emissions trading / carbon trading

Introductions, general chit chat and off-topic banter.
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Tue, 20 Jul 2010, 06:08

I'm not in favour of carbon trading.

I see it as a method of making money and taxing without necessarily the environmental support outcomes that are argued for.
(consider the excises on fuel, cigarettes and alchohol)
I hear people say, "the only way to limit emissions is to have a carbon trading scheme". What is it that makes people think that a trading scheme rather than direct action and policy by government and business (and personal values of the public) is the way to go ?

Test yourself on this...
We all agree(?) that carbon trading will increase costs of energy and produce, at least in the short term. We justify this by saying such is the cost of enviromental action.
So...
One item of direct action is available already in the form of electricity "green power" options i.e. a premium of some % on your electricity bill to have your electroncs pumped by "renewable" sources e.g. wind farms. You have that choice now. Choice not to buy hydrocarbon power.
Now...
If you think carbon trading is a good idea then are you already a 100% green power customer ???? Paying for your conviction ?
It is direct action, not just circulating money.

Or is it a case of you won't pay unless you have it dragged out of you ? You'll get that if you opt. for carbon trading !!!! But I recon it will cost you a whole lot more !

( Domestic PV systems aside here. )
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Tue, 20 Jul 2010, 14:41

A carbon trading scheme will not reduce carbon emissions.
It creates no incentive for producers to reduce output.
It will simply involuntarily move money from the pockets of the people to the buckets of business and government.

User avatar
woody
Senior Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat, 21 Jun 2008, 02:03
Real Name: Anthony Wood
Location: Mt Colah

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by woody » Tue, 20 Jul 2010, 14:51

A carbon trading scheme without enough permits creates an incentive to reduce emissions. It will put a dollar figure on carbon output, which will allow the dollar focused companies to reduce their carbon output without pissing off their dollar-focused shareholders.

A carbon trading scheme with too many permits is at best a good practice run for the above.
Planned EV: '63 Cortina using AC and LiFePO4 Battery Pack

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Tue, 20 Jul 2010, 16:41

That raises a naming issue doesn't it !

ETS, CTS, CRTS, HCRS etc. The thing is that the people who will "trade" have little understanding of the physical/chemical/environmental processes. Emissions and just 'carbon' are not directly interchangeable when sustainability is being considered.

Maybe a move away from ETS to CTS helps the radioactive proponents as carbon, not emissions is in the naming !    Image

Agreed on the supply of permits woody, and the same goes with exemptions and concessions. These can ruin the intent of the scheme.

I still hear a simply assumed tax on carbon as reducing CARBON emissions. To be fair, it is the CO2 emissions that are to be targetted ?

Reducion of our hydrocarbon (in the form of fossil fuels) dependence is the main target ?
For instance, grow a tree then burn it is quite sustainable and should not be carbon taxed. However drilling for oil and burning it is not sustainable. We all know the difference in time scale.
Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by EVNoob » Wed, 21 Jul 2010, 03:14

Not to go hippy on you acmotor, but planting a tree and burning it, wastes an incredible amount of water, if the tree is planted in the wrong place it can servely hamper the flow of rivers/creeks and once it is cut down you will find that water table rises and salinty can become a problem.

The simple solution to this problem as you quite rightly put is to reduce fossil fuel usage.

The key to all of this is to get industry to change through legislation (direct action will only go so far), it always difficult in Australia as we don't have the infrastructure nor the entrepreneural spirit to try something that will reduce our usuage (or reduce our impact on the environment (carbon capture, which is a interesting idea, may work, needs further investigation but the Tony Abbott has decided to cut if he gets into government))

The ETS is one way to go about this ie: make green power the same price/cheaper to produce than coal etc. So yes we all we have to pay a little/lot more for electricity, A price I am more than willing to pay.

A quicker more effective way is the carbon tax, that is much like the alcopop tax, it stops people from using the product and they switch to another product (in the alcopop tax, it was worse as they bought more straight spirits) but in the case of electricity generation and transportation, if this is implemented fairly (not like the GST, it is levied once and that is it), the reduction of carbon emissions and investment by industry will increase.

In general governments are never very good at direct action as they don't have the expertise, industry are much better so why not give them the incentive, as industry will never do anything that will cost them a buck unless they can make five.




User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Wed, 21 Jul 2010, 05:04

I hear all that EVNoob and there is truth in some of it.

I include legislation in direct action, though looking for positives and incentives not taxes and disincentives.

I still ask, do you buy green power now ??? You agree electricity will cost more with ETS/CTS. So why not buy green power now ? It is direct action that will increase the renewable energy that power authorities are required to produce. There is the real possibility that the environment will benifit if we make it trendy to be sustainable.
Many businesses already make decisions to reduce energy (save money as you say) and it is trendy for many to have a green shade.

I hear people say that a carbon tax will be quick and effective ? Who's judgement is that ? What evidence is there for it ? Is it just wishfull thinking.... make the system sort out our excesses rather than making sustainable choices ourselves ?
A $10 excise on a packet of cigarettes dosen't stop people from smoking ! Education, trend, health etc are the more effective tools.

Oh Yeah, the tree bit....
Planting a tree uses natural rain, it creates its own environment for rain, lowers the water table to combat rising salinity, absorbes carbon dioxide, releases oxygen and locks up carbon (i.e. stores chemical energy)(the untimate PV !). Trees don't waste water unless planted in the wrong location.
Burn the tree to recover the energy and plant another tree but don't get ahead of yourself. It is sustainable in a 5-10 year cycle.
I only mention the tree bit as it can, that's can, be carbon neutral and sustainable. I agree that in fact the world's trees are too few to start with. I've personally plated tens of thousands of trees on our farm in the last decade.
In fact, a major tree planting (carbon dioxide capturing) program world wide could address CO2 concerns. Trees + CO2 + sunlight = oxygen + locked up carbon. This was understood some years back but seems to be forgotten today.

It is carbon dioxide capture (not carbon capture) that is the basis of the 'clean coal' wishful thinking. My impression is that it will never be implemeted on a large scale due to the handling and storage issues. (A bit like hydrogen as a fuel, too complex infrastructure)
Enter trees. They are the perfect CO2 to carbon converters and carbon storers. What size forest balances a coal fired power station ? (not that I wish to promote coal power stations !)
I hear 'carbon tax' referred to. Shouldn't it be 'carbon dioxide emission tax'. The former suggests more irrelevance for the 'wigibobbit tax' that just pushes money around ! Image

True, governments can make a mess of direct action, some more than others as it happens. Image

Sorry for the waffle, I just don't see it is as simple as a carbon tax ! Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by EVNoob » Thu, 22 Jul 2010, 04:34

You are right on the terminology, it should be a carbon dioxide tax, everybody calls it carbon tax for short.

Climate change happens all the time, whether humans are to blame for this occurrence that is for the evidence to prove/disprove.

But once the natural resources (fossil fuels) are gone, there will be none left, now this might take a relatively long time to happen (run out) but it will happen if we continue on the path without action/a market based mechanism, which is what governments must legislate.

By the way when the government doesn't have any money it needs to revert to a tax, or when they want a person to change behaviour they will put a disincentive there (speeding ticket, demerit points) but that doesn't stop everyone from making the change, the will always be the early adopters, the middle and the last people to take it up. What the government will be trying to do is expedite the middle ground.

I believe incentives and a tax should be used, (Businesses have had 20 or so years but still haven't made the switch), some because they couldn't afford to, others because it was cheaper, this also goes for householders as well.

As far as I am aware I am still with a power retailer (Victoria) that sells coal power (Victoria Energy or Lumino as it is now called)! Even though the actual power I use could have come from any source.

I don't mind paying extra (possibly because I can afford it) I believe a tax (if the revenue is administered correctly) can be redistributed to those on low incomes (to cover the difference ie: anything over CPI) as well as providing incentives to improve electricity generation, public transport infrastructure and the electric car.

Last edited by EVNoob on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Mon, 02 Aug 2010, 01:15

I don't always agree with Leo Simpson at Silicon Chip (it took him a while to see the light re: EVs), however, I think he is very close to the money in his August 2010 publisher's letter on "carbon price"

http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_112077/article.html

Its a shame to confuse sustainability and environmental issues with the swill pot of money that some businesses have their eye on.

I hope people heed the warnings !

Like when 3 big miners support a tax, you have to sit back and ask what is in it for them ? Oh yeah, the working people's money. Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Mon, 02 Aug 2010, 06:20

I will say it again.
Non of this is about reducing pollution. It is all about money and how to transfer it from the common people to the big businesses and to a lesser extent the governments.

From the government point of view it goes like this.
Government: How can we raise more money without taxing the general population?
Economist: Easy lets put a price on carbon based pollution, make the companies pay for it.
Companies: No problem we will just put our prices up to cover it, plus a little bit for good measure.
Government: That's great the people will never suspect a thing, they will never figure it is just a new tax.

The people: Like hell we won't!!

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Fri, 06 Aug 2010, 06:23

Interesting on Catalyst tonight, an article on the apparent success of the worldwide CFC (chlorofurocarbon) reduction and the turn around in ozone layer holes over the last 10-15 years.
All this without a 'CFC tax'.
Mostly just goverment policy to reduce/eliminate the production and use of CFCs.
Now CO2 is perhaps not that simple, but the point is clear. It is policy NOT a tax that can produce change. Both by the general public but more so by our leadership.
Think about it !   Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Peter C in Canberra
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 04:05
Real Name: Peter Campbell
Location: Canberra

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Peter C in Canberra » Mon, 09 Aug 2010, 20:39

CFCs were easy. Countries entered treaties to phase out CFCs. They passed laws to say "you must replace CFC refrigerants and propellants with these alternatives we already have which don't cost much more aside from a set up cost". The equivalent would be to say, "We have entered a treaty that says we will emit no greenhouses gases after some date. You must all stop every emitting activity by then." That might cause some trouble! More reasonable is to say "We have entered a treaty that says we will emit no more than a certain amount of greenhouses gases after some date. You can work out for yourselves which things can be easily given up, which things to do better and which are really important to keep doing regardless of cost. To work that out you can trade the limited number of permits." ETS in a nutshell. Use the revenue from the initial sale of permits to reduce costs of living generally (say increasing the tax threshold and more generous pensions or whatever). If you keep buying the now more expensive petrol you come out even. If you reduce your petrol use/buy stuff shipped shorter distances etc you come out ahead because you still have pocketed the increased tax threshold or pension. When a retailer needs to buy another unit of electricity it won't be cheapest to get it from the most polluting power station.

Also, an ETS is not either/or with direct action. Having an ETS does not stop a government from providing some direct assistance or policy support for some particular worthy activity in addition.

By the way, I do have roof-top solar and I do buy Greenpower, enough for all my consumption, car and house.
Daihatsu charade conversion 2009-18, iMiEV 2013-2019, Holden Volt 2018-present, on the ACT's 100% renewable electricity. Kona on order.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Tue, 10 Aug 2010, 05:17

Ditto, but doesn't government policy require you to buy greenpower in order to have an export capable CGI solar system connected in your area ? (should do) Direct action and policy .... no ETS involved. (an a darn side cheaper)

So why were there concessions for coal fired power stations in the dead ETS if the simple polluters pay rule was real ?
The cheapest power is from coal. Unless an ETS were to make it more expensive than renewables then the ETS is a joke.

There are plenty of zero emission alternatives. Some present and some in the pipeline. As you say, come to an agreement to move to them.
Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Peter C in Canberra
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 04:05
Real Name: Peter Campbell
Location: Canberra

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Peter C in Canberra » Tue, 10 Aug 2010, 13:00

acmotor wrote: Ditto, but doesn't government policy require you to buy greenpower in order to have an export capable CGI solar system connected in your area ? (should do).....

I am not aware of any requirement to buy Greenpower beyond the Federal Renewable Energy Target, ramping up to the 20% by 2020, currently up to about 5% I think. That particular policy which none of us can avoid is probably the only energy policy thing doing anything major right now. Voluntary purchase of Greenpower pushes the percentage up faster now that some flaws in the policy have been fixed. I have solar on my roof and am paid a good, gross feed-in tariff. As I surrendered the RECs I have essentially sold all the power I make and get paid well for it. I can't pretend to be using it myself. So, I purchase Greenpower for my consumption, subsidised by the feedin tariff but no one obliged me to do that.
Daihatsu charade conversion 2009-18, iMiEV 2013-2019, Holden Volt 2018-present, on the ACT's 100% renewable electricity. Kona on order.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 11 Aug 2010, 06:23

Peter C in Canberra wrote:
acmotor wrote: Ditto, but doesn't government policy require you to buy greenpower in order to have an export capable CGI solar system connected in your area ? (should do).....

I am not aware of any requirement to buy Greenpower beyond the Federal Renewable Energy Target, ramping up to the 20% by 2020, currently up to about 5% I think. That particular policy which none of us can avoid is probably the only energy policy thing doing anything major right now. Voluntary purchase of Greenpower pushes the percentage up faster now that some flaws in the policy have been fixed. I have solar on my roof and am paid a good, gross feed-in tariff. As I surrendered the RECs I have essentially sold all the power I make and get paid well for it. I can't pretend to be using it myself. So, I purchase Greenpower for my consumption, subsidised by the feedin tariff but no one obliged me to do that.


Carbon emissions trading schemes, carbon tax,solar panels, green power etc..
For a nation like Australia these are all matters of personal morality for those citizens who are able to afford such choices.

It's wonderful to feel empowered. The concept of "well at least I'm doing my bit" is a great feeling, even if it's a bit reminiscent of a smug version of the Horse in Animal Farm.

But if you imagine that such action will affect the outcome of Global Warming, or in some practical way reduce the planets increasing dependence on fossil fuel,.. well.. it's just ludicrous.

The majority of the world energy is produced by coal/oil and to a lesser extent, nuclear.

OK, so the USA, Europe, and most of the small first world nations reduce their dependency on coal by shipping old heavy energy intensive polluting industries to developing nations led by The PRC, India or Russia.

These nations deal with the problem by either simply lying, (PRC),confusion (India) ignoring the problem and stonewalling (Russia), or crying poor (the rest).

Meanwhile deforestation and mismanagement reigns supreme. We all live on one biosphere, no matter if Australia, NZ, the Cook Islands etc happen to be carbon dioxide neutral, it would make not one bit of difference to the planets health.

Don't get me wrong. I admire and applaud those who try to live with good environmental practise in their personal lives. But the problems of the biosphere can only be solved by international consensus and a realistic international energy policy policed by an international agency with sufficient power to deal with rogue states.

How is this to be achieved? Well, certainly not by the pathetic charade of Copenhagen or blaming the usual suspects, Uncle Sam, WTO, APEC, OECD World Bank, Capitalists, Greed etc etc .. the usual mindless chest beating crap for the green/socialist left.

Nor by the pathetic cosmetic policies of the ALP or Coalition! (Well, I suppose the coalition is at least reasonably honest in lacking any pretence to give a crap.)

No the answer is to decide on an energy policy that can maintain industrial and economic growth and wealth creation in a more sustainable fashion.

To accomplish this we must look realistically at the alternative energy sources available. Idealism, will only ensure failure. Any method must harness existing infrastructure and cultural aspirations.



   


User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Wed, 11 Aug 2010, 07:24

Well some people will only turn to a sustainable future if they are beaten with a big stick. Others will be lucky and find it trendy and satisfying to work for the future.

Isn't Australia the world's worst CO2 emittter per capita ? Are we to set the example for world ruin ?

"the answer is to decide on an energy policy that can maintain industrial and economic growth and wealth creation in a more sustainable fashion"
Totally agree. (just as long as it is zero emission)
I consider we are being offered that this month.

"sustainable fasion" is open to interpretation of course Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

7circle
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu, 04 Feb 2010, 02:18
Real Name: Ken
Location: Melbourne

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by 7circle » Wed, 11 Aug 2010, 07:43

Peter C in Canberra wrote: CFCs were easy. Countries entered treaties to phase out CFCs. They passed laws to say "you must replace CFC refrigerants and propellants with these alternatives we already have which don't cost much more aside from a set up cost". The equivalent would be to say, "We have entered a treaty that says we will emit no greenhouses gases after some date. You must all stop every emitting activity by then." That might cause some trouble! More reasonable is to say "We have entered a treaty that says we will emit no more than a certain amount of greenhouses gases after some date. You can work out for yourselves which things can be easily given up, which things to do better and which are really important to keep doing regardless of cost. To work that out you can trade the limited number of permits." ETS in a nutshell. Use the revenue from the initial sale of permits to reduce costs of living generally (say increasing the tax threshold and more generous pensions or whatever). If you keep buying the now more expensive petrol you come out even. If you reduce your petrol use/buy stuff shipped shorter distances etc you come out ahead because you still have pocketed the increased tax threshold or pension. When a retailer needs to buy another unit of electricity it won't be cheapest to get it from the most polluting power station.

Also, an ETS is not either/or with direct action. Having an ETS does not stop a government from providing some direct assistance or policy support for some particular worthy activity in addition.

By the way, I do have roof-top solar and I do buy Greenpower, enough for all my consumption, car and house.


I was looking at refrigeration systems and was reminded that the replacements for CFC's the HFC's are noted as having very strong effects on global warming.
Report on CFC replacemnts with table on GWP - Global warming phenomenon and ODP - Ozone depleating phenomenon:
URL=http://www.hysave.com/wp-content/upload ... -plant.pdf] Article[/url]

So the situation may be a bit more complicated.
Those not reclaimimg the refrigerents should be linked in to the ETS too.

[Edit]"Phenomenon" should be "Potential
Also came across a Origen energy product called LT22
with ODp = 0 and GWP= 954
Specifications Data
Ozone Depleting Potential 0
Global Warming Potential 954
Composition
Difluoromethane HFC-32 10 5%
Tetrafluoroethane HFC-134a 80 5%
Heptafluoropropane HFC-227ea 10 5%
Last edited by 7circle on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, 22:01, edited 1 time in total.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 11 Aug 2010, 17:12

acmotor wrote: Well some people will only turn to a sustainable future if they are beaten with a big stick. Others will be lucky and find it trendy and satisfying to work for the future.
Yes well, when you say a big stick, you are ignoring the democratic process. How to you beat people with a big stick, if the majority do not support the beating?
isn't Australia the world's worst CO2 emittter per capita ? Are we to set the example for world ruin ?


Do you really imagine the PRC, India,Russia, Iran, Ghana, South Africa, Veitnam, Brazil etc etc will say, "Oh dear, we should shut down our peoples only viable economic progress, because we are shamed by Australia's high moral stance?"

I consider we are being offered that this month.


By Whom???


User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Wed, 11 Aug 2010, 18:06

Not ignoring any democratic process at all.

The ETS fell over through lack of majority support. Well, after all, an ETS is not democratic without that support. That is not to say that some government directive is not required on the CO2 issue, it is just that the execution of good ideas falls short of late.


Two questions answered with another question ! Image I'll actually answer the question !
Yes, I do imagine that the world's largest producer of PVs and wind generators will only make even more for themselves and others with the Australian orders rolling in as well. Image


By Whom ??? Well not by anyone who 'believes' in an ETS as a magic bullet !
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Fri, 13 Aug 2010, 06:54

acmotor wrote: Yes, I do imagine that the world's largest producer of PVs and wind generators will only make even more for themselves and others with the Australian orders rolling in as well.


Well, yes indeed, both the PRC and India do produce Wind Turbines and Solar panels. But sadly these two nations are the largest consumers of coal and oil fired power generation!

Both nation are building vast numbers of new coal fired power plants!

It's easy to understand the PRC's concern since PRC has 41 years of coal reserves remaining (AUS 200, USA 240, India 100) PRC coal should run out just before Europe's!


User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Sat, 14 Aug 2010, 03:37

...and also the largest populations, still leaving Australia with the worst per capita status !

edit:spyln
Last edited by acmotor on Sat, 14 Aug 2010, 09:57, edited 1 time in total.
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Sat, 14 Aug 2010, 06:42

...that is easy to solve, if we close down the aluminium smelters and steel works our numbers would improve dramatically.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Sat, 14 Aug 2010, 20:09

Fair comment, and it leads to the other observation that Oz and other 1st world countries ship things like iron ore and bauxite to places like China for them to turn it into steel and ali and ship it back to us.
The dirty, energy hungry process of smelting is done in places like China for our (and their) products and we have the hide to criticise them for pollution, yet we still have the worst per capita C02 emissions.
There's still scope for us to tidy up our own back yard.
Without a stick.
Image
If we can set the example by positive leadership and policy rather than taxing the b-geez out of the community then other countries are more likely to take on the challenge. Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Sun, 15 Aug 2010, 22:28

acmotor wrote: . The dirty, energy hungry process of smelting is done in places like China for our (and their) products and we have the hide to criticise them for pollution, yet we still have the worst per capita C02 emissions.
There's still scope for us to tidy up our own back yard.
Without a stick.

If we can set the example by positive leadership and policy rather than taxing the b-geez out of the community then other countries are more likely to take on the challenge.


Actually, the assumption that the Australians are the world's worst polluters per capita, is an urban myth. This claim is based on a series of very unscientific and subjective reports.

But like most propaganda, this misinformation has become such an article of faith to true believers, that any rational examination is shouted down.

Leavig such issues aside, the real problem I have is not with the morality of your position, which is laudable, but the practicality!

Unfortunately, we all live in one biosphere. The sort of 'moral leadership' you are talking about may make the individual(s) feel good but is completely ineffective on a global basis.

The moral arguement doesn't address the problem of the overpopulated developing world lacking basic infrastructure. Even wealthy organised nations are struggling to cope with the expense of maintaining and expanding infrastructure.

Since it's really not politically possible to reduce population growth in the developed, let alone developing world, government are forced to provide increasingly urgent infrastructure to maintain the high level of surpluses required to pay for increasingly sophisticated infrastucture demands.

Australian governments have a choice between useless, expensive "green' gestures, to achieve some moral leadership, or providing for the future of the people it represents.

I know its not easy to do, and as Rudd and Turnbll found out, the taxpayer will cheer for moral gestures, and applaud loudly the leader, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COST MONEY!

Sorry to the Indigenous? great ! Cost nothing, did nothing, achieved nothing, made everyone feel good! Great! Gestures like these are popular, but try explaining to the electorate that you will lower lifestyles, and impose economic restrictions on citizens, to pay for a moral stance, (especially one that PRC or India etc would wipe out any value of in 5 minutes), and you have just become the opposition!

AC, this isn't to say that your moral arguments are wrong. Regrettably, just impractical beyond the personal level.

I have supported environmental causes for 40 years.(long before they became fashionable)However, I have watched the 'greens' move from a party supporting environmental causes to become hijacked as a new home for the worse kind of socialist-left, ideologically based party power brokers. (this is not just my observation, but a complaint of many in the Green party movement).

Todays ALP, has no real affinity with the old green motives so effectively supported by the Union movement of the sixties and seventies, even Hawke had more affinity with environmental causes than the cynical and hypocritical attitudes of the current ALP.

The Liberals, especially in the time of the Victorian Hamer government introduced conservation and introduced a great deal of the modern legal framework for social reform and conservation of the environment. Yet today, very few Liberals consider such issues challenging or exciting.

At the best, our leaders today seem to display all the charisma and vision of a chartered accountant!

I have more faith in capitalist technology, than I have in moral leadership.

If the Australian, or State Government, of any hue, had leaped to support visionaries, such as Ross Blade, with fleet buying and fast charging infrastructure, the internationals, would see Australia as the demo area for EV's.

Instead of giving everyone a silly stimulus gift of $900 dollars we had invested $50 billion in drought prevention, this would have achieved long term infrastructure leadership.

Not all the Greens policies are impractical, or lacking in merit. The major parties should adopt beneficial policy no matter the source.




User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 01:25

LOL, God, with a political opinion !! Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

Australia 9th, China 121nd, looks rather damming and clearly not an urban myth ! (it pays to google before you post Image)

http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions

Yep, quite right. Not the worst. But still the pot calling the kettle black. That puts that excuse for non action to rest.

marco, I agree with many of your observations but not much of your analysis or pesimism.

Well the closest thing to capitalist technology is there for you on Saturday. Image   
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 06:34

acmotor wrote: Australia 9th, China 121nd, looks rather damming and clearly not an urban myth!(it pays to google before you post).
My goodness, a quote from Wikkipedia! Ok, you're right no longer an urban myth but an international cyberspace one as well! I note by the same token that NZ is another heavy polluter! Like I say the studies that the author of the wikki entry cites are from studies compiled by an organisation called the 'World Resources Institute', although this sounds an important organisation, it is in fact very dubious in methodology and lacks any real credibility.

Like most of these studies, think of the 'Tobacco Research Institute', they produce reports containing vast amounts of nearly incomprehensible detail,but the conclusions (the bit the press quote) is always favourable whatever cause the 'institute' supports.

The conclusion is all that's remembered! The impression remains, oft exaggerated, (you claimed Aus the worst, not ninth) and this the myth grows. Since the original was long forgotten, but the conclusion is so often quoted and used a a factual basis, anyone who challenges such an accepted fact, is written off as a crank.

The World Resources Institute report claims really reliable sources, such as the US EPA, but in truth the EPA contribution may be little more than a misinterpretation of EPA material, cited out of context.

The next table cites different figures, but draws its material from the same source. Thus one report cites another in support, and so on, until the truth is lost, and the lie becomes fact.

Spin, spin and more spin... from every side.   
That puts that excuse for non action to rest.


But what action?

Like I say, no one can fault your morality, but it is simply to say that Australian emission are either significant, or any reductions will influence the worst offending nations. The per capita concept is irrelevant when we are dealing with one biosphere.

Post Reply