is causing disastrous global warming then?

Can't?

Don't worry none, not even ONE, of your 'thousands of scientists' can either.

'Clean energy' is a slogan...it doesn't exist. The closest example (hydro) is vehemently opposed by the lefty tree lovers*. Wind is an utterly sick joke.

Rusty 1970 your statements on Europe and California are so wrong as to be laughable.

The objection to the carbon tax is its added cost for ZERO result/benefit on any level...its a stupid tax imposed by morons.

* they stopped just hugging em years ago.

Aussie Bob

13th May 2012, 20:16

Its a stupid tax imposed by morons

Chimbu, I couldn't have put it better myself ...

baswell

13th May 2012, 23:23

Recently overheard:

"<RFDS call sign>: You used to always fly this segment on FL160, but recently it's been FL180, why's that?"

"Saving fuel, it's all about the carbon foot print".

And that describes the cold hard truth: most operators have a lot of inefficiencies, simply because nobody has properly thought about the savings to be had.

Yes, they could find those savings without a tax, but they weren't. Hopefully a tax or ETS will inspire more to do so.

Captain Nomad

14th May 2012, 00:59

Baswell, with aeromed being exempt from the carbon tax on fuel I think you will find that what you heard would have been an entirely 'tongue-in-cheek' comment from the said RFDS callsign. They have good reason for flying at lower level on sectors which could be flown higher. Maintaining a sea level or close to sea level cabin for patient considerations would one reason. Maybe he is now flying a newer machine of the same type (new PC12 or King Air most probably) which has a bit better performance and can manage a higher altitude on the said short sector. Either way I betcha carbon footprint has got nothing to do with it... :hmm:

Clare Prop

14th May 2012, 02:15

Will Aeromed be exempt from the excise increases? Because that is what they are calling it...not Carbon Tax but Excise... :confused:

baswell

14th May 2012, 02:20

Jabawocky

14th May 2012, 04:06

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/carbontax.jpg

Old Fella

14th May 2012, 04:38

Jabawocky, I love the cartoon. The Carbon Tax is not the only turd in the swimming pool though. "A turd in the hand of a turd" comes to mind. Seems to have given Bob a case of "wind" also.

jas24zzk

14th May 2012, 09:32

Gold award to you Jaba!....now to dump that on my bookface profi LOL

Clare Prop

14th May 2012, 10:13

Looks like Julia is thinking of ways to try and polish the thing.... :hmm:

Captain Nomad

14th May 2012, 12:03

Captain: that doesn't invalidate the argument. If they did this to simply save fuel, regardless of carbon tax then it proves there are savings to be had everywhere if you look for them.

Are you really trying to tell me that we need a carbon tax to encourage us to try and save fuel and that without it we will be less efficient at our job?

Now, stay high, reduce fuel burn and have more headwind = stay in the air longer and burn more fuel or go low and go go go and burn more fuel? :E Will the new mantra be 'safety and carbon footprint before schedule?' :E Hmm... :ugh:

Jabawocky

14th May 2012, 23:22

BP Solar, BP Monocrystalline Solar Panels (http://www.isustainaustralia.com.au/panels/bp_mono.htm)

Now how long the cheap and nasties last and how well they perform is anyones guess. But I think you can guess, Less!

I should post a copy of my post from another thread, it applies here too!

Jabawocky

14th May 2012, 23:23

Talking about Carbon Tax with Mrs Jaba last night who is frustrated at the ammount of BS she will have to deal with in trying to minimise the effect of $28M worth of carbon tax, and that depending on what use the fuel has it is either taxed or exempt. And then when credits go on the open market etc.....

We estimate the cost in admin alone to just her operation will be at least $1M. All for zip, nothing naught!

Now add the overhead at the ATO, and the various Canberra Castles, this is total and utter madness.

We are shooting ourselves in the ar$e over and over. The underlying economy here is almost dead. It is stuffed, the worst many have seen in 30 years. Watch this space.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/ALPscorecard.jpg

baswell

14th May 2012, 23:50

BP Solar, BP Monocrystalline Solar Panels
The product spec actually says 93% for 12 years and 85% for 25. That is awesome! They are willing to guarantee 80% up to 25 years. Since they don't want to pay out, they must have set that low and expect the majority to be above 85%.

OK, I'll admit they will also expect some people not to notice and claim, but overall it just shows how good this stuff is becoming. :ok:

Lodown

15th May 2012, 00:00

It's a sustainable business:

BP is winding down its solar operations (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&contentId=7046515#7269104)

Jabawocky

15th May 2012, 00:12

Bas
OK, I'll admit they will also expect some people not to notice and claim, but overall it just shows how good this stuff is becoming. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

No, that is how good this stuff WAS.....BP solar have been doing this for a very long time, the problem now is that the majority of all those pretty solar arrays on houses all over the country are not from BP Solar, and as Aussie Bob suggests, the opposite is the case.

We would truly love to believe.....I would, but the engineering facts are hard to ignore. By the way, 20+ years in the industrial inverter game, and none of our staff have solar, even the greenie one has not because he cant convince himself it is viable, and trust me he believes in AGW too. :rolleyes:

baswell

15th May 2012, 00:14

You think they didn't implement the internet filter is a bad thing? :confused:

Also: you can make a board like that for every government. Anyone who believes any government can control how much we pay for housing is a fool, for instance. And the other guys make plenty of promises along the lines of "making things more affordable" when they have no power to do so. We are a market economy, after all.

They know this, but they make these promises to attract voters because the average Australian is as dumb as the average world citizens and just feels warm a cosy when told things they want to hear. Like:we'll lower your interest rates, make your commercially provided childcare more affordable, global warming is a myth and "I will stop the boats." All lies, but they sounds so appealing...

The underlying economy here is almost dead. It is stuffed, the worst many have seen in 30 years.
5% unemployment (half that of the US), inflation half what it was 10 years ago and interest rates almost half compared to 4 years ago and at a level indicative of a healthy economy. Not to mention company bankruptcies being down every quarter for the past year and a half. (as far as back I bothered to look.)

I just don't understand where you get the idea the economy is dead in the water.

So, we have the Murdoch News Network telling me we are all stuffed (contrary to the facts) and their saviour is promising sweeping changes to fix it, while being shy on details. I don't see what good could come of that.

I am voting for the one that goes: "if it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Political leaning is irrelevant, facts and common sense are.

Andy_RR

15th May 2012, 00:24

Jaba, what goes wrong with the inverters when they fail? Is it a case of dried out capacitors, or something more difficult to fix?

Jabawocky

15th May 2012, 00:25

GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil)

just for additional info!

Jabawocky

15th May 2012, 00:42

5% unemployment (half that of the US), Watch this space, inflation half what it was 10 years ago Not true, 2.77% ten years ago and 3.42% last year and over 1.5% this first qtr. and interest rates almost half compared to 4 years ago Ahhh May 2008 8.7% vs 6.99 and at a level indicative of a healthy economy. I don't think so! Not to mention company bankruptcies being down every quarter for the past year and a half. (as far as back I bothered to look.) Are you sure, go to ITSA and have a look, from the 08 crash 8564, 8427, 8052 and so far this year 6734 which annualised is a record 8979 :eek::eek:

I just don't understand where you get the idea the economy is dead in the water. You don't? FFS Bas, mate read all the stuff in red, and I am not trying to pick fights or play polotics with you, because you are a mate, and I need you to get onto some more work for me shortly :E:ok: so I need you to stay in business too.

So, we have the Murdoch News Network telling me we are all stuffed (contrary to the facts) and their saviour is promising sweeping changes to fix it, while being shy on details. I don't see what good could come of that. Murdoch press....:} who on earth are they?

I am voting for the one that goes: "if it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Political leaning is irrelevant, facts and common sense are. Yep, and my political belief has nothing to do with all the customers, suppliers, courier drivers and everyone else I talk to.

Ok now for an interesting read, while I go do some work! :)

Sweden’s secret recipe | The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7779228/swedens-secret-recipe.thtml)

baswell

15th May 2012, 03:46

No fight, I like a good discussion. :)

Wot? You want Swedish tax rates for Australia? :eek: :)

Taxation in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden)

The value added tax (mervärdesskatt or moms) rate in Sweden is 25%

from a pay check of "100", 63.42/131.42 (i.e. 48.3%) is paid as taxes

See, Sweden had a lot of taxes and a lot of social services. They had a lot of cutting they could do. Applying to same to Australia could well cut taxes and services to American levels; i.e.: unsustainable.

You can't keep cutting these things every time things go bad, you'll have nothing left eventually as voters don't allow you to increase taxes in good times.

Not true, 2.77% ten years ago and 3.42% last year and over 1.5% this first qtr.
So almost half, but the trend is down:
http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/images/inflation-long-run.gif

Are you sure, go to ITSA and have a look, from the 08 crash 8564, 8427, 8052 and so far this year 6734 which annualised is a record 8979
Are we looking at the same figures in the same way? When I look at the quarterly statistics, the last quarter was the first on with a slight positive change; the two years before that saw a drop.

Murdoch press.... who on earth are they?
The ones the majority of the voters read or consume via the "news" on commercial television. :(

A lot of people are in work, almost more than ever, on very good wages and falling mortgage rates on their homes. The problem with the economy is not taxation levels, it's consumer confidence. If you are constantly being told how bad things are and that you will lose your job soon, would you go out and buy stuff?

(Australians mostly only investing in non-productive assets like homes doesn't help either.)

Andy_RR

15th May 2012, 07:22

It always beggars my belief how much people like Baswell worship the government and its wonderful management of the economy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since there were also a load of good Soviet comrades who thought the five year plans and central control were a good idea. Oh how disappointed they must be now... :ugh:

Jabawocky

15th May 2012, 07:38

Andy

Capacitors as you would know are the big things, but many other items in power electronics suffer a hard life, line disturbences.....especially those big flashy ones :ok:

So control boards with switch mode psu's and all are surface mount.

you fix one bit this month, another the next, lots of variables.....you know the story!:ok:

These things are not like TV's that last forever, well almost.

Frank Arouet

15th May 2012, 08:33

5% unemployment (half that of the US),

If Centrelink removed the disability pension for people with dyslexia, agrophobia, sexual indecision, and those that left their mothers breast too soon, the unemployment index would raise to 10%, which is how many people are "unemployable" at any index in any country on any date.

The thing is, and it's not narrowed to Labor, but people who work 4 hours per week are classed as fully employed/ not unemployed/ good employment statistics.

It's my opinion that people like baswell are as culpable as the current ALP incumbants if they support them in defiance of public and available evidence such as the Fairwork /Craig Thompson saga, who, if he were a man of principle, would stand down until his allegations are proven true or false. If it takes 4 years to do this there should be a By-Election because the Constituents are essentially unrepresented in the 3 year cycle.

And that's the problem with the Libs/NAT'S, that they have principles, lack balls, and fall on their swords at the first wiff of scandal, yet Labor just stick it out.

What a sad and sorry state of affairs. It makes me want be be a KIWI, but I don't know how to spell it.

Towering Q

15th May 2012, 13:43

It always beggars my belief how much people like Baswell worship the government and its wonderful management of the economy

Looking back at Baswell's comment...

I am voting for the one that goes: "if it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Political leaning is irrelevant, facts and common sense are.

Doesn't sound like he is worshipping anyone.

Frank Arouet

16th May 2012, 00:23

He's not worshipping Libs more than he's not worshipping the ALP then.

Pedant!

Avgas172

16th May 2012, 02:21

I'm thinking everyone should take a Bex and have a nice lie down, then afterwards come in for a group hug.:sad:

baswell

16th May 2012, 02:23

Frank,

Did you miss the part where I said:

Anyone who believes any government can control how much we pay for housing is a fool, for instance. And the other guys make plenty of promises along the lines of "making things more affordable" when they have no power to do so. We are a market economy, after all.

The last thing I will ever worship is any politician. The choice is always between the lesser of two evils.

If Centrelink removed the disability pension for people with dyslexia, agrophobia, sexual indecision, and those that left their mothers breast too soon, the unemployment index would raise to 10%, which is how many people are "unemployable" at any index in any country on any date.
The same is true for any country, some even more so that ours (think Western European countries) and so that doesn't change the comparison between two countries if you are trying to determine which one is doing relatively better.

It is disappointing you are pointing the finger at me for being "culpable" when all we have is a difference of opinion on what are sound economic and fiscal practices. You nor I are omniscient beings that know with certainty what the right way forward is. All we have is opinion.

Frank Arouet

16th May 2012, 02:41

Apologies baswell, I tend to push my opion sometimes to the detriment of the discussion. I get so cranky when for all intents and purposes the, (read this as any party), incumbants, should get the blame for any mess that has happened under their watch, however and usually, that blame is taken off them and somehow burdened on the opposition. A lot of that criticism undeserved.

$hit doesn't just happen, some ar$eholes cause it!

Andy_RR

16th May 2012, 03:03

I don't think I mentioned anything about worshipping politicians. I did say something about government though...

baswell

16th May 2012, 04:13

$hit doesn't just happen, some ar$eholes cause it!
True! But you need to keep in mind things happen for reasons both beyond the control of the incumbent (i.e.: the best they can do is make the best of a bad situation like the GFC) or are the result of a path set by those before them.

I cringe when I hear Labour taking credit for lowering interest rates, as if no other country in the world had to lower them in the same period because of the GFC. You really think rates falling that quick after an election is your doing?

At the same time, it is very easy for the opposition to say their handling would be better as they will never be proven wrong; by the time they get to make their changes, the world has moved on and what works then may have been counter productive 3 years ago. Or more likely, they will have a new policy for the current situation.

People on both sides are always really good at producing spin around this.

That said: I still think the level of taxation and government services in Australia is at the right level. Not too much (Sweden) not too little (US). And I am willing to bet the Libs would keep it at the same level, just pushing collecting and spending to slightly different sources and beneficiaries. The main problem is being efficient when spending the money. But remember that in countries as in business: you gotta spend money to make money.

Andy_RR

16th May 2012, 04:40

Baswell, if you think taxes are lower in the US than Australia, I think you might be right, but only just. Most people forget that states, counties and cities levy taxes there too, including income taxes and not at insignificant rates either...

On the other hand, if the US was running the same level of budget deficit as Australia, their taxes would be higher. MUCH higher...

Having said all that, how is your opinion worth anything when it comes to how much tax is a good thing? You're happy to cheer on having a huge unelected bureaucracy steal an enormous slice of the collective pie without restraint? Do you think it will stay at that level without continually beating it back with a big stick?

baswell

16th May 2012, 07:56

if the US was running the same level of budget deficit as Australia, their taxes would be higher.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/debtasgdp2.png

Having said all that, how is your opinion worth anything when it comes to how much tax is a good thing?
Same as yours. By disagreeing with me, you are expressing your opinion too.

unelected bureaucracy
There was an election and a bunch of MPs decided to vote together, thus forming a government. That's how it works, that they don't all belong to the same party is of no importance. The opposition is a coalition as well, always. (Hence the name)

Andy_RR

16th May 2012, 08:12

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/debtasgdp2.png

Apart from your confusion between debt and deficit, I don't quite understand how this graph is a response to my earlier statement. Care to clarify?

Same as yours. By disagreeing with me, you are expressing your opinion too.

I have no opinion on how much of and how to spend other people's money, unlike yourself...

There was an election and a bunch of MPs decided to vote together, thus forming a government. That's how it works.

Actually it doesn't work that way. We do not elect our government - only our parliamentary representatives. The government is appointed by our monarch, or at least by her representative. The civil service, which by and large determines how and how much money is spent, remains completely democratically unaccountable and immune from dismissal.

jas24zzk

16th May 2012, 10:08

There was an election and a bunch of MPs decided to vote together, thus forming a government.

Unfortunately

That's how it works, that they don't all belong to the same party is of no importance.

Actually it is of great importance. With the deals done in the background, a minority get their moment of importance and the ability to force up the majority policies that would prevent them being elected to govern in their own right. It bemuses me how our system permits a party forming a Guvinmint with the votes of Independants. They are independant, and elected as such. Therefore they should not have the power to choose who governs. To me, these people are pretty much guilty of Fraud/false advertising, or whatever you want to call it. You advertise yourself as independant, then pseudo join a political party....they should goto jail!

The opposition is a coalition as well, always. (Hence the name)

Maybe its about time the Nat's seperated and stood on their own 2 feet again. Many people i know would love a 3rd viable option. Brown sandwiches mob just don't cut the mustard. (yes i know he quit, but with the damage that clown has done, they shall remain titled brown sandwiches mob in my mind..unless they actually do something good)

Wan

16th May 2012, 10:35

The tax rates for working families* in Australia might be low compared to other countries, but it isn't for the fat cats who make more than around the whopping amount of $100,000 (who are being subsidised by the working families according to our dear leader).

If I make $100, 10% goes to the govt. Of the $90 remaining, I pay 48.5% plus flood levy = 49.5%, leaving me with $45.45 of the original $100. Out that amount, I also pay rates, car rego, case fees etc - things one might have thought that the $55.55 taken off me might have paid for. In any event, at least some portion of the $45.45 I have left goes to the Govt (including as GST)

So the Swedish tax rates you quote don't really frighten me at all.

And before anyone points out that my example above only applies to income over $180k, that doesn't really make me feel any better. It changes the equation I know, but not by that much that I think wow, taxes are quite low.

And before anyone says that I receive government services, yes I do. And I would happily pay more for the defence force, good roads, bridges, tunnels, schools, good public transport etc - but there is no money left for such things after the govt has paid the working families all the different bribes they receive.

* Apologies to any true working families.

jas24zzk

16th May 2012, 12:51

You can apologise to the working families all you want.

I won't!

They chose to have kids.

I'm single, with no kids. whats in the budget for me?
HIGHER costs!

The handouts equate to a 2.7 % tax break for working families.

Making that a true tax break of 1.5% across the board would not cost the gov anything, but the spread of 're-imbursemnet' would be more equal.

As a sole trader, my turnover is considered, NOT the amount left for an actual wage. Hence i get JACK SHOE in any budget, or government vote buying exercise.

My position is a growing dynamic in this country, at an alarming rate. It's high time we get recognised for our contribution.

baswell

17th May 2012, 05:27

Actually it is of great importance. With the deals done in the background, a minority get their moment of importance and the ability to force up the majority policies that would prevent them being elected to govern in their own right.
No argument from me there! The "no importance" comment was purely legal based.

It is the bane of a two-party system. I prefer preferential voting where you are more than likely to end up with 3 medium to large parties where two will need to form a coalition.

It means more stable policies (no knee-jerk reactions every time government changes) and cleaner politics as it's a bit hard to trash talk the opposition when soon you'll have to form a government with them.

The whole idea of "local representation" in the form of electorates/constituencies is rather outdated anyway. Might as well just vote for a party...

Has its drawbacks too, of course. The occasional embarrassing failed government for one. :)

baswell

17th May 2012, 05:36

As a sole trader, my turnover is considered, NOT the amount left for an actual wage.
I think you need a better accountant. All taxes are paid, and means testing performed on, taxable income. That is your revenue minus business expenses.

The handouts equate to a 2.7 % tax break for working families.
As wikipedia would say: "citation required".

They chose to have kids.
Those kids will be changing your nappy by the time you stop paying taxes. ;)

jas24zzk

18th May 2012, 14:14

Bas,

I think you need a better accountant. All taxes are paid, and means testing performed on, taxable income. That is your revenue minus business expenses.

Taxable income = revenue minus business expenses. True. However that is not how different departments view it. It also varies by your business model.
I am a Sole Trader.
My parents are Sole Trader/partnership
My brother is Pty Ltd.

Sole traders do not get the seperation of business income versus actual wage that pty ltd gets. My brothers business turns double my own. But as he draws a small wage, he gets whatever the govmint offers. He does also have the backup of a daughter to claim upon.

The ONLY dept that seperates it is the ATO for my income tax assessment. I've applied for a health care card, and centrelink ONLY look at the total turnover. They do not factor in my operating costs. I spent half a day with centrelink trying to help me.....we were pushing to get me into the public dental system.

You say I need a better accountant. Well the 3 family elements all have different accountants, and as the number cruncher in the family I deal with all of them. The other 2 have looked at it and they agree with my own accountant...expect to pay more and get less for it.......unless i choose to breed.

Quote:
The handouts equate to a 2.7 % tax break for working families.
As wikipedia would say: "citation required".

Yep sorry, those numbers came from a radio interview dillard did here in melbourne. What I should have added was that it equates to 2.7% for those in the lowest tax bracket....dillards words not quite said that way.

Those kids will be changing your nappy by the time you stop paying taxes.

Nope they won't. I will be gone before i get to that point, euthenasia legal or not.

As for your previous question I haven't answered...i.e what country would I goto. I have several oppurtunities, some are 1st world, some are 3rd world. But whilst my parents are alive its a point in moot, however its a point i felt i needed to make to demonstrate my disdain towards a country i love so much.

just a dumb pilot

18th May 2012, 22:33

It appears that Julia's carbon tax is set to increase Avgas prices by a margin of 5 Cents per litre after June this year. similar levels of increase are
proposed are at the first and second anniversary of this regressive tax.
By the time we pay the power bill increases and cop all of the other increases what hope is there for Australian GA training to compete on an International level.
Thanks Julia and Wayne!

Jabawocky

19th May 2012, 10:44

Ohhhhh yeahhhhhh Baaaabbbyyy

Not quite as you suggested but not nice all the same. The price expected in the table below in 2014 will have increased 5.584c per litre over the current price, now I think you will find GST on top of that increase :E so its a double wammy. so that will be 6.14 cents per litre.

And how has a carbon tax worked elsewhere in the world? Output increased :hmm:

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/CO2TAXonAVFuels.jpg

Lodown

19th May 2012, 13:47

EU energy policies have created an unsustainable, publicly-subsidized, market-skewing ‘green’ energy bubble, eschewed a cheap fossil fuels policy and realistic alternatives to Russian gas imports. Together those failed policies have resulted in the double double-whammy of soaring of energy prices and, as is now being reported, diminishing European industrial competitiveness.

Link (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/10683/Europes-Other-Power-Crisis-Energy)

Not to be outdone, Juliar can go a whole lot further than those mamby-pambies in Europe.

Jenna Talia

19th May 2012, 23:13

After Labor get the arse next year and the carbon tax is abolished, I wonder if the entire price added onto AVGAS will also be deducted?

baswell

19th May 2012, 23:22

I've applied for a health care card, and centrelink ONLY look at the total turnover.
I would be very, very surprised if that is true. Any dealings I have had with Centrelink (Family Tax Benefit B and Child Care benefit) all work on taxable income, or an estimated taxable income, with the final calculations done after you have your tax return. You may need to get a second opinion on that.

But if that remains a problem, what is stopping you from having a Pty Ltd?

I have several oppurtunities, some are 1st world, some are 3rd world.
I have no doubt you'll be able to find a country that works better in your particular situation. This is a democracy and you can't please everyone... (It's just that we please more people in this country than just about anywhere else and the numbers show it.)

baswell

20th May 2012, 00:00

what hope is there for Australian GA training to compete on an International level.
Our AVGAS will still be almost half the price of Europe. And at $1.60/litre, the US is fast catching up too.

Just sayin'...

Frank Arouet

20th May 2012, 01:01

Low Income Health Care Card - income test (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/conc_cards_iat.htm)

This income test is effective from 20 March 2012. Your Low Income Health Care Card is assessed on gross income for the 8-week period ending the day you lodge your claim. Your income must be below the limit that applies to you. This limit varies depending on whether you are single or partnered or have dependants.

baswell

20th May 2012, 07:43

After Labor get the arse next year and the carbon tax is abolished, I wonder if the entire price added onto AVGAS will also be deducted?
What do you think? :ugh:

It is still well below the 38 cents on MOGAS so one would guess our non-aviating friends might think we are getting a free (well, cheap) ride as it is.

Here's an interesting one: the rule seems to define it as "gasoline used for aviation", so I would suppose a MOGAS bowser on an airfield would attract the AVGAS rate.

Heck, should I be getting some credits???

baswell

20th May 2012, 07:46

Quote:
This income test is effective from 20 March 2012. Your Low Income Health Care Card is assessed on gross income for the 8-week period ending the day you lodge your claim. Your income must be below the limit that applies to you. This limit varies depending on whether you are single or partnered or have dependants.
That's a pretty stupid test, I stand corrected!

How long has this been around? Do either side of the aisle care? (My guess is "no they don't.")

Frank Arouet

20th May 2012, 10:14

Most persons that qualify for this test are able to claim their tax refund up to the tax free threshold, (which Jules has just increased to $23k from about $8K), but also determines the amount of which you can claim a tax refund). Therefor the system, as she is, and if you earn under the tax free threshold, (gross), gives you all your tax paid back to you if you put in a tax return, but after 30th June, no tax claims allowed if under $23K in the 2012-13 EFY.

I hope this helps?

jas24zzk

20th May 2012, 12:44

Thanx for the link Frank. I did have a go at finding, but beer googles put a stopper on that.

I note that with this release of it, I am some $40 closer to the threshold than I was before... Single, no yard apes.

----------------------------------------

Bas,
going Pty Ltd would actually impose more costs upon myself that would be better off spent at the fang doctors.

Every tax I would face changes for the worst.

There is setup cost.
I lose the ability to prepare the tax returns the business. Must be done my an accountant.
Theres also an extra charge with ASIC.
I am forced to pay Workcover
I am forced to pay myself Super.

Pty Ltd does have some advantages, but not when you do not have any employees.
The workcover rules a lil bit dumb, but to keep it simple.

As a Sole Trader.
No employee's. Workcover ins not required provided you have Death/TPD cover. (There was some crap on the table that they were going to force us into Private health) but thankfully got canned.
With 1 or more employee's, I have to submit and I get covered as well. Interesting to see the numbers tho. My first employee was an apprentice, which the government pays the cover on atm. The fee to cover me was roughly 150 per year over the term of my apprentices time.

As a Pty Ltd.
No employee's. No such thing. I AM the employee, so i have to pay everything. Don't think i need to cover having employees after that.

Frank Arouet

21st May 2012, 08:58

If you are other than WASP, there is a different scale. Do the search yourself because I'd be accused of racism to comment. It is in the public domain on a government website, so wear your fingers out.:oh:

just a dumb pilot

21st May 2012, 09:28

Sorry People!
The information I have seen is as I originaly posted advises Just over 5 cents per year for this and the next two years making 15cents plus over the three
year term. I assume that a Liberal CP change will make some difference.
The US pay appx 1$Au per litre we pay appx $2.
Happy Days!

baswell

21st May 2012, 09:56

The US pay appx 1$Au per litre we pay appx $2.
You sure about that? 100LL - Aviation Fuel Prices (http://100LL.com/)

And Europe, for good measure: www.TheHangar.co.uk - UK AVGAS Price Data (http://www.thehangar.co.uk/fuel/fuel.shtml)

Also, excise in the US is 19.4 cents per gallon, or 5.1 cents per litre. So whatever is causing our AVGAS to be 25% more expensive, excise ain't it and won't be it any time soon. (The only consolation for the US is that the excise goes direct to the FAA.)

jas24zzk

21st May 2012, 10:31

we cannot have that situation here bas...don't even suggest it...imagine how much more Cease All Serene Aviation would have to litigate us with..... That'd give Qaintarse reason to invoke more 457's as half their pilots (as with all other airlines) would be litigated into submission.

cheap labour here we come

Jetjr

21st May 2012, 23:48

The excise ~ $0.38 on mogas is for ROADS
As we and other off road fuel users we shouldnt be paying excise to the same level as road users
Off road users pay the tax then get rebated some of it. (so do heavy freight too which I dont really understand)
Add $0.38 to the $2.15 we pay now and it indicates real comparative price we are paying vs road users

baswell

22nd May 2012, 01:16

The excise ~ $0.38 on mogas is for ROADS
Not since 1959 it hasn't been:

Fuel Tax Inquiry - Background Papers - History of Fuel Taxation in Australia (http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp)

Flying Binghi

22nd May 2012, 13:00

.

Hmmm... corrupted climate science and a corrupted prime minister = a corrupt tax (tax, trading, whatever)

How will being forced to pay a corrupt tax affect those paying it... knowing they are paying good money to sooth some muppets hysteria or line some climate scammers pockets....... when you know you are paying for a corrupt scam how do that change yer.........

---------------------------------------------

"...Most of the developed countries have institutionalised their greenhouse activity within government agencies devoted specifically to mitigation of global warming. Their budgets are enormous. It is not likely that the public servants who staff them will be receptive to doubts about their reason for existence. Nor for that matter, are the actual research institutions concerned with global warming likely to bite the hand that feeds them..."

Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

.

Flying Binghi

23rd May 2012, 03:27

.

A bit added to ya fuel bill... she'll be right, its such a small amount.....:hmm:

Every bit of added cost soon adds up...

"...company plans to shut its aluminium smelter in the NSW Hunter Valley...
...The smelter employs 344 people...
...review of the plant has revealed it would not be profitable in the short term, and its long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/more-than-300-jobs-to-as-norsk-hydro-smelter-closes/story-e6frg90f-1226364369177)

.

Lodown

23rd May 2012, 03:38

The tertiary industries are going to be heavily impacted. Gotta wonder how long before Labor starts handing out more rebates to get manufacturing to remain. Before long, the middle class will again be bearing the brunt of the costs of sending money to the IPCC and third world countries despite the rhetoric from the idiots in Canberra.

CHAIRMAN

23rd May 2012, 15:08

Has Queensland just disbanded it's Dept of Climate Change:D

De_flieger

24th May 2012, 02:04

Flying Binghi - apparently the plant in question had an earlier round of redundancies and closed 1/3 of its capacity a few months back, and is an old and inefficient plant that was racking up substantial losses that were forecast to continue. The losses were due to, among other things, a significant drop in world aluminium prices combined with the high Aussie dollar. If you have a look here CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Abbott's furnace for carbon tax facts | Daniel Palmer | Commentary | Business Spectator (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Abbott-carbon-tax-Hydro-Kurri-Kurri-aluminium-smel-pd20120524-UKTF8?opendocument&src=rss)

they discuss some of the reasons behind the plant closure ($6-$7 million/month in losses) and how the carbon tax isnt a significant factor. They aren't too complimentary of how it has been blamed on the carbon tax, and it looks to be another example of everything bad that happens being blamed on "the big bad carbon tax" by politicians keen to make hay while they can.

baswell

24th May 2012, 02:15

Yup, that's politicians for you; if we can't find a real case, we'll just make one up...

I am surprised these smelters even run on electricity. Burning stuff to turn it into heat to drive turbines to turn into electricity, then turning it back into heat. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Anyone know the reason for doing it in such a seemingly inefficient way?

De_flieger

24th May 2012, 02:26

I understand the aluminium production process itself is what uses so much electricity - its a chemical process to transform the base product to pure aluminium that requires the input of large amounts of electricity, so its not just using the electricity for heating purposes. :)

baswell

24th May 2012, 04:29

That'll teach me to check wikipedia before I put my foot in my mouth again! :8

Ultralights

24th May 2012, 04:56

ahh Yes, Aluminium, AKA, Solid Electricity.

Frank Arouet

24th May 2012, 06:24

I am surprised these smelters even run on electricity. Burning stuff to turn it into heat to drive turbines to turn into electricity, then turning it back into heat. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm working on the MK2 version of this concept. I call it "perpetual motion" perhaps some of you have heard about it. But the problem is it can't compete with simple burning of coal to boil water to wiz a turbine around and generate electricity.

I'm trying to sell a Harbour Bridge to fund a Wind Farm and vegan collective Coconut farm in Tasmania to continue the project but can't get Gov't funding.

It appears however, I can be trusted to get a kids family allowance and piss it up against a wall, but can't be trusted to bet more than a mandatory pre committed amount on the Pokies.

For crissake, what's more important?

Jabawocky

24th May 2012, 10:03

Bauxite....easy to get! Especially in Weipa and close by.

Shipping to Alumina refinery, just like other ores

Turning Bauxite into Alumina, LOTS of energy required.

Turning Alumina into Aluminium/Aluminum takes cubic amounts of the above.

I have a mate (RV10 owner also) who is a senior Rio Tinto engineer, and his thoughts on the carbon tax and its affect on his industry would fill a page of :mad:'s.

This tax sux, it will do nothing more than kill Australian industry and jobs, and create a bigger burden on the government than it provides. Anyone who can't see this is beyond help.

Frank Arouet

24th May 2012, 10:10

So you agree with my plan of action? (please don't).

EDIT: Lang Hancock and Joh Peterson attempted to build a railway from the Pilbarra, where the Iron Ore was, to Gladstone/ Cairns (forgot), where the coal was, so that one train going one way would supplement the train going the other way to keep the value adding part of industry in Aust instead of shipping it offshore from both east and west coasts and bring it back already value added.

Both visionaries, both dead, and both ridiculed by political opportunists.

Imagine the jobs?

Now Australia is a quarry for China.

Flying Binghi

24th May 2012, 14:56

.

Hmmm... aparently others know better then the owners of the plant..:hmm:

via De_flieger; ....they discuss some of the reasons behind the plant closure ($6-$7 million/month in losses) and how the carbon tax isnt a significant factor.

Repeat - reasons given by the company for plant closing...

"...review of the plant has revealed it would not be profitable in the short term, and its long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."

.

De_flieger

25th May 2012, 04:04

Flying Binghi - the link I posted has the quotes from the company where they state, and I quote from the article here: a Hydro spokesman told Climate Spectator that while the carbon tax “is one of a number of factors that will add cost in the future”, it is “not a significant factor” in its decision to push toward a curtailment of operations. “We are currently losing $6-7 million dollars per month (cash) – that is before the carbon tax has come into effect,” the spokesman confirmed.

Sarcs

25th May 2012, 21:49

DF I think you will find the company is talking about the 'here and now' situation. However all companies run projected forecasts (especially this one) to see if there is a possibility of fighting there way out of the situation they are currently in.

It is a 'no brainer' that the carbon tax is yet another nail in the coffin when you are already running at a loss.:{ The other side of the coin, with that statement, is that the company also has other plants/interests that have been propped up by government subsidy, so you don't bite the hand that feeds you!:rolleyes:

Wally Mk2

26th May 2012, 04:22

That's so true 'Frank A'.....Aus is just a quarry for China. That's two holes we have here now,the China quarry & the huge hole 'Juliar' has created,the latter am sure she regrets ever starting to dig as she's gunna bury herself in it at this rate!

Have we got ourselves in a hell of a mess here or what?:ugh:

Wmk2

baswell

26th May 2012, 07:26

I have a mate who is a senior Rio Tinto engineer, and his thoughts on the carbon tax and its affect on his industry would fill a page of 's.
I am sure RIO will be stuffed. How on earth are they going to survive on just $13.7bn net profit instead of the $14.2bn they are used to.

Reminds me of all the banks I worked for in London just after the post-9/11 downturn. Laying off thousands (each) so the could still have 8bn in profit instead of 7.5bn.

Cry me a river...

baswell

26th May 2012, 07:30

It is a 'no brainer' that the carbon tax is yet another nail in the coffin when you are already running at a loss
It's quite a stretch to imagine that the stated $78M a year losses were sustainable for them until the $4M tax showed up.

The smelter was doomed with or without the tax, end of story.

baswell

26th May 2012, 07:42

Now Australia is a quarry for China.
That won't last for much longer. Here they have to buy from Australian companies. In Africa, they are starting to own more and more mines. Which do you think will be more profitable for them?

Once they have enough of them on line there, we're screwed. Bring on the MRRT while times are good.

Flying Binghi

29th May 2012, 12:15

.

via De_flieger #156, ...the link I posted has the quotes from the company where they state, and I quote from the article here

De_flieger i think Sarcs has it covered. Remember also the idea of the 'tax' is to steadily increase the costs of power... or as Bob Brown put it "close all coal mines"...
i.e. as the company put it "...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."

De_flieger do you think once the corruption of a 'carbon tax' is introduced that Labore/greens will not increase it ? Do you think once the corruption is in place they will not increase the 'tax' ?

....of course a change of government changes things..:)

.

Flying Binghi

29th May 2012, 12:31

.

via baswell;
It's quite a stretch to imagine that the stated $78M a year losses were sustainable for them until the $4M tax showed up.

The smelter was doomed with or without the tax, end of story.

Hmmm... then all the company needed to say is they are losing money right now so they will close.... lets hope the many other Oz business owners in a simular situation dont follow suite..:hmm:

baswell, how much do ya think it costs to set up a smelter ? Being mindfull of what the plant owes them now and of the setup costs fer a new plant would ya keep a currently loss making plant going if yer think the alloy glut is only a temperary thing ?... of course if yer looked forward and noted the stated aim of the puppet master greens is to close all coal mines would yer even bother.

...perhaps they could power the smelter via windmills and solar panels..:hmm:

"...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."

.

Sarcs

29th May 2012, 20:48

baswell old mate you must have come down in the last carbon polluted shower:
Bring on the MRRT while times are good. ...is just another fictional pot of gold that the Labor government have already started to spend. Do you think any agreement involving 'surfer wayne' and the big three mining companies is going to be ridgy didge....sheesh you've got to be kidding!:ugh:

The MRRT Mark 2 was just a ticket for Girrard to step into the top job....

Jabawocky

29th May 2012, 21:45

Folks, Here is a tip from Jaba!

Qantas could listen up here too........

In Government, Taxation has NEVER been the solution to any real or imaginary problem.

or

In business, unless the spending is truly wasteful and unnecessary, the solutions to your problems are not cost cutting, they are revenue raising.

Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.

So far not one good thing has come out of the present governments "green" push with insulation, solar panels and now an incredibly stupid tax on a gas that is naturally ocurring and is actually a benefice not a hazzard.

Extra260

30th May 2012, 10:27

In business, unless the spending is truly wasteful and unnecessary, the solutions to your problems are not cost cutting, they are revenue raising.

Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.

+9999 Jabba:D

I run a small software business, 98%(literally) of our sales are exports... so far I haven't found anyone that can tell me (the website the gov pointed me to is full of spin and links that go in circles) how my business will be compensated for higher costs imposed as a result of the carbon tax (and no I can't use any less electricity than I do now).
I can't pass it on to our customers any more than I can the GST or my losses due to the high aussie dollar (software is typically priced in US dollars in the market I sell to).

This government is driving small business to the wall with red tape and taxes. Small business is where most people in Aus are employed.. there's a major recession coming.. only a matter of time.

This "carbon" is nothing more than poorly disguised socialist wealth distribution.. just like all the other failed schemes juliar and her cronies have conceived. Pity it won't make the tiniest bit of difference to the environment.

Bring on the election (oh and I wish the liberals would dump abbot.. but that's another matter!).

.260

jas24zzk

30th May 2012, 12:30

.260,
I'm pretty sure you and I were looking at the same website. I realised after a little while, that the guvmint didn't want me to work out what were going to be my added costs, and that they'd prefer I closed up shop so they could import 1700 more to do my job at a cost even lower than the minimum wage than I am at already.

Current Battle is with QBE (workcover insurance) to get the policy stopped. I no longer have employees, and as a sole trader I'm not obliged to pay workcover. No matter of phone calls, letters has been able to put a stop to the Demands via phone, mail and legal threats. Even the Office of Small business can't help past advising me to inform them in writing.

Shoe....i can't even get my former bin company to come collect their sh*t!

It just gets better and better.

Extra260

30th May 2012, 22:39

I'm pretty sure you and I were looking at the same website. I realised after a little while, that the guvmint didn't want me to work out what were going to be my added costs, and that they'd prefer I closed up shop so they could import 1700 more to do my job at a cost even lower than the minimum wage than I am at already.

I have come to the conclusion that all politicians are liars and thieves, it's just that some of them haven't been caught out yet. :mad:

If things get any worse with the carbon tax I'll just shut up shop and my employees will be looking for work (as will I, I'm burning cash just keeping the company going at the moment). Unfortunately for them we're in Canberra, the public service is where most of the jobs usually are, but since the guvmint is shedding jobs life will be difficult.. but then the gen-y's that work for me have never known a recession or had trouble finding work.. a life lesson may coming.:oh:

baswell

30th May 2012, 23:44

So far not one good thing has come out of the present governments "green" push with insulation
Insulation cuts energy costs by a greater factor than it costs to install, there is no denying that.

There is an enormous amount of spin regarding the insulation scheme but none of it ads up when you do the numbers. The main sticking point has been the number house fires following installation. Just like if you have enough flights, some of them will eventually crash, if you install enough insulation, some houses will catch fire.

The only thing that really matters is the ratio of installs to house fires. And under the scheme, which in many states for the first time regulated that industry, safety has actually been higher, much higher than before the scheme when you would just call any local cowboy to do it.

The CSIRO gets HIP to debunking media hysteria | Pollytics (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/04/24/the-csiro-gets-hip-to-debunking-media-hysteria/)

Lodown

31st May 2012, 02:33

Baswell, you need to take the blinkers off occasionally.

It's alturistic statements like yours that got Labor into trouble in the first place. Insulation cuts energy costs by a greater factor than it costs to install, there is no denying that.

SOME insulation, can reduce energy costs in SOME homes. As kids, we lived in a non-insulated, non-air conditioned home with several kids in each bedroom. Care to elaborate how insulation would have reduced our energy costs. What you and the government fail to realize is that every home is different.

The only thing that really matters is the ratio of installs to house fires.

Tell that to the families that lost homes..."Your home was expendable! Too bad, so sad!"

Why don't you put some facts out rather than rehashing PR garbage from a Labor government trying desperately to keep the Greens onside?

...if you install enough insulation, some houses will catch fire.
is absolute BS!

If you have poorly trained people applying foam insulation too thickly because they're in a rush, and not in layers with stipulated set times between reapplication, THEN you'll get house fires. It's a matter of when, not if. (BTW, many foam insulation products are byproducts from the petroleum industry.) There is no need for accepting any house fires if the products are applied properly.

Additional insulation also requires additional investment in many homes. Often, the air conditioner has to be downsized to increase run times and reduce humidity, otherwise the homeowner will have mold issues in the future. Who pays for this and how often does this actually occur? Five years ago, insulation gurus were recommending to encapsulate the entire home. Mold issues developed quickly. Recommendations now are for adequate and appropriate venting. Tell that to the people who had insulation applied five years ago and still aren't aware that they might have mold growing steadily and aggressively.

It's critical that the roof doesn't leak with foam insulation. Is this checked? In the future, Australians are going to be paying dearly for poorly installed insulation. It has the possibility of creating so many problems that many houses will need to be renovated with a chainsaw. It's a good product if applied properly as per the directions and with an holistic energy use approach to the whole house. Rebates encouraged honest energy assessments and moral installations and weeded out all the scammers. (Written with a heavy dose of sarcasm.)

I saw rebates applied to solar attic fans in our area. The good ones that worked well were expensive. There was a $100 rebate applied to each attic fan. The rebate drove homeowners to the cheapest models that didn't work
and away from the models that did work well. Installers adjusted their product lines to suit demand. What a crock that turned out to be!

And under the scheme, which in many states for the first time regulated that industry, safety has actually been higher, much higher than before the scheme when you would just call any local cowboy to do it.

What was the reporting process prior to regulation?

But this is off the topic of aviation...

peterc005

31st May 2012, 07:05

baswell

31st May 2012, 07:15

SOME insulation, can reduce energy costs in SOME homes. As kids, we lived in a non-insulated, non-air conditioned home with several kids in each bedroom. Care to elaborate how insulation would have reduced our energy costs. What you and the government fail to realize is that every home is different.
A personal anecdote with a sample of 1. Proves any argument!

Tell that to the families that lost homes..."Your home was expendable! Too bad, so sad!"
Nope, anything you do in life carries risk, including things mean to improve your life. You need to manage that risk, not stop doing it if in a small amount of cases things go wrong. Maybe the government to get out of the business of building roads too.

Why don't you put some facts out rather than rehashing PR garbage
So a carefully researched independent* article full of data from CSIRO is "PR garbage"?

* Read Crikey; they are critical of BS no matter which party sprouts it.

What was the reporting process prior to regulation?
You didn't actually read the article, did you? Same as before: firies show up to put out the fire, investigate the cause and put a tick in the "dodgy insulation" box.

Extra260

31st May 2012, 08:28

The Carbon Tax is not some socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it is designed to discourage use of carbon-intensive energy sources.

Rather than legislating to slow carbon usage, increasing the price will discourage it less directly and encourage the development of alternatives.

What utter :mad: BS. How does a tax encourage a company to INVEST in the development of cleaner/greener/whatever technology:rolleyes:

If the government are serious about cleaning up carbon, then THEY should be investing or providing INCENTIVES rather than imposing taxes. It takes money to develop new technologies, which means being profitable in the first place... the more tax they impose the less likely that is to happen.

All the carbon tax will achieve is that it taxes companies (the so called rich), and provides hand outs to the poor (sorry, low income earners). If companies are not able to pass the tax on the the consumer (exporters like myself), we have to wear the costs.. less profit = less jobs = no investment in new technologies. It just doesn't add up. All this tax will do is ruin an already struggling (despite what juliar & co say) economy and make Australia businesses noncompetitive in the world market (say goodbye to any manufacturing).

And lets not forget exactly what the impact on the environment this tax will have.... 0.00000000000% of bugger all. Indonesia emits more CO2 from the deforested peat bogs every day that Australia does in 1 year.

(to keep this aviation related, the carbon tax will ruin general aviation too!)

.260

metalman2

31st May 2012, 12:00

Had an interesting conversation with my mum the other day about the carbon tax,
She ,along with most of my family are hook through the nose labor voters, was surprised when I said the gas they're taxing is carbon dioxide, yes mum ,the stuff plants breathe in,,,,oh she says ,so if we wanted to get rid of a lot of carbon dioxide we could perhaps plant a lot of trees,,,,,,yeh, but that doesn't fit in with Juliars wealth redistribution plan,,,,,,cheers comrades

jas24zzk

31st May 2012, 13:00

MM2,
agreed!.
I think back to my schooling days, basic science, tree's LOVE C02. by my way of thinking, we are providing trees with food.

At the end of the day, this tax isn't going to help the environment, not a damm thing.

Compare the worlds reaction to Carbon Vs CFC's

The whole world jumped on the CFC bandwagon quickly........

Ex FSO GRIFFO

2nd Jun 2012, 02:59

Well...HERE IT ARE...!!!

The following rec'd Friday arvo 1/6/2012.......

"A Carbon Price will be applied to the use of Aviation Fuels through the current Excise Tax system.

Effective 1st July 2012, the Excise Rate of Aviation Fuels will increase by the deemed cost of the Carbon content of the fuel.

The Government has advised the following Cents per Litre increase in the Excise Rate for the first 3 years -

Aviation Turbine Fuel 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.98 6.279 6.604

New Excise 9.536 9.835 10.16

Aviation Gasoline
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.06 5.313 5.588

New Excise 8.616 8.869 9.144

As advised by the Gov. following the transition to a trading system, the Excise Rate increase will all be adjusted twice yearly based on the average Carbon Price over the previous 6 months.

For those of you who actually voted 'Labor' ......thanx for nuthin'....

Bah Humbug!!!:mad::mad::mad:

p.s. Sorry guys and gals - I had it all nicely 'tabulated' in my set out.
You'll just have to 'line up' the lines......
:}:}

fencehopper

4th Jun 2012, 01:40

Why don't we have more renewable energy in this country?
We seem insistant on just digging up more coal and shoving it into the power stations.
Wind farms solar generation just don't seem to get a chance here. Build more but not in my backyard they cry.
i stumbled across a British newspaper called 'The Guardian Weekly' 1/6/12 edition. We have a similar publication here called the 'Epoc Times', they seem to publish articles that the rags owned by Murdoch and his mates don't even consider.
Digest these figures from Germay.
German Solar Plants produced a record 22gigawatts of electricity- equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity- through the midday hours of last Friday and Saturday. Now add the power generated by their wind farms.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.
Would we really need a carbon tax if we got off our butts and and really used all that sunshine we have here?
If only I were 'da king'

Jabawocky

4th Jun 2012, 02:30

PeterC
The Carbon Tax is not some socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it is designed to discourage use of carbon-intensive energy sources.

You are smoking something weird, you are completely wrong. If the idea it was going to discourage the use of CO2 emitting fuels, well they need to look at a couple of failed experiments over the last 20 years in Europe....Carbon Tax applied, discouraged nothing! In fact the rate went up :}

If you really think they wanted to discourage fuel use they would need to ramp up the price somewhat aggressively, not several cents a litre but dollars. This is exactly what happened with cigarettes, the price hikes were huge relatively, and look....the % is down a bit, but volume has remained. So while you might argue it worked on smokes, it only sort of did, but the price hikes were huge.

This is the sort of policy commonly suggested in economics and public finance text books and is a responsible path for the government to take.
Right that is a good idea......believe some silly idealogical socialist text book :ugh:

The science behind global warming and climate change has been proven and tested for twenty years. The government is showing good leadership by taking this move to do something about it.
What rubbish! :ugh: Twenty years is not even on the climate scale for a start. REAL climate scientists refer to a blink of an eye in climate terms as 30 years for a start.
Simple facts for you to contemplate, and one simple question. CO2 in the atmosphere has been on the rise for a long time, man made content in the last 50 years also. Nobody on either side disputes this. So by coincidence for a period of 20 years (out of the last 30) there was also average temperature rise. No disputes there either. So the theory is that the man made CO2 was the driving force and as CO2 increased temperature would thus continue. How could it not?

Ohhhh but it did, the last 10 temps declined, yet CO2 levels rose, some naturally and some man made. So the question is, if CO2 is such a significant driver of temperature and that man made CO2 was so much a player, how on earth is it possible that over the following ten years temperature went the other way while CO2 climbed even higher?

While you think about this, consider this, you can have a hypthesis tested a thousand times with a positive result, but it only takes one negative to debunk it.

A few more questions for you to contemplate instead of just believing greenie and left wing scare mongering & propoganda.
Ships sailed the north west passage.....powered by sails! Not much man made CO2 then. Why was Greenland called Greenland? Why did they find all sorts of warm climate begitation in ice core samples? Why did we not have catastrophic global warming when CO2 levels were 4500ppm (over 10x todays level) ?

Flying Binghi

4th Jun 2012, 02:35

via fencehopper; ...We seem insistant on just digging up more coal and shoving it into the power stations...

Oz has hundreds of years supply of coal. Our hydro is near maxed out so coal is our cheapest commonly available power source. It is the most sensible power supply option.

Solar power is a far far more expensive power option that still needs coal power backup. Coal power dont need any backup..:ok:

.

Fieldmouse

4th Jun 2012, 03:01

German Solar Plants produced a record 22gigawatts of electricity- equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity- through the midday hours of last Friday and Saturday. Now add the power generated by their wind farms.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.

Conveniently forgetting that they still have 32 coal fired and 2 gas fired stations which carry the base load. Getting rid of nukes is one thing. Generating enough power to keep eveything humming when its night time and there's no wind, is a hugely different animal.

fencehopper

4th Jun 2012, 04:36

All of them probably idling along supplementing the green energy. Night time loads would be pretty low. Gas would be the main source of heating. Bet their coal burners produce less emissions than ours.
I live in the Hunter Valley, i go outside on a early winters morning take a breath and all you can smell is coal burning and i'm about 80 ks direct from them. Fly around the area and see a dust plume rising to 3 grand out of the open cut mines. Asthma is at the nations peak in the area. Our roads are stuffed by mad truck drivers that have never heard of speed limits and the miners drive like peckerheads. Try to enter the highway at peak commutes and you have to wait 10 minutes at a minimum to enter. There are 140 rail wagons of coal passing every 15 minutes day and night. On a still night you hear every one of them, they are busy duplicating the line but not one cent is being spent on getting the noise down. If you want to commute by train you have a few absolutely packed services into Newie in the AM and same out in the PM. Yes it keeps the economy going but the mines contribute diddly squat to the area. The F3 freeway extention will be finished next year, 90% of the movement will be mine related but who is paying for it. Not the mines. Farmers being forced to sell up and already we are seeing the water table screwed up by gas extraction. My missus and i are splitting and i need to find another place to live. Roll up at rental inspection and find at least 20 to 40 people there. As for buying forget it, almost the same as Sydney. And they want to slug me for putting some fuel in an aircraft for some weekend enjoyment. How much of that carbon tax is going to go back into fixing this area? Sweet FA.

Fieldmouse

4th Jun 2012, 05:44

Totally with you . I live north of you and flying over the Hunter is like flying over a moonscape. Driving down towards Sydney the coal smell starts around Scone. Something has to be done, for our kids if not for us. But solar and wind aren't a magic fix. Even if you covered the centre of Australia with panels, the transmission loss to the coastal population centres would be horrendous, and demand IS high at night, a lot of industry rocks on, street and home lighting rocks on, Off peak water rocks on.... I don't know what the answer is. We have arrrived at this point through free enterprise and consumer demand and technological progress. Fingers crossed those three take us to the solution.
Come a a little bit further north my friend. Coal mines are miles away (so far), and so are those smelly power stations.

hardon69

4th Jun 2012, 05:57

The USA is starting to talk about a carbon Tax. They will adopt it. The countries with mining such as Africa , South America etc are starting to rumble about a mining tax.... Maybe we don't want to be exploited by the rich anyone they are whispering..... and its getting louder.

Or should we elect Clivey for treasurer, and get lovely Gina on the Fairfax board so she can sue and threaten any one who contacts fairfax with a story she doesn't like in the fashion she has with the WA newspaper.

Remember how freaked out everyone was when the GST came about. And remember how the political leader who tried to push it through initially lost his top job, but next guy pushed it through after his predecessors hard ground work.....

My memory is not brilliant.... but really?

konstantin

4th Jun 2012, 06:37

An interesting read on spinning (not "idling" reserve), solar thermal and wind capacity factors and night-time power requirements.

A nation still drawing 18,000MW in it’s sleep can’t go solar… « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/a-nation-still-drawing-18000mw-in-its-sleep-cant-go-solar/#more-21685)

And it is all too easy to go down the Milne or Bandt road and say "let`s do it" with solar and wind - except it will be megabucks...and if Australia somehow halved its power requirements and went all renewables for stationary power...which would be available most of the time...probably...it ain`t the Greens` usual "Mr Nobody" who will be footing the bill.:}

Oh, I forgot - that`s what the carbon (dioxide) tax is for! :ugh:

And to yet again ask that inconvenient question - through Australia`s actions, by how much will the earth`s temperature....oh, never mind...:rolleyes:

Wally Mk2

4th Jun 2012, 07:22

Mankind has raped the earth for long enuf, we need another ice age!:ugh:

We've dug ourselves a hole (no pun intended) so deep that we cannot crawl out if it despite Juliar's misguided beliefs!!!

Wmk2

konstantin

4th Jun 2012, 08:41

we need another ice age

Just keep your fingers crossed it ain`t one of these;

Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)

jas24zzk

4th Jun 2012, 13:15

Thats the problem with solar/wind. It cannot reliably generate baseload power.

I'm a big fan of nuclear power, it is relatively clean. The biggest problem with nuclear power, as proved by fukushima, is that it relies heavily on water for both generating steam and for controlling. The nuclear waste is actually easily managed due to its half life.

In some senses, meeting the water requirement of a Nuclear station is best met by sticking it on the coast. This brings new challenges, as you are constantly dealing with salt water and its inherent corrosion issues, and desalination for direct core cooling, and boiling for the turbines.

Looking at Vic. We are ripe for Australia's first Nuclear Power station. We have a desalination plant that is not required at this point. It absorbs VAST amounts of power to convert sea water into potable. I see a proposition of mutual benefit. Bang a nuclear plant right next door. You remove the power transmission costs. The desal gets free power, the nuclear plant gets free fresh water. its win win win.

In this case, the devastation caused by Fukushima is not an issue, as whilst the location i propose is still coastal, its not coastal to one of the world's angriest oceans.

Chimbu chuckles

6th Jun 2012, 03:37

This about covers it - parts 2/3/4 and 5 cover more.

yPIyIMwfcwQ&feature=relmfu

baswell

6th Jun 2012, 07:32

London's air cleaner because people care? Or because the government spent vast amounts of (tax payer's!) money on installing gas and electricity to every home? Did we get the lead out of petrol because people care, or because governments mandated it? And what about CFCs? When I was a kid we had plenty of drinking water pollution scares because of what was dumped into the Rhine up stream. I guess BASF, et al. simply "cared" enough to clean up their act?

What a tool... :ugh:

Aussie Bob

6th Jun 2012, 07:41

I'm a big fan of nuclear power, it is relatively clean

Streuth, it never ceases to amaze me that there are still pawns of the nuclear industry out there. It would really pay for you to do a bit of research. Fukushima is a disaster of epic proportions and there are hundreds more potential Fukushima reactors areound the world, ticking time bombs that no one can afford to shut down and clean up. The really big problem has always been that the proponents of these things are old men, codgers who will no longer be around when the reactor's use by date arrives.

Germany has abandoned this technology, Japan has seen the light but heck some dumb Aussies still want one on the coast near a major city.

But you won't take my word for it, you won't do the research, you will say the naysayers are conspiracy nuts, Fukushima is not that bad (cause the papers tell you so) and you will continue to think a bigger more consumeristic Australia is a good thing. Tell me truthfully, would you like one next door to you?

jas24zzk

6th Jun 2012, 09:39

Bob,
I LOVE your response! Seriously! :ok:

I'm no pawn of the Nuclear Industry, more of a pawn of the Gas fired method.

I have considered the things you mentioned LONG ago. I have always felt that our energy needs (which will only ever increase) should be met by all technologies available.

Lets have a look what is available today:-

1. Ocean Wave
2. Solar
3. Wind
4. Gas
5. Coal Seam Gas (fracking)
6. Coal
7. Hydro
8. Nuclear

Ocean Wave. A technology in its infancy. Should be able to provide baseload power unless the seas are calm. Chances the Guvmint will provide research dollars from our carbon tax for development of the technology? Chances some greenie will oppose it to save a sea grass.

Solar and Wind. Again, the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow. Cannot provide baseload power. Again the greenies get involved.

Gas. Produces CO2 so going to be taxed to hell and back. The greenies hate em wherever you put em.

Coal Seam Gas. I'm with the greenies on this one. Not enough is known about its effects. Actually banned in a few countries. We have enough other resources to use. Remember this technology only came about in the late 1940's but was never commercially applied until around 1996 (?) We know less about it than we do wave tech.

Coal. As for Gas, added to both, we're happy to ship millions of tonnes to non environmentally countries every year.

Hydro. Another one the greenies hate, as it usually involves damming a river. The snowy project is probably hydro's golden child. Never looked at it? It is worth the read.

Nuclear. Next time you are getting a CT scan or similar, remember that without a nuclear power station, they wouldn't have the material that this and other technologies rely on.

There is not ONE power source that does not have an associated environmental risk. Every time you try to show me one, I'll show you the impact.

As for Nuclear Power in Australia.
You've listed but 1 of the three Nuclear disasters that have affected humans directly (short of listing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as they were man made and planned events).

1. Three Mile Island. The investigation clearly points to Human error via lack of training as being the major contributor. Sure they had some equipment failures, but they were all exacerbated the lack of training. How and why nuclear power works is totally understood. With todays computing power, it isn't hard to produce a simulator for crew training. If you think a simulator isn't good enough, remember that when you begin your next sim session.

2. Chernobyl. A VERY badly managed experiment. Today, much of the experiment they were conducting can actually be acheived by computer modelling. The remainder can be left to smaller reactors, where the operators are heavily trained for 'events' and said reactor exists only for research. READ Lucas Heights in NSW.

3. Fukushima. I agree with you. This plant is a clear demonstration of stupidity, on a design that requires the highest level of maintenance. Why would anyone group the backup pumps in the same location as the primaries? Tho i doubt it would have helped too much. At least it needed a connection to the primary water supply so that they had something to use for cooling whilst they attempted a safe shutdown. Have you read the 726 page analysis on this? Probably not...must admit i skipped a page or two.

The biggest problem for nuclear power is the VAST amount of water they need to operate safely. Sticking them on the coast solves this in the short term, but ramps up the maintenance cost and overall output. The salinity of the water is harsh on all the equipment, and is the driving denominator in the maintenance.

The problem with nuclear power here in australia, is providing that water source without resorting to salt water. Our inland supplies cannot be guaranteed. Coastally, for a salt cooled plant, we have quite a few locations that are not Tsunami vulnerable (Unlike Fukushima living on the Ring of Fire)

To my mind, we have 2 locations very suitable to Freshwater cooled Nuclear Plants. 1. At the bottom of the snowy river scheme. It'd probably need a cooling pond built to go with it, as am unsure of the physics of pumping hot water back to the top. 2. Right bloody next to the Desal Plant in Wonthaggi, Vic. It is coastal, but its land locked coastal providing solid protection against a Tsunami event. You have the Desal plant next door which needs vast amounts of energy. The Nuclear plant needs huge amounts of fresh water. Looks mutually beneficial to me. Current forecasts, are that it is going to be 10 years now before victoria needs our desal plant to produce any fresh water, so a 20 odd billion dollar project is going to sit there unneeded. If you stick a nuclear next to it and force it to make water, you can bet your A that the guvmint will start buying water from the plant to supplant its OPEN evaporative water storages, and we'd get something for our money.

Countries like japan went nuts building nuclear power, as they don't have the coal reserves. Clearly its efficient power.

Would I live near a nuke plant? Got no problem with that. Heck if i wind up glowing in the dark, it'd save me a tonnage on lighting costs :}

As you can see, I have considered this in some depth. My comment of being a fan of Nuclear power isn't something I threw in the air lightly, it has been thought about in depth.

As for being old and not caring about what the next generation has to contend with.......... I am under 40.

Cheers
Jas

Chimbu chuckles

6th Jun 2012, 09:43

Oops...wrong vid...not that the other one is not accurate.

BC1l4geSTP8&feature=channel&list=UL

Oh and Baswell banning manmade CFCs was a con too. As for TEL in fuel - plenty of reputable scientists decried the demonisation of TEL at the time. A study was done in Australia in the early 80s comparing levels of lead in humans in Melbourne and a remote Island in PNG that had NEVER seen a car. Guess who had the higher levels of lead in their systems?

Aussie Bob

6th Jun 2012, 10:06

I LOVE your response! Seriously!

Cheers Jas, seriously I love your response as well! A good bit of nuke debating brightens a pilots forum no end. Too tired now though, for the time being I will just agree to disagree, apart from pointing out that if you think the greenies are a problem over dams, come nuclear "you aint seen nothing yet".

jas24zzk

6th Jun 2012, 10:17

I guess the thing with nuclear, is it hasn't seriously been debated properly in the public forum in the country yet.

As I alluded to in my post, it will not matter what technology you use, the greenies will always knock.

I think the best summary of my thoughts is that, Nuclear should be properly considered as PART of the energy equation, not its total solution.

Frank Arouet

6th Jun 2012, 10:28

I'm unsure if British Thermal Units are even a measurement these days, but my history as a Human Being on this Planet includes being a qualified gasfitter. As such I know the BTU output relative to the fuel ingested is mostly perfect when you burn coal. I doubt anything except neuclear power would come anywhere near it's efficiency. Wind farms, solar, wave farms are a myth in economic terms.

And guess what?

Australia has enough coal to meet our BTU needs for the next six million years. Brave figures I hear you say, but none worse than the alternative vegans answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

Probably a conservative guess compared with "the science" that "is in" and "models" show that shoving a big wind turbine on an XPT will cut rail transport by some ridiculous margin. (watch out for tunnels).

Duff Man

7th Jun 2012, 18:19

Geothermal
Solar thermal
Local tri-generation
Gas
^^^ base load low emissions

Plus existing ebb-and-flow renewables (PV etc)

Technically it's not hard to reduce emissions *sufficiently* either through tax incentives and/or direct govt investment - which is already happening.

ALP or Coalition, the targets are the same and the cost to the economy is much the same. It's who pays the cost within the economy that changes.

Who pays the brunt of inaction on surplus CO2 emissions? Literally and ultimately it's the re-insurance industry. They have a bit to say on the matter.

Animalclub

7th Jun 2012, 23:51

The the people of Australia ALWAYS pay in the end either directly or indirectly... whether it be by tax or purchasing an item or service (which is taxed or excised!) The government has no other source of funds - has it?

baswell

8th Jun 2012, 07:21

The the people of Australia ALWAYS pay in the end either directly or indirectly...

Don't you mean: "people ALWAYS pay in the end"?

It's the same everywhere, mate. (Just that we pay less than just about everyone else, our government does an amazing job providing the level of services it does on such a low ratio of tax to GDP.)

The government has no other source of funds - has it?
Uhm, no, it doesn't.

T28D

8th Jun 2012, 23:01

Avgas in the U.S. is $5.60 a gallon at Eden Prarie in MN which prices is very close to AUS prices.

$5.60 / 3.77 = $1.49 a litre

Don't believe there is any relief in sight any time soon.

Animalclub

9th Jun 2012, 03:00

Did I read somewhere that Delta was buying or has bought an oil refinery/company?

Chimbu chuckles

9th Jun 2012, 03:31

T28D the last avgas I bought at YRED 10 days ago was $2.05/liter.

Jabawocky

9th Jun 2012, 06:52

$2.15 at YSGE yesterday and I bet they do not make a fortune from it.

US$6 per USG is about AUD$1.52 here.......ahhh the same as mogas, we pay about 1/3 more than the US folk do.

Flying Binghi

25th Jun 2012, 02:22

.

Heh, BHP and Rio shareholders will be happy little vegimites knowing their reduced dividends will keep Bob Brown happy....

Glyn Lawcock, a Sydney analyst at UBS, wrote in a report dated June 22. The bank cut its estimates for profits at both BHP and Rio by 4 per cent for 2013, citing the impact of the mining and carbon taxes, which take effect on July 1.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_labor_scheme_is_trouble/)

.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

25th Jun 2012, 09:03

The June price for AVGAS at JT is 204.38 c per litre when I enquired last.

:ok:

jas24zzk

25th Jun 2012, 10:59

Just today got a letter from my business' power company.

I had calculated a rise of 4.3c per kw/h. That equated to a 4.36 rise in my hourly rate on its own.

WRONG.
The letter states, that the rise is in fact 5.88 cents.
So now i gotta find that calculation and redo it.

Nice of them to mail me with plenty of time to work this crap out.....5 days to go ladies! :ugh:

Jabawocky

25th Jun 2012, 12:52

Forking C U Next Tuesdays :mad::mad::mad::mad:

peterc005

25th Jun 2012, 23:10

Captain Nomad

26th Jun 2012, 00:58

Happy to do my bit for the environment.

That's where you have been duped peterc...

Old Akro

26th Jun 2012, 01:17

Does nothing for the environment whatsoever. Does do something for general revenue.

neville_nobody

26th Jun 2012, 01:20

I'm not stressed by the Carbon Tax. 5 cents a litre * 35 litres an hour is about $1.50 an hour. Not a big deal. Most years I fly about 120 hours, so say $200 a year. Happy to do my bit for the environment.

Until the banks start pumping the carbon price. Will you be happy to pay an extra $1000+ a year, ontop of a rising cost of everything else for the environment.

Remember the Carbon Tax is subsidised only for a few years. You are then paying full price with a price floor!!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

26th Jun 2012, 02:24

And.....Its going to 'prevent'...WHAT???

:=:ugh:

peterc005

26th Jun 2012, 02:37

It's pointless arguing here. People believe what they hear on talk-back-radio or internet chain emails, rather than peer-reviewed science and logic.

Putting a price on carbon usage will discourage people from using it. The Carbon Tax revenue can then be used to subsidise not polluting sources of energy, further encouraging reduced levels of carbon emission.

It's very basic Public Economics and this type of approach is recommended in relevant Economics text books.

The Carbon Tax is a big step forward to mitigate global warming trends and I fully support it.

LowNSlow

26th Jun 2012, 02:52

peterc if you want to learn about "peer reviewed science" have a look at the Climate Change Debate thresd.

Juliar Gillard is going to make mincemeat of the economy over the next year by handing out cash to those who she percieves as potential voters. She should be sent back to Barry where she came from. Budget surplus!! Give me a break.....

Flying Binghi

26th Jun 2012, 02:53

.

Hmmm... i suspect someone might be havin a joke here, though i'll bite.

via peterc005; ...People believe what they hear on talk-back-radio or internet chain emails, rather than peer-reviewed science and logic.

peterc005 perhaps yer can tell us where to find this "peer-reviewed science and logic" ?

.

eagle 86

26th Jun 2012, 03:04

P.....
If most of the rest of the world was doing it then I might agree but they are not and for those that are the figure is much less. There are plenty of well qualified scientists who take the opposite view ie that the human contribution to climate change is minimal. It is a tax and nothing more designed to claw back some money for government that has totally stuffed the economy. The only reason Oz did better during the gfc was because krudd blew all the Howard government's surplus now we are so far in debt that we will not fare anywhere near as well - brace yourself for it! The co2 tax will affect every goods or service you purchase bar none.
GAGS
E86

peterc005

26th Jun 2012, 03:51

@Flying Binghi

Here is a good start (published by CSIRO):

Understanding Climate Change (http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx)

Climate questions, science facts (http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Climate-Questions-Science-Facts.aspx)

.

Captain Nomad

26th Jun 2012, 04:28

Putting a price on carbon usage will discourage people from using it.

&...

I'm not stressed by the Carbon Tax.

5 cents a litre * 35 litres an hour is about $1.50 an hour. Not a big deal.

Most years I fly about 120 hours, so say $200 a year.

Happy to do my bit for the environment.

25th Jun 2012 12:52

Peterc, even using your own logic you are contradicting yourself. It would seem you haven't been too 'discouraged' from using carbon, no? Rather hypocritical wouldn't you say? If you were serious you would be telling us how you are planning to reduce your 120 hours a year down to zero...

This is beside the point of whether it would actually do anything significant to affect 'global warming' anyway. :suspect:

Flying Binghi

26th Jun 2012, 04:33

via peterc005;
Here is a good start (published by CSIRO):

Understanding Climate Change (http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx)

Climate questions, science facts (http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Climate-Questions-Science-Facts.aspx)

peterc005 the two sites yer linked to i have seen before. Could you please show me where they cover the "peer-reviewed science and logic" ?

peterc005 perhaps this be the "peer-reviewed science and logic" backing up the CSIRO claims -

(Via the CSIRO link)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds it is very likely that most of the observed global warming since the mid 20th century is due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases"

Hmmm... how did the IPCC work it out...

Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

"The science of disastrous global warming is far less settled than climate activists would have us believe. The high probability attached by the IPPC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory versus experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting round a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."

... models eh..:hmm:

.

peterc005

26th Jun 2012, 05:00

Flying Binghi

26th Jun 2012, 05:12

.

via peterc005;
I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.

Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.

There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.

The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.

"The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed"

Well then peterc005 , where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ? Perhaps yer can provide an actual quote from the CSIRO links yer provided ?..:hmm:

In the meantime heres some interesting comments from "Professor Fritz Vahrenholt one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement and the director of RWE Innogy, one of Europe's largest renewable energy companies"

"Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.

For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too..."

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html)

.

Chimbu chuckles

26th Jun 2012, 05:20

I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.

And there it is - the utterly typical response of EVERY SINGLE warmist who has come on this site in the last 5 years to argue that the alarmist case is scientifically sound.

Jabawocky

26th Jun 2012, 07:25

I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.

Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.

There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.

The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.

Peter

With due respect to the CSIRO whom you quoted a few posts back, and have most likely included in your opinion on the AGW case being "Good Science" I would like to offer the following comments.

A pruner who I can't recall his user name, once wrote to me identifying who he was and where he worked and what he did prior to leaving the CSIRO in disgust. Why? They spent more time and resources on studying how to get Government funding than they did on anything else. The method for ensuring funding was to pander to political wins which in this case included the pro AGW position. This guy was not a low level clerk either. If he is reading this I would hope he jumps in here but I suspect he has departed ppruneland.

Good science is about testing hypothesis. All it takes to disprove a hypothesis is despite hundreds or thousands of supporting results or claims is to have one prove otherwise. On that alone the AGW position is at least far from sound, and in my opinion it is debunked!

eagle 86

26th Jun 2012, 07:25

p.....
It hasn't been global warming for a number of years - it is now called climate change - you can guess the reason why!
GAGS
E86

Clare Prop

26th Jun 2012, 08:11

Carbon footprint for this?

Entire 737 chartered to move just one asylum seeker | PerthNow (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/entire-737-charted-to-move-just-one-asylum-seeker/story-e6frg13u-1226408853558)

ZK185

26th Jun 2012, 09:25

You have nailed it Chuck,,

Jabawocky

26th Jun 2012, 11:06

ZK

First post on here, t least with that name, and I have you pegged in one:ok:

Your 185 features herein a few posts :ok:

Welcome:ok:

peterc005

27th Jun 2012, 00:46

I'm happy with the scientific basis behind Global Warming.

Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.

This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.

Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.

The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!

Captain Nomad

27th Jun 2012, 01:17

Once again your logic is beyond me... We should be taxed for our relatively small output of less-polluting emissions while the super sized 'emerging economies' don't get taxed for pollution on a far grander scale with little regard for 'clean emissions.'

The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!

26th Jun 2012 11:06

Maybe that is because you have completely failed to convince us how the carbon tax is going to actually improve 'climate change' - oh, that's right, not even the scientists you refer to can demonstrably show an environmental result for the tax... There is no hard data that shows how this tax will CHANGE 'climate change' - maybe because it won't... Maybe some people don't like paying a pointless tax that has nothing to do with its alleged title. If you don't mind handing over your money for no good reason, no worries, but please don't think you are 'doing your bit for the environment' when you do so...

Towering Q

27th Jun 2012, 01:37

I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of posters on this forum will not be voting for the ALP come the next Federal Election. No doubt one of their reasons for doing so will be “the Carbon Tax.”

Now this is where science and politics becomes a little unclear. Are those that are opposed to the Carbon Tax, opposed because of the way it was introduced, or because they don’t believe in AGW?

If they don’t believe in AGW, then who will they vote for? After all, the Coalition has a “Direct Action” policy which, just like the current Govts, “aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 1990 levels." Why would they bother with such a policy if they didn’t believe in the effects of AGW?

However, according to Treasury, direct action initiatives alone will not do the job. They say, “A broad based market mechanism which prices carbon, is the only realistic way of achieving the deep cuts in emissions that are required.”

Some economists go further and say that the Direct Action policy is a significantly more expensive way to reduce emissions, than what could be achieved with a broad based carbon price.

What I find ironic, is the policy stance on both sides of politics.

The conservative side has adopted a policy which is basically a competitive grants program, and requires a large number of public servants to administer effectively…normally something you would expect from the left side of politics.

And yet the Labor led minority Govt has an emissions reduction policy that empowers the free market to drive the changes…..classic right wing ideology.

We certainly live in weird times.

neville_nobody

27th Jun 2012, 01:45

This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will

Really? Have you factored the the inflationary multiplier effect of the carbon tax on your numbers there?

You then add GST to that.

Remember that GST is a once off point of sale tax, the carbon tax multiplies throughout the economy. ALL inputs into a product are tax, including the retail costs. Carbon Tax also is not controlled by the government. Once it all gets up and running credits will be traded in a controlled market and you are then at the whim of the world bankers.

Watch the CPI go through the roof, business go offshore, and your purchasing power destroyed.

Sarcs

27th Jun 2012, 02:10

Watch the CPI go through the roof, business go offshore, and your purchasing power destroyed.

...and all to appease the Greens who hold the keys to government.

The Green's won't be happy until we're all back swinging from trees, living in caves and putting out the welcome mat to all the world's refugees...the funny thing being that Oz may not be as attractive if the Greens have their way!

By George

27th Jun 2012, 02:34

In eleven years of flying in India and China I have never seen the horizon. Most days in India the TAF for BOM, DEL, MAA, BLR etc have a vis no better than 5,000m There is a generation of kids in DEL that have never seen the stars. All the rivers in China are sewers and toxic chemical dumps.
Come home to Australia, brown paper bags only allowed at Woolies and a carbon tax on the way, "will fix everything". Laughable, but strangely tragic.

eagle 86

27th Jun 2012, 04:01

P.....
I say again - it is no longer global warming it is climate change - the term global warming wouldn't stick.
GAGS
E86

Flying Binghi

27th Jun 2012, 14:20

.

VIA peterc005 #227;

I'm happy with the scientific basis behind Global Warming.

Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.

This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.

Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.

The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!

peterc005, im still wondering where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ? i had another look-see at the CSIRO links yer provided and all ah see to back up the "scientific basis" to the AGW claims is the IPCC..? ...perhaps ah missed sumthin..:hmm:

Hmmm... Since the IPCC tells the CSIRO what to think, lets see what the IPCC has to say about their own "scientific basis"

Via Rajendra Pachauri, chairman, IPCC...
"...we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry the credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that..."

Dang, sounds good... ah assumes Pachauri is talkin about AGW there as the climate has been changing since the world began..:hmm: ...There is a problem. Donna Laframboise and others had a look-see at the 'fully' peer reviewed claims and found out it is an outright lie. Seems there are several THOUSAND grey 'scientific' claims in the IPCC documents :ooh:

...and seems a lot of the so-called scientists are actually "activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country, etc..." ..:hmm:

Donna Laframboise will be doing a speaking tour here in Oz next month -

Australia, I’m Looking Forward to Meeting You « NoFrakkingConsensus (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/13/australia-im-looking-forward-to-meeting-you/)

.

le Pingouin

27th Jun 2012, 17:02

I mean really Binghi! Is someone whose primary credential is a degree in women's studies the best you can come up with? Next thing you'll be offering up Monckton or the Heartland Institute.

Flying Binghi

27th Jun 2012, 23:40

.

via le Pingouin;
I mean really Binghi! Is someone whose primary credential is a degree in women's studies the best you can come up with? Next thing you'll be offering up Monckton or the Heartland Institute.

Your new to this, aint yer le Pingouin..:)

.

le Pingouin

28th Jun 2012, 00:02

Ah, I see you've already plead guilty as charged. So she is the best you can bring.

Flying Binghi

28th Jun 2012, 01:06

.

via le Pingouin;
Ah, I see you've already plead guilty as charged. So she is the best you can bring.

Well then le Pingouin, looks like yer the one to help peterc005 find some "good, solid and peer-reviewed science" to back up the AGW claims that are suposedly the reason for the avgas 'tax'..:)

.

Frank Arouet

28th Jun 2012, 06:07

I'm with you Pete: Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do

Sunday I'm taking the family out for a picnic in the new air. It will be a pleasure to breathe clean unadulterated atmosphere and I feel sorry for those poor Folk who are going to be decimated at Wyalla on the same day and the public who have to pay for the Liberal States "imposed" rectification programmes to the infrastructure left so long to go to rot by the previous incumbants and the other poor Sods that will be unimaginally dead come 1JUL12.

I assume this new air will be available free of charge so my aeroplane can breathe it albeit with a (miniscule) charge for AVGAS and electricity.

I am in the final stages of my "experimental" project of installing a hugh wind generator on the turtledeck so once started I will have "green" energy and possibly ""perpetual" energy.

I'll let you know how I get on with that.

Cheers mate. :)

jas24zzk

28th Jun 2012, 11:48

Gold for you frank!

Flying Binghi

29th Jun 2012, 15:33

.

via Towering Q #229;

I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of posters on this forum will not be voting for the ALP come the next Federal Election. No doubt one of their reasons for doing so will be “the Carbon Tax.”

Now this is where science and politics becomes a little unclear. Are those that are opposed to the Carbon Tax, opposed because of the way it was introduced, or because they don’t believe in AGW?

If they don’t believe in AGW, then....

Towering Q, there's more then just two views on this. i've noted around the forums that there are some AGW 'beleivers' who think it is utterly piontless little ol Oz doing anything about CO2 as the big uns wont be worrying about it.

From the recent Rio global warming farce....

The leaders of Brazil, India and China have made it clear that they will not punish their citizens by stopping economic growth.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/24/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-53/)

-----------------------------------------------------------

How goes le Pingouin and peterc005 with their search for some "good, solid and peer-reviewed science" to back up the AGW claims...:)

.