I read an article in a newspaper today where the Australian government is planning to launch an emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change. A noble thought, but with petrol prices going up and putting strain on "working families" (which is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's favourite meaningless soundbite), I'm not so sure asking them for extra money at the petrol pump is the best way to go.

 

 

 

That's the flow-on effect of such a scheme - the cost of emission sources like petrol and coal rises.

 

 

 

Now I could think of a better way to spend money to tackle climate change - invest money into research and initiation of renewable industries and climate friendly technologies (elecrtic/hydrogen powered cars, for example). We could also add more emphasis on already existing technologies like rebates for LPG tanks for cars and solar panels for houses. The consequence of this is no extra cost for something everyone in this society needs but an added option, with incentives, of alternate energy sources.

 

 

 

Your thoughts?

I think your idea is pretty good. but the problem is that though hydrogen cars are already invented, they're accidents waiting to happen. Hydrogen car= mini Hindenbergs driving down the highway. car crash=giant [wagon] explosion.

 

 

 

OT: I got the wrong idea when the title said "emission trading". I'm a dirty boy :-#

I'm so sick of people talking about "Families" what about me and everyone else who can't even afford themselves let alone a family.

 

 

 

People who have families aren't doing it that bad not with all the family benefits they get. It's people like me and most of the people I know who can't pay bills and I don't think any of them would even consider starting a family until their finance improves despite being married or engaged.

 

 

 

 

 

I also get sick of all the rich people on tv, I remember this one [wagon] saying something like "I think high petrol prices are a good thing because it reduces usage" this is some guy earning $100k per year,

 

 

 

I'll reduce my fuel consumption as soon as someone hands me half a million dollars to build a house closer to work hell if they relocate my girlfriend at the same time maybe I'll drop my fuel consumption even lower possibly below 60liters per week (currently 120liters per week).

 

 

 

Even more stupid are people who suggest I buy another car, sure I'd love to buy another car spending $32k on a more fuel efficient car when I can't afford to put fuel in the one I've already got, that would make allot of sense.

 

 

 

 

 

One of the things I hate about Australia is that it's run by the rich for the rich who have no trouble buying that new hybrid vehicle or paying the congestion charge into the city. (we don't have one but London does and it's to reduce carbon emissions) while the rest of us just want to get through the week.

Well, DaN, I agree with you, but with the buying a new car thing, I think that's a good idea ;).

 

 

 

I drive a Toyota Echo and live 17 Kms away from work, and I last 2 weeks using only 50L of gas. If more people would actually trade their big SUVs and Pick-up trucks, gas wouldn't be as high, but when are they going to do that, I don't know..

I think your idea is pretty good. but the problem is that though hydrogen cars are already invented, they're accidents waiting to happen. Hydrogen car= mini Hindenbergs driving down the highway. car crash=giant [wagon] explosion.

 

 

 

OT: I got the wrong idea when the title said "emission trading". I'm a dirty boy :-#

 

Whoa, that's so true about hydrogen cars. I wonder if that's prevented or what? Hope smokers don't decide to drive those cars.

 

 

 

That idea sounds pretty stupid. I'm not so sure I'd enjoy living in Australia, sounds like it isn't the best place.

Buying a new car is just more waste for us to ship off to Africa.

 

 

 

These cap and trade things are ridiculous. The one they tried to do here would have raised gas prices by at least $1.40 a gallon, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, had trillions of dollars of special interest money, would have been the biggest restructuring of the government since the new deal, and the net effect would have been something like .3 degrees.

I think your idea is pretty good. but the problem is that though hydrogen cars are already invented, they're accidents waiting to happen. Hydrogen car= mini Hindenbergs driving down the highway. car crash=giant [wagon] explosion.

 

 

 

OT: I got the wrong idea when the title said "emission trading". I'm a dirty boy :-#

 

 

 

Hmm. Fair enough. Alright, scrap that one for the moment.

 

 

 

So in saying my idea is pretty good, do you mean better than a trading scheme, where petrol prices would increase?

I actually think an emissions trading scheme is a fantastic way to tackle climate change through the free market. I assume here that the scheme you're talking about would run something like this:

 

 

 

At the beginning of the year every citizen would be given a certain number of "credits" which allow them to fly or drive a certain mileage every year. An open market would then be setup where people could trade these credits, which would quickly gain a certain value. Basically the price would create an added opportunity cost for every journey you make, which means that only people who really need to travel would do so and use their credits. For some people, driving or flying might no longer be financially viable, but they would be reimbursed through being able to sell their credits and get a bit more money. For others who still need to (perhaps through business) they could offset the cost through the company. I suppose it might lead to some short term cost push inflation, but that might be compensated for through the price of oil falling (since demand will shrink if less people are able to drive/fly).

 

 

 

I can see why you might have reservations about the fairness of the scheme (inevitably poorer people lose out) but ultimately we'll all have to pay the price of global warming further down the line if something isn't done now.

There's two fundamental flaws in your argument here. Firstly, your belief that an investment into research is the answer to society's increased usage of fossil fuels. The issue with CO2 emissions is not that there is no way of going about our everyday lives without emitting these gases - we can and we have been able to since the dawn of man. It is that society, in general, feels that the detrimental effects of fossil fuels are counterbalanced by the increase in industrial production, economic growth, electric power and a general improvement in their quality of life. In this sense, most people don't genuinely care about the state of the planet in a hundred years' time - they won't be living then - they live for now.

 

 

 

Secondly is the analysis that an increase in fossil fuel prices is a bad thing in this scenario. Surely, higher prices will force demand down, which will act to reduce emissions anyway?

 

 

 

You're placing far too much faith in science and technology when that isn't the problem. The problem is society's attitude, an attitude which will be influenced for the better by such a scheme. It may not be popular, but someone has to take action and I commend Kevin Rudd for taking this bold step. I have to wonder, if the Labour Party over here weren't as politically weak as it is , could we take similar action?

 

 

 

Finally, if you really feel that concerned about petrol prices, blame the oil companies in the Middle-East which, while pretending to be independent companies to avoid anti-monopoly laws, act together in order to keep prices up and make themselves as much money as possible. We have to tackle this de facto monopoly before we can hope to bring down petrol prices significantly.

Well, DaN, I agree with you, but with the buying a new car thing, I think that's a good idea ;).

 

 

 

I drive a Toyota Echo and live 17 Kms away from work, and I last 2 weeks using only 50L of gas. If more people would actually trade their big SUVs and Pick-up trucks, gas wouldn't be as high, but when are they going to do that, I don't know..

 

The problem is people with big SUV's and pick-ups who use them as a daily driver for one person only. Especially the petrol SUV's; if you want an SUV get a diesel at least. Fuel ecconomy, even with a big engine like a 4.2l, will put you on top of most petrol cars on the road at current.

 

 

 

 

 

I personally have a 4.2L turbo diesel GQ and use about 60L in just over a week but cover around 300km at least every time. And that includes a lot of off-road use where my fuel consupmtion is way higher than it should be.

Well, DaN, I agree with you, but with the buying a new car thing, I think that's a good idea ;).

 

 

 

I drive a Toyota Echo and live 17 Kms away from work, and I last 2 weeks using only 50L of gas. If more people would actually trade their big SUVs and Pick-up trucks, gas wouldn't be as high, but when are they going to do that, I don't know..

 

The problem is people with big SUV's and pick-ups who use them as a daily driver for one person only. Especially the petrol SUV's; if you want an SUV get a diesel at least. Fuel ecconomy, even with a big engine like a 4.2l, will put you on top of most petrol cars on the road at current.

 

 

 

 

my commodore gets around 550Kms for 70 liters of petrol so it's not ideal for all cars.

 

 

 

I'm a truck driver and some of the trucks I drive have similar fuel consumtion to my commodore about 80 liters per 500kms+ which is infact better given the size and weight diffrence.

There's two fundamental flaws in your argument here. Firstly, your belief that an investment into research is the answer to society's increased usage of fossil fuels. The issue with CO2 emissions is not that there is no way of going about our everyday lives without emitting these gases - we can and we have been able to since the dawn of man. It is that society, in general, feels that the detrimental effects of fossil fuels are counterbalanced by the increase in industrial production, economic growth, electric power and a general improvement in their quality of life. In this sense, most people don't genuinely care about the state of the planet in a hundred years' time - they won't be living then - they live for now.

 

 

 

I don't see why research can't be a good answer. If not coming up with new technologies from scratch it's still making existing green technologies more efficient. I also emphasised incentives for LPG, solar panels and other cleaner energy sources. I know research isnt the only part of the equation.

 

 

 

I know people can technically do without fossil fuels and forcing them to face an even heavier economic burden would challenge the prevailing line of thought that "it's not my problem", but I worry about how viable that is for today's society. A lot of people are struggling here with getting into the housing market as well as putting enough petrol into their cars to go to work. In this sense people are having more and more reasons to be energy frugal to save money, i.e. it is their problem. What should we do if the economic burden of housing prices and petrol gets too much? Go live in mud huts? I mean sure, there are plenty of things we could do to maintain minimal carbon output but many of them arent realistic to me.

 

 

 

One solution to eliminating the need for so many people to drive to work could be public transport or car-pooling, etc. If our government could manage to organise the former, at least, I might consider emissions trading a more attractive deal. They've got to give the incentive to be green, not just the disincentive to use fossil fuels when it may be needed.

 

 

 

Secondly is the analysis that an increase in fossil fuel prices is a bad thing in this scenario. Surely, higher prices will force demand down, which will act to reduce emissions anyway?

 

 

 

You're placing far too much faith in science and technology when that isn't the problem. The problem is society's attitude, an attitude which will be influenced for the better by such a scheme. It may not be popular, but someone has to take action and I commend Kevin Rudd for taking this bold step. I have to wonder, if the Labour Party over here weren't as politically weak as it is , could we take similar action?

 

 

 

Yes, it will force down demand but I worry that the use of fossil fuels in this case is more of a need than a luxury. In this sense, again, if Rudd can sweeten the deal by getting serious on public transport for those that won't be as able to buy petrol, then I'd consider it a better deal. And again, I don't see anything wrong with research nor do I think its the only realistic means of action on climate change. As I said, there are ways to make being green attractive rather than making not being green an economic burden.

 

 

 

Finally, if you really feel that concerned about petrol prices, blame the oil companies in the Middle-East which, while pretending to be independent companies to avoid anti-monopoly laws, act together in order to keep prices up and make themselves as much money as possible. We have to tackle this de facto monopoly before we can hope to bring down petrol prices significantly.

 

 

 

I know fuel prices arent really the kind of thing that our government can control, but they can control the extra taxes that go on top of it, and thats my concern here. The fact that the oil moguls are more interested in money than the welfare of the people who depend on their product is all the more reason to get serious on alternative, independent fuel sources to my way of thinking.

its now climate change and not global warming, since they accepted the earth is actually cooling...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... heobserver

Finally, if you really feel that concerned about petrol prices, blame the oil companies in the Middle-East which, while pretending to be independent companies to avoid anti-monopoly laws, act together in order to keep prices up and make themselves as much money as possible. We have to tackle this de facto monopoly before we can hope to bring down petrol prices significantly.

 

 

 

OPEC wouldn't want oil prices too high. They know that high oil prices could send the western economies spiralling into recession, and since oil is their income a western recession would hurt them as well. Traditionally OPEC has, yes, conspired for healthy profits, but ultimately tried to minimise the expense to us. At least, that used to be their philosophy.

OPEC wouldn't want oil prices too high. They know that high oil prices could send the western economies spiralling into recession, and since oil is their income a western recession would hurt them as well. Traditionally OPEC has, yes, conspired for healthy profits, but ultimately tried to minimise the expense to us. At least, that used to be their philosophy.

 

 

 

As the demand in China and India (mainly China) increases, I don't think OPEC will care too much about how their pricing affects the west.

Canadas cutting down trees, chipping them, and selling to Britan. Britan get carbon credits for not cutting down there trees and Canadas [bleep]ing up one of there biggest industries. Go polution trading.

 

 

 

And bout the earth cooling thing. The warming idea actuarly states that will happen because there will be a rise in global cloud coverage that will block sunlight form reaching the surface causing an initial drop in temperature. After a few years, greenhouse effect kiicks in and hello (thunder)storms like we have never seen them before. As for cooling now? I find it hard to belive that the global average is dropping unless we just hit an ice age (in which case we would all be dead without artificaly raising the global temperature).

What you have to understand is that the most significant amount of pollution doesn't come from high-polluting industry. Pollution is relative to how many people live in an area, therefore, it is the general public driving around in cars and heating their homes who are contributing most to gas emissions.

 

 

 

Now of course, I'm not suggesting they should stop completely, but history shows that the public depend too much on science and technology, as a way of evading their own responsibilities. If scientists start proclaiming they can fix global warming by developing new technology, there'll be no incentive for anyone to improve their own efficiency, let alone businesses; more emissions will continue to be pumped, regardless of how much technology you develop.

 

 

 

Solar panels are alright, but you need something to transport them - typically lorries. Wouldn't it be more carbon neutral to put them on a train instead?

 

 

 

As you said, public transport should be one of the main priorities of government to tackle gas emissions. In other words, we need to look at ways of reducing our logistic dependency on fossil fuels. To me, the promise of new technology seems a way to shift the debate away from the state's responsibility to improve energy efficiency.

 

 

 

We should be investing into public transport to make it cheaper, providing grants to those who wish to make improvements to their home in order to improve energy efficiency (such as wind turbines, solar panels, insulation etc.), and encouraging households to use less energy, in the form of tax credits* and public education, by basic measures such as turning all appliances off at the plug socket at night, and turning all lights off. Leave the technology developing to private companies. With global warming firmly set as an issue the modern-day public are aware of, they really don't need public money as an incentive to develop said technology.

 

 

 

[hide=*]'Tax credit' refers to the British definition. I realise the term varies depending on which country you live in[/hide]

I think your idea is pretty good. but the problem is that though hydrogen cars are already invented, they're accidents waiting to happen. Hydrogen car= mini Hindenbergs driving down the highway. car crash=giant [wagon] explosion.

 

 

 

OT: I got the wrong idea when the title said "emission trading". I'm a dirty boy :-#

 

 

 

The cars will use hydrogen fuel cells not a giant [wagon] balloon on top, companies won't send out cars that are a danger hazard, they do something called "research". They don't just strap some hydrogen cans onto a car and market it.

OPEC wouldn't want oil prices too high. They know that high oil prices could send the western economies spiralling into recession, and since oil is their income a western recession would hurt them as well. Traditionally OPEC has, yes, conspired for healthy profits, but ultimately tried to minimise the expense to us. At least, that used to be their philosophy.

 

 

 

As the demand in China and India (mainly China) increases, I don't think OPEC will care too much about how their pricing affects the west.

 

 

 

This is very true, and why I was slightly hesitant about applying past doctrine to today's situation, but I still doubt that Saudia Arabia (the most powerful OPEC member) would really hang America out to dry for the sake of even greater profits. Also, huge foreign investment with oil money does give a bit of a boost to western economies.

 

 

 

In short, I don't think OPEC are to blame.

I think your idea is pretty good. but the problem is that though hydrogen cars are already invented, they're accidents waiting to happen. Hydrogen car= mini Hindenbergs driving down the highway. car crash=giant [wagon] explosion.

 

 

 

OT: I got the wrong idea when the title said "emission trading". I'm a dirty boy :-#

 

 

 

You do realise that's absolute crap, right?

 

Today you're driving around a car filled with one of the most energy-filled combustible substances we have access to.. And you're not worried about that?

 

 

 

Your giant [wagon] explosion was caused by a giant [wagon] balloon filled with a giant [wagon] amount of hydrogen. Not the amount found in a fuel cell.

What you have to understand is that the most significant amount of pollution doesn't come from high-polluting industry. Pollution is relative to how many people live in an area, therefore, it is the general public driving around in cars and heating their homes who are contributing most to gas emissions.

 

 

 

Now of course, I'm not suggesting they should stop completely, but history shows that the public depend too much on science and technology, as a way of evading their own responsibilities. If scientists start proclaiming they can fix global warming by developing new technology, there'll be no incentive for anyone to improve their own efficiency, let alone businesses; more emissions will continue to be pumped, regardless of how much technology you develop.

 

 

 

As I said, with many families in Australia feeling the pinch, they already have an incentive to save energy and petrol. I don't know how kicking them in the guts when they're down by essentially charging more for petrol would measurably improve their attitude towards energy savings. If they can't get it through their heads now, then I doubt they ever will. Maybe we need more gov't adds to tell them that they need to save energy in the home and be petrol frugal to save money.

 

 

 

I don't see the logic in emissions staying the same as more technology is developed, especially if you provide incentives for the new technology, as I suggested.

 

 

 

Solar panels are alright, but you need something to transport them - typically lorries. Wouldn't it be more carbon neutral to put them on a train instead?

 

 

 

As you said, public transport should be one of the main priorities of government to tackle gas emissions. In other words, we need to look at ways of reducing our logistic dependency on fossil fuels. To me, the promise of new technology seems a way to shift the debate away from the state's responsibility to improve energy efficiency.

 

 

 

Ok, I can see the logic here - families hear of measures to introduce brand new technology and feel less inclined to do their bit be it with saving energy in the home or taking up offers of public transport. Why not then overemphasise the personal responsibilities of the people, sweetening the deal with incentives all around?

 

 

 

There's nothing that says we must overemphasise the technology side of things. I can see the logic in people's reaction to new technology, so I basically agree with you here.

 

 

 

We should be investing into public transport to make it cheaper, providing grants to those who wish to make improvements to their home in order to improve energy efficiency (such as wind turbines, solar panels, insulation etc.), and encouraging households to use less energy, in the form of tax credits* and public education, by basic measures such as turning all appliances off at the plug socket at night, and turning all lights off. Leave the technology developing to private companies. With global warming firmly set as an issue the modern-day public are aware of, they really don't need public money as an incentive to develop said technology.

 

 

 

[hide=*]'Tax credit' refers to the British definition. I realise the term varies depending on which country you live in[/hide]

 

 

 

Ok, this actually sounds fine by me and I agree, so long as private companies do the research.

 

 

 

Heh, youve convinced me. :P

In short, I don't think OPEC are to blame.

 

They wouldn't have such an advantageous position if demand in the world wasn't higher than supply, but they're not exactly helping the situation, to put it nicely.

 

 

 

I don't see the logic in emissions staying the same as more technology is developed, especially if you provide incentives for the new technology, as I suggested.

 

Emissions would go down with new technology if the rate of emissions being released was stagnant. It's not. We are producing more and more emissions every single year, because we're burning more and more fossil fuels every single year as our populations grow.

 

 

 

There's the problem. New technology is good, but removes any incentive to cut down on the amount of fossil fuels we're actually burning, unless the new technology is on non-polluting methods of producing energy so we don't have to burn as much fossil fuels in the first place.

 

 

 

Heh, youve convinced me. :P

 

I think we're essentially arguing the same thing, from different angles. :P

 

 

 

Technology is good and should be encouraged, but political incentives are also needed. There's no silver bullet to this issue.

Just pointing it out, there is a suggestion floating around that petrol could be exempted from an emissions trading scheme at the cost of raising the price of other energy sources further than if it weren't.

Just pointing it out, there is a suggestion floating around that petrol could be exempted from an emissions trading scheme at the cost of raising the price of other energy sources further than if it weren't.

 

 

 

So do you think the touted increase is more down to Liberal political point scoring? Wouldn't be surprised.

Quite possibly.

 

 

 

Then again, it's only a suggestion at the moment. People are still rounding up experts to help them yell about how exemption for petrol would make everyone pay XBAWKS HUEG prices on everything else.