Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print
a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's (Read 47562 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24193
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #15 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:20pm
 
"Not really" proves my point which you were disputing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6243
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #16 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 2:43am
 
Well this initiative from The Greens is a positive step forward which I heartily agree with, and think that FD has already covered the basic positives of this scheme.

One thing Soren said does deserve further consideration, I think;

Quote:
'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.


now I think that he is misunderstanding the original premise here, he says the message is just to, "use less energy", but it is not that at all, the message is to, use less, high emission, finite, fossil fuel based energy.

And that is the right signal, and having a tax specific to energy derived that way will help us to develop what we want, a"different", read as cleaner and more sustainable, energy source.

I was never a fan of the governments planned Cap and Trade scheme, and have always found the idea of a straight forward tax a simpler and better option, and this proposal from the Greens can deliver that to us, so I agree that all who are concerned about tackling rising emissions, and all who are concerned about avoiding convoluted Cap and Trade schemes, should consider the request to voice their support for this scheme, to newspapers, and other media forums, as well as to their local MP.

I most certainly will be.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5951
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #17 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:40am
 
If new taxes were to be introduced, I'd want to know that the funds were being directly pumped into research and development, othewise they'd end up being used as just another excuse for useless governments.

The latest step forward in solar technology sounds promising, and developed right here in Melbourne:
http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2010/03/solar-panels-made-three-times-cheaper-a...

Developing better alternatives will be the only way to really "fix" the problem. Introducing new taxes may be an incentive, but it's going about it in an ass-about fashion and leaves the door ajar for incompetent governments to use the taxes as a cash cow.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38420
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #18 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:40am
 
mozzaok wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 2:43am:
One thing Soren said does deserve further consideration, I think;

Quote:
'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.





Using less energy is one of the cheapest options for reducing emissions, and one that many other schemes miss. Many people (presumable Soren) confuse our past 'dependence' on fossil fuels by equating energy consumption with quality of life. They are not the same thing. What we need are the products and services that we produce with energy (and many other resources), not the energy itself. If we can produce the same stuff, or an equally good set of things, with 10% of the energy, it won't harm us to do so.

Quote:
If new taxes were to be introduced, I'd want to know that the funds were being directly pumped into research and development, othewise they'd end up being used as just another excuse for useless governments.


This is a bad idea. The point is to put a price on emissions, not raise revenue for something. Wouldn't it be far better to use it to reduce other taxes and improve the economy?

Grendel, you are missing the point. I am not necessarily disputing what you say. I am saying that it is ambiguous and ultimately meaningless, in the same way that complaining that income tax is a tax on everything doesn't really get you anywhere.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5951
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #19 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:06am
 
Sounds to me like you're talking about a sleight of hand there FD. It's the old Howard shell game.
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant. You are talking about reducing the requirement of current lifestyles, not the size of the pea.

Agreed, we can all (westerners) get by very easily whilst reducing our energy consumption. Reducing the population would accomplish the same.

It's not realistic. Our population will grow and grow and grow, the economy demands it.
There's no use in the ever tightening of the screws in an economy that is built upon wants rather than needs. I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.








Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38420
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #20 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:17am
 
Quote:
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant.


This is completely wrong. You can produce the same outcome - goods and services - with a fraction of the energy. Isn't it obvious that if energy is free, people will waste it?

Quote:
I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.


It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5951
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #21 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:40am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:17am:
Quote:
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant.


This is completely wrong. You can produce the same outcome - goods and services - with a fraction of the energy. Isn't it obvious that if energy is free, people will waste it?


You are not getting my meaning.
I'm saying that there is a basal energy requirement, and this is a constant.
The more the population increases, the more that that basal requirement will also increase.
I'm not talking about wastage or efficiency. Yes we can save a hell of a lot of energy by being more efficient, but this will not reduce the basal requirement (being the pea).
And who would put up with being forced to cut back to the bear basal requirement? Not many.
In effect, I'm agreeing with Soren here that energy sources that are already out there in abundance need to be harnessed. The real wastage is that we already have a lot of know-how to employ it, and it's not being used.
As long as fossil fuels are the cheaper alternative, then they will be used. The only way to stop that cycle is to make clean fuels the cheaper alternative. More taxes are a load of garbage unless they are there for the sole purpose of bringing about a more sustainable future. I'd be very suspicious of that one.


Quote:
I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.


Quote:
It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.


It's a bandaid. The acceptable submission to government demands is a constant and always has been.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5951
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #22 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:00am
 
Quote:
It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.


So 0% is the extiguishment of life, and 100% is a total full-on wastage that is probably not attainable?
Where's the happy medium?





Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #23 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 11:37am
 
Darwin wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 5:06pm:
Stuff the Greens. A CPRS could have been in the process of being set up now, with negotiations ongoing to raise the carbon price. This will do nothing because the Greens think that after the election they will have the BoP in the Senate and think Labor will come up with a new scheme they can approve. BS! The CPRS is all we got and all we will have!

The Greens are using the issue, the core reason supposedly for their existence, to play politics and garner more support. I hope no one votes for the idiots!


All we have at this stage is the Renewable Energy Target Scheme which was introduced in August last year.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target.aspx

Effectively large energy consumers currently pay an extra tax on their energy (electricity, natural gas etc) and some can claim back some of that tax using the Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed industry assistance scheme originally intended for the CPRS.

Along with Energy Efficient Opportunities, administered by the (Commonwealth)  Department of Resources Energy and Tourism, NGERS and Gas Electricity Certificates (here is Queensland) it's making life very complicated right now for industry.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24193
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #24 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 11:48am
 
Yes all this alarmism and people like Gore trying to make big bucks out of it is making things very complicated when they don't need to be,

NSW is having 60% added to their electricity bills due to the CPRS that doesn't even exist and a lot of people will not be able to afford this type of rise in price.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38420
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #25 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:58pm
 
Quote:
I'm saying that there is a basal energy requirement, and this is a constant.


There is no fundamental minimum requirement. If there was, you could tell us what it is. But you can't, can you?

Quote:
I'm not talking about wastage or efficiency. Yes we can save a hell of a lot of energy by being more efficient, but this will not reduce the basal requirement (being the pea).


So you are complaining about the last 1% before we eliminate the first 99%? Is that what you mean by pea?

Quote:
As long as fossil fuels are the cheaper alternative, then they will be used. The only way to stop that cycle is to make clean fuels the cheaper alternative.


Taxes are the most appropriate way to make renewable alternatives cheaper. Their benefit is that they also capture the car cheaper options of emissions reductions. The fact is, people would prefer to reduce their consumption of electricity than to use the same amount and pay a lot more for it. Who are you to decide whether they go with reducing consumption or paying more for alternatives, and to what extent they choose each? You are in effect limiting their choice by saying the government should dictate the extent to which each option is implimented. An emissions tax on the other hand would let the end consumer decide.

Quote:
More taxes are a load of garbage unless they are there for the sole purpose of bringing about a more sustainable future. I'd be very suspicious of that one.


That is what they are there for. The difference is they do this by correcting the price signals in the market, rather than increasing government revenue so that they can go on elaborate spending sprees for the environment.

Quote:
It's a bandaid. The acceptable submission to government demands is a constant and always has been.


This doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
So 0% is the extiguishment of life


No. 0% is the elimination of anthropogenic emissions.

Quote:
and 100% is a total full-on wastage that is probably not attainable


100% is 'business as usual'.

Quote:
Where's the happy medium?


I think that is what the IPCC is getting at. Maybe 50% in 50 years. I'm not sure on the details. Obviously it will depend on the long term cost. If it is easier than expected to reduce emissions, people will want to reduce them more. If it is harder than expected, people will put up with the climate change.

Quote:
NSW is having 60% added to their electricity bills due to the CPRS


Excellent.

Quote:
a lot of people will not be able to afford this type of rise in price


They should lower other taxes.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24193
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #26 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:58pm
 
Quote:
No. 0% is the elimination of anthropogenic emissions.


And with it the end of us all... for to stop all our emissions we'd have to stop  breathing   Cheesy
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2010 at 8:57am by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38420
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #27 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:01pm
 
Not that you want to be an alarmist, hey Grendel?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24193
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #28 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:06pm
 
Nothing alarmist about that at all...  just common sense...  we exhale CO2 to create a non-human-emissions environment we have to stop breathing.

As for fear of man made emissions, there has always been warming and cooling, CO2 levels go up and down... naturally.  What are you going to do about those emissions?

Oh and plants need CO2 to survive, wee need plants to survive.... oh and CO2 at high altitudes actually cool the planet not warm it...  what about that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38420
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #29 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:13pm
 
Why would I want to do anything about that?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print