Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

How smart / green are we all

Lurking Dave

5-Dec-2008
4:02:33 PM

Can we all please stop referring to an ETS as a tax. It is not a tax it is a permit based trading scheme which will be revenue neutral.

Thanks
LD


Dom

5-Dec-2008
4:52:21 PM

On 5/12/2008 Lurking Dave wrote:
>Can we all please stop referring to an ETS as a tax. It is not a tax it
>is a permit based trading scheme which will be revenue neutral.
>
>Thanks
>LD

Using that logic a balanced government budget could also be construed as revenue neutral. Tax can be defined as a compulsory transfer of money from private individuals, institutions or groups to the state.... the ETS is a tax.

hero

5-Dec-2008
5:21:40 PM

"11. Breed pigs.If you're gunna live on beer and cones the only other thing you need is bacon."

Plenty of long pig around, that's the problem. Might I offer a modest proposal?

lurking dave

5-Dec-2008
8:51:35 PM

Dom... No, measures that distribute an equal value to the amount collected can be described as revenue neutral... its written in the green paper if you care to read it.

Cheers
LD


dom

5-Dec-2008
11:09:18 PM

On 5/12/2008 lurking dave wrote:
>Dom... No, measures that distribute an equal value to the amount collected
>can be described as revenue neutral... its written in the green paper if
>you care to read it.
>
>Cheers
>LD

There is no disputing that logic... take money from some and give same amount to others = revenue neutral.

The point I'm making is: When the state takes money from people or businesses, regardless of what it does with that money, it still constitutes a tax levied upon those from whom it was initially taken. The ETS is a tax on emitters of greenhouse gases.

Lurking Dave

5-Dec-2008
11:39:02 PM

it is not tax based as the value to be paid is not defined by the gmt. more importantly the implications of a non tax based system are inherent in the long term pricing of the price of carbon into the investment decisions of businesses.

Happy to discuss at lenght, but it would feel abit like work...
Cheers
LD


dom

6-Dec-2008
8:18:02 PM

On 5/12/2008 Lurking Dave wrote:
>it is not tax based as the value to be paid is not defined by the gmt.
I can assure you that the value of these permits will be defined by government. They control the second determinate of market equilibrium, that being quantity (the first being price). So price can be targeted, in much the same way that the reserve bank targets interest rates by selling bonds (and before I get called on that last statement by a lurking economics professor: yes I know repo contracts aren't the only way the RBA influences the cash rate).

>more importantly the implications of a non tax based system are inherent
>in the long term pricing of the price of carbon into the investment decisions
>of businesses.
Too deep for me.

patto

7-Dec-2008
8:36:28 PM

On 3/12/2008 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>I am of the opinion the answer lies in more regulation.

Yes that is exactly what our lives need more of. Regulation. How would you reaction be if the government stepped into araps and started regulating things. Climbing license anybody? While this is hardly the place or the forum for the ideal discussion, there are MUCH better ways to go green without heavy handed regulation.

Personally I hate energy saving lights. The 50hz flicker gives me a headache and the colour of the light is unpleasant and unnatural.

hero

7-Dec-2008
9:32:00 PM

cos the old light bulbs are completely natural eh?

devlin66

7-Dec-2008
10:17:47 PM

Yes you are right. The idea of the world going green is more appealing than legislation. Unfortunately a lot of things need to change before that would happen. People need to be educated and then mechanisms put in place to help effect that change. This would take maybe...... 2 generations for it fully sink in as the norm. Not ideal for making improvements right away.

We need monumental changes in society in the way we behave and live. Our whole infrastructure needs to be revised and restructured. Little things like using low power light bulbs and the like might give you a nice 'green' glow but really it's going to do jack shit in the big broad scheme of things.

We need to become less of a disposal society. Design things that really do last. We need to live closer to work so we can commute by other means than the car. This means decentralising the CBD and improving the web of low energy public transport. We need to design and build house that use no external power for heating and cooling. This can be done without solar panels as well. We need to work less hours so we can grow some of our own food. 2 hours less a week of work put into a vegetable garden would save about $50 a week on teh grocery bill and you'd have better vege's to boot.This creates less need for the whole embodied energy that currently requires food to get to our table now. These are just SOME of the things we need to look at.

Unfortunately this takes effort so the vast majority of population can't be bothered. So if the government instead creates laws that force people to change their behavior then at least we can start something that might change down the track for the good. I'm not talking about having a license to breathe. I'm talking about building codes, urban development policies etc.

One of the biggest hurdles though is the government themselves. They are lobbied by wealthy companies to leave it as it is because they are making so much money out of it. Until this changes nothing will change. They are bringing in this whole carbon trading thing but in the end it just means big polluters will just buy there way out of making real changes. They should just all be made to clean up their act. If that forces up teh price on some of teh products then so be it. We will eventually have to pay for it some day and I'd rather pay a little bit now than an absolute fortune in the future.

patto

7-Dec-2008
10:30:57 PM

On 7/12/2008 hero wrote:
>cos the old light bulbs are completely natural eh?

Well actually yes. Incandescent bulbs, aka 'old light bulbs' do produce a natural emission spectrum of light. The hot body emission spectrum of incandescent lighting is not dissimilar to sunlight though a slightly different emission temperature.

Fluorescent lighting spectrum emissions are a long way from what would normally be considered 'natural' lighting.

rod

8-Dec-2008
4:50:45 AM

On 7/12/2008 patto wrote:
>On 3/12/2008 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>>I am of the opinion the answer lies in more regulation.
>
>Yes that is exactly what our lives need more of. Regulation. How would
>you reaction be if the government stepped into araps and started regulating
>things. Climbing license anybody? While this is hardly the place or the
>forum for the ideal discussion, there are MUCH better ways to go green
>without heavy handed regulation.

I'm probably one of the most capitalist blokes around but regulation can play a positive role when it comes to carbon. There absolutely needs to be a high enough number put on it on a global basis or the necessary transformation to cleaner energies will never be made.

patto

8-Dec-2008
10:53:42 AM

On 8/12/2008 rod wrote:
>On 7/12/2008 patto wrote:
>>On 3/12/2008 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>>>I am of the opinion the answer lies in more regulation.
>>
>>Yes that is exactly what our lives need more of. Regulation. How would
>>you reaction be if the government stepped into araps and started regulating
>>things. Climbing license anybody? While this is hardly the place or
>the
>>forum for the ideal discussion, there are MUCH better ways to go green
>>without heavy handed regulation.
>
>I'm probably one of the most capitalist blokes around but regulation can
>play a positive role when it comes to carbon. There absolutely needs to
>be a high enough number put on it on a global basis or the necessary transformation
>to cleaner energies will never be made.

I agree. My previous comments stem from the immediate response of BAN it form of regulation. This is what has happened with incandescents.

I'm all for costing carbon emissions and ensuring market prices for things like WATER. We don't have a water shortage in the cities, we just have a problem of too cheap water!

kieranl

8-Dec-2008
12:54:41 PM

On 8/12/2008 patto wrote:
>I'm all for costing carbon emissions and ensuring market prices for things
>like WATER. We don't have a water shortage in the cities, we just have
>a problem of too cheap water!
So, the solution is .... create a water bubble!


Richard

8-Dec-2008
1:18:49 PM

>>5. Insulate your house

Insulation is good, but on it's own, not sufficient. Insulation might help you reduce the use an energy inefficent heating and cooling system , but what you really want to (also) do is use passive (natural) heating and cooling sources.

We installed this system in our house a few months ago, which makes use of free heat and cold air in the roof space :

http://www.hrv.com.au/default.aspx

It's very easy to rave about what we should be doing - but I thought it was worth putting some $ into actually trying something. So far it's lived up to the marketing.

Cheers

lacto

8-Dec-2008
2:47:28 PM

>I'm all for costing carbon emissions and ensuring market prices for things
>like WATER. We don't have a water shortage in the cities, we just have
>a problem of too cheap water!

I think there is a water shortage in cities and the solutions for stopping these shortages are where the problems lie . Every alternative has costs- be they to the individual, the environment or other communities and few people will accept that they arent entitled for water to come some other source anti desal people want dams on the mitchel or pipes from tassie , rainwater harvesting (tanks cost approx $200000 per Ml stored ) storm water needs to be pumped to storage before re use all at huge cost . Sewage treatment even for agricultural use is a problem as salt loads appear very high . There is huge emotional talk about solving some problems eg the lakes at the murray mouth needed 400000 Ml to avoid absolute catastrophy yet now supposedly they are safe for another year yet little extra water become available for them and certainly nowhere near 400000 Ml . We are told that we can buy water from willing sellers and I heard quoted on the radio this morning $1000 per Ml when victorian water right which actually has an allocation is trading for $2500 a Ml where as NSW murray water has no allocation . I believe the value of my water is closer to $6000 per ML for our situation and to the community . The cost of "savings " is about $5000 per Ml . I know many people who have sold their water and I dont believe too many of them were willing but were a position of forced to. A near neighbor recently sold his water then ended up selling his $600,000 dairy with feed pad and bunkers ,140 acres and 100 Ml of water for $500,000 Also the 2 jobs on the farm as well as 1 on the milk factory ceased to be .these people and their families joined the 1600 per week moving to Melbourne creating all the demand on water, roads transport etc . there is no easy solution as nearly everything in our economy is inter related


Eduardo Slabofvic

8-Dec-2008
4:47:13 PM

Pricing policy is a form of regulation.

there already is a form of regulation for climbing, which is why you don't use wooden biners, and instead
probably use ones with a stamp of some kind on it.

Standards are a form of regulation

And to segue back into the original thread, building codes and licences for practitioners are also forms of
regulation

If more regulation (in all its shapes and forms) is not the answer, why is “going green” continuing to be
seen as being different, and “pissing it all up against the wall as fast as possible” seen as not being
different, when there is nothing (apart from a small number of regulations) stopping you from doing either.


evanbb

15-Dec-2008
12:16:41 PM

Targets have been releasedin the ETS/CPRS white paper.

5% below 2000 levels if we act alone
15% below 200 levels if others help.

Sad and weak if you ask me, but I'm a left wing lunatic that thinks there's about 2 Billion too many people on the planet.

widewetandslippery

15-Dec-2008
12:25:08 PM

Love to help Evan but they won't give me a gun lisence.


tnd

15-Dec-2008
12:25:24 PM

On 15/12/2008 evanbb wrote:
>
>Sad and weak if you ask me, but I'm a left wing lunatic that thinks there's
>about 2 Billion too many people on the planet.

Let's get some of them climbing R and X rated climbs, that'll reduce the numbers a bit...

There are 75 messages in this topic.