Australia’s Carbon Tax raised the Cost of Living so much that it’s hurting the Left’s Reelection Chances

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left says we need to stop global warming RIGHT NOW before it’s too late to save the planet.  And the children.  Of course they’ve been saying that we need to do something RIGHT NOW since the Nineties.  When global warming became all the rage.  Leaving poor old global cooling and the coming ice age it foretold behind in the ash heap of fear mongering.

Why the change?  Simple.  What can you do to prevent global cooling?  Force businesses to emit more carbon into the atmosphere?   To remove carbon scrubbing equipment from power plants?  To produce more of our electric power from coal-fired power plants and less from solar, wind and hydro?  Reduce business taxes to lower the cost of electric power?  Thus lowering electric utility costs to encourage people to use more?

As you can see these are all options that benefit taxpayers.  Not the government.  That’s why the 180-degree change from global cooling to global warming.  Because government can combat global warming.  By forcing businesses to emit less carbon into the atmosphere.  To add carbon-scrubbing equipment to power plants.  Produce more of our electric power from solar, wind and hydro (that the government can subsidize) and less from coal-fired power plants.  Raise the cost of electric power generation to encourage people to use less.  These things benefit the government.  Not the taxpayer.  For the whole purpose of fighting global warming is to transfer more wealth to the government.  So they have more money to spend (see Australia to scrap carbon tax for trading scheme by AFP posted 7/14/2013 on Yahoo! 7 News).

Key greenhouse gas emitter Australia on Sunday announced it will scrap its carbon tax in favour of an emissions trading scheme that puts a limit on pollution from 2014, a year earlier than planned.

The move is set to cost the government billions of dollars but Treasurer Chris Bowen said cuts would be made elsewhere to compensate with the Labor Party sticking to its plan to return the budget to surplus in 2015-2016.

Bowen confirmed media reports that the fixed Aus$24.15 ($21.90) per tonne carbon tax would be dumped in favour of a floating price of between Aus$6 and Aus$10 per tonne from July 1, 2014, to ease cost of living pressures for families and help support the non-mining sectors of the economy.

The political left in Australia implemented a carbon tax to save Australia from global warming.  Yet when they’re making changes in that program what is the BIG problem they have to address?  Billions of dollars of lost tax revenue.  As if they’re spending that money elsewhere.  On government pork.  Not just on subsidizing green energy.  Which makes the carbon tax not about saving the planet.  But about giving the government more money to spend.  As governments everywhere have an insatiable appetite to spend money.  So the carbon tax was a lie.  Surprise, surprise.

And how do you get billions of dollars in additional tax revenue in the first place?  By increasing the cost of living and business with more taxes.  People don’t like paying more taxes.  Politicians on the left understand that.  Which is why they lie during political campaigns.

Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard’s popularity sunk after she announced plans for the carbon tax in early 2011 — after pledging before her 2010 election that it would not be introduced by a government she led.

The policy backflip prompted protests around the country and conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who opinion polls suggest will narrowly win the 2013 election, has vowed to abolish it.

Abbott on Sunday said the shift to 2014 was “just another Kevin con job”.

“Mr Rudd can change the name but whether it is fixed or floating it is still a carbon tax,” he said, adding that “it’s a bad tax, you’ve just got to get rid of it”.

Wherever you are in the world liberals make up a minority of the population.  So the only way they win elections is by lying.  President Clinton promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.  But after he won the election he raised taxes on the middle class.  President Obama promised that he wouldn’t nationalize health care.  And within his first 2 years in office he signed the most sweeping health care bill into law.  Obamacare.  Which has put the U.S. onto the path to national health care.  And in Australia Julia Gillard promised she wouldn’t allow a carbon tax happen under her watch.  When she apparently planned to implement a carbon tax all along.  And just lied to the people.  Knowing that they never would have voted for her if she had told the truth.  That she intended to raise the cost of living for everyone.

Politicians lie.  Especially those on the left.  And yet they fool the people time and again.  Getting exactly what they want.  By going out of their way promising that they will never do what they always end up doing.  Clinton.  Obama.  Gillard.  They’re all the same.  They get what they want by saying one thing.  And then doing something completely different.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Carbon Tax kills 1160 Jobs as Ford Stops Making Cars in Australia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 1st, 2013

Week in Review

General Motors and Chrysler required those government bailouts because of the costs of their pensions and health insurance.  Especially for retirees.  Who were living long into retirement consuming a lot of their health care dollars.  It was so bad that the cost of GM’s retirees was greater than the cost of their active workforce.  Which was a big problem.  For they just couldn’t sell cars at high enough prices to cover these crushing costs.

While labor costs are the automotive manufacturers biggest cost they’re not their only big cost.  Another big cost is energy.  For those assembly plants consume a lot of energy.  Especially electric power.  Which is why a carbon tax would be a horrible thing.  As it will only make a big cost bigger.  Perhaps even chasing more manufacturing jobs out of the country.  Like it is doing in Australia (see Ford workers ‘won’t be left behind’ posted 6/2/2013 on Sky News Australia).

Ms Gillard met workers from the Geelong factory on Saturday afternoon and announced an extra 15-million-dollars to help them find new jobs when operations close down.

Earlier on Saturday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott challenged Ms Gillard to apologise to the workers, singling out the carbon tax as a contributing factor.

Last month, the company announced it would stop making cars in Australia, costing 510 jobs at Geelong and 650 at Broadmeadows.

The war on carbon gave Australia a carbon tax.  To punish those big carbon emitters.  In particular their coal-fired power plants.  Giving the government a clever way to transfer more money from the private sector to the bloated public sector.  For a noble reason to boot.  To combat global warming.  As Australia suffers through one of the coldest winters on record.  So to combat this global warming they added a punitive tax on electric power producers.  Which greatly increased the cost of electric power.  Greatly increasing a business’ costs that consumes a lot of electric power.  Like an automobile assembly plant.

The carbon tax is anti-business.  It makes for a less business-friendly environment.  So is it any wonder that a business leaves a place that grew more business unfriendly while they were there?  This is the cost of environmentalism.  And fighting the specter of global warming.  You put people out of a job.  And ruin their lives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Australia turns away from Nuclear Power because of Fukushima and Irrational Fear and Scaremongering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2012

Week in Review

In the war to save the world from global warming one of the first campaigns was the battle against coal.  The backbone of baseload power.  One of the most reliable means to generate electric power.  Fed by a large domestic supply of coal.  You could always count on power being there in your homes with our coal-fired power plants feeding the electric grid.  But coal had to go.  Because they were melting the Arctic ice cap.  And raising ocean levels.  Not quite like they did during the Ice Ages when glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere.  Until global warming pushed them back a couple of thousand miles or so.  At a time when only Mother Nature released the carbon boogeyman into the atmosphere.  But we ignore this historical climate record.  And only pay attention to temperature changes that suit the global warming agenda.  Because the real goal of the war to save the world from global warming is to expand government control into the private sector economy.

Australia wants to show the world that they take global warming serious.  They enacted a carbon tax.  To help fund their investment into renewable energy sources.  Which has increased the cost of electric power.  And if the carbon tax and higher utility prices weren’t enough they also are talking about raising their GST.  Of course the GST has nothing to do with climate change.  But it just goes to show that Australia is trying hard to raise tax revenue.  Which is perhaps the driving force behind their carbon tax.  Revenue.  On top of this there is a growing opposition to the only source of power generation that can duplicate what coal-fired power plants can do but without the pollution (see Meltdown fears crush case for nuclear power – Brisbane Times posted 11/11/2012 on Canberra Hub).

THE Fukushima nuclear accident has quashed consideration of nuclear power in Australia, with the government’s energy white paper arguing there is no compelling economic case for it and insufficient community acceptance…

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has said it should remain ”a live debate”. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said before he re-entered politics: ”I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously … [it] should certainly play a role in Australia’s future mix of energy sources.”

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has said it should be considered ”in the mix” and Senator Barnaby Joyce has said: ”If we are fair dinkum [i.e., truthful] about reducing carbon emissions … then uranium is where it’s going to be…”

Labor argues nuclear power is not economically necessary in Australia, since the carbon tax and the renewable energy target are already shifting power generation to renewables.

There are some fundamental truths about power generation.  Coal, natural gas, and petroleum provide reliable and abundant electric power while being safe but they pollute.  Nuclear power provides reliable electric power without any pollution but can be dangerous.  Though for the half century or so we’ve been using nuclear power the number of accidents that have claimed human lives is statistically insignificant.

There have been about 68 people killed in nuclear power accidents   If you count the future cancer deaths from the  Chernobyl accident you can raise that to about 4,000.  Fukushima in Japan claimed no lives other than one apparent heart attack someone had carrying heavy things in the aftermath of the accident.  It was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl.  But if it, too, claimed 4,000 lives in future cancer deaths that brings the total death toll from nuclear power to approximately 8,000 deaths for the half century or so we’ve been using it.  Sounds like a lot.  But you know what nuclear power is safer than?  Driving your car.  In 2010 the number of motor vehicle deaths was just over 32,000.  Again, that’s for one year.  Making nuclear power far safer than getting into your car.

The opposition to nuclear power is based on fear.  And politics.  Not the facts.  Yes, nuclear power accidents are scary.  But there are very few nuclear power accidents.  For a statistically insignificant risk of a nuclear catastrophe we’re giving up the only baseload power source than can do what coal can do.  Give us abundant and reliable electric power.  But without the pollution.  However, they oppose nuclear power.  Not because of facts but because of irrational fear and scaremongering.  And if we know they’re doing this for nuclear power can we not conclude that they’re doing the same thing in the war to save the world from global warming?  Especially considering how many thousands of miles glaciers moved long before man released any carbon into the atmosphere?  Yes.  We can believe they base their war to save the world from global warming on nothing but irrational fear and scaremongering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia taxes their Rich People far more than the US but it’s still Not Enough to Pay for their Welfare State

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2012

Week in Review

With President Obama’s reelection some are saying it is a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.  Because he said all along that he wanted to tax the rich more.  And he won reelection.  Ergo, ipso facto, mandate.  But we should be careful about raising taxes.  For it seems our government is always raising taxes.  Or demanding that we need to raise taxes.  So the question is where does all this tax-raising end?  A new carbon tax?  A GST?  Well, Australia has both.  Yet they’re still talking about raising taxes (see States to eye online shopping for GST boost – Sydney Morning Herald posted 11/10/2012 on Canberra Hub).

State treasurers will this week consider calls to cut the GST-free threshold for goods bought from overseas online stores, in an attempt to bolster flagging revenues from the tax.

Under current rules, products costing less than $1000 that are privately purchased from overseas are not subject to GST, sparking complaints domestic retailers face an uneven playing field.

State governments – which receive the revenue raised by the GST – also miss out on about $600 million a year due to the threshold, and this foregone revenue is projected to rise as online shopping takes off…

NSW Treasurer Mike Baird, who wants the GST-free threshold to $30, will raise the issue as a “key consideration” at the meeting, a spokeswoman for Mr Baird said…

The simplest way to resolve the situation was to require foreign retailers selling into Australia to charge GST, he said.

Mr Greiner has also called for a debate on raising the GST’s rate from 10 per cent or broadening its base, but this was ruled out on Monday by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan.

Australia’s top marginal tax rate is 45% on incomes over $180,001 ($187,021 US).  They tax companies at 30%.  And capital gains, after some discounting and adjustments, they tax as income.  Whereas in the US the top marginal tax rate is 35% on incomes over $388,350.  The corporate tax rate is 35%.  And a capital gains tax of 15%.  Apart from the higher corporate tax rate, the Australians tax individuals far higher in Australia than the US taxes their individuals.  And yet it’s still not enough.

On top of these higher tax rates are additional taxes.  Like the carbon tax.  And the goods and service tax (GST).  Which they are currently discussing ways of increasing to generate more tax revenue.  There’s an important lesson to learn here.  No matter how much government taxes their people it will never be enough.  For the unsustainable rising costs of a welfare state for an aging population will always exceed the tax revenue from an aging population.  Higher tax rates and new taxes are inevitable.  And for those states with national health care, cost cutting, longer wait times and service rationing are also inevitable.  Because however much they tax it will never be enough.

This is the future in America.  Because we’ve just added Obamacare even though we’re already suffering record budget deficits under the Obama administration.  And 4 years of anemic economic growth.  Which will only become more anemic with higher tax rates.  And new taxes.

The only way a state will ever pay for its welfare state is if they have a population that is getting younger such that there are always more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  Or by reducing the size of the welfare state to a size the current population growth rate can fund.  So the United States has two paths to solvency.  Start having a heck of a lot babies.  Or start slashing state benefits.  Or both.  Which would be a third option.  But the current option, increasing state spending with a declining birthrate, will not work.  No matter how much you tax rich people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Battle is Building in Australia over their Carbon Tax

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2012

Week in Review

Nations with high tax rates tend to have less foreign investment than nations with low tax rates.  Because lower tax rates allow companies to earn more profits.  More profitable companies have higher stock prices.  And higher earnings per share of stock.  Which means higher returns on foreign investments.  The whole argument about raising taxes on the big corporations is that they’re rich enough and can afford to pay more of their earnings in taxes.  So we know that higher taxes mean lower earnings.  Unless, apparently, it’s a carbon tax (see Abbott won’t axe carbon tax, Combet says posted 10/24/2012 on Sky News).

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has attacked Tony Abbott’s plan to repeal Labor’s carbon tax as a sovereign risk…

Mr Combet believes abolishing the carbon price – which Mr Abbott says would be the coalition’s first order of government – would diminish Australia’s standing with the international investment community…

“Repealing the carbon price would be damaging to investment confidence and undermine the business decisions which have already been taken.

“This would see financial markets increasing the risk premiums for investments in Australia.”

Mr Combet said people would still pay more for power but without any environmental benefit.

So carbon taxes make consumers pay more for power.  According to the people that gave Australia the carbon tax.  This is the price of fighting global warming.  Higher consumer costs.  And a lower quality of life.  As people have less money to spend on themselves because the government is taking more of their money.

And yet repealing the carbon tax won’t lower the cost of power.  Interesting.  If you increased the cost of power with a carbon tax you’d think you’d reduce the cost of power by eliminating the carbon tax.  So why won’t the price of power come down?  The power companies would have a vested interest to show the people how bad a carbon tax is.  So they will never vote another carbon tax in.  And if the people are going to pay the same for power whether they have a carbon tax or not they’ll probably say,  “Well, if it doesn’t cost any more we might as well as save the planet.”  And vote to restore that carbon tax.  So the power companies would be wise to lower their rates once they repeal the carbon tax.  And most likely will.  As it is in their best long-term interests.

When a country starts using words like ‘nationalizing’ and ‘socialism’ investors will require a higher risk premium.  There’s nothing that will wipe out an investment like a 100% tax on their investments after the state takes it over.  When a country adopts a highly inflationary monetary policy investors will require a higher risk premium.  But one thing investors don’t ask for a higher risk premium is for low taxes.  As low taxes typically stimulate economic activity.  Which creates higher corporate profits.  And higher returns on investment.

Of course, a carbon tax provides a windfall of revenue for governments.  Especially those governments that like to spend the money.  So if this will have an effect on their sovereign debt this means the carbon tax has more to do with funding government spending that saving the planet.  And the risk premium is the higher interest rates they will have to pay on their government bonds if they repeal the carbon tax.  As they will have to borrow even more money to fund their out of control spending.

Remember this lesson well.  This is what a carbon tax is for.  Government spending.  Not to fight global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Australia to buy TV Ads to Explain how they increased the Cost of Electricity with their Carbon Tax

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2012

Week in Review

That carbon tax is so popular in Australia that they are buying television ads to explain how good it is.  Good for the environment.  And good for the consumer.  As they get a cleaner environment.  Not a bad deal considering the only people paying these carbon taxes are those filthy, polluting electricity producers.  And they deserve to pay this tax as a penalty for polluting the environment (see More costly carbon tax ads set for TV by Andrew Tillett Canberra posted 10/18/2012 on The West Australian).

A fresh round of carbon tax compensation TV advertisements could hit the airwaves, a Senate Estimates committee has heard.

Bureaucrats from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs told the hearing this morning a third phase of the campaign was being considered.

The first series of ads began in May and controversially failed to mention that extra payments going to households were to compensate them for higher living costs caused by the carbon tax.

Then again, it is the consumers that have to pay the higher electric rates those carbon taxes cause by increasing the cost to the electricity producers.  So they take a lot of wealth from the electric utilities.  Throw a little to the consumer stuck paying the higher electric rates to shut them up.  Sort of forget to tell them that it was their fault for those higher rates in the first place.  And use the rest to pay for their out of control government spending.  Which is what a carbon tax is for.  Because in this day and age with developed economies and welfare states it costs a whole lot more than it once did to buy votes.

Governments love taxing energy because people simply cannot live without consuming energy.  Which is why the US had their cap and trade (though they failed to implement it.  So far).  The Europeans have their emissions trading scheme.  And the Australians have their carbon tax.  Which are all just more elaborate ways to transfer wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  And has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

One Former Australian Bank Official accuses the Elderly of using $100 Notes in Massive Welfare Fraud

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2012

Week in Review

What’s the biggest problem of a welfare state?  Fraud.  Which large piles of money always seems to attract.  As well as changing personal behavior.  Some are even saying it’s turning the elderly into the greatest fraudsters in all of Australia (see Pensioners fume at welfare fraud claims by Henrietta Cook posted 9/25/2012 on The Sydney Morning Herald).

Former senior Reserve Bank official Peter Mair said elderly Australians were committing welfare fraud on a massive scale and are behind the extraordinarily high number of $100 notes in circulation…

Yesterday, BusinessDay revealed there are now 10 $100 notes in circulation for each Australian, far more than the more commonly seen $20 notes…

In a letter to the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, dated July 4, Mr Mair laid the blame squarely on elderly people wanting to get the pension and hiding their income in cash to ensure they qualified for the means-tested benefit.

If you have too much income or too much money in the bank you could have too much wealth to qualify for a means-tested pension.  So the former senior Reserve Bank official is suggesting that people close to retirement are withdrawing their money from the bank to draw down their bank accounts to more easily qualify for those means-tested pensions.  And those $100 bills make it easy to hide piles of cash in a pensioner’s house.  Perhaps needing only one well hid suitcase full of $100 bills to hold all of those bank withdrawals.  At least, that is what the former senior Reserve Bank official is suggesting.

Finance Minister Penny Wong has warned elderly pensioners to properly declare their incomes. Senator Wong said today she had “not been looking looking under pensioners’ beds lately”.

“But I would say we have a system of means testing for access to the pension and people are required to declare their assets and their income in order to access them,” she told reporters in Canberra…

Mr Mair said that in 1996 when the green plastic $100 note replaced the grey paper note, the Martin Place headquarters of the Reserve received regular visits from retirees wanting to withdraw large quantities of the new notes. He said the commercial banks had sent them to the Reserve because they did not have enough $100 notes on hand.

Mr Mair said the return for an Australian close to getting the pension who held $10,000 in cash, rather than declaring it, was “enormous”.

“If putting it under the bed or in a cupboard means you qualify for the pensioner card, you get discounted council rates, discounted car registration, discounted phone rental – in percentage terms the return is enormous,” he said.

So there is a clear advantage to hiding your wealth.  Which the high denomination bills allow one to do.  So the obvious solution to this alleged welfare fraud would be to eliminate those high denomination bills.

His letter to the governor proposes phasing out the $100 and $50 denominations.

“Cards and the internet have delivered a body blow to high-denomination bank notes. They are redundant,” he said. “There is no longer any point in issuing them except to facilitate tax dodging. The authorities would announce that from, say, June 2015 every $100 and $50 note could be redeemed but no new notes would be issued. After June 2017 every note could only be redeemed at an annual discount of 10 per cent. It would mean that, after two years, each $100 note could only be redeemed for $80, and so on.”

Or perhaps they could lower tax rates.  If they are using these $100 bills for tax evasion perhaps taxes are just too high.  Apparently there is an underground cash economy solely to evade or mitigate taxes like the GST and the carbon tax.  It would appear they could come out further ahead if they just cut taxes instead of having all of these taxes (and tax enforcement) for a welfare state that people may be gaming.  It would be so much cheaper for people to pay their own way and not provide for everyone else (as well as the environment) through these excessive taxes that people aggressively try to evade.

The events happening in Australia provide an answer to the commonly asked question.  Are we taxed too much?  A question the Australians are clearly answering in the affirmative.  As most people feel who have a GST as well as a carbon tax.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China to Punish Airbus and EU Airlines if the European Union Proceeds with their Emission Trading System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

Fighting global warming is one thing.  But hurting aircraft sales is another.  Which will happen if the EU goes ahead with their Emission Trading System.  So Airbus is begging the EU not to ruin the aviation industry (see Airbus ministers seek EU CO2 plan delay: Hintze by Maria Sheahan and Victoria Bryan posted 9/14/2012 on Reuters).

Aerospace officials of the European countries where Airbus (EAD.PA) makes its planes will push for a suspension of the European Union’s Emission Trading System (ETS) for airlines to avert retaliation from China, an official said on Tuesday…

Michael Fallon, new business minister in Britain, said at the ILA Berlin Air Show on Tuesday: “Airbus has left us with no doubt that the threat of retaliatory action is a clear and present danger to its order list.”

There is harsh opposition to the ETS from European air travel companies and countries outside the EU such as the United States, Australia and Brazil that have said they want a global agreement to curb carbon emissions rather than a European law that extends to non-EU companies.

Which is a nice way of saying they should scrap the whole ETS.  But if they said that the environmentalists would say they hate the planet.  That they’re global warming deniers.  And that they, of course, hate children.   So by saying we should have a global system instead of just a European one sounds like they believe in global warming.  While at the same time knowing there will never be a global system because the world can’t agree on anything.  And that China is not going to fall for any of this nonsense.  Because they play hardball.

China has threatened retaliation – including impounding European aircraft – if the European Union punishes Chinese airlines for not complying with its emissions trading scheme (ETS), intended to curb pollution.

The dispute between China and the EU froze deals worth up to $14 billion, though China signed an agreement with Germany for 50 Airbus planes worth over $4 billion during Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Beijing last month.

If the dispute is not resolved, Airbus will have to cut its production target for the A330 “pretty soon”, Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said late on Monday.

Cancel billion dollar orders AND impound European aircraft?  That’s right.  The Chinese don’t take crap from anyone.  Especially from a bunch of whiny global warming alarmists.  Airlines everywhere are thanking China (behind closed doors, of course) for playing the heavy here.  So they can act like they really want to do what is right for the planet.  Without losing billions in business.

The airline industry has said the ETS distorts competition, forcing European carriers to pay more simply because of the fact they are based in the EU.

“We feel we are being discriminated against,” Hintze said. “We demand a global solution from an industrial policy point of view because we could otherwise put ourselves at a disadvantage in major markets…”

Airbus sales chief John Leahy suggested at a separate news conference on Tuesday that one possible solution could be that all airlines around the world pay a tax to ICAO for carbon emissions, regardless of where they are based.

The ETS is nothing but a way to generate revenue for a cash-strapped European Union.  For what will they do with the money they raise from their ETS?  Pretty much anything they want.  And one of the things they most desperately want is to close their budget deficits.  And the EU thought they had a real winner in the ETS.  Collect money from EU members.  And collect money from non-EU members.  Effectively transferring some EU costs onto nations outside of the EU.  It was perfect.  Except for one thing.  It required other countries to voluntarily pick up the tab for some EU spending.  And some are choosing not to no matter how worthy the cause.

A global carbon tax payable to the ICAO?  The United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization?  And what, pray tell, will the UN do with that money?  Spend it on grants to green manufacturers to see if they can make jet fuel out of sea weed?  The aircraft manufacturers are doing everything they can to reduce jet fuel consumption because a plane that burns less fuel is a plane that sells better.  They don’t need a grant to do that.  Planes are carrying and burning less fuel per passenger mile than they ever have.  And they still have an incentive to reduce that even more.  Without any grants from the UN to improve fuel efficiency.

As countries around the world are suffering through economic problems the last thing they need is a new tax.  If anything they need a tax cut.  So the ETS should be the last thing we should be doing.  The earth will get by just fine without it.  In fact, it might even do better.  For the rise in global temperatures interestingly correspond to the time we began to fight global warming.  Back in the days when industry, trains and home furnaces belched coal smoke, soot and ash into the air we didn’t have a global warming problem.  Our cities were covered with coal smoke, soot and ash but the temperatures were just fine.  Perhaps a little more of the same would reverse this warming trend.  Say, encouraging our airplanes to burn a dirtier fuel so they put more emissions into the atmosphere that can block those warming rays from reaching the earth’s surface.  It works with volcanoes.  Perhaps it’ll work with manmade emissions, too.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Labor Party getting Sensible in not Closing Down Coal-Fired Power Plants?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Australia is moving towards a green energy future.  They’ve implemented a carbon tax.  And they’re moving ahead with closing coal-fired power plants and replacing them with renewable energy power plants.  Such as the International solar power company Fotowatio Renewable Ventures’ new 20 megawatt solar power facility.  Soon to be Australia’s largest solar power plant.  Which, at a capacity factor of 18%, will put up to 3.6 megawatts of useful electric power onto the electric grid.  Something that will only add $13 annually to all householder power bills.  And with new solar power plants coming on line like this they can afford to pay to shut down those dirty coal-fired power plants (see Govt breached faith on power stns: Greens by AAP posted 9/5/2012 on the Herald Sun).

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson on Wednesday announced Labor had abandoned plans to pay some coal-fired power generators to shut down, under its so-called contract for closure program…

“The whole point of addressing global warming through an emissions trading scheme is to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel and to renewable energy,” Senator Milne said.

“Shutting down some of the dirtiest coal-fired power stations was at the heart of what we are trying to do.

Politics aside Australians are lucky Labor abandoned their plans.  Let’s look at just one of those dirty coal-fired power plants.  Say, the Liddell Power Station.  With four (4) 500 MW units that can produce 2,000 megawatts of electric power.  With a capacity factor of about 90% (for a coal-fired power plant) that comes to 1,800 megawatts of useful, reliable power.  So, to shut down the Liddell Power Station you would need 500 of the Fotowatio Renewable Ventures’ new 20 megawatt solar power facilities.  Which is a lot.  And about 499 more than they are planning to build.  Do you see a potential problem with this plan of closing coal-fired power plants?  To help clarify let’s do the math.  If one of these plants adds $13 annually to all householder power bills 500 plants will add $6,500 annually to all householder power bills.

The problem with green energy is that it can’t produce as much power as coal can.  They may feel good about doing their part to save the planet but in the process they may cause recurring power blackouts as they starve their nation of electric power.  To the point that people may start dying as the diminished electric capacity can’t run the waste water treatment plants.  Their hospitals.  Or their food processing industry.  Not to mention people suffering these rolling blackouts in their homes.  Spoiling the food in their refrigerators.  Their sewers backing up raw sewage because there is no electricity to run their sump pumps.  And people unable to run their home medical devices.

Saying you want to save the planet may make you feel good.  It may even impress your friends.  But advanced countries need electric power for the necessities of life.  Beyond relaxing in your air conditioning.  Watching television.  Or charging your battery for your smartphone.  Saying you want to replace coal with renewable energies is one thing.  But doing it is another.  Because we consume a lot of electric power.  Which is why we turned to coal in the first place.  Because coal is a high-density energy source.  A little of it goes a long why.  Which is why one coal-fired power plant can produce 1800 megawatts of electric power while a nation’s largest solar power plant can only produce 3.6 megawatts of useful electric power.  Coal can and will take care of us.  Something solar power simply can’t do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Computer Models show Carbon where ‘Scientists’ wanted to find it in the Antarctic

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2012

Week in Review

We have new ‘scientific’ evidence that global warming will be worse than we thought possible.  Because of carbon we can’t see.  But know it is there.  Just waiting to unleash more global warming on us.  Oh, the humanity (see Antarctica’s Hidden Carbon Stores Pose Warming Risk in Study by Alex Morales posted 8/30/2012 on Bloomberg).

Antarctic researchers found as much as 400 billion metric tons of carbon hidden under the ice sheets, with the potential to seep out as methane and accelerate global warming…

“There’s a potentially large pool of methane hydrate in part of the Earth where we haven’t previously considered it,” Wadham said in a telephone interview. “Depending on where that hydrate is, and how much there is, if the ice thins in those regions, some of that hydrate could come out with a possible feedback on climate…”

“That hydrate is stable as long as you don’t change the temperature or pressure,” she said. “In Antarctica, though you might not have a big temperature change at the bed of the ice sheet, if the ice thins, the pressure drops and some of that hydrate could be converted into gas bubbles and then lost…”

Wadham’s team used computer models to predict how much methane might be trapped under the ice. They also tested sub- glacial soils from Antarctica and the Arctic in laboratory conditions to confirm organisms in the earth below the ice can produce methane. It isn’t yet possible to say over what period it may escape because of the “many uncertainties,” she said.

So there may be an enormous amount of carbon hidden where we can’t see it.  Based on computer models with “many uncertainties.”   So people who want to find carbon trapped under the ice to raise alarms about further global warming have programmed their computer models to show that there is carbon trapped under the ice.  Guess those “many uncertainties” come in handy.  To let you produce the data you want to find.

Okay, if there’s bad stuff under the ice we need to keep it under the ice.  Right?  I mean, that’s the danger of the melting ice sheets, yes?  It provides a pathway for this carbon to enter the atmosphere.  So what should we do right now?

“All these things throw up more questions than answers initially,” Wadham said. “That provides you with a reason to go to look to perhaps drill into sediments underneath the ice sheet to see if hydrates are there.”

Huh?  Wouldn’t drilling a hole through the ice provide a pathway for the carbon to enter the atmosphere?  Sort of like an oil well striking oil.  Only the gusher will be methane from the carbon we’ll release.  If this is the case then we can blame global warming on all these ‘scientists’ messing around where they shouldn’t be.  And not on manmade warming from our modern world.  For it does seem that all our global warming has been happening while these ‘scientists’ have been looking for it.  And these temperatures have been rising while we’ve never reduced our air pollution levels more.  Something just doesn’t add up.  And it all seems to go back to these ‘scientists’.  As if they’re creating global warming just to blame on the modern industrial economy.  And the businesses that create it.

A bit farfetched.  But it would definitely keep the government research money coming in.  Especially if the government can use their findings to enact further environmental regulations on businesses.  Such as impose a carbon tax.  Sell carbon permits.  Or initiate some carbon emissions trading scheme.  Which would bring enormous amounts of money into government coffers.  But that’s crazy talk.  The government would never do that.  It’s just a coincidence that this push for new carbon revenue coincides with all these government budget shortfalls throughout the world.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries