Yenn Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 The problem is that the arbon we are burning was laid down millions of years ago and now it is being burnt at a far greater rate than it was laid down at. As for owning shares if fuel companies, I have Caltex shares and they are a dead loss, worthless than I paid for them and they have a very low return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40! And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes! Don't worry they also paid to offset their carbon emissions at our expense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 How come its $0.50 km?? I can fly from cairns to sydney for about $160 or cheaper with the specials... Much less the $0.50 a km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 How come its $0.50 km?? I can fly from cairns to sydney for about $160 or cheaper with the specials... Much less the $0.50 a km All First and Business class travel (according to the radios this morning), nice work if you can get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 *snip* Edit: decided I wasn't contributing anything useful. Get some solar panels and some batteries and disconnect from the grid. Then grin everytime somebody complains about their $1000+ electricity bill for the quarter. spend the money you save on avgas and have a great time flying. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 *snip*Edit: decided I wasn't contributing anything useful. Get some solar panels and some batteries and disconnect from the grid. Then grin everytime somebody complains about their $1000+ electricity bill for the quarter. spend the money you save on avgas and have a great time flying. Before you *snip* those wires, make sure the power is off OR you are using well-insulated sidecutters to avoid a shocking outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Better still keep connected and get the power company to pay you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 And the low income folk can return to burning wood & coal for heating and cooking, I love my wood fired slow combustion heater and I miss the slow combustion stove I had on the farm that was heating. cooking and hot water all in one. Cutting the wood is a bit of a chore these days, though I hate being cold. Don't know what I'll do whenI get really old. kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The following is a quotation from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance. I won't comment any further except for the fact that the Department of Climate Change charged the ATA $750.00 for the release of this information under the Freedom of Information Act:" Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40! And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes! The hypocrisy is staggering – it’s one rule for them, and another rule for us. No wonder they are happy to slug airlines with the carbon tax – they don’t have to pay the bill! " To continue the focus on trees, you are blocking the view of the forest by focusing on a single tree......If it comes to inefficiency and waste, I suggest that most of us dont need to go any further than our own home to find it...... As to inefficiency in Government...who would have thought it..... To put it all into context.....when comparing the figures for whole of government probably just add 3 or 4 zero's to each number...... Now back to the real issue...which is of course despite all the missinformation and rubbish that is spoken, what are we doing as a nation about our overreliance on turning almost all energy compounds containing carbon into CO2..... carbon tax is a first step of a required many....who knows the rest of the world may catch up....the real question is will they catch up fast enough to prevent the painful readjustment of the world to a new climate baseline.......Will Australia, having taken a firt brave step be smart enough to realise that a single step alone will never complete a journey....... Selective statistics can always be used to argue whatever you like...... selective statistics should therefore be treated the same way as you would a $3 note...or a politicians election promise...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Andys@coffs' date=' post: 224105, member: 94[/email']] The following is a quotation from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance. I won't comment any further except for the fact that the Department of Climate Change charged the ATA $750.00 for the release of this information under the Freedom of Information Act:" Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40! And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes! The hypocrisy is staggering – it’s one rule for them, and another rule for us. No wonder they are happy to slug airlines with the carbon tax – they don’t have to pay the bill! " To continue the focus on trees, you are blocking the view of the forest by focusing on a single tree......If it comes to inefficiency and waste, I suggest that most of us dont need to go any further than our own home to find it...... As to inefficiency in Government...who would have thought it..... To put it all into context.....when comparing the figures for whole of government probably just add 3 or 4 zero's to each number...... Now back to the real issue...which is of course despite all the missinformation and rubbish that is spoken, what are we doing as a nation about our overreliance on turning almost all energy compounds containing carbon into CO2..... carbon tax is a first step of a required many....who knows the rest of the world may catch up....the real question is will they catch up fast enough to prevent the painful readjustment of the world to a new climate baseline.......Will Australia, having taken a firt brave step be smart enough to realise that a single step alone will never complete a journey....... Selective statistics can always be used to argue whatever you like...... selective statistics should therefore be treated the same way as you would a $3 note...or a politicians election promise...... The "selective statistics" you are referring to were supplied by the Department of Climate Change to the Australian Taxpayers Alliance (ATA) as a result of a Freedom of Information Request. Travelling 6.5 million kilometres all in First or Business Class to attend talkfests about how to save CO2 emissions, all at the taxpayers expense I might add, is all a bit rich. The ATA describes this action as staggering hypocrisy. Therefore, I treat the whole Department of Climate Change just as you suggested: like a $3 note or a politician's promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Ok, I googles "how much does the Australian government spend on travel" the first result of that search provided me this:- http://www.smh.com.au/national/canberra-catches-the-travel-bug-8230-at-a-cost-20110420-1dp1d.html which suggested that the projected 3yr cost, Jul2010 to June 2013 is $1.03b. I would expect that as its an australian government figure and an australian publication that a billion is a million million, and not the USA 1000 million, but if that were true then given our population of 21 million we would all be responsible for around $16k of travel each . Sothat assumption doesnt hold true (or at least I hope it doesnt!!) which means its a 1000 million per billion. Then we are comparing an annual cost of $3m against a whole of fenderal government cost that is of the order of 334 million........in which case the $3m number is relatively insignificant representing 1%. That isnt to say we should ignore $3m, after all it represents 14cents for every person in Australia...... where as the whole travel represents $16ea... (assuming the USA 1000 million = billion) So all grandstanding aside, is 1% of whole of government travel too much for climate change............I'd like to think it would be better spent of changing peoples behaviours, in which case its an investment rather than just a cost, but I think climate change like cat or dog ownership is a very polarised argument where people establish their position and then given that the position is generally chosen, as so with dogs vs cats, via an emotional choice seem very entrenched and unwilling to consider alternates. For me personally, if I take all of the noise away from the argument, where I consider noise to be those that speak at volumes far in excess of their technical expertise, then I, like Vev, struggle to find on balance, that the scientific community (those qualified to comment) thinks its all B/S, rather I believe that the majority of the scientific fraternity support the climate science. BTW all my comments, fail the noise test I set and should therefore be ignored.....I dont know why Im even posting this...... There was a show on the abc sometime ago about the scientific fraternity struggling with the focus that climate science has spotlighted them with, they were saying that scientific process now is using the same checks and balances on published findings as it always has, relying on the scientific fraternity, the ones who can, to self regulate through long established checks and balances. They struggle when marketeers and lobbyists enter the debate and cherrypick parts of scientific arguments, while either ignoring the totality....or simply not understanding the totlity of the publication..... to support their points of view all the while wielding the media as the tool that they are most trained to use. The point was the scientific community didnt know how to combat media savey adversaries who were not prepared to play by the senisble and tested through time scientific checks and balances.... I guess as I said at the end of the day some will think its a con and some will accept it as fact as we know it at the time....which ever it is, its the biggest gamble mankind has ever undertaken, we are gambling unsustainable growth today against our future survival.....I guess if we take a point way way in the future it'll either be a known as a scientific F/U of huge proportions or .........<sounds of global silence>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REastwood Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 My 2c worth; Climate is always changing, and over the past x thousand years it has changed quite dramatically at times. Our society's prosperity and growth is based on the current stable climate. Therefore it is to humans advantage that the climate remains stable. Whether our climate is changing because human output is causing it to, or because of a natural cycle (or a combination of both) is a question that science has not yet confirmed, science has only confirmed that it is changing. Now there are two options really, try to minimize the change by controlling the atmosphere (restricting output of certain gases) or use technology and investment in infrastructure to help humans adapt to the changes (or a combination of both). There can be some good lessons for human society along the way. Sustainability (living with our means), world wide cooperation, and a deeper understanding of our planet. Of course it could go the other way and it could turn into a post apocalyptic chaotic free for all, in which case better star stock piling AVGAS and spares so we can continue to fly after society goes to ell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Andys@coffs' date=' post: 224169, member: 94[/email']]... For me personally, if I take all of the noise away from the argument, where I consider noise to be those that speak at volumes far in excess of their technical expertise, then I, like Vev, struggle to find on balance, that the scientific community (those qualified to comment) thinks its all B/S, rather I believe that the majority of the scientific fraternity support the climate science. BTW all my comments, fail the noise test I set and should therefore be ignored.....I dont know why Im even posting this...... The problem is that, despite the media continuing to say that Climate Change is a consensus opinion of scientists, there is a very large number of scientists who do not believe in the findings. In the United States alone, there are currently 31,487 scientists (including 9,028 with a doctorate) who are prepared to attach their name to a petition asking the US government to reject the global warming agreement reached at Kyoto, etc. See here: http://www.petitionproject.org/ It is not all cut-and-dried. If I was a US citizen, I would also attach my name to the petition as there are far too many holes in the consensus argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Old Kooreendi, "In wartime we were able to make enormous savings in the use of food, materials and energy." Not all of us see it that way!, some of us starved, ( bed on an empty belly) with no "ration-book couponds to buy cloths /no shoes ( chilblanes) and No DAD( (in the forces) burnt the furniture to cook the pets when it got bad. now we'l have to hunt for firewood as the electricity will be too dear for pensioners to afford. do the maths! $500 a fortnight a couple, minus $500 a month for power, then rates /water, and all the rest of the bills, So goodbye conservation hello smog. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 The problem is that, despite the media continuing to say that Climate Change is a consensus opinion of scientists, there is a very large number of scientists who do not believe in the findings. In the United States alone, there are currently 31,487 scientists (including 9,028 with a doctorate) who are prepared to attach their name to a petition asking the US government to reject the global warming agreement reached at Kyoto, etc. See here: http://www.petitionproject.org/It is not all cut-and-dried. If I was a US citizen, I would also attach my name to the petition as there are far too many holes in the consensus argument. Hmmm what do you recon the chances of there being 32000 climate scientist in the whole world are...let alone the USA alone.......... If a scientist, PhD or otherwise whose speciality was chemistry and battery technology signed that petition is he more qualified to do so than you or me? Yes in that he understands the rigour and the checks and balances I spoke of previously, but is he really capable of peer review, any more than the climate scientis is of being able to peer review new battery technology....... Anyway Im not going to keep going, I was out of my depth for the first post..... I did find a useful site that fully cites claims made. Its worth a read if your prepared to have an open mind..... http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryon Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 My 2c worth;Climate is always changing, and over the past x thousand years it has changed quite dramatically at times. Our society's prosperity and growth is based on the current stable climate. Therefore it is to humans advantage that the climate remains stable. Whether our climate is changing because human output is causing it to, or because of a natural cycle (or a combination of both) is a question that science has not yet confirmed, science has only confirmed that it is changing. Now there are two options really, try to minimize the change by controlling the atmosphere (restricting output of certain gases) or use technology and investment in infrastructure to help humans adapt to the changes (or a combination of both). There can be some good lessons for human society along the way. Sustainability (living with our means), world wide cooperation, and a deeper understanding of our planet. Of course it could go the other way and it could turn into a post apocalyptic chaotic free for all, in which case better star stock piling AVGAS and spares so we can continue to fly after society goes to ell. Ah Ha, finally some sense...... Climate is changing naturally, man does not want it to change because it would mean a rethink on the economics of surviving The climate is changing and the fundamental premise of the alarmists is that man caused the change. Man did not cause the change, BUT is contributing to the speed of the change We cannot stop the change, we can only try to ensure that we do not cause it to speed up to the extent that we suffer from the change before we are ready The carbon tax is only a method of generating income for the the government based on scaremongering If you look at the labour government closely, all they are trying to do is manipulate the economy to the point where we are all dependant on the govt for our survival I see the govt as trying to control every aspect of our lives. Why do you think we have become such a nanny state? We are slowly giving up every right to control our own lives Some of the platitudes that the govt is spouting is straight out of the old communist manifesto " WE own the mineral resources of this land and WE should all share in the wealth that is derived from them" I may be an old cynic, but I despair because between labour and liberal, neither one of them has a leader that I would vote for End of rant.......... Cheers Bryon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Better still keep connected and get the power company to pay you. I should have got my solar panels when the government started subsidizing them, but didn't have the cash. I recently got PVs fitted but the 60c subsidised tarriff is long gone. The power company only pays me 6c per KW/h for what I put into the grid, but charge me 22c for the power I take from them! Must be a High Court case in that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 ...now we'll have to hunt for firewood as the electricity will be too dear for pensioners to afford. do the maths! $500 a fortnight a couple, minus $500 a month for power, then rates /water, and all the rest of the bills, So goodbye conservation hello smog. spacesailor Unfortunately, Spacesailor, higher power prices are here to stay and will get worse. Our buildings depend too much on electricity, when it's so easy to design a house that needs little energy to make it comfortable. Have a tour of project homes and ask sales people if they have any solar designs; you'll get blank looks. Most of our buildings are made to conservative (but energy inefficient) "off the rack" designs. We are decades behind more forward-thinking nations. Meanwhile Australia exports some of our more imaginative architects to go-ahead places like Dubai and Bangkok. What can we do with existing homes? Most can be improved with imaginative remodelling and far more insulation. Governments have a role here, but should learn from the stuff-ups of the past. Properly managed upgrading of inefficient housing could be the boost our ailing building industry needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I would like to build a shipping container home... http://materialicious.com/tags/shipping%20containers 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Now those container homes in a big hangar with your aircraft would be awesome 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 The container home looks really hard to heat in winter and bloody hot in summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 power stations have spent $millions on cleaning the polution out, domestic wood & coal burners just stink out the streets and make everything dirty (black soot deposits). Who has'nt smelt it this winter, twice as bad as last year. Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I should have got my solar panels when the government started subsidizing them, but didn't have the cash. I recently got PVs fitted but the 60c subsidised tarriff is long gone. The power company only pays me 6c per KW/h for what I put into the grid, but charge me 22c for the power I take from them! Must be a High Court case in that! Interesting: you get paid 6c/kWh when they immediately on-sell the power to your neighbour down the road (with negligent transmission losses because they are so close) for 22c/kWh? Perhaps a High Court case should be held into this rip off. I would like to look for a business that instantly triples my money for no effort as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Interesting: you get paid 6c/kWh when they immediately on-sell the power to your neighbour down the road (with negligent transmission losses because they are so close) for 22c/kWh? Perhaps a High Court case should be held into this rip off.I would like to look for a business that instantly triples my money for no effort as well. Well, don't forget they need to pay their accoutant to figure out how not to pay tax on it.. and the IT guy to make sure the system that sends out the bills doesn't get to hot. Joking aside though my understanding is that a lot of the renewable energy sources can cause problems for the electricity producers. The grid has to take what energy they are pouring out, and because they are so variable (cloud band moving across sydney, fluctuating wind conditions etc) it can cause problems as only certain types of power plants (hyrdo and gas) can spin up quickly enough to cope with the changing conditions. As all the power plants sell their electricity into a wholesale market, the electricity suppliers may find they have to pay through the nose in order to make up shortfalls. But yeah, more than triple sucks, especially as you have to pay for the privilege of being connected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now