emissions trading / carbon trading

Introductions, general chit chat and off-topic banter.
marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo »

Peter C in Canberra wrote: I wouldn't call it a 100% solution for those same sex couples who want to use the word 'marriage' but it would go a long way I expect for the word 'spouse' to be applicable in law and might satisfy 95% and would remove virtually all practical, rather than symbolic issues. If I were a politician and thought the backlash from some sectors about 'marriage' would not be worth the bother but wanted to improve the situation I would go with this proposal as workable progress.


Thank you for your reply. Yes, I agree you can never satisfy everyone,100%. i was really hoping to provide a solution that created the maximum fairness and dignity, without creating others unacceptable pain and rancour.

(Also I hate that buzzword 'partner'.)

Acmotor, I really meant the overwhelming majority of citizens on the particular issue of same-sex marriage.   
7circle
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu, 04 Feb 2010, 02:18
Real Name: Ken
Location: Melbourne

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by 7circle »

I think it's a very relevant comparison to "emissions trading/ carbon trading" compared too say NBN.

It highlights that many peoples religious beliefs in their cannon of scriptures are causing them to have difficulty accepting that humans now massive population from the 1600's to 2010, could be having an impact on the stability of the ice shelves and new elnino-elnina events caused by ocean currents and temperatures storing and releasing energy. This, causing a near future (100 years) of very extreme weather events to levels beyond human history.

Well its only a problem if your poor or live in low lying areas. Similar issues if you get left holding the baby-children or become sick. It's life threating for your family!

Peoples sexual decisions and their requirements for contracts that should protect them and their family when one of the spouses defaults or ignores or wants to cancel the "contract" while they are unwell or preparing and supporting a family ...

is a bit like people who ignore other peoples, in fact all animals need to live on a healthy stable planet. Not just keep exploiting it to grossly lavish their desires.

Some just look at it as a new opportunity to make a bigger buck, they don't actually care about life on Earth, they think humans are adaptable. I don't think we have proved that we are "THAT" adaptable.

Maybe once we have proved we can live on say the moon for 500 years I'd believe that argument.

But what does annoy me is that the majority of Australia can choose today to have 100% Green electricity for their home for a small extra cost to living. If they made that choice now, then the suppliers would have to supply it. Or we could sue them for false advertising. But they probably have a disclaimer, and limited liability. But it could knock them out of the market.

The capitalists could easily make a strong marketable product, some are trying, but many are fizzing out.

If I had a product like a new Memory storage technology that used Silicon Crystals with out Arsenic and Cadmium and cost $1/Terabyte
but it was bought out by another company still developing a similar product that did include Lead-Cadmium-Benzene, but needed to be serviced and replaced with more Lead-Cadmium-Benzene to keep it going.

Should the government be allowed to step in and say buy out technology from the company and make it available to the public?

That's what's happening with the EV industry and the Energy Industry.
Even hear in Australia - Especially here.
bga
Senior Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon, 01 Sep 2008, 19:27
Real Name: Bruce Armstrong
Location: Perth WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by bga »

Speaking of green power, the suppliers prevent over-subscription by not advertising it. Well, almost not advertising it.

Occasionally, companies show moral fibre, but its unusual. Volvo did this with the lap-sash seat belt, which they considered too important to hold and defend the patent for, so the released it to any and all potential users.

I was disussing the future of carbon with a friend the other day and he was of the opinion that you could burn all ot it without setting a global precedent. (he likes being the devil's advocate) I was thining that there is a precedent, but at this time the arctic ocean was also 30 deg. C and anoxic, triggering the mass sequestration of carbon that produced the current oil age.

So by loading the atmosphere with CO2, we can trigger the same event and produce the next lot of oil. All we have to do is survive until its ready to harvest.

"Should the government be allowed to step in and say buy out technology from the company and make it available to the public? "
Ignoring patents works.

Maybe we should think of patents as instruments of the devil, since they are being so badly abused by squatters and speculators that they are impeding the progress of solutions.

To see that I mean, check out this lot of goons:
Wikipedia
RAMBUS's web site

I especially like three paragraphs of 'Technology' and ten of lawsuits in wikipedia.


It's not the end of the world, but I can see it from here.
marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo »

7circle wrote: Should the government be allowed to step in and say buy out technology from the company and make it available to the public?

That's what's happening with the EV industry and the Energy Industry.
Even hear in Australia - Especially here.


Ok, moving past all the anti-human, anti-capitalist bogeyman diatribe, the 'government' should not be 'stepping in' to buy technology to favour any particular technology in the market place.

Governments are regulators, not business organisations. When governments "step in' you don't get the latest EV, you end up with a Trabant!

Democratic societies are complex, just because you think you have a good idea, or ideology, you must get the majority of your fellow citizens to agree. More government, always leads to inefficiency and Fascism not social progress.

I know it's very frustrating to have to live within the confines of our very imperfect and constantly evolving democratic system, but the result is always better than the alternatives of Utopians.

Carbon taxes, and Emission trading schemes are not a valid model to deal with Australia's unique environmental circumstance.
bga wrote:Maybe we should think of patents as instruments of the devil, since they are being so badly abused by squatters and speculators that they are impeding the progress of solutions.
I see, yes that makes sense! Of course just one tinsy, little, drawback? Who the hell would invest millions of dollars on researching very risky technology just to allow any arse-wipe to steal the benefits. Did your Mother/kindy teacher fail to tell you the story of The Little Red Hen??

Volvo did not nobly invest and then make available the seat belt!

The very first auto maker to include seat bests was Ford (1955) although Nash also offered seat belt that year as an option. Volvo, offered the three point in 1959.

The first patent for a seat belt was granted in 1885!

The development of seat belt owes a lot to aircraft design. Volvo's engineer Nils Brohlin developed the design while working for SAAB Aircraft.

In doing so he relied upon the work of designers such as Dr C H Sheldon , the inventors of the Three Point seat belt Roger W. Griswold and Hugh De Haven, and the engineers at Mercedes-Benz.

Nils Brohlin was granted US patent 3043625.

The modern auto seat belt incorporates technology form a large number of registered patents.

Things are always less simple than first appear!
rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by rhills »

marcopolo wrote:The point you make is an interesting one. Obviously there is still a small minority of homophobic bigots. However, I suspect the question of same sex marriage is more complex than that.
Not only do I agree with your analysis of this problem, but I also strongly agree with your proposal. As a child I was brain-washed by the Catholic brethren until my late teens when I had a St Paul of Antioch - style thunderbolt of enlightenment. So, while I am anti-Catholic-establishment, I acknowledge that they and the other Churches believe they have a just claim over the institution named "Marriage". It's taken us some time to reclaim the institution for use by non-religious couples, but the religious right-wing fight tooth and nail against its use by same-sex couples. Methinks they protesteth too much, but that's a whole nuther can-o-worms!

I'd been thinking along the lines of the solution you'd proposed, but hadn't thought it through it nearly as well as I believe you have.

Like you, I suspect that some extreme elements amongst the gay lobby won't be happy until they are allowed access to the "M" word, but a legislative solution along the lines of your proposal would give them equality in all but one tiny corner of this space. Nevertheless, it would hopefully be a large enough corner to keep the opposition forces from feeling they'd lost too much ground.

Now, back to the topic again...
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Petrol Usage to last refill: Jul 2014 - Apr 2020
Total Petrol: 720.1L
ODO: 61386
Av Consumption: 1.17 L/100km
rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by rhills »

marcopolo wrote:Carbon taxes, and Emission trading schemes are not a valid model to deal with Australia's unique environmental circumstance.
So, what do you think is a valid model?

I also have a problem with the inefficiency of Government, but I have a bigger problem with the current process that's simply not producing a solution quickly enough IMHO. Of course, if your belief is, like that of too many in our corridors of power, there is no problem, then there's not much point debating this further.

The problem as I see it is that the price we pay for energy today simply does not factor in the future cost of our using that energy. What incentive is there currently in our Capitalist system to factor this in? Is there a way of making this happen without government regulation?

Even if you set aside for a moment the contentious (to some) issues of whether or not Climate Change is happening and we can stop it, think about the recent catastrophic oil spills. The most recent ones are yet to play to completion, but I believe the evidence from past events like this shows that there may or may not be one or two sacrificial scapegoats, but the majority of people who profited from the processes that led to these disasters, walk away from them with most of their profits intact and the grateful taxpayer is left to clean up the mess.

The GFC is a much more complex example. While there is evidence that Government meddling may have contributed to that disaster, the fact is that there are people whose arms are bloodied to the elbows from their contribution to the GFC who have come away from it with little or no disincentive to do the same thing over again should the opportunity arise.

While I hold many opinions that fit the "socialist" stereotype, I believe that our Capitalist society is better than any alternative that has been tried so far. However that shouldn't stop us from questioning its weaknesses and trying to fix them.
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Petrol Usage to last refill: Jul 2014 - Apr 2020
Total Petrol: 720.1L
ODO: 61386
Av Consumption: 1.17 L/100km
marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo »

rhills wrote: Not only do I agree with your analysis of this problem, but I also strongly agree with your proposal. As a child I was brain-washed by the Catholic brethren until my late teens when I had a St Paul of Antioch - style thunderbolt of enlightenment. So, while I am anti-Catholic-establishment


Thank you for your kind observations.

Like many Roman Catholics you have been affected by the trend over the last 50 years of Catholic teaching being too much Catholic and too little Christian! This is symptomatic of an institutionalised, over academic, priesthood. The ABC's Compass recently screened a program observing the numbers of priests, travelling Europe, US, Australia etc, from Africa, Asia, and South America, as Missionaries to help arrest the decline of faith in the west!!
So, what do you think is a valid model?

I also have a problem with the inefficiency of Government, but I have a bigger problem with the current process that's simply not producing a solution quickly enough IMHO. Of course, if your belief is, like that of too many in our corridors of power, there is no problem, then there's not much point debating this further.

The problem as I see it is that the price we pay for energy today simply does not factor in the future cost of our using that energy. What incentive is there currently in our Capitalist system to factor this in? Is there a way of making this happen without government regulation?
I agree that the planet has a real problem. Even before the concept of global warming we have a problem with pollution, waste disposal, diminishing fish stocks, poor urban development, etc, etc,

We have reached a point where can't continue to burn the remaining precious oil stocks for energy production.

I agree with you that the most effective way, in fact the only effective way, to make a real difference, is within the free enterprise capitalist system.

Of course governments have a role to play. Quite properly, governments are regulators.

It's a governments duty to provide infester. Not the business of operating infrastructure, but as the client, spending taxpayer funds, governments have a duty to get the best product and value.

On the subject of Carbon Emissions, I believe in the Boris Johnson approach, Let technology fix what can be fixed, and offset what can't.

We have to accept that it's simply unrealistic and impractical to stop the use of coal as a major source of energy. Undesirable as this may be, no amount of wishing will provide 87% of the worlds people with a clean green alternative source of power within the foreseeable future.

It's not a question of morality, but simple logistic's.

Having said that, we still have the problem of CO2!

Will a carbon tax really work? Not really, and since the cost will increase everyones power bills, especially the underprivileged, it is undesirable. ETS, more equitable, but hugely inefficient and unwieldy. No one can really decide how it works. In the end in just becomes another impost or tax.

In Australia's case, like most nations we are a major Coal user. Australia is also a major coal exporter.

We not only have to offset our own usage, but if we are responsible, we should offset the effect of the coal we export.

How to accomplish these objectives without, either ruining the economy, or causing endless grief to the taxpayer?

In my opinion, the answer for Australia is the federal government should authorise a $300 billion, 90 year, negotiable (bearer) bond issue!

This fund would be a Government Statutory Authority, and be empowered to invest the money on the development of vast national infrastructure projects. Among these projects would be to turn the northern flood rivers back south (pipeline) to the Murray/Darling basin.

The encouragement of regional development and Very Fast Trains, real water management,develop and utilise alternate energy technologies.

But most of all, create on marginal and sub marginal land, a massive and diverse forest complex.

Such a gigantic eco-system would do much to enhance the planets bio-sphere, compensate for CO2, and eventually provide an asset hundreds of times more valuable than the $300 billion.

All this, and it would cost the Taxpayer nothing, in fact we could lower taxes due to the prosperity created.

In would also ensure that in our great-grandchildrens day, Australia was the envy of the world.

Now that is a real moral example! Oh, and profitable too!

Of course thats just my opinion, but I can see how a politician of vision could sell it.

bga
Senior Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon, 01 Sep 2008, 19:27
Real Name: Bruce Armstrong
Location: Perth WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by bga »

Discussions of carbon taxes may soon seem insignificant as they are overtaken by post peak oil woes.

During the election, Tony Abbot showed that he has moved past being a climate change skeptic to a peak oil skeptic, see here, and the alternative government isn't much better.

It is widely quoted that we will only know when peak oil occurs after it has occurred. This makes it very similar to CO2 driven climate change, in both cases, action has to be taken before the problem becomes obvious and immutable.

I completely agree that it is insanity to be burning oil when it is such a valuable non-renewable (what!, you mean it's not infinite??) resource for making plastics and chemicals. Luckily, there are alternatives, so the plastic age doesn't completely end with oil's demise.

One positive aspect of Hubbert's observations is that the terminal decline of oil is a gradual process, so it's not likely that the world will run out of oil tomorrow and there will be plenty of time wage wars over it.

I have a concern that declining oil will spur increased coal use, which is even worse than oil use and completely the wrong direction to the future. Also, in addition to pushing the atmoshphere well past any likely tipping points, the coal supply will only last 50 years or less at the rates of mining that would be needed.

The clever countries will be planning and executing the exit now, but so far we seem to be in the denial and delay part of a transition.
With so many diversionary tactics in play, such as Hydrogen, Clean Coal, disinformation and elections it's not surprising that governments are not showing leadership.

I totally agree that the only course of action is all sensible courses of action.

This amounts to turning society on it's head and developing a new set of priorities that are in tune with the real world.


I would like to see more people understand the behavior of the exponential function. Politicians and economists universally don't get the idea that it's an open-ended function with a surprisingly short doubling period.
If they did, the prospect of having a few percent population, or 9 or 10 percent annual economic, 'growth' would be seen as deeply disturbing, not a good thing to be applauded.
Last edited by bga on Wed, 25 Aug 2010, 15:34, edited 1 time in total.
It's not the end of the world, but I can see it from here.
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor »

Guys, this is quite unfair. So many interesting points it will take all night to address them ! Image

Important things first....

The Little Red Hen did not have a patent on ANYTHING. She just demonstrated organisation, planning and hard work. It didn't require $Bs or taxes.
She also demonstrated that one chook can make a difference and her success will be noticed. viz. Oz act for yourself and show the world.

Actually, I thought that Landrover (at the snowy mountains scheme) was the first to fit seatbelts to a passenger vehicle. They claim that. Made by Light Aircraft Pty Ltd, Sydney. They came from Aircraft so not patentable.
All that aside, wasn't it Australia who was the first in the world to make the wearing of seatbels compulsary and the US still not !

Good, someone else sees the choice already before us in green power.
All those brainwashed, human induced global warming believers, are you using 100% green power ? Some already do. The rest of you, put your money where your mouth is and stop calling others sceptics while you are hypocrits. Image

I'll take all the rest of the points as comment Image except the infrastructure bonds. They make so much sense.
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 »

bga wrote: Discussions of carbon taxes may soon seem insignificant as they are overtaken by post peak oil woes.During the election, Tony Abbot showed that he has moved past being a climate change skeptic to a peak oil skeptic, ] and the alternative government isn't much better.

It is widely quoted that we will only know when peak oil occurs after it has occurred. This makes it very similar to CO2 driven climate change, in both cases, action has to be taken before the problem becomes obvious and immutable.
I think the point Tony Abbott was making,( and it's perfectly valid), is although oil is definitely a finite resource, it's not going to run out tomorrow! The hysteria of doomsayers predicting an oil-less Armageddon for the last 20 years, has done a great disservice to the cause of Peak oil. Peak oil is not about NO oil, it's about the economic price of oil. Abbott is correct, what price do we pay for oil? If we use the remaining reserves, (and new finds), wisely, while advancing technology to avoid oil usage for wasteful uses like private transport, oil may last over a hundred years.

Luckily, there are alternatives, so the plastic age doesn't completely end with oil's demise


Some plastics maybe able to be made from alternatives, but many other products, including medicines can't. Oil is precious.
I have a concern that declining oil will spur increased coal use, which is even worse than oil use and completely the wrong direction to the future. Also, in addition to pushing the atmosphere well past any likely tipping points, the coal supply will only last 50 years or less at the rates of mining that would be needed.


This is already happening. But, the world coal reserves are truly enormous, 50 years is inaccurate and alarmist.
This amounts to turning society on it's head and developing a new set of priorities that are in tune with the real world.I would like to see more people understand the behaviour of the exponential function. Politicians and economists universally don't get the idea that it's an open-ended function with a surprisingly short doubling period.If they did, the prospect of having a few percent population, or 9 or 10 percent annual economic, 'growth' would be seen as deeply disturbing, not a good thing to be applauded.
One thing that will not get politicians elected, (and if not elected, have no power to do anything), is to offer to turn society on it's head!

The Age of revolutions is over! No matter how much some hanker for revolution, and extremist solutions, it just ain't happening!

The voters demand economic growth! No modern western country is going to restrict the number of children it's citizens can give birth. We are not going to stop creating surpluses, and economic growth. This is what pays for an affluent, consumer society. The voters want an affluent, consumer society! Credit makes for stability. Credit ensures citizens see a 20 year personal debt commitment, as an 'investment'! The modern world takes pride and delight in PRIVATE ownership as a form of free expression.

Centrist politicians understand this, that's why there is so little difference in policies. But remember they command the support of more than 80% of the voters.

The trick is to find effective environmental policies that appear to fit the current economic model, but enhance it!
Acmotor wrote: The Little Red Hen did not have a patent on ANYTHING. She just demonstrated organisation, planning and hard work. It didn't require $Bs or taxes. She also demonstrated that one chook can make a difference and her success will be noticed. viz. Oz act for yourself and show the world.
Well that's a different interpretation, but still valid I suppose!
Actually, I thought that Land-rover (at the snowy mountains scheme) was the first to fit seat belts to a passenger vehicle. They claim that. Made by Light Aircraft Pty Ltd, Sydney. They came from Aircraft so not patentable. All that aside, wasn't it Australia who was the first in the world to make the wearing of seatbelt compulsary and the US still not!
Interesting, I didn't know that about Land-rover. The then owners of Rover, the Wilkes Brothers were keen innovators.

The first compulsory seat belt law was Victoria, followed by the rest of Australia, (1970) then New Zealand, (1972) etc.. The US made the fitting of seat belts compulsory in 1983, but wearing a seat belt is a state by state affair. The PRC it's compulsory for officials, foreigners and Party Members only. (population control?).

bga
Senior Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon, 01 Sep 2008, 19:27
Real Name: Bruce Armstrong
Location: Perth WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by bga »

marcopolo wrote:The voters demand economic growth! No modern western country is going to restrict the number of children it's citizens can give birth. We are not going to stop creating surpluses, and economic growth. This is what pays for an affluent, consumer society. The voters want an affluent, consumer society! Credit makes for stability. Credit ensures citizens see a 20 year personal debt commitment, as an 'investment'! The modern world takes pride and delight in PRIVATE ownership as a form of free expression.


Western governments don't have to legislate family sizes. Mortgages, work pressures and the high cost of raising children do that automatically. Many European countries have a stable to declinig population, as would Australia if it were not for immigration.

KRudd's 'big australia' policy was the result of the politicians runing scared in front of an aging poulation without stopping to think of the consequences. They were trying to maintain a third world age-population profile, the kind obtained in the mid-19th century.
   
I dont think that 50 years of coal is at all alarmist. The projections, such as the 1970 declaration that the USA has 500+ years of coal reserves contained the small text footnote "at current levels of production".
This has moderated since then and the World Coal Institute now says "around 119 years at current rates of production".
Given the by-products of coal burning and the current exansion of mining, even 50 years is probably an over-estimation of the useful life of coal.

The University of Colorado physics professor, Albert Bartlett, makes the point in his video lectures that, at a constant rate of growth, with each doubling, the amount of resources consumed is equal to those consumed in all previous doublings.

At an annual growth rate of 9% in China, this period is less than 8 years. I very much doubt that this can continue for, even two more doublings.

The population may demand GROWTH!, but they're not going to get it for long.

We are definitely heading for the age of disappointment!
It's not the end of the world, but I can see it from here.
marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo »

bga wrote: Western governments don't have to legislate family sizes. Mortgages, work pressures and the high cost of raising children do that automatically. Many European countries have a stable to declinig population, as would Australia if it were not for immigration.
That would appear to work against the arguments suggesting that free market democracies are not self limiting!
I don't think that 50 years of coal is at all alarmist. The projections, such as the 1970 declaration that the USA has 500+ years of coal reserves contained the small text footnote "at current levels of production".This has moderated since then and the World Coal Institute now says "around 119 years at current rates of production
Given the by-products of coal burning and the current expansion of mining, even 50 years is probably an over-estimation of the useful life of coal.
119 years is partly accurate. This estimate is based on 'economic proven reserves' This does not take into account difficult or less economic reserves.

However, I agree it is really semantics as 50 years is hardly here nor there! The quest for sustainable energy grows increasingly pressing as each year passes.

I am a reluctant advocate of nuclear power for Australia. This is not a great option, but will probably become a necessity. 20 years ago, the Australian electorate would have been 85% against nuclear power, today if a referendum were held the majority would support a nuclear option. (even nuclear has a finite lifespan)    

It's really pointless to argue about the virtues of economic growth. The general population demand an ever increasing opportunity to achieve their individual aspirations of success and material comfort. Very few will choose a simple spiritual lifestyle, instead the voters will demand of their unfortunate politicians solutions.

It's to be hoped that a combination of renewable energy technology combined with developing exciting environmental infrastructure can provide the engine for sustainable growth until as Steven Hawking says, we move out explore the rest of the Universe.

This is my prediction, but I will grant you that unless we get a bit better political leadership, we should start investing more in Defence spending!





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 »

marcopolo wrote:we should start investing more in Defence spending!


Good grief don't go suggesting that!!
If we stopped spending money on defence and burned it as an energy source instead we could stop mining coal.
marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo »

Squiggles wrote: Good grief don't go suggesting that!!
If we stopped spending money on defence and burned it as an energy source instead we could stop mining coal.


WE have made a note of your opinion, We have passed it on to THEM, who will Be investigating your activities! This will be conducted with an authorised gratuitous maximum degree of bias. This is all for your own good, and the decent member of the community, oh..and of of course to protect the kiddies. (spoken and read by the Independents Day committee, Rev F,Nile pres. Wilson Tuckey, press officer)

Remember, we know what you drive!!
EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by EVNoob »

marcopolo wrote:
bga wrote: Western governments don't have to legislate family sizes. Mortgages, work pressures and the high cost of raising children do that automatically. Many European countries have a stable to declinig population, as would Australia if it were not for immigration.
That would appear to work against the arguments suggesting that free market democracies are not self limiting!
I don't think that 50 years of coal is at all alarmist. The projections, such as the 1970 declaration that the USA has 500+ years of coal reserves contained the small text footnote "at current levels of production".This has moderated since then and the World Coal Institute now says "around 119 years at current rates of production
Given the by-products of coal burning and the current expansion of mining, even 50 years is probably an over-estimation of the useful life of coal.
119 years is partly accurate. This estimate is based on 'economic proven reserves' This does not take into account difficult or less economic reserves.

However, I agree it is really semantics as 50 years is hardly here nor there! The quest for sustainable energy grows increasingly pressing as each year passes.

I am a reluctant advocate of nuclear power for Australia. This is not a great option, but will probably become a necessity. 20 years ago, the Australian electorate would have been 85% against nuclear power, today if a referendum were held the majority would support a nuclear option. (even nuclear has a finite lifespan)    

It's really pointless to argue about the virtues of economic growth. The general population demand an ever increasing opportunity to achieve their individual aspirations of success and material comfort. Very few will choose a simple spiritual lifestyle, instead the voters will demand of their unfortunate politicians solutions.

It's to be hoped that a combination of renewable energy technology combined with developing exciting environmental infrastructure can provide the engine for sustainable growth until as Steven Hawking says, we move out explore the rest of the Universe.

This is my prediction, but I will grant you that unless we get a bit better political leadership, we should start investing more in Defence spending!






The problem is that nuclear power plant economics is just not viable in Australia with our population without CPRS compared with Coal, but as time goes on, Solar Thermal is a better option (still in infancy) but in 10 to 20 years time it will be at the same level. Maybe in the twenty years with population growth, Nuclear power might be an option then.
7circle
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu, 04 Feb 2010, 02:18
Real Name: Ken
Location: Melbourne

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by 7circle »

When it comes to Land that needs to be used for a Highway or Train line.
Government bodies can spend tax dollars to obtain the lands.

For supplying antiviral drugs to save lives in flu breakouts.
The government can step in and spend tax dollars.

When it comes to E-M bandwidth to transmit Radio, TV, Mobile phones CB radios, etc the government auctions it off and protects the purchaser's "rights" to use that bandwidth without others using it.
Unregulated the Electro-Magnetic wave energy would pose severe safety risks.

But when it comes to Carbon Pollution should the Government step back and let the market sort its self out. What is the Market concerned with when it comes to Energy production. [Selling of as much of it as it can, at the highest price it can]

So is the issue limited oil or Peak Oil or carbon gas emissions effecting the average temperature of the planet.

Look, I can get that their can be conspiracies for making a scary climate change scenario to make the Energy Security issue a higher priority, now that some are seeing a limit to the reserves.

But is the issue Oil reserves or Green House gases.

Most of the topic suggests that Oil reserves are what's pushing this issue from those comments.

Okay so can you trust the market forces without any regulation to provide an energy backbone that will be minial in CO2e emmisions.
NO! Their needs to be regulation and cap's.

A future where the cost of repair, maintenance on renewable energy infrastructure is the issue. Will it be cheaper or more expensive.

People have known about this issue for more than 30 years.
Now they appear to be screaming like cats and dogs on the way to the vet to loose their Reproduction organs. (sorry had to fire up the "Anti-Humanist" itch Image or is it Uranium dust)
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor »

Agreed, emissions, not fossil fuel reserves are the issue at present.

Regulation, that direction you support, covers the sale of green energy by energy retailers, so are you 100% green energy connected ?

This may be unpopular, but, like public transport where if people paid a realistic fare then there would be money to provide a realistic service, energy is too cheap and should be charged at the rate that it costs to produce it... without emissions.
This can be done by promotion, education and government policy. e.g. do not approve another coal PS and set closure date for existing ones.
This certainty will force future planning. If we have power restrictions while new zero emission generation comes on line then so be it.

Let providers pass on the real cost of producing zero emission alternatives without government price control on electricity. e.g. direct action.
Compared with coal PS continuing and more being built because the companies can buy their way out of being polluters.

Lets control emissions, not trade in them. The whole point of this thread.
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 »

7circle wrote: But is the issue Oil reserves or Green House gases.
Most of the topic suggests that Oil reserves are what's pushing this issue from those comments.

Okay so can you trust the market forces without any regulation to provide an energy backbone that will be minial in CO2e emmisions.
NO! Their needs to be regulation and cap's.


Both issues are relevant.

We must to start to prepare for a world without cheap plentiful fossil fuel energy. At the same time we must consider the importance of carbon emissions to individual economies.

The first is a problem that will clearly effect Australia. The economic and scientific arguments supporting the depletion of fossil fuel reserves are not disputed, only a technical debate about how quickly.

The arguments relating to scenic validity of man made carbon emissions, are growing more complex and vociferous. Issues such as, the advent of more effective technologies,adopted at a faster rate, falling emissions as the age of oil comes to a close, the accuracy of GW science, the validity of the modelling, scepticism of much is science are how much is dogma and propaganda, from vested interests, along with a vast array of divergent opinions, have become hotly disputed factors in an unceasingly polarised debate, embracing a wide and diverse cross section of the wider community.

It's my contention that if Australian's realistically consider Australia's small population, and the practicalities of our own situation, it becomes obvious that we should concentrate on developing solutions to the first problem and offset the second.

Attempting to resolve the world problem's on our own domestic economy would be disastrous, (and delusional) The result would be totally ineffective in overall effect, and only serve to flatter some people moral philosophies, at the expense of effective action.

It's pointless to ask sacrifice from an unwilling and disbelieving electorate. Political suicide for any serious politician, except those whose splendid moral self-righteousness allows a seat in the senate with due to the oddity of proportional representation.

Our economic priority should be to support the development of technologies to resolve the first issue and exploit the unique potential Australia has to offset the second, producing an unparallelled asset for future generations.

Nothing will be achieved by a delusional crippling of Australia's potential without accomplishing any beneficial outcome. Imposing ridiculous taxes and restrictions to a produce minuscule biosphere benefit, only to economically cripple our nation will never be accepted by the electorate.
Acmotor wrote: Lets control emissions, not trade in them. The whole point of this thread.
Well, if you mean that a 'Clean Air Act' is more effective than a weird trading scheme, you are correct. However,the degree to which regulations are effective, must be estimated on the industries ability to technically comply. If not, the economic cost of the loss of that industry must be calculated. We could for instance, avoid oil spills by banning oil exploration and drilling. Such a policy would obviously be considered impractical. On the other hand, we have abolished such industries as asbestos mining etc..

It's a fine balance, but in principle, I agree with you that only by exposing industries to real-value pricing, can we create an environment or alternate technologies to be economically developed.       
User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor »

Ok, breaking news. The G has put foot in it and has started her bomb ticking. "without a carbon trading scheme, power in Australia will run short". So are we all noddies in the background of the TV shoot ? Image

This is one of those errors that polies make that will cost them dearly. A bit like babies overboard. "Bad advice made me do it"
My guess, 6 months max.
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 »

She will fall on her sword sooner than that.
Post Reply