Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

I agree with you about The Green statement relating to small towns.

I totally disagree with you about The Greens running the country. They didn't get most of what they wanted and given the current seat numbers in Parliament, any government would have to deal with them.

As for the coal industry dying, that's just another incorrectr scare campaign.

Proof today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 267115.htm

$4 billion dollar takeover offer for a local coal mining company.

I also notice that the steel industry is very happy with the new deal. Another Tony Abbott lie.

"Whyalla will become a ghost town" - another Tony Abbott lie.

"Petrol will rise 6 cents a litre because of the carbon tax" - another Tony Abbott lie.

I notice no-one wants to answer my questions about Tony Abbott's climate change policy

[OnSong]

Did anyone see Bob Katter on the 7pm Project last night? Piss funny.

[Psyber]

The French seem to have the solution to CO2 emissions.
At a talk by Prof Mike Young at the University of Adelaide recently one slide in his Power Point presentation showed CO2 production per KWh of energy produced and compared France and Denmark. Denmark has taken a path similar to that Australia is proposing under the ALP/Green coalition.

France 90 gm/KWh
Denmark 650 gm/KWh

The difference - France went nuclear years ago and has never had a nuclear accident.
See his web site: http://www.myoung.net.au/water/
Post - "92. This world's water: Have we got enough?" Slide 5.

[Interceptor]

New Scientist comments: Australia's shiny new carbon tax is an empty promise

Simply a Robin Hood tax where the feel-good factor for its proponents ("at least we're doing something!") doesn't stack up.

[once_were_warriors]

The French seem to have the solution to CO2 emissions.
At a talk by Prof Mike Young at the University of Adelaide recently one slide in his Power Point presentation showed CO2 production per KWh of energy produced and compared France and Denmark. Denmark has taken a path similar to that Australia is proposing under the ALP/Green coalition.

France 90 gm/KWh
Denmark 650 gm/KWh

The difference - France went nuclear years ago and has never had a nuclear accident.
See his web site: http://www.myoung.net.au/water/
Post - "92. This world's water: Have we got enough?" Slide 5.

Agree , need to seriously look at Nuclear as the base load and renewables for the rest if we want to reduce CO2.
No matter what, price of electricty will go up, nuclear is extremely expensive.

Went to a Dams conference a couple of years ago where Proffesor Young was a guest speaker.

I found it extraordinary that he commented that if we are to remove the predominantly coal burning plants in the world and replace with nuclear and renewables , to meet the predicted worlds 2050 electricity consumption , we will need to build a nuclear plant every 5 days and 100000m2 of solar per day from 2009 through to 2050.

So Nuclear,renewables and consumption efficiency seems the way to go.

[Q.]

Why are Germany so adamant on abandoning nuclear power then?

[redandblack]

Are the Japanese people in favour of nuclear?

[once_were_warriors]

Why are Germany so adamant on abandoning nuclear power then?

Cost to rebuild outdated/old plants and the risks associated with a nuclear incident and disposal of waste.

The other reason they can is that they are able to purchase electricity from other countries quite easily in Europe if their demands require it. So essentially they will purchase from France to make up any shortfalls whilst removng Nuclear from their country.
I think they are going to gas turbine generation and investing in renewables.

[OnSong]

Are the Japanese people in favour of nuclear?

There's been a wave of support actually.

[Squawk]

I also notice that the steel industry is very happy with the new deal. Another Tony Abbott lie.

"Whyalla will become a ghost town" - another Tony Abbott lie.

"Petrol will rise 6 cents a litre because of the carbon tax" - another Tony Abbott lie.

I notice no-one wants to answer my questions about Tony Abbott's climate change policy

To take your last point first, I know little if anything about it. I haven't looked it up but equally, what I've seen from him is more about commenting on the Labor policy rather than trumpeting his own.

As for the other statements, you might be being a bit unfair. Tony actually did what is routinely asked of opposition and got on the front foot. One might think that Labor addressed his issues specifically before announcing the detail of their own policy. Who's to say petrol was always going to be eliminated? Moreso, who's to say that this is a good idea? I did ask a while ago why Labor wouldn't have reduced the fuel excise by 6 cents and replaced it with the carbon tax at 6 cents. No net increase, but at least everyone is paying for their carbon impact here. Only problem is, it would mean 6 cents a litre being lost to general revenue when the current tax puts funds that are raised into carbon offset initiatives and compensation. In other words, 6 cents a litre reduction in fuel excise might have compromised a budget surplus forecast

[Interceptor]

Why are Germany so adamant on abandoning nuclear power then?

Cost to rebuild outdated/old plants and the risks associated with a nuclear incident and disposal of waste.

The other reason they can is that they are able to purchase electricity from other countries quite easily in Europe if their demands require it. So essentially they will purchase from France to make up any shortfalls whilst removng Nuclear from their country.
I think they are going to gas turbine generation and investing in renewables.

Germany will use fossil fuels to plug nuclear gap

Essentially they had a knee-jerk political reaction to the disaster in Japan and decided on a shutdown policy.
I have read somewhere about waste issues they have had, but still it's a complete overreaction.
Meanwhile Britain and France are continuing on with their nuclear programs.

[Leaping Lindner]

Why are Germany so adamant on abandoning nuclear power then?

Cost to rebuild outdated/old plants and the risks associated with a nuclear incident and disposal of waste.

The other reason they can is that they are able to purchase electricity from other countries quite easily in Europe if their demands require it. So essentially they will purchase from France to make up any shortfalls whilst removng Nuclear from their country.
I think they are going to gas turbine generation and investing in renewables.

Germany will use fossil fuels to plug nuclear gap

Essentially they had a knee-jerk political reaction to the disaster in Japan and decided on a shutdown policy.
I have read somewhere about waste issues they have had, but still it's a complete overreaction.
Meanwhile Britain and France are continuing on with their nuclear programs.

France may be having a rethink soon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fety-fears

[redandblack]

Fair enough, Squawk.

I suppose I'm saying that Tony makes rash, unsubstantiated statements, generally designed to scare.

He often makes definite statements and floats rumours, rather than searchuing for facts. For example, yesterday he was floating the line that Labor MP's, especially those in steel towns, would cross the floor and vote against the Govt. This is nonsense, but nobody calls him out on these statements.

I'm happy for him to test the Govt and debate the facts.

[Dutchy]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

[Q.]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Because, currently, they would get smashed.

[Q.]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/12/carbon-tax-international-permits-and-liberals/

That the Coalition had no problem with relying on foreign permits under the CPRS and wants international agreements for its own preferred type of abatement, but now attacks them to the extent it suits their agenda, is a particularly impressive combination of economic irrationalism and hypocrisy. Far better than the CPRS, this package strikes a balance between sourcing lowest-cost abatement and driving domestic decarbonisation.

[once_were_warriors]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Because, currently, they would get smashed.

That pretty well sums it up.

[redandblack]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

[cripple]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Because the election was last year, abbott tried to buy the votes of wilkie, oakeshott and windsor to form government and failed. Real governments (even minority ones) actually take risks and create policy, not whinge and moan about plebisites and not getting their own way. What responsible government in the world would bow down to their opposition and waste thousands of tax payer dollars on an early election when they believe they are doing what is best for the country. Australia will get its say in two years time.

[smac]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

Were you OK with that or thought he could have done differently? If the latter, is the current Labor Govt allowed to do it because he did or because it's a Labor Govt?

Can anyone post on the carbon tax without referring to Abbot (he's a goof, I wouldn't use him to back up any point I were making, either way) or something a previous Coalition Govt did? If it is a good policy then it should stand to scrutiny, shouldn't it?