FYI: Tax rates going up

[MAD]

But increased temperatures due to excess CO2 was the cause of that volcano.
Dont you know when you heat something it expands, and if it is a gas, or liquid (magma), in a solid container (Earth's crust), it increases in pressure.

[Statler]

The following article by Ross Gittins an Economist with the SMH makes sence of ALL the ******** and crap that is written and said about the carbon tax

"Carbon 'money-go-round' explained
Ross Gittins explains how Julia Gillard's carbon tax will not reduce the average person's disposable income

Give and take: this new tax is a piece of cake

Years ago, the Keating government had a problem with pensioners wasting taxpayers' money on prescriptions. Knowing their elderly patients got their prescriptions free, doctors were happily issuing ones their patients might or might not end up needing and pensioners were taking them to the chemist and getting them filled, just in case. Many of these often very expensive drugs were not used.

So the government decided to impose a nominal fee on pensioner prescriptions of $2 a pop, just to make people think twice about whether they'd be needed. But, anxious though it was to save big money by reducing the waste of taxpayer-subsidised pharmaceuticals, the government had no desire to leave pensioners out of pocket. It worked out the average number of prescriptions pensioners had filled, multiplied it by $2, and increased pensions by that amount.

I dredge up this story because it may help you understand something about Julia Gillard's planned carbon tax that many people find puzzling.
If Gillard is imposing a carbon tax to raise the price of electricity and gas, with some flow through to the prices of other items, so as to discourage us from using so much fossil fuel, why is she undoing the effect by giving us back most of the tax we'll pay as cuts in income tax and increases in pensions and family benefits?

What's the point of this money-go-round, as Tony Abbott calls it? How can it do any good?

Though the carbon tax will raise about $9 billion a year in revenue, raising revenue is not its primary purpose. Rather, its purpose is to change people's behaviour. And one of the most basic ideas in economics is that the best way to change people's behaviour is to change the prices they face. If there's some activity you wish to discourage, raise its price relative to all the other prices people pay.

When, after a cyclone, the price of bananas shoots up relative to the prices of other fruit, people tend to buy fewer bananas and more apples and oranges. When the price of beef rises more than other meat, people buy less beef and more chicken.

The thinking is that if you raise the price of fossil fuels and emissions-intensive goods relative to the prices of all the other things people buy, they'll change their spending in ways that reduce the use of fossil fuels.
It's not necessary to leave people worse off to get them to change their spending patterns. And since the primary purpose of the carbon tax is to change relative prices rather than to raise revenue, you may as well return the revenue to people by cutting income tax and increasing benefits.
(You can't give back all the revenue because you're using part of it for other purposes, so you favour low- and middle-income households and let higher-income households take it on the chin. Since your calculations about how much the carbon tax will cost people are based on averages, and not everyone fits the average, you give low-income households a bit more than the average so fewer of them are undercompensated.)

Now, you may say finding ways to cut your use of electricity and gas isn't as simple as buying apples rather than bananas, and you'd be right. There are ways to reduce energy use around the house, but I suspect the main way people will respond is by buying a more energy-efficient model the next time they're replacing an appliance.

If you think no amount of energy saving in the home is likely to bring about the degree of reduction in fossil fuel use we needed to achieve, you'd also be right.

People have an automatic tendency to apply government moves such as this to themselves and their homes but, in fact, the relative price change is directed mainly at the big industrial users of electricity and, more particularly, the generators of electricity.

It's when their existing power stations come to the end of their useful lives and are replaced by less-polluting generators that the big steps forward will be made.

The government claims the changes it will make to the income tax scale - lifting the tax-free threshold from $6000 a year to $18,200 - is a major reform, meaning about a million people will no longer have to submit tax returns.

Tony Abbott counters that it's a terrible change: ''This is the first time in a generation that marginal tax rates have been increased.'' The bottom tax rate of 15 per cent is to be increased to 19 per cent, and the second rate of 30 per cent increased to 32.5 per cent.

Both sides are playing on the public's ignorance of the complexities of the tax system, in particular the operation of the ''low-income tax offset'' of $1500 a year, which lifts the present effective tax-free threshold from $6000 to $16,000, but is then clawed back after people's incomes exceed $30,000 a year, at the rate of 4¢ in the dollar.

Under the new arrangement, this offset will be cut to $445 a year and its rate of withdrawal cut to 1.5¢ in the dollar. When you take this into account, Labor's grand reform becomes a minor reform. Most of the million people aren't paying tax under the present system, they just have to put in a return to claim the offset.

As for Abbott, the change will involve no increase in anyone's effective marginal tax rate. All it means is that the hidden 4 per cent rate at which the offset is withdrawn will no longer be hidden.

The carbon tax is neither as good as Gillard claims nor as bad as Abbott claims. Funny, that.


Ross Gittins is The Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor.


here's the link to the article

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...712-1hc2k.html

the sky is not going to fall in.

Statler

[gtfpv]

OMG !!!! I HAVE tried to keep up to date with this thread , but the reading and links require more time than 24 hours can give me .
conclusion . my understanding of human has diminished . there is lots of frustrated insanity about . i dont know whether anti psychotics work or are causing this twistedness .
sits back and waits for ridicule on spelling errors and grammar.

i can see it's possible tog get into a state of permanant dissarray here . i better stick to just eating breathing and sleeping .

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Statler

the sky is not going to fall in.

Statler

I'm sure I found a piece in the backyard this morning

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Statler

The following article by Ross Gittins an Economist with the SMH makes sence of ALL the ******** and crap that is written and said about the carbon tax ...


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...712-1hc2k.html

the sky is not going to fall in.

Statler

And in the interests of balance, here is an alternative perspective:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226094872101

THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running.

This implies that in next year's US presidential election, likely to be fought at a time of high unemployment, the winning candidate will campaign on the basis of introducing a carbon tax that will go from zero to $30 a tonne in a matter of months. And that tax will then not only get through Congress but in record time.

Moreover, that feat accomplished, by 2021 China will sign up too, and with 14 per cent of the world's population and barely 20 per cent of world income, will agree to shoulder 34 to 35 per cent of the costs of global mitigation. As part of that deal, China's leadership will accept a fall in national living standards, relative to business as usual, of between 5 and 10 per cent, while per capita incomes in the far wealthier US and European Union decline by a fraction of that amount. And with China on board, the rest of the world will join the party.

These assumptions are central to Treasury's analysis, not least because they ensure that by the time Australia moves to an ETS, there is a fully functioning world market for emissions permits. That world market makes it possible for permits bought overseas to contribute two-thirds of the mitigation we achieve during the period to 2020. In contrast, were the market as it is today, with more than 80 per cent of permit trading occurring within the EU, Australian demand for permits would significantly drive up prices, increasing Treasury's estimated abatement costs.

The only uncertainty Treasury envisages with respect to global action is whether it might not prove even more ambitious in seeking cuts in emissions. There is, in other words, no likelihood of the world not reaching comprehensive, credible agreement, nor is there any possibility of backsliding from the strictly voluntary pledges made at Cancun.

Why these assumptions are plausible, much less compelling, is never explained in Treasury's report. All it says by way of justification is that a "co-ordinated international policy framework is ultimately in all countries' best interests". Perhaps, but so are perpetual peace and global free trade. And history shows it is rarely wise to confuse aspirations for reality.

Rather, sensible analysis requires examining what happens if one's hopes do not eventuate. That, however, is the one outcome Treasury does not consider. It discusses the scenario in which the world acts and we act with it and that in which the rest of the world takes vigorous action while Australia free-rides. But the scenario in which we act while our main competitors do not is never analysed.

That this will be viewed as a glaring omission is plainly not lost on Treasury. It therefore advances a startling proposition: that "if global action is less than assumed, Australian mitigation costs will be lower, not higher, than reported".

Taken at face value, such a claim seems implausible. After all, in the absence of global agreement, action by Australia would be an exercise in futility. As a result, even if unilateral cuts in emissions required fewer resources than needed to achieve comparable cuts on a co-ordinated basis, the fact they were pointless would mean their costs, properly defined, were greater, as good money was being poured down the drain.

But Treasury's point may be subtler: that if we have decided to reduce emissions by some amount, regardless of whether it is futile or not to do so, we might use fewer resources in achieving it when we go it alone.

This, Treasury suggests, is because buying permits overseas would be cheaper under unilateral action, as there would be less demand for them. Perhaps, but the supply of permits would also be far lower and the market in which they are traded less developed and poorly integrated. Additionally, Treasury argues, weaker global action would strengthen world demand for resources compared with Treasury's reference scenario. And indeed it would. But if we act and large parts of the world do not, more of that higher demand will shift to our untaxed or less taxed competitors. With resource prices higher than they would otherwise be, each tonne of coal thus displaced implies a greater loss of Australian income.

As a result, Treasury's claim is hardly compelling. And the fact Treasury provides no modelling to support its assertions does not inspire confidence.

Moreover, if we are indeed committed to reducing Australia's emissions, regardless of whether doing so will make any difference, the policy issue would be how that goal could be achieved at least cost. Imposing a large and steadily rising tax on our exports, as will happen under the government's plan, is surely unlikely to meet that test.

Rather, the approach of former senior Treasury official and co-founder of Access Economics, Geoff Carmody, which involves a carbon tax that, like the GST, exempts exports but taxes imports, would seem a superior option. And Tony Abbott's plan, which does not tax exports to anywhere near the same extent as the government proposes, could also be far cheaper in a world where our main resource competitors do not follow our lead. But those are possibilities Treasury simply ignores.

Yet Treasury's analysis, whatever its flaws, should focus us on a central question: how can it make sense to commit to an enormously costly reduction in emissions when, in the absence of comprehensive, global agreement, we have no reason to believe it will make any difference?

Why should the 5 per cent target be a sacred cow, unchallenged as the prospects for international action recede?

And if mitigation could merely lead to economic losses while leaving global emissions unchanged, would it not be better to instead devote greater resources to preparing for possible adaptation to climate change?

Treasury's report does not address any of these issues. Rather, it starts from implausible assumptions to reach conclusions that are no less implausible for being rigorously derived. That may suit the government, which determined the scope of Treasury's work.

But it is not what proper policy analysis requires. And it is not what the community, as it grapples with these issues, demands and can legitimately expect.

[Auslandau]

What a crock that article is .....

When, after a cyclone, the price of bananas shoots up relative to the prices of other fruit, people tend to buy fewer bananas and more apples and oranges. When the price of beef rises more than other meat, people buy less beef and more chicken.

Does this twit realise that when bananas went up ..... you didn't have to buy them? The BIG problem is the bananas, the apples, the oranges ..... EVERYTHING will go up! EVERYTHING? Dont these nutters get it? Cost of living is going increase badly for no reason ..... forget the tax breaks ..... it will cost everyone more for no reason .... none at all!

What is going to happen with the ETS system comes in at 2015? How much money is going to go off shore? Who is going to massively profit from the trading of pieces of paper?

Every way you look at it it is a crock .... it is a very bad thing and they have to realise it! There are way way way too many questions totally unanswered, theories totally untested and full of assumptions based on total guess work.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

What a crock that article is .....

Does this twit realise that when bananas went up ..... you didn't have to buy them? The BIG problem is the bananas, the apples, the oranges ..... EVERYTHING will go up! EVERYTHING? Dont these nutters get it? Cost of living is going increase badly for no reason ..... forget the tax breaks ..... it will cost everyone more for no reason .... none at all!

What is going to happen with the ETS system comes in at 2015? How much money is going to go off shore? Who is going to massively profit from the trading of pieces of paper?

Every way you look at it it is a crock .... it is a very bad thing and they have to realise it! There are way way way too many questions totally unanswered, theories totally untested and full of assumptions based on total guess work.

and to put another perspective worry on it . there was a post back here that other countries are going to get involved in the emissions carbon tax trading scheme . this will exponentiate anything we are talking about here .

[prydey]

its already more expensive to be environmentally friendly, just like its more expensive to eat healthy than not.

if you want to encourage people to use something, make it cheaper, rather than increase the price of everything else.

[Scott]

Isn't it funny that the people who are so passionate about this topic either only post about such things, or have a very low post count.

Word must be getting out that there are non-believers lurking here and reinforcements are needed.

[SEZ213]

I had a giggle reading another thread...some 'interesting' perspectives...but these were the ones that stood out (shortly before the thread was locked)

I have a 10 year old car, my car isn't the most fuel efficient car in the world but it ain't bad, it is well maintained and looked after. Your telling me I should buy a new one so that I can be more fuel efficient? What happens to the old one? Where is the new one made, what is it made from, what energy, emissions and materials go into making it so I can save 4ltrs per hundred? Why is this saving the environment?

I have a 10 year old computer, it is slow but it does me, the screen is an old CRT. Your telling me I should buy a new one so that I can save a few watts of power every year? Again what is it made from, what energy, emissions and materials go into making it so I can save a few Watts? Why is this saving the environment?

Lets pour millions into electric cars, but where does the power come from? Oh wait power stations? Buy a prius? Why? See above oh and what about those batteries?

Oh lets look at the scrappage scheme....well thought out that one....see above...

Why are we not debating where our power is going to come from before taxing us into a choice we cannot make?

Why are we not supporting industry to change to better alternatives than making us pay for this?

IF governments are serious about climate change we need to fundimentally change the way we think.....but then again we aren't, just like we are serious about the road toll....all the way up until it is going to cost us some of that "revenue" we have made......

The problem is that we have very little control over how much carbon we use.
As we don't all live on farms, all our food, clothing, and every other neccessity in life has to be transported by either road or rail, and both of these consume large amounts of carbon-rich resources, so we will pay more for EVERYTHING regardless of how much less electricity we use, or how economically we drive - or what the politicians are telling us now.
Remember when the NSW government said that privatising the electricity supply would mean cheaper electricty prices?

Energy consumption is something we all need, and once the subsidies and other payments stop, we will all suffer more than we should with NO improvement to our consumption.

The government says it will spend billions on finding alternative energy sources, but we all know that these alternatives have so far proved to be less efficient, and far more expensive than using what we do now and as the government is continually nobbling the CSIRO - who's going to do this?

Let me give you a little example.

The greenies would like us all to stop using petrol powered cars and use fuel cell vehicles instead, as there is no carbon pollution given off by these fuel cells, and that these fuel cells should be powered by hydrogen. The only emmissions would then be water vapour.
Sounds good, however, extracting hydrogen requires FAR more energy to get than it gives back - so we go backwards there, and what power are we going to use to extract the hydrogen?
If the only emmissions are water vapour, then we're in even bigger trouble, as water vapour is many times worse as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned so if every car n the planet was converted to hydrogen fuelled fuel cells, we'd be paying around 10 times more for the hyrogen than we do for petrol, and the atmosphere would have so much water vapour in it, that it would block the sun.

Then people say that we are running out of energy and that the world's oil supply will run out in 20 years!
Maybe oil will run out eventually, but then we can start using other energy forms that are far cheaper to get, far less dangerous to handle, far less risk of polluting our ground and water, yet no-one is using it now, and that is the frozen methane from under the oceans.
There's enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the entire United States for over 3,000 years, so why isn't anyone using it now?
Because of politics.

I have little regard for most politicians, as Ive known too many of them and well-know that they are only in it for what they can get.
Forget about thinking that most politicians are really looking out for us, because they are only looking out for themselves, much like many aldermen who are actually property developers, and by being on the council, they can get things done that mere mortals could never do.
Take the ex-premiere of NSW, Bob Carr.
Just before he retired, he announced that by the year 2012 that Sydney Harbour would no longer be a working harbour, and that all the foreshores would be developed for the good of the Sydney residents.
The company that got the lion's share of the development just happens to be directed by his wife, and on his retirement from politics, he magically got a job as an advisor with Maquarie Bank for $500,000 + a year to oversee the harbour foreshore developments for them.
Fortuitous for Bob Carr isn't it? What a coincidence!
How is it that many politicians, and especially those that attain a high office, always seem to retire with lots of money when all they've ever done is serve the public?
There are just so many instances that I can tell you about people you know in politics, but suffice to say that honest politicians are like finding a needle in a very big haystack, so I always question these things.

Politicians are like bananas.
They all start out green, but end up being bent and yellow!

Oh, dear. COKING coal is used to make COKE to produce steel. That has nothing to do with providing cooking and heating for starving Africans. Steaming coal and lignite just might! Yes, coking coal burns more efficiently but it's too high quality and expensive to use for that purpose. Cheaper steaming coal is far more prevalent, providing as it does more than 40% of the world's electricity. The World Coal Association statistics are a good resource, although usually 12mths to 2 years behind due to international data gathering constraints. I certainly don't distrust "the industry", Scotty, but since I work in that industry I think I'd sooner trust my knowledge and experience in that area.

While we're on the subject, does either China or India need our steaming coal? Nope. They've got plenty of their own, albeit pretty poor quality in some cases. They'll burn the heck out of that for as long as they like without the slightest concern over our carbon tax! So who is exempting our coal exports going to benefit? Japan, mostly, and since their recent problems that's a precarious situation at best. The verdict is still out on the Japanese economy recovering from tsunami's and the like.

We have fantastic quality coal, steaming and coking, in this country but it's a long way from our markets and every dollar counts in competition. Even if the cost of diesel to fuel the trains, that take the export product to the port, rises by a significant amount as a consequence, a number of our volatile export markets will look elsewhere to countries like Indonesia, USA, Canada and South Africa among others. Indonesia in particular offers steaming coal at around half the price of the Australian product. We will have lost our excellent balance of trade surplus of late to a stupid political whim that has zero prospect of making a significant difference to climate change.

As an aside, I should mention that I edit a training manual called Understanding Coal Quality, which is highly regarded both in Australia and overseas. I also co-wrote the companion International Supplement that covers coal quality in the rest of the world. That doesn't mean I know all there is to know on the subject; I certainly don't. It does mean that I'm fairly well versed, having widely researched the subject on both sides of this debate. Do I have a vested interest in distorting the facts about coal, and carbon emissions? Nope. I'm an educator not a politician and the fact I work in the coal industry is both incidental and unsurprising given where I live. Tomorrow I could just as easily be working in some greener or more sustainable industry providing adult education, and either way I'm still a father and grandfather concerned about the future I leave behind. Fair enough?

and this...very funny stuff...from 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Funny that the changes they are suggesting now, is exactly what the 'global cooling' scientists were saying 36 years ago...

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...715-1hhgg.html

Accept change or else, Ford warns parts suppliers
Chris harris
July 15, 2011 - 3:51PM

Ford boss says industry must adjust to globalisation, climate change and carbon tax.

Ford Australia has stressed the need for local parts suppliers to lift their game in the face of climate change and the introduction of carbon tax or lose out to imported parts.

Ford Australia chief executive Bob Graziano has emphasised that the sustainability of the automotive industry means that "we must be global" or risk becoming uncompetitive.

"I need to appreciate that Australian motorists are prepared to – and do – buy cars from any country in the world. You need to appreciate the components and technologies can be sourced from anywhere in the world," Graziano told the annual conference of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers recently.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"This is not a subtle cross-town message, rather it is a statement of fact".

The local Ford boss says globalisation has changed the ground rules forever by linking national industries into one big, interlinked global industry.

"There is now no such thing as an Australian auto industry, a US auto industry, or a Thai auto industry – we are all players on the global stage," he says.

Graziano points out the global Ford’s transition from financial deficit to profit under US chief executive Alan Mulally’s "One Ford" initiative as an illustration of the influence of a global automotive industry.

He says the company’s historic business structure was "regionally based – sometimes even country based – complex and not sustainable", but Ford acknowledges its long-standing relationship with Australia’s supplier community.

"Working proactively with you is not a recent event. It is an ingrained part of our DNA and I assure you that it will continue to be so," Graziano says.

"The ability to design, engineer, tool, and build a car from scratch is a major strength of this market and it is something that we should all cherish".

Graziano underscored this sentiment with the diesel-powered Territory’s positive market reception, the EcoLPi liquid petroleum gas-powered Falcon due soon and the early 2012 introduction of a four-cylinder "EcoBoost" Falcon.

"This is why we’re so dependent on you [the supplier] for the successful launch of these vehicles … the biggest environmental transformation in the history of the Falcon and Territory".

Graziano also addressed the challenges that lie ahead and emphasised the impact of climate change as a "now issue" and one of its biggest challenges the automotive industry faces.

"It’s front and centre of the political stage. I fear that, perhaps it may not be front and centre of your stage.

"Climate change will impact the price of a host of energy-intensive commodities: metal, glass, plastic and fuels. All of these are inputs in some way to your business and any price change will find their way along the supply chain".

Graziano warns suppliers that they have to minimise any price changes caused by climate change and the carbon tax.

"How, for example, will you address the demands to reduce energy, or commodity use by streamlining your processes? How will you enhance quality and throughput? And how will you achieve all of this without the loss of competitive relativity against imported products from a wider range of developing countries?" he says.

Graziano says Ford is closely monitoring the government’s plans to introduce the carbon tax – from the prospective of the vehicles that it produces, its factories that produce them and its "supply base, which plays such a critical role".

"It is very important that you do the same," he warns. "Our message for you today is don’t wait for this detail [of the carbon tax] before considering how you may address the challenges. It is a ‘now issue’ … we all have a sufficient conceptual understanding to begin preparing our individual corporate responses".

Graziano acknowledged and praised the local automotive supply industry for its resilience and "stepping up when the going gets tough".

"The vehicle manufacturers need you to step up like never before. Australia needs you to step up. I encourage you to take up what is on offer … to position our respective businesses for a future … in a global economy".

[WMD351]

There's a bit of talk about nuclear power starting in this thread.
Does anybody know how much electricity generated by nuclear would cost compared to coal powered sparks?

[SEZ213]

This might help you out...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by WMD351

There's a bit of talk about nuclear power starting in this thread.
Does anybody know how much electricity generated by nuclear would cost compared to coal powered sparks?

I think its funny that the only ones talking about nuclear or other forms of power are the ones who are worried about whats going on ......... the only thing you hear is "We must go be Green ...... " from the alarmists. What the hell does that mean? What IS the alternatives and if these alternatives were available clean, cheap and reliably, why isn't this the discussion that we should be having and why are they not being implemented? Many seem to be very quiet on this .....

[Statler]

from today's Age

Aussie light bulbs slash power bills ... and step ladder usage

Melbourne-based Brightgreen’s novel approach to industrial design – in a world of planned obsolescence, they actually make things last as long as they possibly can – could slash global power consumption, cut greenhouse gases, and make the company a lot of money.

They’ve designed a range of LED down lights and replacement bulbs that use one fifth of the electricity to produce the same light output - until now, a major failing of LED lights. They fit into any 50-watt halogen assembly and work with any dimmer.

The rated life of a halogen bulb is 2000 hours, or 12 months at six hours a day, according to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Brightgreen’s are rated for 70,000 hours, or 30 years of six-hour days. They have a five-year replacement guarantee.
According to chief designer, David O’Driscoll, the designs, which involve four international patents, mean Brightgreen's customers might never have to change a light bulb.

The company's DM900 range of down lights and its DR700 replacement globes have already picked up a large order from Germany, and are vying for a major contract in South Africa, which is spending a billion dollars to relieve chronic rolling blackouts.

They are on show at Melbourne’s Building and Home Improvement Expo this weekend.

At $120, the DM100s produce 900 lumens of light. They repay the purchase price in two years with power bill savings. The DR700s, which output 720 lumens, recover their $69 price tag within 18 months.

There are an estimated 68 million halogen downlights in Australian homes accounting for roughly 25 per cent of the nation’s annual domestic power bill. The Brightgreen technology could cut that to 5 per cent, making a huge dent in Australia’s carbon emissions.

Brightgreen, based in Collingwood, has a design team of five engineers. President of the Illuminating Engineering Society of Australia and New Zealand, Steve Coyne, works with them as a consultant physicist.
Chief designer, David O’Driscoll says the company and its philosophy was formulated after four years working as contract designers for major companies.

“We were continually being told to design things that would break in about two years. We’d tell them that we could make them last for much longer than that, but the sales department kept telling us to ‘Make it break’."
O'Driscoll, for whom the enduring quality of the Hill's Hoist is something of a touchstone, describes the experience as “highly dispiriting.”
Hel says that the philosophy of planned obsolescence, which started with the father of industrial design, Raymond Loewy, in the US in the 1930s, has reached a pinnacle with the lighting industry. “We’ve been able to make long-lasting light bulbs for years now, but the manufacturers think it’s bad for business.”

And although Brightgreen uses Macs running Windows under Parallel for their design work, he says Apple is a master of the technique.

“Apple has given us the ultimate: downloadable obsolescence. They release a new operating system that’s designed for more powerful hardware a few months before they come up with a new model. People download the update, and suddenly the old phones slow down to the point that users can’t wait to replace them.”


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...#ixzz1S9wMU6mV

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Scott

Isn't it funny that the people who are so passionate about this topic either only post about such things, or have a very low post count.

Word must be getting out that there are non-believers lurking here and reinforcements are needed.

I've been lurking here since 2006 and for some reason my reply count is stead fast locked on 145 replies ... to help my credibility and self esteem could someone give the reply count a nudge

But to point out the obvious, people can use multiple identities to hijack debates, these droids usually get found out. I wouldn't be surprised if organisations such as GetUp have members on fordforums who feel it their duty to obfuscate, frustrate discussion and shutdown debate and free speech (kinda sounds like what a certain Senator from Tasmania wants to do...)

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

I think its funny that the only ones talking about nuclear or other forms of power are the ones who are worried about whats going on ......... the only thing you hear is "We must go be Green ...... " from the alarmists. What the hell does that mean? What IS the alternatives and if these alternatives were available clean, cheap and reliably, why isn't this the discussion that we should be having and why are they not being implemented? Many seem to be very quiet on this .....

The problem I find is that implementation of such a tax is only going to further exacerbate the feeling of being 'screwed' by your government...which is not why they've been elected.

Then you have the Tasmania's who for the most part are powered by Hydro schemes...but they're still going to be affected, the same as everyone else, even though their power comes from 'cleaner' sources...why?

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

This might help you out...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Thanks Sezzy, it sounds good in theory but seeing as how we have coal 'to burn' so to speak (I'm sorry, I honestly do hate puns ) it looks like that's going to cost me more $ as well.

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

So if solar don't work if the sun don't shine, and wind don't work if it ain't blowing, what have we got left, gas fired stations?

Natural gas is also reasonably abundant but is so valuable for direct use as heat generation, and as a chemical feedstock, that its large-scale use for power generation makes little sense and is arguably unsustainable.

I guess there's still Flannery’s geothermal, although despite getting 90 million dollars in taxpayer money so far it's failed to produce enough energy to run a bar fridge. Shares in his company are currently worth about half what they were when he first started spruiking it.
edit: sorry that was last time I saw it a while back, just checked and it's now worth a quarter of its peak.

What if we opt for hydro... oh wait, I forgot dams are the antichrist.

[bingoTE50]

This is a tax to bail out the Government who decided to spend billions on ill conceived schemes during the GFC. Nothing more ,nothing less.They tried the mining tax,but the mining heavies bluffed them. Now we have Chinese mining firms buying farming land hand over fist to secure potential mineral & gas deposits. I read it every week in the financial revue.The Government should have stuck to their guns on the mining tax.Look at the Nathan Tinklers,Clive Palmers , etc,of this world.They are laughing all the way to the bank . There Companies could afford a mining tax no risk. What are they going to do ? Close up shop - no way.
What about the amount of waste in our Governments -overseas junkets,Parliamentary pensions, hair brained schemes at all levels of Governance , christ ,bloody millions spent in Brisbane on hire pushbikes , please ,what a waste of a few million.
And all these so called carbon polluters ,what is the EPA doing ? Besides taxing them , how do they expect these Companies to improve on their technologies to reduce their carbon footprint? Who is going to fund the R&D for new methods of production.
The majority of us do the right thing and our belts are already tight,making us pay indirectly on cost of goods is bollocks.
We need to make a stand and voice our opinion and rid this country of the buffoons who run it. Bob Brown is kidding himself , this
government is held over a barrell by the green vote. Ludicrous.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by WMD351

Thanks Sezzy, it sounds good in theory but seeing as how we have coal 'to burn' so to speak (I'm sorry, I honestly do hate puns ) it looks like that's going to cost me more $ as well.


So if solar don't work if the sun don't shine, and wind don't work if it ain't blowing, what have we got left, gas fired stations?


I guess there's still Flannery’s geothermal, although despite getting 90 million dollars in taxpayer money so far it's failed to produce enough energy to run a bar fridge. Shares in his company are currently worth about half what they were when he first started spruiking it.

What if we opt for hydro... oh wait, I forgot dams are the antichrist.

No probs, the thing is that nuclear is expensive to implement to start off with, but from what I can gather, it makes it's own back, and has less emissions - providing all the figures stack up, and the country is serious about 'changing the way we live'...this is truly a viable option.

Solar works, but the problem is it's the strongest at its source - so installing solar panels on your roof is one thing, but putting thousands of solar panels in the middle of Australia is pretty pointless...unless you're only planning on powering Alice Springs...

They have wind turbines down on the south west coast of vic, and aside from being an incredible eyesore don't seem to have done much. There is one wind turbine (or possibly two, I can't remember which one) powering Rottnest Island, but I don't think it actually creates as much power as it's dirtier counterpart coal.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

This is a tax to bail out the Government who decided to spend billions on ill conceived schemes during the GFC. Nothing more ,nothing less.They tried the mining tax,but the mining heavies bluffed them. Now we have Chinese mining firms buying farming land hand over fist to secure potential mineral & gas deposits. I read it every week in the financial revue.The Government should have stuck to their guns on the mining tax.Look at the Nathan Tinklers,Clive Palmers , etc,of this world.They are laughing all the way to the bank . There Companies could afford a mining tax no risk. What are they going to do ? Close up shop - no way.

Agreed for the most part but to be fair on the RSPT/MRRT, the morons are still working on it. Who can blame them for dragging it out for as long as they can. If Australia woke up to what Gillard gave away, Parliament House would have been burned by........ now.

[WMD351]

The solar panels on the roof is a pretty good one.
Typical that the powers that be are screwing up something that actually works.
http://www.mysolarprice.com.au/newsf...ebate-reduced/
First they started neutering the installation rebate ahead of schedule, and now there's the constant threat that they'll reduce the feed back price they give you.
Seems like they're trying their best to make it not worth having.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by WMD351

The solar panels on the roof is a pretty good one.
Typical that the powers that be are screwing up something that actually works.
http://www.mysolarprice.com.au/newsf...ebate-reduced/
First they started neutering the installation rebate ahead of schedule, and now there's the constant threat that they'll reduce the feed back price they give you.
Seems like they're trying their best to make it not worth having.

It would negate the whole concept of introducing a tax now wouldn't it? They need to make a 'fair playing ground' for the energy big wigs to continue on their ever increasing tirade of price rises...and your rebates aren't helping them!

[mik]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

No probs, the thing is that nuclear is expensive to implement to start off with, but from what I can gather, it makes it's own back, and has less emissions - providing all the figures stack up, and the country is serious about 'changing the way we live'...this is truly a viable option.

Solar works, but the problem is it's the strongest at its source - so installing solar panels on your roof is one thing, but putting thousands of solar panels in the middle of Australia is pretty pointless...unless you're only planning on powering Alice Springs...

They have wind turbines down on the south west coast of vic, and aside from being an incredible eyesore don't seem to have done much. There is one wind turbine (or possibly two, I can't remember which one) powering Rottnest Island, but I don't think it actually creates as much power as it's dirtier counterpart coal.

if memory serves correct there is also a wind farm not far from ararat Vic, i don`t mind seeing them personally, while the initial cost to install them may be not cheap i think they are fairly low maintenance, and it`s not like we have a shortage of space to put them with a land mass of 7,692,030 km² (thanks google), and the same for solar, you can buy solar panels now with a 25 year guarantee, why could`nt govco have dropped a bit of tax on new buildings on proviso said building/home must have x amount of solar panels plumbed into the grid power? there`s a hundred ways that probably would make more of a contribution to lessening of pollution than the C.T that could have been taken. obviously though we would`nt let govco organize the fitting of panels on the roof .

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by mik

if memory serves correct there is also a wind farm not far from ararat Vic, i don`t mind seeing them personally, while the initial cost to install them may be not cheap i think they are fairly low maintenance, and it`s not like we have a shortage of space to put them with a land mass of 7,692,030 km² (thanks google), and the same for solar, you can buy solar panels now with a 25 year guarantee, why could`nt govco have dropped a bit of tax on new buildings on proviso said building/home must have x amount of solar panels plumbed into the grid power? there`s a hundred ways that probably would make more of a contribution to lessening of pollution than the C.T that could have been taken. obviously though we would`nt let govco organize the fitting of panels on the roof .

I don't know of that one, but there's one at Codrington (between Portland and Warrnambool), there was a big stink about putting them up at Bridgewater (mostly the residents and the noise that would be created). Logically that corner of Vic is the smartest place to put them, it's so bloody windy, you'd create enough power in a couple weeks to run the town for a six months or more! hah

I think it worked out that the turbine itself has the span of a boeing from wing tip to wing tip (or something like that).

Just not sure on how long lasting the produced energy is though. I don't know if it's a close range or long range thing...I know fairly recently in the UK it came to light that almost half of the applications for planning permits for wind turbines were rejected...

The thing is, there's so many different types of wind turbines...it's not funny...

http://www.energymatters.com.au/wind...nes-c-149.html

You've really got to ask yourself why these types of energies aren't being harnessed if reducing our carbon footprint is for the 'greater good'...

I'm sure the error of my knowledge will be pointed out soon enough...I can smell the stench of an inferior superiority complex on the horizon...

[DJR-351]

Well as far as wind farms go more are going in than you think, in the UK aswell. The company i work for (Swire Pacific Offshore) has a subsidiary called Swire Blue Ocean and they have just ordered the construction of a new wind farm installation vessel from Samsung Heavy Industries with options on one or two more.....these things are worth millions...

The trend to moving wind farms to the shallow areas offshore has picked up pace lately, especially around the UK & Europe....

Edit: Here's a computer generated pic of the one on order...

[SEZ213]

Is that due to the possible noise effects of the turbines? Or better wind opportunity?

[z80]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Problem there is that EVERYTHING uses coal, unless your in Tassie.

.

you are wrong....very,very wrong.

I have an 8.5kw system in Victoria and I produce more than I use.

It cost 40 thousand dollars to self install.

The government gave us a 50% tax break to buy it as part of the stimulus package for businesses...and fully depreciable.

All my associates bought luxury cars as the stimulus package, I bought solar panels instead....it was a no brainer....

With depreciation and GST refund it is paid for in 20 months.

We will never...ever...pay for electricity...not one cent as long as we live.

In fact we currently get approx $500 a quarter credit....in WINTER

No brown coal needed here.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Is that due to the possible noise effects of the turbines? Or better wind opportunity?

Both i believe, if they start putting them down here (and there is talk) i may have to review my sailing grounds, i would hate to run my mast into one of those props at night.....

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by z80

you are wrong....very,very wrong.

I have an 8.5kw system in Victoria and I produce more than I use.

It cost 40 thousand dollars to self install.

The government gave us a 50% tax break to buy it as part of the stimulus package for businesses...and fully depreciable.

All my associates bought luxury cars as the stimulus package, I bought solar panels instead....it was a no brainer....

With depreciation and GST refund it is paid for in 20 months.

We will never...ever...pay for electricity...not one cent as long as we live.

In fact we currently get approx $500 a quarter credit....in WINTER

No brown coal needed here.

Would love to do that ..... just reach into my wallet and grab that $40,000 out of my back pocket.

Price for electricity in our house (at the moment) is approx $2000 per year ..... thats 20 years before I start saving anything ...... even if I get a rebate still a long time for a return ..... and that's if I stay here for that long which I most probably wont ..... then start again with the investment.