Copenhagen summit dec '09, scam.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by Mark^^

My response to this issue of not knowing whats in the ETS is does anyone rember the introduction and ramming through of the GST?

Yes I think they deliberately outline a few of the better key points and omit the rest but stay relatively quiet about it so that the legislation can be pushed through without too much negative feedback from the public.

Maybe Rudd thought that the stimulus packages that were done earlier this year would provide good support for him then this ETS could be passed through with his approval rating still high. Someone else pointed out his want to join the UN as a major leader, perhaps an APEC leader so that he would effectively be head of the whole Asia-Pacific region.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Man I love poles, especially if they have a seat in front of them and a cute girl that keeps bringing you drinks.

I thought poles were made for dogs to pee on

Originally Posted by XRQTR

oh different poll, um ye well, you know, those polls are ok I guess as well.

bugger... I shot off too early ....again....

[cupic]

When confront by a top scientist A.Gore ran for the hills as the scientist told him he has proof global warming is a natural occurrence


cheers

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

I hear what you're saying Naddis, but keep in mind that we have some properties that are 10's and even 100s of thousands of acres, with a portion of them quite often not fully utilised for either cropping or grazing.

Even though farmers generally try to utilise as much of their property as possible there will always be a good portion that is left pretty much unused.

This would of course be something that would benefit many central/inland properties who have vast open areas, it would offer shade to stock, which would allow stock to venture out further. It would also allow for more damms and billabongs in these types of areas as the shade would offer some protection against evaporation, I know it will still occur but the shade would certainly slow it down some.

Crop farmers would of course have a harder time as most of the property would be under whatever they harvest, but even if it were used as a border between paddocks, say a 20-40 metre wide stretch, every little bit counts. The offshoot of this is that if it were fenced to either side also then neighbouring properties could graze in these areas bringing further income to the land holder.

It's more than just the carbon offset payments if you really start to look at it deeper, there is money to made in so many different ways, but I'm glad to have a farmer respond to that rather than some inner suburban kn..person who would only see further degradation due to grazing. The high country grazing trails is a perfect example, they say that due to CC we are experiencing greater fire danger periods every year, but what they forget to mention is that since they stopped grazing these areas that ground fuel has grown exponentially.

Instead of the cattle or sheep grazing on the undergrowth to keep it down to a minimum as well as trampling on the fallen bark and leaves to ground them down into a compost, we now have undergrowth that is reaching the canopy. Even the CFA has been trained to blame CC and GW because of government policy, if they told the truth about why the danger grows further every year then the graziers would have an argument to get these areas re opened.

Naddis there are so many different ways in which our governments are screwing us, and to think that Brumby is a land holder, really makes you wonder what happens to them once they feel the power doesn't it.

You make some interesting points, however in practice I am not so sure that some of them are quite right. I would say the majority of farmers would be utilising every part of their farm that they can. Obviously there are areas that they cant due to environmental reasons, terrain etc.

Yes there are areas like out in the Mallee where this could be of benefit and there are already farms that have been planted down to Mallee. However when there was first talk of Carbon trading, I think it worked out to around $20-$30/ha. If thats all you can make out of it you will get out the back door at a very fast rate. Also generally grazing would be minimal as you simply do not get a bulk of feed around trees. Especially when it is dry. As for dams and billabongs, where is the water coming from. Not to mention the water needed to establish the trees in the first place.

I do agree about grazing to reduce fuel loads for bush fires. The worst thing you could do in a national park for example is to lock it up. This just creates higher fuel loads which means the fires are more intense and hotter therefore killing pretty much everything in its path.

If you want to see Government interference affecting your business, become an irrigation farmer! They change the rules every other day. There would be outrage if there was as much interferring happening to any other industry. But we are just parasites that need to be exterminated in the eyes of the Government.

[naddis01]

I should also mention that the increase in pine plantations in the hills is adding to the reduction in runoff for our rivers thereby magnifying the effects of the drought. Not to mention the increase in 'lifestyle blocks' in the hills, all of which that put in a dam. Each one may only be a small dam, but it is a death by a thousand cuts.

But its irrigation farmers that are the scum of the earth... :

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by naddis01

You make some interesting points, however in practice I am not so sure that some of them are quite right. I would say the majority of farmers would be utilising every part of their farm that they can. Obviously there are areas that they cant due to environmental reasons, terrain etc.

These are the primary areas which could be utilised obviously, it's difficult to go into too much detail without boring the hoards LOL, and yes the majority would be utilizing most of what they have. It's more the "hobby" farmers and those that may have cut back due to poor pricing for example.

A pine plantation is a long term investment but if you've just had to sell off your stock due to the drought for instance then this could be a good way to get some stability. From my understanding pine plantations agree on a price with the company before any trees are actually planted so might give some peace of mind and stability to the growers. Also from what I understand, I could be wrong, but you can actually get forward payment or annual payments till harvest for the anount agreed.

This of course is no short term solution to anyones problems, it's medium at best, and then of course you have individual cases that will vary as to what their immediate needs might be or even future plans.

Originally Posted by naddis01

Yes there are areas like out in the Mallee where this could be of benefit and there are already farms that have been planted down to Mallee. However when there was first talk of Carbon trading, I think it worked out to around $20-$30/ha. If thats all you can make out of it you will get out the back door at a very fast rate. Also generally grazing would be minimal as you simply do not get a bulk of feed around trees. Especially when it is dry. As for dams and billabongs, where is the water coming from. Not to mention the water needed to establish the trees in the first place.

I didn't realize the price was that low, obviously they are trying to convert as much of as many properties to plantations. Might be worthwhile checking that out, however keep in mind that if some kind of trading scheme comes into play then it may be possible to increase any current rates. You would then be able to set up your own carbon offset trading company and deal with anyone in the world, and once most properties have made deals and traders are becoming scarce then you as well as others may be able to up rates due to insufficient supply. It sounds simple enough but until we know exactly what then it's difficult to say.

In saying that though I was listening to Hack on JJJ and a WA farmer already is trading in carbon offset management using his property, from what I got from his interview it wasn't such a bad thing in his eyes, nor for his wallet.

Again individual experiences will vary I guess.

Originally Posted by naddis01

I do agree about grazing to reduce fuel loads for bush fires. The worst thing you could do in a national park for example is to lock it up. This just creates higher fuel loads which means the fires are more intense and hotter therefore killing pretty much everything in its path.

If you want to see Government interference affecting your business, become an irrigation farmer! They change the rules every other day. There would be outrage if there was as much interferring happening to any other industry. But we are just parasites that need to be exterminated in the eyes of the Government.

Ye, unfortunately it's an argument that has been lost time and time again with the greens pushing their agenda on de-forestation and the effects of grazing on the forest floors flora and fauna population.

It irritates me when the greenies, not greens, make a song and dance about wind and solar energy but then when they tried to get it at Portland they were the ones who actually stopped it because of some bird that might fly through the area during it's mating season. A bird mind you that has not been seen for many years and that no one has any actual proof of that it even exists, but again the government has taken the stance that "just in case" we should look at it again.

I hate the fact that the greenies harp on about global warming and pollution and blockade as many logging trucks or operatins as they can but you never see any of them going out to the same parks and planting trees. Even if they just went along and planted trees around creeks and rivers that were native to that area. But it's easier to do something that costs someone else money rather than having to spend your own, it rerally irritates me that many of these same greenies come from families that have alot of money in the same operations. Need attention much?? LOL

And finally with regard to irrigation farming, I have seen a few reports on Landline, yes I watch it, occasionally, to know that they are not well liked. At the same time though the government gives huge water storage rights to something like the Cubby I think it was station that held more water than almost all the properties in the area downstream, however because of this they also drained most of the water that would have flowed down stream.

The government unfortunately never gets it right, mostly because too many people in the middle are paid off to fudge reports by the major stake holders.

But ye we could go on for pages couldn't we.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by naddis01

I should also mention that the increase in pine plantations in the hills is adding to the reduction in runoff for our rivers thereby magnifying the effects of the drought. Not to mention the increase in 'lifestyle blocks' in the hills, all of which that put in a dam. Each one may only be a small dam, but it is a death by a thousand cuts.

But its irrigation farmers that are the scum of the earth... :

Ye again haste making for poor judgement and planning, you would think that they would allow for run off paths to allow some water back into the table. This also goes to an argument I put up that the urban sprawl has taken much more of the storm water and simply taken it away in the big drains rather than allowing it back into the table, but ye I was told I was stupid and that my theory was just as.

I actually asked two different people, both educated, one a post grad, the other a working engineer. When I put the theory to the post grad he came back with the old"Oh it's much more complicated than that" answer, however the engineer was more like "That's a good point, I wonder why no one has looked into it". I'll tell you why, it's called the Goulburn Pipeline (which by the way this engineer was actually working on) and the peninsula De-Salination plant. Both big dollar jobs for Bracks and Brumbys mates, so both more viable than piping water back to the storages from the storm water outlets.

As for the "tree change" lifestylers, I would have thought that any damms would be kept small by local council due to the size of the allotment, anything more than 20,000 litres would be wasted in some feature pond, which no doubt most would be.

edit: also I would have thought that council would now require tanks rather than damms for small properties due to the effects of evaporation of damms and being able to hold water longer in tanks because of it.

And well irrigation farmers just waste all that water on meaningless, pointless, worthless food crop, for shame.

[NC1183]

There's not a lot left of Cubby Station anymore, the property is still there and most of the irrigation infrastructure, however they no longer have licenses to pump water and are now heading to broke.

I know around Moree, most of the irrigation is for growing cotton not food stuffs, however there is some food crop that is irrigated

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

These are the primary areas which could be utilised obviously, it's difficult to go into too much detail without boring the hoards LOL, and yes the majority would be utilizing most of what they have. It's more the "hobby" farmers and those that may have cut back due to poor pricing for example.

A pine plantation is a long term investment but if you've just had to sell off your stock due to the drought for instance then this could be a good way to get some stability. From my understanding pine plantations agree on a price with the company before any trees are actually planted so might give some peace of mind and stability to the growers. Also from what I understand, I could be wrong, but you can actually get forward payment or annual payments till harvest for the anount agreed.

Pine plantations are really only suited to the hills, not out here, but then there is my point that they are reducing runoff exagerating the effects of the drought. If you were to plant a pine plantation out here you would have to irrigate it. If you were planting due to destocking because of drought then you would not be able to establish a plantation without irrigation.

Originally Posted by XRQTR

This of course is no short term solution to anyones problems, it's medium at best, and then of course you have individual cases that will vary as to what their immediate needs might be or even future plans.

I didn't realize the price was that low, obviously they are trying to convert as much of as many properties to plantations. Might be worthwhile checking that out, however keep in mind that if some kind of trading scheme comes into play then it may be possible to increase any current rates. You would then be able to set up your own carbon offset trading company and deal with anyone in the world, and once most properties have made deals and traders are becoming scarce then you as well as others may be able to up rates due to insufficient supply. It sounds simple enough but until we know exactly what then it's difficult to say.

I may be wrong on price now, but it was around that when Carbon trading was first floated.

Originally Posted by XRQTR

In saying that though I was listening to Hack on JJJ and a WA farmer already is trading in carbon offset management using his property, from what I got from his interview it wasn't such a bad thing in his eyes, nor for his wallet.

Again individual experiences will vary I guess.

Ye, unfortunately it's an argument that has been lost time and time again with the greens pushing their agenda on de-forestation and the effects of grazing on the forest floors flora and fauna population.

It irritates me when the greenies, not greens, make a song and dance about wind and solar energy but then when they tried to get it at Portland they were the ones who actually stopped it because of some bird that might fly through the area during it's mating season. A bird mind you that has not been seen for many years and that no one has any actual proof of that it even exists, but again the government has taken the stance that "just in case" we should look at it again.

I hate the fact that the greenies harp on about global warming and pollution and blockade as many logging trucks or operatins as they can but you never see any of them going out to the same parks and planting trees. Even if they just went along and planted trees around creeks and rivers that were native to that area. But it's easier to do something that costs someone else money rather than having to spend your own, it rerally irritates me that many of these same greenies come from families that have alot of money in the same operations. Need attention much?? LOL

And finally with regard to irrigation farming, I have seen a few reports on Landline, yes I watch it, occasionally, to know that they are not well liked. At the same time though the government gives huge water storage rights to something like the Cubby I think it was station that held more water than almost all the properties in the area downstream, however because of this they also drained most of the water that would have flowed down stream.

Previous Governments from years gone by (the current one is probably worse) have made massive mistakes in regards to water. They gave out water allocations/entitlements with little foresight as to what would happen in times of severe drought. At the time water was abundant and they wanted to populate the inland. However it is now haunting current Governments.
Keep in mind that Cubby was doing nothing illegal it was Government who stuffed up in the first place. The taxpayer now owns Cubby dont they? I beleive that all of the water diversions that Cubby had in place are going to be removed and all that water that would have been harvested will be directed back to the river where possible. However there are 'sleeper licences' that are/will be activated further upstream so the water that the Government thinks it has bought is in effect not there. Again the owners of these sleeper licences will not be doing anything illegal by activating them.

If the Government was serious about water reform and returning water to the environment they would have put the big red pen through these sleeper licences (with compensation of course) before they allowed water trading. That would go some way to reducing the over allocation.

Are you aware that the water that the Government has bought through their buyback is being treated exactly like another other licence that a farmer holds? What I mean is they are restricted to the available percentage that farmers are restricted to and they can use it on what they choose is in most need. That all sounds above board and I have no problem with this (other than their method of purchasing the water), BUT what happens when the seasons improve and water becomes abundant again? Thats right the Government will trade that water back to farmers. Nice little money spinner for them.

Originally Posted by XRQTR

The government unfortunately never gets it right, mostly because too many people in the middle are paid off to fudge reports by the major stake holders.

But ye we could go on for pages couldn't we.

We could go on for pages but it would probably head further off topic.

Originally Posted by NC1183

There's not a lot left of Cubby Station anymore, the property is still there and most of the irrigation infrastructure, however they no longer have licenses to pump water and are now heading to broke.

I know around Moree, most of the irrigation is for growing cotton not food stuffs, however there is some food crop that is irrigated

Cubby was bought by both the state and federal Governments wasnt it? Or did they only sell their water entitlements?

Cotton is fairly handy to you know.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Pine plantations are really only suited to the hills, not out here, but then there is my point that they are reducing runoff exagerating the effects of the drought. If you were to plant a pine plantation out here you would have to irrigate it. If you were planting due to destocking because of drought then you would not be able to establish a plantation without irrigation.



I may be wrong on price now, but it was around that when Carbon trading was first floated.

Pine is part of the problem as it requires alot of water to grow, that I suppose is the problem in that everyone wants the quickest return possible which is understandable. I'm sure they could look at local native revegetation of some kind with hardwood instead of the soft pines, hardwoods generally don't need as much water to survive. Keep in mind also that we are talking about carbon offset sinks, not so much plantations for harvest, from my understanding the trees are there for the long term to trade against carbon.

In regard to pricing none was actually mentioned on the program but suffice to say the property owner was happy with how it was going, I think he was looking at 10% of his property to be allocated for carbon trading.

I have to admit though I still wonder why more farmers aren't utuilizing solar power to run mini de-sal plants on their properties, if for nothing other than irrigation. The salt content obviously makes bore water unusable so why haven't more farmers taken on board something like this, I'm sure it's not cheap but the long term benefits, especially to the hip pocket would be outstanding.

This is the thing, there are more solutions, possible solutions, than the government could poke a stick at yet they only look at what benefits them quickest most.

With mini de-sal plants on each farm property owners/leaseholders could again start to not only irrigate but green the area, while at the same time building up underground water table stores.

Again simple when you look at the overall picture and the long term benefits, plus as an offshoot you might actually get some additional power production to go back into the grid.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Pine is part of the problem as it requires alot of water to grow, that I suppose is the problem in that everyone wants the quickest return possible which is understandable. I'm sure they could look at local native revegetation of some kind with hardwood instead of the soft pines, hardwoods generally don't need as much water to survive. Keep in mind also that we are talking about carbon offset sinks, not so much plantations for harvest, from my understanding the trees are there for the long term to trade against carbon.

In regard to pricing none was actually mentioned on the program but suffice to say the property owner was happy with how it was going, I think he was looking at 10% of his property to be allocated for carbon trading.

I have to admit though I still wonder why more farmers aren't utuilizing solar power to run mini de-sal plants on their properties, if for nothing other than irrigation. The salt content obviously makes bore water unusable so why haven't more farmers taken on board something like this, I'm sure it's not cheap but the long term benefits, especially to the hip pocket would be outstanding.

This is the thing, there are more solutions, possible solutions, than the government could poke a stick at yet they only look at what benefits them quickest most.

With mini de-sal plants on each farm property owners/leaseholders could again start to not only irrigate but green the area, while at the same time building up underground water table stores.

Again simple when you look at the overall picture and the long term benefits, plus as an offshoot you might actually get some additional power production to go back into the grid.

When you talk about Desal plants, do you mean for bore water or sea water? We have an irrigation bore a well as a river entitlement. The bore water quality is better than the river. Also have you seen how much it costs to install solar just for a house. I would hate to see how much it would cost for enough to run a desal plant.

I agree that most people want something done about climate change, including myself, however I feel that there would have to be better ways of doing it than what is on the table at the moment.

On a side note. You said you watch Landline. Do you even read The Land newspaper. There has been a number of stories in there about the ETS etc. There was one about how agriculture would be affected before it was excluded. The Government had an online calculator to see how your farm would be affected. There were farmers that were going to be slugged $75000pa. No one can afford that. Its a good thing agriculture was excluded. The stupid thing was though that it would cost less in tax if you burnt your stubble residue instead of using minimum tillage techniques to store the carbon in the soil. : So that is one example of how well thought out this system is.

[XRQTR]

Oh ok so you guys obviously have a pretty clean stream running underground, it's just most I know have some amount of salinity in them, part of the solution would need to be a government rebate to have the solar fitted, or even getting power back into the grid at no cost to them. If they subsidised it in this way then the farmer gets free, clean energy and then power company gets pretty much the same, win win really. But like the governments ever going to do something that simple.

As for the paper no I don't, but I do recall hearing somewhere about big taxes that were about to be dished out to property holders, tax is the quick fix solution to every monetary problem the gov has these days. Well that or speed cameras LOL.

If more people from the bush got involved in coming up with possible solutions that would benefit the gov as well as them then I don't see why the gov wouldn't try some of them. In the end the gov only want whats best for them really, if anyone else benefits well then that's not bad either as people see them in a slightly more positive light.

[Ohio XB]

Found this and found it interesting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHi4...ure=popt00us05



Steve

[SB076]

Originally Posted by naddis01

When you talk about Desal plants, do you mean for bore water or sea water? We have an irrigation bore a well as a river entitlement. The bore water quality is better than the river. Also have you seen how much it costs to install solar just for a house. I would hate to see how much it would cost for enough to run a desal plant.

I agree that most people want something done about climate change, including myself, however I feel that there would have to be better ways of doing it than what is on the table at the moment.

In regards to desal plants I know someone that uses a desal plant (for bore water that has salinity issues) the cost of running the plant is fairly high and is due not only to power consumption but also addictives and chemicals that need to be added to the system to get quality water.

I think most people are happy to do their bit for the enviroment (recycle, conserve resources) and to look at cleaner and better ways of doing things. Unfortunately this propsed legislation is just another tax, that will do very little for the enviroment but add increased revenue to the government and also add to the bottom line of big business at the cost of small business and the general public.

[rodderz]

A good point was made over at Ls1 (shock horror!), one of the guys mentioned that the ETS is effectively an opportunity to pay of debt to the banks, who basically run everything. The larger banks make money in any situation- during good times people invest to make money long term, during recession they borrow to pay off debt. During wars the Rothchilds funded both sides, making money from both of them

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by SB076

In regards to desal plants I know someone that uses a desal plant (for bore water that has salinity issues) the cost of running the plant is fairly high and is due not only to power consumption but also addictives and chemicals that need to be added to the system to get quality water.

This does not surprise me at all. Bores are quite expensive to run and at current commodity prices it is almost not worth it. Try around $50/ML for fuel + $50-$100/ML if you have to buy the water on the temporary market. For wheat you can use 6ML/ha. So thats anywhere from $300 to $900/ha just for water. Then there are all the other inputs on top of that. Fertiliser got over $1000/tonne last year but has since come back down. I can only imagine what will happen to the price of fuel and fertiliser once carbon trading comes in.

Originally Posted by SB076

I think most people are happy to do their bit for the enviroment (recycle, conserve resources) and to look at cleaner and better ways of doing things. Unfortunately this propsed legislation is just another tax, that will do very little for the enviroment but add increased revenue to the government and also add to the bottom line of big business at the cost of small business and the general public.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

[MO]

Originally Posted by rodderz

Yes I think they deliberately outline a few of the better key points and omit the rest but stay relatively quiet about it so that the legislation can be pushed through without too much negative feedback from the public.

Maybe Rudd thought that the stimulus packages that were done earlier this year would provide good support for him then this ETS could be passed through with his approval rating still high. Someone else pointed out his want to join the UN as a major leader, perhaps an APEC leader so that he would effectively be head of the whole Asia-Pacific region.

I was listening to Aunty the other day and they were just finishing an interview,can't remember who it was but the thing that did stick in my mind was at the end there was a background voice saying...'07 kevin for Chairman of world government...'
Now I don't think I imagined it and I've been mulling it over trying to convince myself I heard wrong. But its still buzzing around the head.

[XRQTR]

Maybe see if they have a podcast Mo, most stations do, although you may find it deleted, worth a try still.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by SB076

In regards to desal plants I know someone that uses a desal plant (for bore water that has salinity issues) the cost of running the plant is fairly high and is due not only to power consumption but also addictives and chemicals that need to be added to the system to get quality water.

And this is where the US and Europe will win hands down every time, they are prepared to subsidise farmers in order to gain international market share with reduced pricing for their product.

The Australian gov on the other hand thinks that selling education will get us out of the dark ages and into the education revolution, speaking of which the only people the so called "Education Revolution" seems to be helping is Indian and Asian international students. With so many government schools struggling for any kind of assistance I can't believe they worry more again about the short term gain rather than the long term losses due to essentially raising a "stupid generation".

But that's another issue again, even though it demonstrates quite well how the current gov in particular really has no long term plan.

[BA-Fan]

Did any one notice the ABC's Lateline last night grilling an opposing Liberal member yet favouring turnbull in their interview?

[MO]

Just on Aunty the spill is over and Tony Abbott is the new LP leader. Is the ETS now dead in the water.

[FASTXR]

Hmmm this makes things very interesting!

Abbott was my preferred winner as he is the only one who has made it clear that he wants to hold off until after Copenhagen to make any final decision on the ETS.

Even if Rudd calls an early election, by the time it happens (March maybe?), Copenhagen will be over and we will know which other nations have signed on to similar emissions schemes. My guess is that the main players like the US, China and India won't, and that would make it harder to justify why Australia should go it alone.

[My poor XF]

It will be delayed and subject to a senate inquiry. Still a chance at passing but at least it will be further scrutinised and we are also able to see what the major powers do at Copenhagen. Obama appears to be having similar problems with the US ets.

[mickyyyy]

Hey guys check this out, Apparently they will actually go up in a chemtrail plane and interview the doctor while he is spraying the german population. I dont understand german but this dude on another forum pm me this stuff.

According to him its barrium salts, alluminium dioxide, its to keep the planet warm, and to stoop rain

Here's the link of the video

http://www.wdr.de/tv/kopfball/sendun...nsstreifen.jsp

The panel on climate change the UN and also the scientists got HACKED, and all emails and data was released and it proves its all fake, and the IPCC is on the brink of disbandenment.

http://www.infowars.com/climatic-res...-e-mails-data/

and Climate gate is about to start (massive senate select inq, or Grand jury type thing

http://www.infowars.com/global-warmi...n-climategate/

[SB076]

My main concern is that this proposal (from my limited understanding) seems rushed. Firstly we hear that it will have minimal impact on most Australians, then we hear it could cost households $1000 pa, whilst other economists are tipping it will cost more again. Then we hear that it will not cost jobs, but I can’t see how the current system won’t be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back with many industries (namely agriculture and manufacturing) therefore I expect job losses. Plus other industries such as retail and travel will suffer with rising costs and people tightening their belt.

Lastly even if like to consider yourself as being a friend of the environment and you only shower once a week, you don’t own a car and manufacture your own moonshine from environmentally friendly methods you still get hit with extra costs just like everyone else.

Plus why would our taxes compensate the power companies only for them to pass on the extra costs to consumers anyway (let’s face it we can’t import power so why do they need to be compensated)

Lastly the alcopops tax didn’t stop young people from drinking premixed drinks same way as ETS will not stop large polluters from polluting.

[MONSOON]

Originally Posted by SB076

My main concern is that this proposal (from my limited understanding) seems rushed. Firstly we hear that it will have minimal impact on most Australians, then we hear it could cost households $1000 pa, whilst other economists are tipping it will cost more again. Then we hear that it will not cost jobs, but I can’t see how the current system won’t be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back with many industries (namely agriculture and manufacturing) therefore I expect job losses. Plus other industries such as retail and travel will suffer with rising costs and people tightening their belt.

Lastly even if like to consider yourself as being a friend of the environment and you only shower once a week, you don’t own a car and manufacture your own moonshine from environmentally friendly methods you still get hit with extra costs just like everyone else.

Plus why would our taxes compensate the power companies only for them to pass on the extra costs to consumers anyway (let’s face it we can’t import power so why do they need to be compensated)

Lastly the alcopops tax didn’t stop young people from drinking premixed drinks same way as ETS will not stop large polluters from polluting.

In any form the ETS will cost every household thousands, thousands will lose their jobs due to increasing costs to their employers(I'm sure I'll be 1), business will move operations offshore to a non ets country to reduce costs & remain competitive, so emissions will not reduce they will be transfered(possibly even increase), so basically many Aussies will suffer much for NO enviromental gain.

Power generation is emissions intensive in Australia because the main fuel is coal, so if the government didn't compensate power companies, we would see much larger power bills(they will still increase anyway) as soon as the ETS is implemented

[NC1183]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Cubby was bought by both the state and federal Governments wasnt it? Or did they only sell their water entitlements?

Cotton is fairly handy to you know.

Pretty sure it was only water entitlements, the Fed Gov also bought the water entitlements to a couple of properties out near Bourke at the same time.

Trust me, i know cotton is fairly handy, i live in what was the cotton capital of austraila, and if it wasn't for the drought/lack of water, we still would be.

[naddis01]

The ETS isn't dead yet. There is nothing stopping some of the Libs crossing the floor and voting for it. They only need 6 or 7 to this to get it through. It will all depend on if Abbott can unite the party and keep everyone in line.

As for the policy itself, it seems very rushed to me and Rudd just wanted it through so he can beat his chest and sayd arent I good at Copenhagen.

Originally Posted by NC1183

Pretty sure it was only water entitlements, the Fed Gov also bought the water entitlements to a couple of properties out near Bourke at the same time.

Trust me, i know cotton is fairly handy, i live in what was the cotton capital of austraila, and if it wasn't for the drought/lack of water, we still would be.

Fair enough. I cant understand why anyone would want to sell their water entitlements and keep the land. It seems very stupid to me and we would never do it.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by MONSOON

Power generation is emissions intensive in Australia because the main fuel is coal, so if the government didn't compensate power companies, we would see much larger power bills(they will still increase anyway) as soon as the ETS is implemented

It is also one of our biggest export earners, so how can we say to the countries buying it, cut back on its use? I think it really puts Australia between a rock and a hard place.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by MONSOON

Power generation is emissions intensive in Australia because the main fuel is coal, so if the government didn't compensate power companies, we would see much larger power bills(they will still increase anyway) as soon as the ETS is implemented

Is it correct that there will only be compensation for 3 years? if so what will happen to the price of power then?