Given the projected, permanent costs to the planet at large, in terms of environmental costs and the humanitarian costs involved in reduced resource production in a world economy where there is insufficient food to feed the current and growing population, I can't see there being a morally or economically justifiable argument for complete inaction - but I don't believe anyone who suggests they can reduce carbon emissions with no impact on industry and the consumer - it doesn't make logical sense.
aha but you you see, this is where the scientists such as yourself, and engineers come in. you mention that fossil fuels are a major source of income for the country, and that is true. as you have noted, we need alternatives. that means R&D. things such as biofuels are fantastic, and the vast majority of the time the "greener" option is usually cheaper for the companies as well. they tote the moral high ground in "hurr durr company X is reducing carbon" but you'll note that it's never in a way that increases their costs.
all aggregate action stems from the action of the individual. what we need to do is in someway use the selfishness of the individual to benefit the aggregate as a whole - in essence how the entire capitalist structure works.
you develop a product for selfish reasons, but in doing so provide consumers with a better procuct/more competition/cheaper prices, so you both win.
using this selfish nature, i believe the solution lies in shaping the actions of the individual. i.e, feed the greed and make it cheaper to not pollute than to do so. right now, there are a lot of ways in which this naturally occurs. simply using less electricity etc. however economies of scale currently exist for "dirty" solutions whilst their green alternatives do not have access to this - meaning they are not economical purchases.
what i'm suggesting is in essence what is being pushed by the greens, however my solution is to reduce the costs of being green rather than increase the costs of not doing so, the reasons for which i have already outlined.
the greens however would push their carbon tax solution simply because the entire party/followers as a whole are economically retarded.
While a range of other taxes were reduced as a result of it, brining in the GST was hardly popular with the electorate (or small business). For both groups it increased their day to day costs and it still does.
So, lots of people didn't like it? Stiff bickies, it's there and we pay and just accept it.
Prices for stuff go up every single day and people suck it up (private health insurance premiums anyone?).
If carbon costs more, then the end cost will get passed on to the consumer and others in the chain will get a rebate the same as they do with the GST. Unlike the GST, while you'd pay more in the short term, if the dollars raised from the tarrif went towards funding incresed power development in renewables or green (solar, wind, e85 fuel etc) then sooner or later costs would actually come down as those resources came on line. 10% ethanol petrol already costs us less at the bowser, and many people choose to use it. in this case, the greener choice is cheaper.
At present, coal fired power is cheaper, but if solar were avaiable at the same price, how many folks would choose to pay a price premium just to have the globally warm fuzzy feeling of propping up the coal miners?
The main people with a vested interest in the status quo (and in expensive solutions like carbon sequestration) are those in the fossil fuel industry who want consumption to remain at current levels.
It would seem that our planet has a differing view to how workable that is and the sooner we take intelligent steps towards reducing our fossil fuel consumption, the better.
I couldn't give a rats if the arse falls out of the share price of BP if it means that my daughters kids will have a planet to live on. How can they say "have more kids, we need more people paying tax in 20 years time to cover the costs of pensions" and yet they have no regard for the conditions those same people will be living in because it's "somone elses's problem later on"? The people paying those taxes in the future and the people living with the consequences of our actions now are the same people.
as far as the GST goes, don't ever associate popularity with correctness.
as far as BP goes, what if you were a shareholder and all your wealth got wiped out? the big oil companies would i think much prefer everyone to run on E85. not only do you need to burn more of it to get the same KM out of a tank, but it's cheaper to produce as well. however, the demand is not there and until it does they'll keep selling fossil fuels.
as far as the whole "have more kids" thing goes.. ugh. i can't think of a single policy more stupid.
the stupidity, incompetence and inefficiency of government is why i'm right leaning. government by far and large is not the solution, it's the problem.
Would you understand if someone that works for BP did give a rat's arse?
or owns the company?
E85 or other ethanol additive fuels are actually NOT cheaper.
They cost less at the bowser, correct. BUT they are less efficient then normal fuel. It costs say 5c less per litre. 5/125 = 4% cheaper. But the fuel is 6-7% or so less efficient, so you use more fuel for the same driving.
It is not cheaper.
right now it isn't. what we have to remember is that fuel is taxed at (iirc) 38c per litre. that's how much goes to the government. god knows what they do with it but...
the result is that people won't buy ethanol fuels because they're not as cost effective. the proportion of savings/litre are outweighed by the increased consumption.
now, the reason this is happening is in part due to the stupidity of the consumer. if the consumer continues to buy ethanol blended fuels at a cost ineffective price, united (and whoever else sells it) isn't going to drop their price.
if the government was to offer a rebate/tax writeoff/etc for ethanol fuel conversions as it did with LPG, and ran some simple advertising campaigns about the costs/benefits of ethanol fuels, things would start to change.
initially, perhaps not a lot due to the alternatives of regular fossil fuels being available. but when there is more demand for ethanol fuels and they are cheaper to produce, it will take very little time for the oil companies to go into fierce competition for the market.
for the record, caltex just announced a big 100 outlet rollout of E85 to coincide with holden releasing an E85 compatible commodore, and one of the reasons caltex did so is that the company has been bleeding cash previously and needed a new strategy/market.
the result is that the companies can offer E85 (or whatever) at a price that is proportionately equal to using fossil fuels. i'm not sure what the exact ratios are, but if it burns 20% more then drop the price by 20% - the much cheaper production costs are there to do it.
additionally, the government could tax ethanol fuels much less than it does fossil fuels, and even provide lesser tax rates on profits attained by selling ethanol fuels. all motivation from both the supply and demand sides to stop burning unleaded.
the result is that whilst the consumer
may* not end up netting a lower fuel bill each week, there is much less pollution going on.
some may raise the possibility of a price ceiling being implemented, i.e if a fuel is 20% less efficient it cannot be sold for more than 80% of the regular unleaded price, but this would only result in the price of regular fuels being jacked up, and less competition due to the lower profitability.
*i say may because, if the taxes were dropped for the consumer and/or the producers, that means a combination of increased demand (so more profitability) and lower "costs" - so increased profitability. that means more motivation for more suppliers to enter the market, meaning increased competition and lower prices.
**a note to make is that (having a friend of a friend that works in a servo whilst he's at uni) is that the profit margins of the oil companies on fuel is actually very low. i'm talking less than 5c/litre. apparently they make more money from selling drinks/chocolates/etc in the shops than they do from the fuel. (you'll note there is a reason why you have to walk past all the display fridges/etc to get to the counters at the very back of every servo you go to
)
Granted - I was more referring to the employment considerations of reducing fossil fuel consumption and export. Yes it will cost jobs - but there doesn't seem to be a problem in reducing employment in other sectors when it is in the national interest to do so.
cutting the public sector is in the nations interest because of the woeful incompetence of it.
climate change is a global issue and so it's a little different. changes like this need to be system wide - typically when you cut most non essential public sector jobs it results in the private sector investing in/producing in the industry (if it is in fact needed, which is determined quite simply by demand). the result is that you either have A; a firm in place that actually has an incentive plan (in fact they have no choice other than) to be efficient, or no firm in place at all because what the department was doing was not just partially pointless or wasteful, it was completely.
Nice to know that everybody who works in the public service is automatically a "drain on the public purse". Actually in the interests of people having facts as opposed to conjecture, as a non-ongoing person in the APS, if they decide to cut jobs by attrition I am out of work and will get shown the door if my area of the APS is downsized or has its funding reduced. Not everybody in the APS are permanent staff you know.
There's a gulf of difference between four people dying because their employer failed to give them a safe workplace or adequate training to do their job safely and the entire planet becoming uninhabitable.
Hypothetically, if all the fish die and it stops raining so crop yields are bugger all and 2/3 of the arable land is underwater anyhow, will the fact that we got cheap power for another 20 years be considered worth it?
this is another issue with power. the reasons that places like victoria's hazelwood aren't shut down is not because they're the cheaper way of producing power (they're not, by a long shot) but because of the loss of jobs/political fallout from the electorate that would occur from doing so.
in a nutshell, people refusing to accept that their skills have become obsolete and so using the power they have to continue being a drain, waste & environmental problem. herein lies the problem with democracy.
the easy solution is to simply privatise the supply of electricity - that's the ultimate test of efficiency right there.
as another point i'd like to note about the greens and their economical retardation, placing a tax on carbon is only going to result in that tax being passed on to consumers.
a very easy way to demonstrate this is with fuel prices. you think if the government raises taxes on all fuels for all the suppliers (caltex, bp, exxon/mobil, shell, united, wheover else) that that won't just instantly increase the price of fuel? these companies aren't going to let the tax eat into their bottom line, not by a long shot. in fact the fuel industry is one of the closest industries there is to the model of "perfect competition", i.e if they were to lower their margins any more they'd be making an economic loss and would leave the industry.
in addition to this problem of the fuel tax being passed on to the consumer, this is going to result in infinitely more prices increasing. think about just how many things that are purchased or supplied that are reliant on fuel.. virtually everything. that's a cost for the suppliers of these things, one which they will all incur, so prices are going to have to go up.
incidentally, this means our supply curve shifts leftwards and incidentally, fewer people can purchase their products. resulting in less consumer and producer surpluses, perhaps enough to offset any additional revenue the fuel tax brings in.
however, i haven't majored in econometrics and macroeconomic modelling, so i couldn't actually do the maths to determine whether this would actually occur. many could however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence here's a pretty easy 101 on taxes being passed on. the graphs say it all really.