Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Kangaroos were hopping mad about that tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
The oligarchy is making strong gains in Australia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The intended goal of carbon tax scams would have a net effect of nil on the environent.

It's nothing but $ redistribution , at govt control.

---

Quote:

---

Now that the Abbott government has succeeded in repealing the carbon price, who stands to win and who stands to lose?

On the face of it, the winners from the repeal of Australia’s carbon price will be the 371 liable entities paying the tax and consumers who forked out more for goods and services as the emissions charge was passed on.

Losers will include firms that have profited from their relatively low carbon output compared with rivals, such as Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania. Accounting and corporate advisory firms are also likely to cut jobs as demand for their expertise dims.

The effects of the Senate’s repeal of the carbon price – $25.40 a tonne as of July 1 - will take some time to play out.

Since the carbon price fell most directly on the power sector, its removal should produce winners in that industry, save for the hydro plants and wind farms which operate at near-zero emissions.

However, as former Citi analyst and clean energy campaigner Tim Buckley notes, the coal-fired power producers have been stoked with billions of dollars in compensation to ensure they absorbed the carbon hit.

“The government gave almost 100 per cent free permits to the generators, who were allowed to bank the cash,” Mr Buckley said. “Then they’ve charged consumers for the cost of the carbon and taken the difference as a profit.”

AGL on Thursday (July 17) said the repeal of the carbon price would reduce earnings before interest and tax by about $186 million. The sum includes the loss of $100 million in "transitional assistance arrangements" for its Loy Yang A power plant in Victoria and about $86 million from anticipated falls in its wholesale power prices paid to its renewable energy and gas generation units.

Perverse result

Likewise, the big trade-exposed energy users, such as the aluminium and cement industries, were given 94.5 per cent of their permits.

Perversely, since allocations were made on industry averages, some aluminium producers actually profited from the carbon price. That benefit will presumably evaporate along with the tax’s demise.

“Australia's aluminium smelters were heavily protected from the carbon price and in some cases were over-compensated,” said Hugh Bromley, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, noting the industry's effective carbon price for the 2013-14 financial year ranged from minus-$34 per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent, to $6 a tonne.

“A plant such as [Rio Tinto’s] Bell Bay effectively made an additional $220 for every tonne of aluminium produced, while some plants on the mainland faced a cost of around $115 per tonne of aluminium,” Mr Bromley said.

Industrial beneficiaries of the end of a carbon price include the chemicals industry, particularly sectors such as refrigeration that use chemicals with a high greenhouse gas potency. Land-fill operators are other winners since many would have collected large upfront costs for waste they may not now need to manage.

“You’re talking 50 years of emissions that they are passing through,” Mr Bromley said.

Other producers of greenhouse gases, such as coal miners and gas producers, will also benefit from the absence of a carbon cost.

These sectors, particularly the new LNG exporters, happen to be among the fastest growing sources of carbon-equivalent emissions, with their expansion likely to make it harder for Australia to meet its goal of reducing 2000-level emissions 5 per cent by 2020.

Firms able to tap the Abbott government's alternative to a carbon price to achieve that target - the direct action plan to pay polluters to curb emissions - will also be beneficiaries, assuming workable legislation supporting the policy can get through the Senate.

Details of the policy - including how baselines will be enforced - remain unclear, as is the precise amount of money available. Environment Minister Greg Hunt insists he will have access to the full $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund for the plan, although the May budget allocated only $1.14 billion over the four-year forward estimates.

Consumer view

Consumers are also potentially winners from the repeal of the tax, but by how much remains less clear than the precise $550 per household this year routinely pledged by the Abbott government.

As Fairfax Media has reported, the annual savings may come in closer to $250, with electricity the main item to change. The fabled roast leg of lamb that was to have cost more than $100, is selling at about a fifth of that price in the supermarkets. After the repeal it may be all of 20 cents cheaper.

While some power companies say they will fully repay any carbon tax collected on electricity bills since July 1, how carbon-linked prices for other parts of the economy will be reset remains uncertain.

Tony Wood, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute, cites the case of a dairy producer sourcing milk derived from several states – each with a different carbon profile in their power sectors. How much should milk prices fall once the tax goes?

“I wouldn’t be Rod Sims for quids,” Mr Wood said, referring to the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

As Fairfax Media reported, Qantas, a major fuel user, has ended its “carbon surcharge” but said competition meant it had not been able to recover the carbon costs as intended. Post-tax fares may hardly budge.

Shadow price

Meanwhile, any cheering in corporate boards might not reach the accounting departments. Companies will have no choice but to maintain a “shadow carbon price” no matter the current Australian policy, analysts say.

“Regardless of what happens today, we will have a lot of uncertainty in the market, and that creates a shadow carbon price in power futures,” said Mr Bromley.

Peter Castellas, chief executive of the Carbon Market Institute, said a survey of 82 companies liable to pay the carbon price last year found almost three quarters assumed a future carbon price on their investments.

The estimated carbon price ranged from the low price for Certified Emissions Reductions, worth around 20 cents a tonne, to more than $50 a tonne, surveyed companies said.

“Any company looking at any long-term investment will be thinking of factoring in a carbon price,” Mr Castellas said, noting this is particularly true for firms with international operations.

Globally, the assumed carbon price is $20-$60 a tonne, Mr Buckley, a director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said.

One place where losses have been mounting for some time is in the area of carbon-related jobs.

The big banks scaled back or halted their carbon trading desks “a long time ago,” said Michael Green, director of Bradman’s carbon and energy recruitment unit. Business is “as dead as doornail”.

The uncertainty has spread to the renewable energy industry, the next area likely to be hit by an Abbott government roll-back.

Bradman has recently sent offshore one of Australia’s most experienced wind farm construction managers.

“He’s just bitter about the situation in Australia and he won’t be back some time soon,” Mr Green said.

Little wonder, with Bloomberg New Energy Finance noting that Australia's investments in large-scale renewable energy plunged to just $40 million in the first half of 2014 from about $2.7 billion for all of 2013.

The carbon industry is about to enter a period of pause which will see firms like Bradman devote their efforts to expanding in Asia or elsewhere.

“It is hibernation but at the same time [we’re] going to suffer a brain drain,” Mr Green said. “We’re just tired of the ups and downs.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/who-wins-who-loses-when-
the-carbon-tax-goes-20140709-zt1mm.html#ixzz37m66Ozbv

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yay, hooray for this. Screw the future, keep your head in the sand, kow tow to big business and the lowest common denominator.

A step back. Well one of many for this edjiit.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps you dont have kids and/or dont care about future generations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think all we can really do if you intend to resist continuing dependence on oil or if you're concerned about the climate is buy into non-fossil fuels. Here in Utah it's so sunny that it's not hard to design a net zero building, or even one that sells generated power back to the grid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You're the flat earther and you are calling me nuts???????????????????

---

Quote:

---

But nevermind, by all accounts this matter is not ended , it's just a setback and delay, not an end to it. Abbot is an unpopular PM with limited power in the Upper House and we don't have fixed terms. I'm still hopeful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Hysterical hyperbole , and nothing else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think all we can really do if you intend to resist continuing dependence on oil or if you're concerned about the climate is buy into non-fossil fuels. Here in Utah it's so sunny that it's not hard to design a net zero building, or even one that sells generated power back to the grid.

---

And companies that rely on fossil fuels, particularly energy companies are terrified of this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Fossil fuels work. Have worked, and will continue to work. They don't NEED to be propped up by govts. That's the basic fact that the warm-mongers and Greenies don't grasp.

Make something that works, design a wind turbine that doesn't slice endangered birds into confetti, what ever it takes, and FREE MARKET economics will take over from there.

Until then, diverting resources away from proven sources of energy will only stifle jobs and force more people to do w/ out, needlessly so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Haha, you're not kidding, some people have actually been surprised to find that they're being CHARGED on their energy bills for generating their own energy. They're fighting it in the courts, it's pretty ridiculous.

But the energy companies around here are just about done. The younger generation just isn't interested in going down into the mines and getting black lung (and it doesn't help the stigma of Crandall Canyon mine and the weasel of a company owner is hanging over coal mining in Utah), and the coal power plants just aren't all that cost effective to run anymore. And some of them admitted to me at a conference that it's not really that it's the emissions laws and the scrubbers, it's just the demand for coal power is dying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
He's trolling MAGONSDAUGHTER. His posts defy logic and reason. That spells troll. Either that or he spent his life as a yes sir moron. I am surprised no one here connected the dots.

Serenity, the operative who buys into the whole alliance bullshit? See the connection? I do, he is just an old establishment yes man, and he is not the only one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Energy companies are about to go into a death spiral. As prices go up, more people opt out of the grid or lower their usuage, so prices increase again to cover infrastructure that is being used less.

My aim is to pretty much be off the grid in the next 10 years, but that wont help those who cant afford to do that and who will bear the brunt of skyrocketing prices.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I do, he is just an old establishment yes man, and he is not the only one.

---

Quote:

---

So, when you say 'about to go into a death spiral', are we talking next year ? 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ? Help me out here, and spare me the cries of "WOLF!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I do, he is just an old establishment yes man, and he is not the only one.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You think the carbon tax would help matters of skyrocketing prices ?

Huh.

So, when you say 'about to go into a death spiral', are we talking next year ? 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ? Help me out here, and spare me the cries of "WOLF!"

---

Quote:

---

Tony Abbott's success in scrapping the carbon tax last week has not arrested his government's poll slide, with Labor's primary support jumping 3 points and voters still favouring Bill Shorten for a third consecutive month.

Mr Abbott's trustworthiness stands at a record low 35 per cent after Joe Hockey's first budget, which has also shredded his standing as preferred treasurer.

The budget's mix of harsh cuts and new imposts including the $7 GP co-payment and a fuel tax rise, have wiped out the 17-point advantage Mr Hockey had over shadow treasurer Chris Bowen in March.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

AURaptor might be military. I've never had it confirmed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes, correct and that is what I try and do. I noticed G ( and others)have made great arguments to show Rappys ignorance. The guys a fool. That's not just a I hate you thought. The guy really is ignorant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes, correct and that is what I try and do. I noticed G ( and others)have made great arguments to show Rappys ignorance. The guys a fool. That's not just a I hate you thought. The guy really is ignorant.

---

Actually, I'm not ignorant. What's funny is seeing how you arrive at such a term simply for those who see things differently or refuse to accept what's being spoon fed him on all matters, great and small.

Here's a bit of what I know -

We live on a very old planet , that goes around a star, in a solar system on the outskirts of a galaxy containing billions of stars. Our Milky Way is an average galaxy, in age and size.

Life on our planet had changed , yes evolved, more than most folks care to comprehend. Mainly because we don't know the scope and variety of life that's existed through out the ages. As I don't believe in a super natural creator, or magic, I'm equally skeptical of the existence of such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, Bigfoot, Mermaids, or the like. And despite all that, I know, we as humans are still in the dark about a great many things on our planet, not to mention the Cosmos.

I've heard many religious types describe atheists as being just arrogant, adversarial and rebellious, purely out of spite and hubris. And while some atheist may fall w/ in that group, the description does not apply to all. Nor does it apply to me.

So, call me a fool because I don't buy into the claims made by a vocal group of folks who are intent on altering our way of life , for no real clearly defined reason, and even worse, with out any clearly thought out plan , then I consider myself in fine company.



This fool ( Copernicus ) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

— Martin Luther, Works vol 22, c. 1533.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
see here is the thing I could never really understand....

if...the tiny minority of the science community are correct...and that is a big if, given theyre all in bed with the energy companies, but say they are and climate change, which everyone agrees is happening, is NOT man made, even if that is true, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to take steps to replace dependance upon systems of energy production that rely on finite sources and produce high levels of pollution to energy sources that are infinite and substantially cleaner?

What I dont get is that...even if you have doubts or are unconvinced, that you couldn't see the benefits in those kind of changes.

As far as I see it change happens in two ways - you plan for it and manage it or you bury your head in the sand and wait for it to happen to you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Nah, he loves it. It's all attention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

*** wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to take steps to replace dependence upon systems of energy production that rely on finite sources and produce high levels of pollution to energy sources that are infinite and substantially cleaner?***

---

Quote:

---

As far as I see it change happens in two ways - you plan for it and manage it or you bury your head in the sand and wait for it to happen to you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

This whole post is hogwash. It has nothing to do with global warming and as a reason for you to suggest scientists are wrong it is woefully inadequate.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, as an atheist myself that does not apply here either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Such sources, though 'finite', are still readily available, easy to unlock from the Earth, and yield a very large return on production of energy. Simply put, nothing comes close to matching the bang for the buck.

---

Quote:

---

....Ruraptor
Even if you plan for it, I'd say the latter will occur.

At the very least, all these post - apocalyptic t.v. shows and survival 'reality' programs on now will filter into the culture and we'll just adjust all that much easier!

---

Quote:

---

....Rappy
Sorry, but which patch will I be forced to wear on my clothing when I'm out in public ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Or might not. Not sure why that's an issue, either way. Nor where it's said that I am an old establishment 'yes man'. I've spoken out plenty against the old guard . But I've not blindly rejected wisdom either, out of hand, simply because it wasn't formed yesterday.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Or might not. Not sure why that's an issue, either way. Nor where it's said that I am an old establishment 'yes man'. I've spoken out plenty against the old guard . But I've not blindly rejected wisdom either, out of hand, simply because it wasn't formed yesterday.

---

Never said you were a yes man, simply that you had certain attitudes and perspectives that made me wonder if you were military.

I've thought MKNickerson might be military as well, for the same reasons, even though you have pretty much opposite ideologies.

---

Quote:

---

So, call me a fool because I don't buy into the claims made by a vocal group of folks who are intent on altering our way of life , for no real clearly defined reason, and even worse, with out any clearly thought out plan , then I consider myself in fine company.

---

Quote:

---

Even if you plan for it, I'd say the latter will occur.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

It was I that called Rappy and old establishment yes man.

---

Quote:

---

Physicists claim further evidence of link between cosmic rays and cloud formation

A Danish group that has reproduced the Earth's atmosphere in the laboratory has shown how clouds might be seeded by incoming cosmic rays. The team believes that the research provides evidence that fluctuations in the cosmic-ray flux caused by changes in solar activity could play a role in climate change. Other climate researchers, however, remain sceptical of the link between cosmic rays and climate

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-danish-unexpected-magic-cosmic-rays.html

---