Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

65% of Australians support emissions trading scheme

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Bravus, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. ...in practical terms, the debate is over.

  2. Well that's a surprise.
    I thought stupid people made up way more than 65% of the population...

    ETS Survey to indicate business response
    Cool! Looks like most business will be underprepared, and have to jack up their prices to compensate when they are surprised by increased production and transport costs.

    Bonk's prediction?
    Whether it positively influences the environment or not, in any meaningful way. It WILL raise the cost of living even further in Australia, and it WILL be a new source of income for the government.
    Also, I highly doubt the 65% of people in favour of this were asked "Are you happy to pay higher taxes and more for your food and household items?"

    I'll bet they were asked "Should we do something that's good for the environment?"

    65% said YES
    5% said NO
    and 30% said WELL THAT DEPENDS... but were thanked for their time, given a cookie and sent out the back without having their concerns recorded.
  3. The emissions trading scheme will impact strongly the various sectors of the transport industry (an area which will struggle to reduce emmisions because their base machinery is vehicular) and will drive up transport costs which will be passed on to producers, wholesalers, retailers and in the end the consumer (us!).

    Living expenses *will* go up.
  4. All that is true. But it costs us also to use the atmosphere as a huge landfill. What will the destruction of much of our agriculture by climate change cost? It makes no sense at all to bracket all that and just look at the short term cost (since the intention is to drive change so that the transport industry becomes more efficient and less polluting).
  5. Everyone supports and ETS because

    a.) They don't understand it and it's helping the environment, right?
    b.) They don't think they'll have to pay for it. Rudd did say he'd protect working families, didn't he?

    Look at the hue and cry when fuel was $1.60 a litre? In QLD, we are about to have a price rise for electricity and there is a stink about that. And the 8.5c a litre increase in fuel because the GST rebate is being taking away is also causing angst.

    So WTF do people think is going to happen when the CPRS and ETS are fully enacted in law? That somehow industry is suddenly going to reduce their emissions without increasing prices?

    The whole point of the above 2 schemes is to make carbon expensive enough that other forms of energy are viable or to make the investment required to clean up their existing plant economically viable. NONE of this can be done without an increase in costs to the consumer.

    That is not to say that either of these two schemes are irrelevant and that we should not strive to achieve overall carbon reduction, it's just that I doubt that 65% of the population even know what an ETS is, let alone the impact to their bottom line.
  6. Seems like there is a few people here that don't understand it either.
  7. Two contradictory points: ;)

    1. Do you think perhaps it's the teensiest bit elitist for the 3 of you (written before ibast's post) to just automatically assume that *you* make considered, thoughtful decisions, based on the balance of the evidence, while *most other people* make thoughtless, knee-jerk decisions? How about crediting the average Australian - and remember the massive range that encompasses - with at least the level of perspicacity you ascribe to yourself.

    2. I personally don't think an ETS is the perfect or ideal approach to addressing climate change. I think better funding and incentives for alternative power sources that will make them actually commercially viable and competitive is actually a better solution. My point with the thread was actually not so much about the ETS but about the climate change 'debate'. There are lots of loud posters who claim it's not decided, but in a democracy an almost 2/3 majority not only believe it's happening but are willing to take action to address it. In that sense, the debate is over.
  8. Yep. It's great.
    Oil companies and refineries will get hit, so the cost of fuel will go up. That will push transportation costs up too, let alone their additional costs in running their 'carbon producing death machines' (ie. trucks).
    Double whammy.

    Weight: Distance
    Trucks/road is used for approx 3% more of our freight than Rail, and it's growth is 0.2% faster per year than the growth of rail.

    So we'll be paying extra for big, smelly, diesel trucks to move everything around because the government failed to organise or invest in expanding the rail network; while being told to be HAPPY to pay more because we're doing something great for the environment.

    Oh, and if we're unhappy about the increased living costs, we at least need to be thankful we have a government prepared to make the tough decisions, like taxing carbon credits.

    Interesting how tough decisions from the past didn't include:
    - Repealing an illegal sales tax on already excised fuel.
    - Expanding the freight rail network.
    - Offering an incentive or assistance package to business that reduce emissions, rather than a fiscal punishment.
    - Targetting reduced waste and pollutants, rather than just emissions.
    - Investing in solar or nuclear power [although I see WA has taken a big step].

    Thank god Kevin is here to save us all from ourselves :roll:
  9. 73% percent of all statistics are made.
    85% of all people know that.
  10. No, I use my observations of how people react when fuel goes up by 6.5c/l and take it from that that people really don't understand that in order to reduce carbon pollution we either have to make it more expensive (to reduce demand) or clean up the energy sources we currenly have. Both options will add cost whatever way you look at it.

    And for those of us that 'don't understand it', please elaborate.
  11. The results I posted from the survey state that 94% of business CEO's (not average John Voter in the street - but people who this will affect greatly) had only heard of the ETS through mass media reporting.

    I don't necessarily believe I am a genius compared to all other Austalians, although for a percentage: it is true.
    But can a majority of this country's citizens (and consequently; their decisions) be uninformed? or misinformed?

    You betcha.
  12. Actually the country rail network in NSW is pretty expansive. It's just a lot of it has been decommissioned due to freight going by truck every where.

    I see this as one of the possible benefits of emission trading. Get trucks off the road and get the rail network back on track.

    Most of the rail could be up and running with the replacement of a few meters of rail.

    I'll pay more for my goods to see that. In reality you'd probably see a saving on your rego (and other taxes), because the cost of road maintenance/expansion will reduce.
  13. OK, I've heard it's one of the universal constants, and I believe it to be true. I suppose I could be wrong, but...

    Have you ever heard of a tax being reduced or repealed?
    Where it wasn't shored up by another one in the same move of course, but... ever heard of it happening here?
  14. True enough, but the pressure to increase could be lessoned (was it just me, or did the cost of car rego double this year in NSW (the rta portion)?)
  15. yeah cost might go up, but we'll adjust. There were probably similar "the sky is falling" arguments when the GST was introduced, but we are coping with that ok by the look of things. My life hasn't fallen apart since the GST came in (barely noticed it to be honest), and I reckon it will be the same for ETS - at the moment there is just a lot of hot air about the incredible damage it will do everyone's wallets.

    Meh - paying a bit more so we can continue raping the planet seems reasonable. Or, if you are price sensitive, you will pay the same but **** the planet less - by walking to the shops instead of driving, or by taking the bus / train, adding 15 minutes to your daily commute. Hardly life-destroying consequences.

    ETS is not really a big deal - the deal given to big business is more than fair - they've got a few years to sort out their affairs before any real charges kick in for them. But I reckon they'll very kindly pass on any charges from day one.

    For the consumer, the cost will be minimal because it will be shared by millions of other aussie consumers.

    +1 for ETS. I get charged when I take a load of rubbish to the landfill, and rightly so. Time that appropriate charges were put in place for putting rubbish in the air.
  16. It's actually better than that. the pressure will be on for emitters to get their act together. That means upgrades. That will stimulate the economy. More jobs for Australians, in Australia.

    People are really under estimating this factor. It will turn engineering and fabrication into a boom industry.
  17. Yeah very good point. Because of recent govt policy there are some insulation suppliers / solar installers / rainwater tank installers sitting on a big pile of money because of all the work they have. It will be no different for ETS - opportunities will be created.

    There might be a bit of a shift in where the money is made (ie professionals in the power industry may need to upskill so they can supply state of the art scrubbers), but money will still be made.

    I guess the reality of costs increasing is a legitimate (but grossly overstated) concern, but people do sometimes forget that there is also a pile of money to be made for those who are prepared - the trick is to be in the right place at the right time to get the moolah.
  18. I think "73% of statistics are made up, 27% are fixed by asking the right questions" would be more appropriate here.

    I for one, believe its a good thing. We, as a society have had ample time to decrease our carbon emissions of our own accord. We just chose not to. Therefore, we must provide ourselves an incentive to do so.

    Unfortunately, the perceived cost of living increase has come at an inopportune time (if there indeed is an opportune time for a cost of living increase) what with the media running scare campaigns around the GFC all day round. People will whinge, as they do, come election time, the gov't will be scrambling to hide their unpopular points...

    And once again, society gets to have its cake and eat it to... like the insolent little shits that we are.
  19. Not going to happen, it is a blatant tax grab. By the way rail is not shunned because of actual transport costs it is simply too slow.
  20. Do you really believe that though? It'd be a great idea if it did, I just can't imagine any of our politicians actually having the ability to make that happen.

    Reducing our carbon footprint is essential, regardless of whether you do or don't believe in GW. But whether a cap and trade is the right solution is yet to be determined.

    Ibast, you still haven't explained your position that we don't understand the proposed changes. Can you elaborate?

    Bravus, my point is that I seriously doubt whether 65% of the Australian population really understand the impact of an ETS. Everytime the price of energy goes up, people whine. Private cars are a huge contributor to carbon emissions. Yet when the price of petrol rises a few cents, people complain. In order to reduce private car use the price of fuel will have to rise significantly to move people from one form of transport to another, be that smaller cars or public transport.

    I believe that of those that do agree about the ETS and the CPRS, a fair few of them do so as a result of the promises from Rudd that they won't feel the pain. But if they don't, who will? There are efficiencies to be made by moving across to other forms of energy, but all of them require the price of carbon based fuels to increase to make their use cost competitive. If you can prove otherwise, I will be happy to concede.

    I really do believe though that we need to change. But how?