Carbon Price announced today

i wish i said that

 

Just keep an open mind guys.... The nuclear industry is heavily subsidised

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm

Journal article in full here;
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=17358

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm (the original 'Australian' is now gone since it's a 2005 article)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/nuclear-power-an-expensive-wa/

Also some food for thought;

Do windfarms consume more power than they produce?
http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Long_term_management_of_waste

Emphasis mine:

The ability for clean disposal of nuclear waste is just a technological hurdle. My main concern about nuclear reactors is that they could become a target during a war. Maybe they can mitigate that risk too by some means (deep underground bunker ala "the hive" from resident evil perhaps).

Agree totally with you on the importance of dealing with nuclear waste responsibly. Unfortunately, "laws" and "regulations" are merely treated as guidelines. The globe is now already covered in radioactive fallout because of the Gulf wars which is picked up by the winds and dispersed far and wide.

 

Perhaps not, but breeder reactors like the IFR design could - high level radioactive waste coming out of an IFR reactor has a half life of 400 years compared to the 10,000 year half life of waste produced in a LWR.

GenIV reactors basically run on the waste produced by (current) GenIII reactors, which isn't really that surprising when you consider that "radioactive" means "still contains a lot of energy".

 

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
- Mohandas Gandhi

I agree with you that an opposition that opposes everything just for that sake is fruitless. Opposition should attempt to find the flaws in the government's proposals. But, some of your suggestions sound like you want the opposition to do the government's job for them.

It's not like it matters. Its a facade anyway. I think it's hilarious that people think Tony will scrap the tax if they win power.

Oh, I'm sure someone knows who will be running the system.

"Would it be bad if big financial interests got involved? Then say they shouldn't"....LOL! Priceless. Wait, are you still living under the illusion that we have a democracy? This is not a democracy. The world has never seen a democracy - and can not as long as wealth & power is consolidated into the hands of a few.

You and I don't matter to these sociopaths. Modern society is like a sieve. The "good" people fall through the cracks while the parasitic demons remain and rise to take power over the rest of us. They grow like a fucking cancer.

Regulated? You mean like the CFTC?...LOL, please.

You just chastised us for trying to find flaw in the AGW software & climate change science because we are "normal people". Now you seriously think us "normal people" can create a system that can't be exploited by the financial terrorists? Are you serious? LOL.

They own everything! They own the regulators! They own the government! Fucking hell.

They are so good at what they do they can manipulate the price of hard money!!! Carbon credit market doesn't stand a chance.

No, BHP probably wouldn't reduce their emissions. Giving billions in carbon credits upfront to BHP would be fundamentally retarded, and is akin to giving Obama the Nobel peace prize before he does a damn thing.

Alternatively, the establishment is on the prowl for more blood. Anything that can further their grip on the nations of the world excites them because they are always lusting for more. Transitioning to an ETS is one of the ways the bankster scum will be able to impose economic control over sovereign nations.

 

Okay, so do your best to see that doesn't happen.

If you're going to make yourself heard on the issue by writing to a newspaper or your local MP or by calling talkback radio (or whatever), don't bother saying "I don't want a carbon tax". Say something like "if the government is going to get a big whack of extra revenue, I want to see a national solar feed-in tariff so I can afford to put panels on my roof, like the tariff that the NSW government had to reduce because it was so successful and would have cost a lot of money (which is now available again via the tax).

Seriously, a transitioning to low carbon economy has been in the pipeline for years now. Work out how you can benefit from the change and advocate for that instead.

 

Ah, co-opt their movement for our gain. Good strategy. Are you sure your not in government?

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Method

Start by agreeing wholeheartedly with the idea. Go along to meetings, be an advocate and become a leading light.

Then notice limitations of the idea and create extensions to it to cope with your very legitimate concerns. Keep doing this until you are in control.

Then, when people can no longer keep up point out that the system is now unworkable and problematic and so should be terminated. Alternatively quietly drop the system in favor of a new and improved system which you own, lock, stock and barrel.

Example

Microsoft developed its own version of Java, a web programming language, with various extensions that would only work on Microsoft platforms, thus inhibiting Java from becoming a platform-independent system. Internet Explorer also was not fully compatible with open worldwide web standards.

Discussion

Embracing develops trust, showing enthusiasm and lets you get close to the core of what you actually oppose. Extension then corrupts the system, preventing its universal use. This leads others to becoming frustrated with the system and eventually applauding you when you kill it.

'Embrace, extend, extinguish' was a method purportedly used by Microsoft to confound those who would produce standards that support freer trade and competition against Microsoft.

 

I'm not in government, but I am unfortunate enough to live in NSW so I know what happens when governments think in election cycles rather than in long term infrastructure timeframes.

(or should that be ?)

 

Amen.

 

Whether global warming is a "science" or not, whether its predictions are correct or not, has nothing to do with the legitimacy of imposing a TAX on carbon emissions as a way to reduce those emissions. It just raises the cost of living as prices have to float higher to cope.

Do you think Macquarie Bank buys Toll Roads to reduce traffic or tap the wealth of commuters?

You big-government apologists are on the wrong side of history and are actively participating in a fraud to fleece the people of even more of their wealth for the benefit of and redistribution to the few.

Further, this TAX:
Just moves pollution problems elsewhere by reducing the international competitiveness of Australian enterprises forcing relocations to lower cost, higher polluting nations such as China;
Will damage a fragile economy by forcing up the price of all locally produced inputs, increasing costs to an already strained consumer suffering under already increasing interest rates, fuel costs with little or no disposable income to speak of, while forcing the closure of those businesses that are marginal and cannot afford to relocate off-shore.
Will reduce foreign investment by changing the rules for businesses operating here . . . again (sovereign risk ), and reducing the profit level of Australian based businesses;
Is not socially equitable Those of least means will be hurt worst by increasing power bills.
Is a pillar for taxing lifeitself through establishing a cost of CO2 emissions, so too is a TAX on life itself possible.

There is nothing beneficial about this TAX, it will not stop emissions, will put Australians out of work, make Australia less competitive internationally, will reduce the standard of living worst for those who can least afford it and is the basis of a population control agenda.

That makes supporters of this TAX traitors to their Country, their fellow Australians and future generations.

 

The next solar cycle is predicted to be a doozy with massive solar activity. Last time i checked the sun was not part of our atmosphere and i dont think the sun gives a damn about a carbon tax.

 

Enron, James Hardie, World Com, Bond Corp, Blackwater, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, ABC Learning, Midas, BHP etc etc

 

well, the commondreams.org article you linked to says this:

As for the article about wind farms possibly consuming more power than they produce, it's completely speculative and doesn't actually give any figures at all - just asks the question... and given that in some countries wind power comprises over 50% of the electricity generated, I'm pretty sure the answer to the question is NO.

 

Make the same argument against the Medicare levy then. Convince me that paying an extra 1.5% tax makes me worse off that if I was living in the U.S. where there they don't have the same standard of public health care that we do.

All those points have been rebutted further back in the thread.

Okay, lets look at the figures then shall we?

Say your household uses 30 KWh per day. Assuming you don't have an off-peak hot water service, you'll be paying about $470 per quarter (91 days)

Now, a 3 KW solar array will cost you about $6000 and it will generate 4270 KW per year (if you live in Sydney because that represents how much sun Sydney gets). That works out at 11.69 KW per day which means you've just slashed your households net grid energy usage by more than a third.

Since you probably use about 35% of your electricity on lighting, you can ditch your old tungsten filament light globes and replace them with LEDs that consume about 7% of the energy that and old bulb does. That means the 10 KWh-odd per day you were using is reduced to about 750w and you have just reduced your total energy consumption about a third.

You are now using 20.5 KWh per day and 11.69 of them are coming from the solar panels on your roof. That translates to more than a 50% reduction in your electricity bill for an outlay of $6000 and at that rate your solar array will pay for itself in a little over 6 years. After that, its free juice.

But wait, there's more!

If (like many people) you're out at work during the day, your electricity consumption will be minimal. The fridge will be on, you might leave your computer and modem on to do something in the background, etc. All the electricity you generate isn't being used and you can sell it back into the grid. You buy it for about 20c/KWh and, under the old NSW Solar Bonus Scheme, you could sell it for 60c/KWh.

Say the carbon tax brings in enough revenue to offer a national 50c/KWh feed-in tariff and the price of dirty electricity rises to 25c/KWh. Your solar array will bring in $5.85 per KWh and your grid usage will cost $2.20 per KWh. Obviously you'll use more electricity when you get home from work while the sun isn't shining, but you'll probably be at about break even point, meaning that for an investment of $6000 you won't actually pay for electricity any more.

Of course $6000 is a big lump of cash to stump up at once, so if you borrowed it using a personal loan at 11% p.a. and paid it back over 5 years, your repayments would be about $130 per month, or $390 per quarter.

Your electricity bill is currently $470 per quarter.

My head hurts now.

Do I need to do that last sum to work out whether you'll be worse off or can you figure it out for yourself?

Buy some solar panels and quit whingeing.

 

Buy some solar panels and wait for the EMP that will wipe them out?

 

Whether solar panels are a good investment or not is another question, but if they get wiped out by an EMP pulse I'm sure you'll have WAY more to worry about than the solar panels!

 

I'm unaware of tax traitors but here's what's covered by treachery in the Australian Constitution

 

Make up your mind. Who do you want to screw the Country over?


James Hardie killed Australians and not a single person even looked like going to jail.

 

The only thing that has been refuted is your grasp on reality. You continue to demonstrate the extent to which you wish to engage in fantasy to rationalise your belief in the benevolence of your beloved big-taxing, big-wealth redistributing, socialist ideals.

You offer nothing but what-if, hypothetical scenarios that are products of your imagination and pass them off as fact.

I'm here to tell you that people have minimal or no discretionary spending ability left and taxing the country for its CO2 emissions is treasonous to the common good of its people (if not HFRH QE2 . . . give me a break! - and anyway who the hell has a signature about masturbating, Nugget?!).

That you dare to call me a whinger, while instructing me how to spend my money demonstrates exactly my point about who you are. Look in the mirror, mate. I'm standing up for my rights as a sovereign individual who is not willing to entertain a TAX that would in principle challenge my right to breath freely. You call me a whinger and instruct my on how to spend my money. This completely exposes your treachery.

Either demonstrate unequivocally how this TAX will reduce carbon emissions or acknowledge yourself as a wealth re-distributing communist hypocrite who believes in their moral superiority to over-ride the rights of individuals like me, for the sake of the collective.

 

personal attack removed