Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.

New Posts Contact us

Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,463
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
I totally agree. I have always done so. If you exempt the biggest polluters, the whole thing is a complete waste of time and effort.

I'm just sick of hearing about the huge impact this waste of time is having. Its having no impact at all. Much ado about nothing.

A tax that has no effect on anything is not a tax that is worth having at all. It just gives people something to blame with no actual reason.. just ask the now unemployed Brumbies manager that tried.

It was a bad move politically, motivated and forced upon us by the greens with their heads in the clouds. I bet Gillard rues the day she first heard the words 'Carbon Tax'.

Hence my previous post. Gillard "changed circumstances" to save her political backside. Others it's about saving effective bankruptcy.

I beg to differ with regard to "no effect on anything". For Australian manufacturing it's nothing more than another nail in the coffin. The federal government should be doing whatever it can to help reduce the labour, OH&S and environmental cost advantages of China and the like, not further reinforce their competitive advantage by increasing our local taxation as well. Just to spell it out, I do not advocate lowering our standards of OH&S, labour and environmental to their levels. Taxation is one way to at least start re-balancing the ledger.

Reaper
 

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,463
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
Since this thread has become a little dead of late - I thought I'd lob this up. I posted this in another thread in july last year regarding our "save the planet" Growth/Energy/Carbon tax. Nobody challenged it and in the last year, I have found zero evidence to question it's validity.

Their own. Carbon emissions tracks roughly along economic growth (or even slightly higher). We are planning to reduce it by 5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 (7.5 years after it's implementation). This reduction can only come from a few sources that will make a measurable difference on a macro scale.

1. Lower vehicle emissions. The trend for people to downsize their cars is long established yet carbon emissions are still going up. I'd expect this trend to continue but expecting an accelerated reduction in emissions from here is ambitious at best.

2. Replacing the nations coal fired power stations with clean(er) sources base load power. Building a power station is not a quick thing. The planning and construction is a 5 - 10 year proposition with nuclear being upwards of 15. Aside from nuclear, there is no zero or near zero emission technology available to Australia for base load power. There are a few cogen plants on the horizon however these are neither large nor low enough emissions to make anything more than a stone chip dent on a structure the size of several jumbo jets.

3. Power saving technology available to the consumer has made a big leap forward over recent years with the roll out of halogen low watt bulbs and led's using roughly 1/7th the power of the old incandescent bulbs (which were banned under the Howard government but most people seem to forget that). Instant hot water systems and the like are also gradually gaining market share however most of these are maturing and the gains are mostly already realized with only incremental gains into the future.

Industry have been working to economise on power usage for my whole working life (Since the early 90's) and probably earlier. Electricity has always been a big cost for industry that all companies try to save money on. I can't see an extra cost on something that they have already minimised gaining anything here either.

4. Direct action has been ruled out by the Government so we have no gains there either. All in all we have just run out of options.

Thus, with carbon emissions pretty much tied to economic output, the only way to lower Australia's emissions is to not only stop **all** economic growth right now and reverse a decade of strong growth. The GFC did put things on hold but overall the first 2/3 of 2000's were very strong for Australia thanks to Costello guiding the economy thru the Asian Economic meltdown (anybody remember that?) exceptionally well.

There you have it - legislated recession. And you thought Workchoices was bad

Reaper
http://forums.justcommodores.com.au...ccc-federal-election-polls-2.html#post1925189

Discuss :)

Reaper
 

Drawnnite

Obviously Unsensible
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
2,026
Reaction score
2,105
Points
113
Location
Victoria
Members Ride
2000 Vs Ute
i dont understand the challenge but heres my input (or very big lack of)

the whole lower vehicle emissions makes me laugh reap.
"yeah lets go to electric cars"
because obviously electricity is made in your wall by fairies, and not some coal fired generator =P

the replace globes part.
you can still buy incandescents. well i can atleast =P
LEDs are good though. waiting to see those high bays at work fire up. see how they compare.
but with todays building standards of a certain lumens per square meter your basically forced into "energy savers"
kinda works. but they dont produce enough light. and youll install more anyway.

tax will do nothing.
unless it goes directly into planting of trees.
trees suck up co2 (you know the bad stuff)
and give out oxygen (or the good stuff)
and can eventually be made into some sweet furniture and/or burnt and used as a "renewable" (slow to produce but still) energy source.
might sound stupid. but it seems to work in my head? =P
 

vr94ss

walks barefoot
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Lismore, NSW
Members Ride
VR SS '94/Subi B4 TT '01
Since this thread has become a little dead of late - I thought I'd lob this up. I posted this in another thread in july last year regarding our "save the planet" Growth/Energy/Carbon tax. Nobody challenged it and in the last year, I have found zero evidence to question it's validity.


http://forums.justcommodores.com.au...ccc-federal-election-polls-2.html#post1925189

Discuss :)

Reaper

This is because there is now a thread to disestablish AGW as a political issue. It now belongs in a different thread. I'd be happy to have that annulled! If you are saying that climate change is valid here again I think I'd be more than happy to discuss it.;)
 

monkeys437

New Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,099
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Location
Mornington, Melb
Members Ride
VS Stato l67
the replace globes part.
you can still buy incandescents. well i can atleast =P
LEDs are good though. waiting to see those high bays at work fire up. see how they compare.
but with todays building standards of a certain lumens per square meter your basically forced into "energy savers"
kinda works. but they dont produce enough light. and youll install more anyway.

So true about installing more LED's to light a room.
I'm just getting LED's installed in my whole house at the moment and my mate doing the install said they use about 1/8th the power or something.
But We're replacing 10 old, ugly, crappy light fittings with 25 LED's so while there's still a net energy saving its not nearly as high as you first think.

But I must admit high power bills were a big deciding factor in what lights I went with, as well as the appliances I purchased. But this would be the same with or without the Carbon tax. As Dakster said, energy prices rose enough before the CT came in so IMO the Carbon tax is a bit pointless in regard to influencing consumer purchasing
 

Cheap6

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
74
Points
0
Members Ride
VP Exec
Sadly if you pay attention to what the scientists that are in a position to know are telling us about climate change it looks as if we're heading towards something like what Paul Gilding has described as "The Great Disruption".

Quoting from him here: The Great Disruption is here – Opinion – ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

We're going to have to transform our economy very rapidly, including our energy, transport and agricultural systems. This transition - to a zero net CO2 economy - will soon be underway and the business and economic opportunities for those who are ready (and risks to those who aren't) are hard to overstate.

That's why China is getting ready to win this race, with significantly more impressive programs to capture the opportunity than most Western countries. They understand that in the new world that is unfolding, being a 'solar power' will define geopolitical strength. Maybe the United States will start late, but strongly, surging out of Silicon Valley with a technology boom ready to disrupt and reinvigorate the world again. Time will tell - and probably sooner than you think.

There's much more to this than technology, though, with some cultural and political challenges ahead as well. In a growth-constrained world, our current central economic policy of 'keep calm and carry on shopping' is looking increasingly wrongheaded. It's certainly insufficient for continued human development.

More here: “The Great Disruption” - Paul Gilding - Independent writer & advisor on sustainability.

The crisis represents a rare chance to replace our addiction to growth with an ethic of sustainability, and it’s already happening. It’s also an unmatched business opportunity: Old industries will collapse while new companies will literally reshape our economy. In the aftermath of the Great Disruption, we will measure “growth” in a new way. It will mean not quantity of stuff but quality and happiness of life. Yes, there is life after shopping.

I think this puts it as well or better than anything I can write:

I couldn’t write this blog without some commentary on what I believe Paul’s thesis means for activists and policy-makers pushing for pricing pollution right now. Some might argue his claim that the world will not act until 2018 is further cause for delaying action here: why should we, in Australia for instance, “damage our economy” when the world’s response will not gear up for several more years? In fact, of course, the opposite is true. Australia’s economy and society will inevitably experience substantial disasters, job losses and security and migration challenges – we will have to act – and the sooner we start the climb down from our world-leading heights of carbon emissions, the less distance we’ll have to fall, and the softer our landing will be. We’ll be better positioned – and more competitive – than those who did not act when the evidence was clear. If it’s about survival of the fittest, surely it’s attractive to be in the best possible shape! The fact that this fairly straight forward (and far from traditionally leftist) notion is so poorly understood or accepted by the public reflects the paucity of our political leadership, the abrogation of responsibility by our media and the clear failure of our education system. Our failure to act on climate is not just a failure of our market system, but of our societal system.

Make Believe | The Great Disruption: book review & personal action plan
 

DAKSTER

Beam me up Scotty!
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Location
Woodford QLD
Members Ride
VS Berlina
Why should we, in Australia for instance, “damage our economy” when the world’s response will not gear up for several more years? In fact, of course, the opposite is true.

Australia’s economy and society will inevitably experience substantial disasters, job losses and security and migration challenges – we will have to act – and the sooner we start the climb down from our world-leading heights of carbon emissions, the less distance we’ll have to fall, and the softer our landing will be.

We’ll be better positioned – and more competitive – than those who did not act when the evidence was clear. If it’s about survival of the fittest, surely it’s attractive to be in the best possible shape!

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Sadly, there are still far too many people with their head in the sand on climate change science, and so long as short term economics are held more important than long term survival, we aren't going to be adapting fast enough.

Science is already discussing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change within decades, not centuries. Its likely the consequences of negative actions we have already taken are still to manifest themselves, and also likely that these catastrophic events are already unavoidable. We will need to prepare for what is already likely to come.

If we want to survive as a species, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the future, now.

I'm not going to continue on this one, we have already been warned about discussing climate science in this thread. But rest assured, climate science will inevitably become a major and relevant part of politics in the future.
 

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,463
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Sadly, there are still far too many people with their head in the sand on climate change science, and so long as short term economics are held more important than long term survival, we aren't going to be adapting fast enough.

Science is already discussing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change within decades, not centuries. Its likely the consequences of negative actions we have already taken are still to manifest themselves, and also likely that these catastrophic events are already unavoidable. We will need to prepare for what is already likely to come.

If we want to survive as a species, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the future, now.

I'm not going to continue on this one, we have already been warned about discussing climate science in this thread. But rest assured, climate science will inevitably become a major and relevant part of politics in the future.

The thing is though, that we aren't. How many non-coal power generators capable of taking over our base load power requirements are currently (or about to be in the next year or so) in construction? The sentiment above is fine. What you and most are missing is some critical thought into what will actually cause the desired change in Australia. As I posted above, the *only* way Australia is going to achieve our Co2 carbon target is via long and sustained recession.

Start rolling out low/no emissions power generation, present a case that we need to raise ??? dollars to pay for it and then yes, I and most others opposing this "tax" (wealth redistribution scheme really) would most likely offer strong support.

What we have right now is nothing more than an idealistic pipe dream on the government's part.

Reaper
 

Cheap6

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
74
Points
0
Members Ride
VP Exec
The thing is though, that we aren't. How many non-coal power generators capable of taking over our base load power requirements are currently (or about to be in the next year or so) in construction? The sentiment above is fine. What you and most are missing is some critical thought into what will actually cause the desired change in Australia. As I posted above, the *only* way Australia is going to achieve our Co2 carbon target is via long and sustained recession.

Start rolling out low/no emissions power generation, present a case that we need to raise ??? dollars to pay for it and then yes, I and most others opposing this "tax" (wealth redistribution scheme really) would most likely offer strong support.

Reaper

The thing is, it's not going to be a simple plug in of renewable (nor nuclear) energy sources into the existing system. Changing the way power is generated (extracted is probably a better description) is going too change the way in which it is used, including more and different energy storage. The time of day pricing recently proposed is part of that process. It will also change where and how we all live. No one entity can forsee all those changes hence a pricing model, without prescription as to how emissions can be avoided is going to be the best model. What we have got (so far) is just a start and will (need to be) modified as experience is gathered and as an international agreement on removing emissions is achieved.

It is likely, in the short term at least, building the new infrastructure required will be stimulatory in economic terms.
 

DAKSTER

Beam me up Scotty!
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Location
Woodford QLD
Members Ride
VS Berlina
On the subject of base load requirements.. this will become unnecessary in the future.

The trend is towards onsite power generation/extraction. Mass power generation will pass into history eventually, as smaller, less infrastructure dependent methods of power supply such as solar systems become the way of the future.

On this subject, very disappointed Julia. Make a carbon tax then exempt those it should be aimed at. Then cut the solar power rebates dramatically. It sure seems like the wrong direction to me.
 
Top