Thread: Recalculating the impact of the carbon tax

Not all greenhouse gases are created equal.

And the IPCC wants the citizens of the countries foolish enough to bow down to their terms and conditions on how to curb greenhouse gases to cough up more for other more dangerous gases that CO2.

For example based on IPCC data on how to tax other gases inclusive with the carbon tax or ETS the IPCC hve assigned different values to different gases eg,

1. A single tonne of methane is calculated as 21 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases (CO2-e).

2. Nitrous oxide is 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide

3. Sulphur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more potent.

What does this all do to that 20 cents extra we would be left with after Gillard's compensation of $10.40 ?

Recalculating the impact of the carbon tax

How changes to global carbon accounting standards will wipe out household over-compensation.

Briefing Note

Tim Wilson

Director of Climate Change Policy

3 July 2012


Read here

http://www.ipa.org.au/library/public...ntaximpact.pdf

Extra $30 dollars per annum my brief gander suggests. Am I wrong? I could be.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Extra $30 dollars per annum my brief gander suggests. Am I wrong? I could be.

Yes you are correct.

It just goes to show how dishonest Julia Gillard is.

And we better hope that the IPCC's 2014-15 paper which has revised HIGHER values again for CO2-e gases isn't incorporated into the carbon tax policy cause it will only add to the $30/annum.

In science once a value for example "a greenhouse gas carbon dioxide-equivalent" has been assigned within certain parameters how can it be continually revised with a higher value than the previous one in subsequent papers.

I mean you dont see the periodic table continually updated, because its science and thats what it is.

Wouldn't be cause its politics and not science that drives the global warming religion?

Increase in CO2-e (CO2 equivalent gases) in accordance with the IPCC's reports.

Taken from here
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/public...ntaximpact.pdf

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Increase in CO2-e (CO2 equivalent gases) in accordance with the IPCC's reports.

Taken from here
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/public...ntaximpact.pdf

Do you think that changing behaviours will account for this increase as well, as this is one of the motives a price instigates?

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Do you think that changing behaviours will account for this increase as well, as this is one of the motives a price instigates?

I certainely dont think its justifiable to multiple the CO2-e mass with the global warming potential (GWP) factor the IPCC claims these gases have.

I wonder whether these factors are proven scientifical or the IPCC is just pulling out of their backsides?

For example a tonne of methane (CH4) is multiplied by 21 to get 21 tonnes of equivalent CO2-e.

What about sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) multilied by 23900 times to get the equivalent CO2-e.

Hey Vig

Seriously mate if you and i start to turn of that extra light or tv that would have been left on before what effect will this have on energy supply?

I would say SFA, we will feel its effects through energy bills but the big polluters will not feel a thing and therefore will not change their ways.

Anyway you saw the paper Garry posted our CO2 emissions will increase not decrease even with a carbon tax.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

I certainely dont think its justifiable to multiple the CO2-e mass with the global warming potential (GWP) factor the IPCC claims these gases have.

I wonder whether these factors are proven scientifical or the IPCC is just pulling out of their backsides?

For example a tonne of methane (CH4) is multiplied by 21 to get 21 tonnes of equivalent CO2-e.

What about sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) multilied by 23900 times to get the equivalent CO2-e.

Hey Vig

Seriously mate if you and i start to turn of that extra light or tv that would have been left on before what effect will this have on energy supply?

I would say SFA, we will feel its effects through energy bills but the big polluters will not feel a thing and therefore will not change their ways.

Anyway you saw the paper Garry posted our CO2 emissions will increase not decrease even with a carbon tax.

Yeah, but there is a context to that dumb. I'll endeavor to find this info, which I recall seeing somewhere. Its nothing tricky from what I could see. I think it may have to do with projected growth and progress in the industry, which would have pushed up carbon emissions from today's figures. Therefore projected figures would have been even higher had there not been an ets.

I've reduced my bill already by ensuring simple changes such as turning off lights and power points etc etc. my partner and I were pleasantly surprised.

Once a cap is introduced and if oz introduces a floor price, which i think is the case there will be no escape for these corporations. They will have to change their ways. You could bet your bottom dollar that they are doing something as we speak, or had started the process years ago in anticipation of the ETS. I recall hearing something about this a while ago, possibly from a relative who has been employed by BHP for 30 odd years.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Hey Vig

Seriously mate if you and i start to turn of that extra light or tv that would have been left on before what effect will this have on energy supply?

I would say SFA, we will feel its effects through energy bills but the big polluters will not feel a thing and therefore will not change their ways.

You still don't get it....Economists know that they will filter the tax down to the consumers but what you fail to understand is the tax gives them incentive to change their ways as they can save money by by doing so. Thus making them richer while also lessening their pollution.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

You still don't get it....Economists know that they will filter the tax down to the consumers but what you fail to understand is the tax gives them incentive to change their ways as they can save money by by doing so. Thus making them richer while also lessening their pollution.

Actually, if history holds true companies will filter the tax plus a little down to the consumers, increasing their profit margin without having to change anything.

Originally Posted by hiimjered

Actually, if history holds true companies will filter the tax plus a little down to the consumers, increasing their profit margin without having to change anything.

Can you explain why they are opposed to increasing their profit margin even further?