Carbon issues

[Rorschach]

Summary for mantra.

Podcast Carbon Issues…

Speaker:- Professor Murray Salby, Chair of Climate Macquarrie Uni.

Models are used for climate projections.
Projections of future climate are unreliable and almost impossible to get right.
The recent protracted Drought was used to bolster the warming argument and the climate change cause.
Many of the more vocal proponents of climate change have no direct knowledge or understanding of climate and its drivers.
The 3 popular tenets of “climate change” belief:- CO2 is the most important Greenhouse gas and if not for humans it would be constant, CO2 controls global temperature which has been warming steadily,We control atmospheric CO2 therefore we control global temperature... are wrong.
During the last century global temperatures were increasing and decreasing by half a degree. After 1880 cooling, after 1920 warming, then cooling in the 40s and 50s, 60s and 70s almost no change, late 70s to 90s warming, then no warming and cooling.
Regional and Global means are uncorrelated.
Globally warming is not uniform nor is cooling.
Positioning of thermometers and infrastructure development have affected results. The Urban Heat Island Effect biases thermometer readings.
Alarmist claims, are inconsistent and contradictory.
Wasted financial resources on studies.
The models used for the Sydney Catchment are inconsistent, half predicting drier conditions, half wetter.
Global Mean Temperature predicted by IPCC models is considerably greater than those actually experienced.
CO2 is increasing and temperatures are not, causation does not equal correlation.
There is no direct relationship between CO2 and temperature increase as it is defined in the models.
Human emissions are 4%, natural are 96%.
The model world works differently to the real world.
Science is never settled.

[Rorschach]

JM?
Oh JM.

Well looky heeya.

Labor's carbon tax came into effect from July 1 this year with an initial starting price of $23 a tonne. It will move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

Just leave your apologies at the door on your way out

[Rorschach]

Carbon tax is a business killer
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* August 20, 2012 12:00AM

The carbon tax, as explained by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, would primarily impact on Australia's very largest businesses, the "big polluters" whose carbon dioxide output posed environmental problems.

But, as The Daily Telegraph now exclusively reveals, smaller businesses throughout the country are taking substantial hits since the introduction of the carbon tax.

These businesses, often and accurately described as the engine room of the Australian economy, are collateral damage in the government's bid to put a price on carbon dioxide generation and drive consumers towards low-carbon options.

Many of these businesses are a long way from the type of large-scale polluters that come to mind when one imagines the likely targets of the carbon tax. One Canberra bookshop, for example, estimates that the annual cost of running that business will blow out by at least $10,000 a year.

In the overall scheme of things, Canberra bookshops don't figure largely as drivers of climate change. Yet the climate-based costs for operating such a business are clearly significant.

Similar costs are being worn by small businesses elsewhere, mainly thanks to the effect the carbon tax has had on electricity prices. The timing for smaller businesses is particularly disadvantageous, with already-narrow profit margins restricting their ability to share additional expenses with customers. Little wonder, then, that support for the Labor government among the small businesses surveyed has fallen from 18 per cent at the time of the 2010 federal election to just 7 per cent.

This new voting intention data helps to explain the precise areas where the government is losing voters. It isn't just among employers.

As the research reveals, supermarkets and other businesses that employ large numbers of casual employees are beginning to reduce those employees' hours.

The exact effect on jobs of the carbon tax is difficult to quantify, because the tax is now a component among other business costs, many of which are also increasing. But one thing is certain: any increase in costs is not going to help.

For small businesses, the carbon tax has arrived at the wrong time.

For the Labor government, it's also arrived at the wrong time but in their case, they only have themselves to blame.

[mantra]

JM?
Oh JM.

Well looky heeya.

Labor's carbon tax came into effect from July 1 this year with an initial starting price of $23 a tonne. It will move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

Just leave your apologies at the door on your way out

Monk's usually wrong, although he claims everyone else is.

Summary for mantra.

Podcast Carbon Issues…

Thanks for the info Rorschach.

[Rorschach]

Carbon footprint on bills hitting struggling families hard
* by: By Neil Keene
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* September 05, 2012 12:00AM

IT'S a new kind of carbon footprint blazing an unwanted trail across NSW.

Electricity price rises that came into effect in July are finally hitting home for families - quite literally - as bills for the past two months arrive in the mail.

Many are feeling the pinch of the 18.1 per cent price rise, attributed to the federal government's controversial carbon tax and the increasing cost of electricity infrastructure. But for some, it's more like a slap in the face.

Samaritans welfare group CEO Cec Shevels said 60 per cent of families approaching his organisation sought assistance with power bills.

More than 10 per cent could no longer afford to heat their homes during winter.

"The number of people like this we're seeing has been increasing steadily but we think we'll get another burst now," he said. "It makes you realise just how serious this is - how much they worry about the situation they are in and how desperate some of them are."

Clinical psychologist Grant Brecht said "bill shock", when a higher-than-expected bill arrives in the mail, had serious consequences for families already struggling to make ends meet.

"The most vulnerable people will be those who have other unpaid bills and might already be thinking it's getting to the point that they can't cope," he said.

"They might have had a car accident or medical expenses for their children, then they open up this envelope and it's like - bang."

"That can lead to a build-up of tension, couples can start fighting and you get all these ramifications."

Mr Brecht said families facing that situation needed to remain positive.

"We've got to be careful that we don't go into a 'poor me' trip and that we stay solution-focused."

Consumer watchdog Choice will step up its lobbying for a fairer deal on power prices. "It has become very clear that we have a broken electricity system in Australia and it needs to be fixed," head of campaigns Matt Levey said.

"The price rises that we've seen, particularly from the poles and wires, are completely unacceptable and it is crunch time."

The unemployed are going to be screwed.
So are single wage families with lower than average wage. And that is most of the people. The average wage is higher than the modal wage.

The unemployed will not be helped by the change in the tax system.
The single unemployed will definitely not be helped by the change in the tax system.
The small amount of money they get $249 weekly is likely to be less than their next electricity bill. If your water or electricity bill is a weeks wage what happens for the rest of the week?

[Rorschach]

Business questions Labor's carbon credibility
September 5, 2012 - 3:38PM
Phillip Coorey and David Wroe

BIG business believes the carbon tax has become little more than a wealth distribution mechanism following the decision of the federal government to scrap plans to pay the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power plants to shut down. This is what it has always been. The IPCC has stated it's push is a wealth distribution scheme.

One of the nation's most senior business figures, speaking on the condition of anonymity, has told the National Times that it was time to question the purpose of a carbon price if the largest and dirtiest polluters were going to continue on a business as usual basis.

''It's nothing more than a wealth redistribution system,'' the figure said.

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson announced this morning he had ended buy-out talks with the owners of five emissions-intensive power plants: Playford B in South Australia; Collinsville in Queensland; and Energy Brix, Hazelwood and Yallourn, all in Victoria.

The plants' owners were asking for more money than the government was prepared to pay. Mr Ferguson said ''there remains a material gap between the level of compensation generators have sought and what the Government is prepared to pay''.

''I have said throughout this process that we had a set envelope of funding and were not willing to enter into contracts at any cost – this is about the responsible expenditure of public funds.''

Under the planned ''contract for closure'' program, the Gillard government had earmarked an undisclosed sum of money - in the billions of dollars - to pay some or all of these plants to shut down over the second half of the decade.

The aim was to remove 2000 megawatts of emissions-intensive coal-fired power to help Australia cut its greenhouse gas output.

It has long been speculated that power generators believed their coal assets were worth more than had previously been thought, given depressed global carbon prices, the rising price of gas and other factors.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard explained that the government had not received a "value for money" proposal and stood by her resources minister.

"Minister Ferguson went about his duties diligently but Minister Ferguson and this government was not going to accept a proposal that wasn't value for money," Ms Gillard told reporters in Perth.

Ms Gillard also insisted that the carbon price was doing its job and Australia was on target to reduce carbon pollution. Making the poor poorer and not altering the climate one iota.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that the Coalition had never wanted to shut plants down and that the government's plan had been "economic lunacy".

This is despite the Coalition having previously said it expected to pay for one of Victoria's generators to shut and convert to gas under its $10.5 billion Direct Action policy.

"We always wanted to clean them up not to shut them down," Mr Abbott told reporters in Bendigo today.

"We've never wanted to shut down perfectly good businesses that are employing hundreds in some cases thousands of people."

Mr Ferguson said the future price of carbon - likely to be affected by the government’s decision to scrap the $15 carbon floor price from 2015 and link to Europe's scheme - was ‘‘only one factor and a very minor factor’’.

Rather, recent forecasts for lower energy demand - which will also lead to lower overall carbon emissions - meant that there were ''serious questions around the value for money'' of the proposals to buy out the power plants.

The coal plant buyout was supposed to accelerate investment in cleaner energy sources such as gas and renewables. But the forecast drop in electricity demand in coming years means there is less need for investment in new baseload energy, reducing the case for building new gas plants or wind and solar farms. Well there is less demand domestically, and that is what they wanted, because it it too expensive to afford the bills.

This in turn means existing coal plants should be economically viable for longer than they would if energy demand were rising, and the government would not get the crucial benefit of a faster switch to greener energy.

Coalition energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane said the end of the talks demonstrated ‘‘more proof that the carbon tax is a flawed and destructive policy’’.

‘‘This chaos has now deepened,’’ he said. ‘‘By abandoning the program the Gillard government is causing yet more uncertainty for the power industry, leaving power stations to keep operating under the carbon tax regardless of the consequences for electricity-generation costs.’’

Greens leader Christine Milne said the end of the talks represented ‘‘a breach of trust on the part of the government and a short-sighted failure’’. As if the Greens have any credibility on this subject.

The power plant phase-out was supposed to accelerate Australia’s transition to cleaner energy. Senator Milne said her party would now ‘‘use every political and parliamentary lever we can to speed up the transition to a clean energy economy’’.

Tony Mohr of the Australian Conservation Foundation called on the government to reconsider the $5.5 billion in carbon tax compensation going to coal power under a separate stream of funding - $1 billion in cash and $4.5 billion worth of free carbon permits.

‘‘There’s no ‘value for money’ in giving $5.5 billion in freebies to our dirtiest coal fired generators,’’ he said.

Mark Wakeham of Environment Victoria branded Mr Ferguson’s announcement ‘‘a devastating blow to Australia’s clean energy future’’.

‘‘You can’t have a clean energy future with power stations like Hazelwood continuing to operate indefinitely - it becomes hollow rhetoric,’’ he said.

Coalition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said the government should apologise to coal plant workers who had their ‘‘lives put on hold while the Government was attempting to end the workers’ jobs’’.

with Judith Ireland

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z25aIsnjO5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Neferti]

How does one reply to your red comments without quoting reams of stuff?

Your way may not be the "best" way. I prefer people post a new subject, say their piece, add a link ......... and hope for comments. What attracts you may not attract others ..... we ARE all individuals.

[Rorschach]

Easy.
One cuts and pastes.
It is not brain surgery neferti.

[Neferti]

Business questions Labor's carbon credibility
September 5, 2012 - 3:38PM
Phillip Coorey and David Wroe

BIG business believes the carbon tax has become little more than a wealth distribution mechanism following the decision of the federal government to scrap plans to pay the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power plants to shut down. This is what it has always been. The IPCC has stated it's push is a wealth distribution scheme.

One of the nation's most senior business figures, speaking on the condition of anonymity, has told the National Times that it was time to question the purpose of a carbon price if the largest and dirtiest polluters were going to continue on a business as usual basis.

''It's nothing more than a wealth redistribution system,'' the figure said.

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson announced this morning he had ended buy-out talks with the owners of five emissions-intensive power plants: Playford B in South Australia; Collinsville in Queensland; and Energy Brix, Hazelwood and Yallourn, all in Victoria.

The plants' owners were asking for more money than the government was prepared to pay. Mr Ferguson said ''there remains a material gap between the level of compensation generators have sought and what the Government is prepared to pay''.

''I have said throughout this process that we had a set envelope of funding and were not willing to enter into contracts at any cost – this is about the responsible expenditure of public funds.''

Under the planned ''contract for closure'' program, the Gillard government had earmarked an undisclosed sum of money - in the billions of dollars - to pay some or all of these plants to shut down over the second half of the decade.

The aim was to remove 2000 megawatts of emissions-intensive coal-fired power to help Australia cut its greenhouse gas output.

It has long been speculated that power generators believed their coal assets were worth more than had previously been thought, given depressed global carbon prices, the rising price of gas and other factors.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard explained that the government had not received a "value for money" proposal and stood by her resources minister.

"Minister Ferguson went about his duties diligently but Minister Ferguson and this government was not going to accept a proposal that wasn't value for money," Ms Gillard told reporters in Perth.

Ms Gillard also insisted that the carbon price was doing its job and Australia was on target to reduce carbon pollution. Making the poor poorer and not altering the climate one iota.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that the Coalition had never wanted to shut plants down and that the government's plan had been "economic lunacy".

This is despite the Coalition having previously said it expected to pay for one of Victoria's generators to shut and convert to gas under its $10.5 billion Direct Action policy.

"We always wanted to clean them up not to shut them down," Mr Abbott told reporters in Bendigo today.

"We've never wanted to shut down perfectly good businesses that are employing hundreds in some cases thousands of people."

Mr Ferguson said the future price of carbon - likely to be affected by the government’s decision to scrap the $15 carbon floor price from 2015 and link to Europe's scheme - was ‘‘only one factor and a very minor factor’’.

Rather, recent forecasts for lower energy demand - which will also lead to lower overall carbon emissions - meant that there were ''serious questions around the value for money'' of the proposals to buy out the power plants.

The coal plant buyout was supposed to accelerate investment in cleaner energy sources such as gas and renewables. But the forecast drop in electricity demand in coming years means there is less need for investment in new baseload energy, reducing the case for building new gas plants or wind and solar farms. Well there is less demand domestically, and that is what they wanted, because it it too expensive to afford the bills.

This in turn means existing coal plants should be economically viable for longer than they would if energy demand were rising, and the government would not get the crucial benefit of a faster switch to greener energy.

Coalition energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane said the end of the talks demonstrated ‘‘more proof that the carbon tax is a flawed and destructive policy’’.

‘‘This chaos has now deepened,’’ he said. ‘‘By abandoning the program the Gillard government is causing yet more uncertainty for the power industry, leaving power stations to keep operating under the carbon tax regardless of the consequences for electricity-generation costs.’’

Greens leader Christine Milne said the end of the talks represented ‘‘a breach of trust on the part of the government and a short-sighted failure’’. As if the Greens have any credibility on this subject.

The power plant phase-out was supposed to accelerate Australia’s transition to cleaner energy. Senator Milne said her party would now ‘‘use every political and parliamentary lever we can to speed up the transition to a clean energy economy’’.

Tony Mohr of the Australian Conservation Foundation called on the government to reconsider the $5.5 billion in carbon tax compensation going to coal power under a separate stream of funding - $1 billion in cash and $4.5 billion worth of free carbon permits.

‘‘There’s no ‘value for money’ in giving $5.5 billion in freebies to our dirtiest coal fired generators,’’ he said.

Mark Wakeham of Environment Victoria branded Mr Ferguson’s announcement ‘‘a devastating blow to Australia’s clean energy future’’.

‘‘You can’t have a clean energy future with power stations like Hazelwood continuing to operate indefinitely - it becomes hollow rhetoric,’’ he said.

Coalition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said the government should apologise to coal plant workers who had their ‘‘lives put on hold while the Government was attempting to end the workers’ jobs’’.

with Judith Ireland

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z25aIsnjO5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like this?

Now I have forgotten what I wanted to say.

[Rorschach]

Ah no...

Like this...

BIG business believes the carbon tax has become little more than a wealth distribution mechanism following the decision of the federal government to scrap plans to pay the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power plants to shut down. This is what it has always been. The IPCC has stated it's push is a wealth distribution scheme.

I concur with that.

Need lessons neferti?
first you highlight.
then you cut.
Then you paste.
then you add quotes and colour or whatever you like.
Easy peasy.