The Carbon Tax will wreck Australia

Taken from here
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...company-and-jobs/story-fn7x8me2-1226187052910

UPDATE 10am: A CHEMICAL company that operates in Prime Minister Julia Gillard's electorate says it will shelve a $1 billion world-class expansion because of the carbon tax.

With the Senate set to approve the historic climate change policy tomorrow, Coogee Chemicals says it also threatens the long-term sustainability and jobs at the nation's only methanol factory in Laverton North.

Coogee Chemicals chairman Gordon Martin told the Herald Sun the company had been planning a new $1 billion plant in country Victoria, southern Queensland or in NSW around the seat held by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.

It would have created 150 high-skilled jobs and export earnings of $14 billion, but Mr Martin said the carbon tax made it "uncompetitive and unviable".

"The carbon tax will stop a significant Australian project that would value-add to Australia's abundant gas resource and jeopardise the long-term sustainability of the existing methanol plant at Laverton," he said.

"The fact is that a highly-efficient methanol producer like Coogee Chemicals is likely to end up with no net carbon price liability under our industry assistance arrangements, so they will not be at any disadvantage compared to their international competitors," Mr Combet said.

The company would actually be better off under the carbon tax because of free carbon permits, he said.

"It would get more assistance than its total carbon price liability, because the new facility would be operating at much lower emissions intensity than existing facilities," he said.

The existing plant is in Ms Gillard's western suburbs seat of Lalor, where she will host Community Cabinet on Wednesday.

The Laverton factory takes natural gas from Bass Strait and turns it into clear, colourless liquid called methanol.

Plant manager Grant Lukey said "every home will have something that includes methanol".

It is a critical ingredient for items such as particle board for building, table tops, aerosols, windshield wiper fluid, plastic soft drink bottles, paint, cycling tights and mattress foam.

Overseas it is an alternative to ethanol for car fuel, particularly in China.

Dr Lukey said the Laverton factory had the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per tonne of any methanol plant in the world.

He said emissions were four-times greater at coal-based plants in China where 11 were built this year.

"We've spent 16 years developing the best technology and now a world-scale project is going to go belly-up," Dr Lukey said.

Mr Combet said Coogee had based its claims on an assumption that there would be no assistance after five years.

"This is despite repeated advice from the Government that this is a misinterpretation of the assistance arrangements assistance scheme," he said.

But the company told the Herald Sun there was no guarantee the assistance would last.

"You can't go ahead with an investment without an iron-clad guarantee being locked in," Dr Lukey said.

"We raised our concerns directly with Greg Combet's office, in his office in Canberra. They were totally unresponsive to our concerns. They didn't share our concerns at all."

Mr Combet said with an investment like the one proposed by Coogee, infrastructure costs, exchange rates, and input costs including natural gas prices are far more significant than the Government’s carbon price.

"For example, to make this investment gas pipelines would have to be constructed to the company’s proposed new facilities in NSW or Victoria – at an unknown cost," he said.

Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt blamed the Government.

"There couldn't be a plainer example of the stupidity of the carbon tax than losing a $1 billion investment with all of the associated jobs while sending global emissions up rather than down," Mr Hunt said.

Acting Prime Minister Wayne Swan said when the Senate passed the carbon tax it would be "a historic day for Australia".

"As well as a cleaner environment, it will deliver better jobs for our children and grandchildren and a more secure economic future," Mr Swan said.

"It's not an easy reform but it's the type of responsible, forward-looking policy that this Government is committed to delivering."

A tax of $23 a tonne will be paid by the top 500 polluters from July 1.

Industry gets $3 billion a year in compensation and households $5 billion in tax cuts and welfare.

 

The sky is falling.....

Have heard it all before... This will cost jobs, send us into bankruptcy, anything to try and scare us.

The government are giving them a free run, no tax yet they still complain. It has nothing to do with the carbon trading scheme it has to do with "being accountable". Business do not want to be accountable.

Near my home town there is the most intensive open cut mining that could be imagined. Hardly any of the prime agricultural land is being spared, they were told that the land would need to be restored, that the top soil would need to be kept, replaced when they were finished and that the trees and grasslands had to be replaced. Previously they just moved on leaving deep holes, I mean deep, 1000's of meters deep and miles in length.

At the time it spelt doom for Australia. Our power supplies would be stopped, businesses would go broke, trade would be affected and the poor hard done by mining companies would all go toes up.

Guess what, it never happened, open cut mining continued to flourish, turning the entire region into something that looked more like the moon then the Earth. New businesses started and employment went up. The grasslands were re-established, and trees etc were re-introduced.

The sky never fell then and it won't fall now. Get over it and get on with it.

 

Chalk and cheese, does not even come close to what the government is proposing. Funny that you can consider a cost at one of the scale is the same as adding a cost across the entire scale.

 

Look dumb it is all Tony Abbotts fault we have the thing in the first place.

The job of an opposition is to inform the electorate why something is a bad decision and then explain their policy.

1. He does not have an alternative like say initiating incentives for all vehicles to turn gas and having all government vehicles made into gas (afterall Australia has the biggest gas reserves in the world) and working with factories and large polluters to alternative operational equipment.

And 2. He has not pointed out the one flaw in this tax. It will not lower emissions. It will not actually do anything for the enviroment.

If I was in his office as communications I would of been telling to not miss an opportunity to spin that line "that it does not lower emissions". Every interview he had, I would of told him stay on that message.

Just shows he is not the only idiot in that party.

 

Emissions trading under the US Clean Air Act has been proven to reduce emissions of SO2.

Why do you say emissions trading under the Clean Energy Bill 2011 will not reduce emissions of CO2?

And if so - what do you suggest is a better solution for a first step towards de-carbonising the economy?

 

What Bugs says is very true

But the REAL reason why Abbott will not go there with saying this will not lower emissions is that to do that would be admitting emissions were bad in the first place.

Last I looked he was still in a state of denial

 

I share bugs reply to your quote as well.
Put a price on anything, and people will use their brains to minimize their spending....

 

So a single company shelving a billion dollar expansion = Australia getting wrecked?

 

That's not quite right mate. The price of fuel has skyrocketed over the last few years but I'd be willing to bet more fuel is used each year than the previous year. Petroleum fuels are a major source of air pollution but as I understand it they are not included in Juliar's carbon tax. Most 'essential' things will not see a reduction in consumption regardless of the price. Put the price of electricity up and people will just pay more, they won't use less. The same with bread, milk, alcohol etc etc.

 

The only people saying the carbon tax will wreck Australia are the Liberals like Tony Abbott. He needs to scare the public because he knows he doesn't stand a chance of becoming PM otherwise.

 

Hey lifeguide2010

I totally agree, it just shows that mister speedos is so negative that he is forgetting to do his job.

I'm all for cleaning up our act but the carbon tax as you say will do nothing of the sort.

Actually a vote for the carbon tax is a vote for corporatism and has nothing to do with cleaning the environment as history will show in Australia and has shown in Europe.

Its funny how ceaser was questioned about the carbon tax he queitly said that Gillard was very brave for doing what she did, but he would not be passing down a carbon tax on the romans.

Instead he will take direct measures back in rome and he will not be sending billions of dollars to overseas institutions.

Seems our government has a subservient role to wall street the bankers and the United nations when it comes to cleaning up our own back yard.

 

Haven't you written elsewhere that you have installed solar panels on your house?

It appears that you have responded to price pressures to reduce your consumption. Or did you put the black shiny things on your roof for purely aesthetic reasons?

 

Yes thats right bugs,

Lets get all the poor and the middle class to use less energy by telling them about AGW and imposing a carbon tax on the poor hapless fools who believe everything they are told.

While the rich going on living a status quo when it comes to AGW and the carbon tax or should i say austerity measures in cognito.

 

So you keep saying. With no explanation.

Emissions trading has been proven in the past to reduce emissions.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/peg_caa/acidrain.html

Why do you insist that the same strategy will not work on a larger scale?

 

I'm sorry - but if you wish to participate in the discussion, would it be too much to ask that you base your comments on some sort of actual fact? An example maybe? A reference?

Simply making stuff up and writing the first thing that comes into your head is a bit of a waste of time.

 

The tax itself and it's numerous indirect consequences do not lower the emissions.

In the US it is a little more easier to do that because the large number of big polluters out number the smaller businesses, and therefore there are not enough carbon credits to trade from the smaller businesses to the larger polluters who need the credits to pollute at the same levels they have been doing, so in essence when they use up their credits there is not enough credits left to trade from the smaller polluters.

In Australia we have a small number of large polluters compared to the number of smaller businesses which means that it will be easier for larger polluters to buy carbon credits and this will allow the large polluters to keep polluting at the same levels they are doing right now.

The only way to lower the emissions is to hand out so few credits that no one can virtually create any business, therefore increasing the price of every good and service. This would be entirely intolerable to the electorate and would see not only Labor lose votes but also the greens, as prices of everything would go so high no one could even buy a salad for their meals.

I have seen no small or large emissions drops being predicted from this tax. The only thing Julia keeps rattling on about is the fact that the government through the tax will have finances to explore alternative energy options which is good, but I have not seen any data or study which says that our nations emissions wil significantly reach the nominated targets by implementing this tax.

I have stated a way that Australia can become a leader in this field. I undrstand gas creates carbon emissions when being refined for distribution to consumers from its natural state, but when the gas actually gets used by consumers there are very little emissions, if every car was gas converted and every vehicle such as trucks, government transport (trains, ferries and buses to name a few)was converted not only could we cut emissions within a year, we could do it in a way that creates jobs, is not that expensive and without going back on a promise made during an election campaign.

The conversion to gas also sees Australia become less reliant on unstable, shady regimes who in some cases have very shady reputations in certain governance areas.

It is okay to sit here and say we are doing something but I thought the danger was immediate. I thought we needed to do something right now. Even this trading scheme which is not due to be implemented until 2013 will take a few years, at least, to have an impact, if at all. My way does something now and I think is easier tro sell to the citizens of the country.

 

Yes this is correct. The actions being taken are really far too little and far too late - but still the cries of "we'll all be doomed" by the deniers, the greedy, the short-sighted and the just plain stupid - just for the minor actions proposed - have still been close to deafening

You suggested converting all cars trucks etc to gas. This would not make a big difference. Firstly, the transport sector is a relatively small contributor to greenhouse emissions, and the difference in emissions between gas and oil is fairly small. It may even prove worse to to the increase in fugitive methane emissions that arise from more gas production.
http://theconversation.edu.au/fugitive-emissions-what-is-the-real-footprint-of-coal-seam-gas-2940

At best it would be a minor short term improvement. Better to skip the gas step all together and start making more vehicles electric.

 

I have given you my explination bugs, i just dont like repeating myself all the time.

The biggest polluters in Australia could become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their plants with

1. Fabric Filter bags
2. Electro static precipitators
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration

Using the latest technology in all the above will make us the cleanest in the world and we dont have to give away billions of dollars to overseas institutions.

Now about the ETS working please provide an example if you dont mind.

The European scheme was implemeted in 2005 and its still hasn't reduced emmissions, where in the world are you getting this info from please show us.

As for that article about acid rain have you ever heard about the Chernobyl disaster.

It also states

Now where in the world have people stopped using cars?????????????????????

Get a grip bugs seriously mate, the carbon tax will not benefit the Earth and will only be another pawn on the stock exchange.

 

Well bugs i'll let you in a a little secret austerity measures are for the poor and middle class, there now you know.

What you think the rich are going to do something about it and give up their life style.

OOHHH nononononon its for us bugs you and me.

 

The problem with LNG is that it is totally unstable and highly explosive, and must be kept under intense pressure. Your fuel tank becomes a bomb waiting to explode and take you with it rather than just burn. You want to drive around with an ANFO bomb attached to the underside of your car feel free but it's not worth it.

 

Thats nonsense, LNG is safer than petrol.

 

I already have. Please learn how to read.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/peg_caa/acidrain.html


Emissions trading has been proven in the past to reduce emissions. Why do you insist that the same strategy will not work on a larger scale?

Do you think you could answer the question this time?

 

The difference isn't in flammability but pressure. Petrol is a liquid at atmospheric pressures, LNG requires immense pressure to stay a liquid.

Ever take a propane tank out and shoot it? Makes a pretty good boom.

 

Hi bugs

Again just like carbon credits the Sox trading credits on the market may show a decrease in sox emmissions on paper but in actual fact or practice the sox foot print might be getting bigger.

A flawed system bugs designed for the economic market and all its speculators, for the sole purpose of making money through emmissions trading.

This system could never clean up our pollution no matter how hard you try to defend it.

The only real measure lays in direct action not some money making scheme on the stock exchange.

OHH and lets not forget all the sacrifices we are expected to make for such a ponzi scheme either.

While Richy Rich gets richer we (the surfs) are expected to go back 100 years in energy use.

BTW bugs apart from the Chernobyl disaster and all the acid rain that fell there.

Where else have we had such a catastrophy from acid rain?

The other thing also bugs is that monitoring sox's and nox's would be near impossible beacuase of the short life span of these gases, and depending upin sunlight, pressure, temperature and other particles in the atmosphere they would only have a very short life span.

So how the hell do they take readings of sox's and nox's for the life of me it just proves what a ponzi scheme emmissions trading is.

 

Totally agree a pressurised vessel strapped to the back of your car is like a bomb waiting to go of.