-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
ETS
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
this may help:
He explained that under the plan the government would allow companies to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, a little like the water allocations that are already in place.
"If you're an emitter of greenhouse gases, particularly a large factory or a power station, you need to have permits for your green house gas emissions," says Rupert.
The Federal Government will allocate permits each year, perhaps by selling or auctioning them or perhaps by giving them away.
At the end of the year each of those emitters needs to have enough permits to cover all of their greenhouse gas emissions.
If they've emitted more greenhouse gas than they have permission to they need to buy more permits from someone else who has some left over.
"If you can't reduce your greenhouse gas emissions cheaply you'll probably buy a permit from somebody else," explains Rupert.
Each year the Government allocates less permits, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted. Rupert says the plan is designed to reduce emissions in "the cheapest way".
He explained that under the plan the government would allow companies to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, a little like the water allocations that are already in place.
"If you're an emitter of greenhouse gases, particularly a large factory or a power station, you need to have permits for your green house gas emissions," says Rupert.
The Federal Government will allocate permits each year, perhaps by selling or auctioning them or perhaps by giving them away.
At the end of the year each of those emitters needs to have enough permits to cover all of their greenhouse gas emissions.
If they've emitted more greenhouse gas than they have permission to they need to buy more permits from someone else who has some left over.
"If you can't reduce your greenhouse gas emissions cheaply you'll probably buy a permit from somebody else," explains Rupert.
Each year the Government allocates less permits, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted. Rupert says the plan is designed to reduce emissions in "the cheapest way".
In a nutshell rosy its charging people to pollute the air. Currently polluting the air is free. Which is why we are producing to much air pollution which is changing the earth's climate. Governments globally are moving towards various mechanisms which charge people to pollute. Dirty technologies like brown coal will have to buy a heap of pollution permits, cleaner techs like gas will have to buy less, solar will have to buy none, etc.. Net result will be pollution will reduce over time as the good old market kicks in.
When you boils it down, its pretty basic. And whether you are for or against it comes down to the question: should profit making businesses be allowed to pollute the air, our air, for free?
When you boils it down, its pretty basic. And whether you are for or against it comes down to the question: should profit making businesses be allowed to pollute the air, our air, for free?
tigersnake said:
I wonder how much tax the average householder will be up for to pay for it. Big business will always pass on any hike to the consumer ie us.
willo said:
Well yes, you don't get anything for nothing. Generally, power has so cheap that people, and businesses, tend to waste it like drunken sailors. If the price goes up a bit, people start watching what they consume and checking the energy efficiency of appliances they buy. Generally, the price of power will go up, but people will have an incentive to start caring about how much they are using and end up about the same amount out of pocket.
Tiger74 said:
Do you really think this is going to stop emissions in the long run? Sounds more like a game to me.
TigerForce said:
What do you think the stock market is? Futures, derivatives, projection etc etc. Indeed the capitalist market system is a humungus game force field, which is why the ETS has been designed the way it has.
tigersnake said:
So as the whole point is to phase down emissions in the long run, the market capitalization reduces every year?
Do we believe this?
TigerForce said:
In the long run, definately. Thing is, it will probably take too long. Charging people to pollute will reduce pollution, full stop. If we were at the point we are now, that is a pretty feeble starting point, 15 years ago, we may have been in with a decent show. As it stands, even this extremely feeble starting point is having trouble getting up. (even though its a feeble starting point, its still a very important step because it gets the ball rolling).
TigerForce said:
Not sure what you mean, but if you put a price on carbon and the price goes up, which it will, dirty technologies get less viable and clean technologies become more viable. Giant companies which have previously had no incentive to develop clean technologies are suddenly hard at it.
Lots of questions I don't know the answers for. I really haven't followed the ETS debate. Global warming and the greenhouse effect is a massive worry imo. It's a reason we plant thousands of trees on our property, we try to purchase recyclable resources, limit our use of plastics and have as little rubbish as possible and are very careful what we burn.
Are the Govt passing the buck in regard to coal usage for power when they're willing to charge taxes on it rather than opt for more/encourage efficient power sources?
Would the heavy carbon users be more likely to pass on the taxes to the general public rather than improve their habits?
Why is agriculture exempt (think I heard that on the radio)?
Are there rewards for companies off-setting the pollution, ie planting trees?
What does the Govt use the $$$ raised by the scheme for? I hope the ETS is part of an overall education rather than a get rich scheme.
Why isn't there general education for everyone to help lessen our carbon footprint rather than just targeting businesses?
What do PREnders do to lessen their greenhouse gas impact personally?
Are the Govt passing the buck in regard to coal usage for power when they're willing to charge taxes on it rather than opt for more/encourage efficient power sources?
Would the heavy carbon users be more likely to pass on the taxes to the general public rather than improve their habits?
Why is agriculture exempt (think I heard that on the radio)?
Are there rewards for companies off-setting the pollution, ie planting trees?
What does the Govt use the $$$ raised by the scheme for? I hope the ETS is part of an overall education rather than a get rich scheme.
Why isn't there general education for everyone to help lessen our carbon footprint rather than just targeting businesses?
What do PREnders do to lessen their greenhouse gas impact personally?
TigerForce said:
the principle actually works
one current example is packaging. the national packaging covenant is aimed at reducing the environmental impact of packaging. The warm fuzzies of it is only a small part of the reason for its success though. It made signatories look at how to reduce packaging, and in doing so they discovered a few things:
1) smarter packaging can mean more stock per m3, which reduces transportation costs and raises margins
2) reductions in plastics used, thickness of boards, elimination of layers, and reusable packaging may result in only minimal changes per unit. For FMCG's however, where units moved per annum are in the millions, the reductions in weight and reductions in per unit costs save millions per annum - again raising margins. Was involved with one major company who did this really well, and it gave us a great cost advantage over our competitors.
This has seen FMCG companies move away from certain materials and packaging formats to those that make more financial benefit for them. The idea of an ETS or any carbon tax is it forces companies to get creative to see how they can minimize carbon use materials/actions, or find alternatives so that they can get a cost advantage over their competitors.
rosy23 said:
The con rosy is from the extremely powerful fossil fuel, or specifically coal industry in Aus. The ETS means it will have to start paying to pollute. Its profits, in the short to medium term, will go from Humungus, to just very big.
What these jokers, and the Coalition party are not telling people is that the EYS will create new industries and give a huge boost to struggling ones, like solar. If we were smart about this and got stuck in, get in early, we'd have no net job losses and probably have job increases. But unfortunately the coal industry has the coaolition, and to a lesser extent Labor, by the knads and running scared. Its pathetic.
The whole Abbot lead stance is basically saying Aussies don't have the brains or capacity to develop new clean energy industries.
TigerForce said:
the principle actually works
one current example is packaging. the national packaging covenant is aimed at reducing the environmental impact of packaging. The warm fuzzies of it is only a small part of the reason for its success though. It made signatories look at how to reduce packaging, and in doing so they discovered a few things:
1) smarter packaging can mean more stock per m3, which reduces transportation costs and raises margins
2) reductions in plastics used, thickness of boards, elimination of layers, and reusable packaging may result in only minimal changes per unit. For FMCG's however, where units moved per annum are in the millions, the reductions in weight and reductions in per unit costs save millions per annum - again raising margins. Was involved with one major company who did this really well, and it gave us a great cost advantage over our competitors.
This has seen FMCG companies move away from certain materials and packaging formats to those that make more financial benefit for them. The idea of an ETS or any carbon tax is it forces companies to get creative to see how they can minimize carbon use materials/actions, or find alternatives so that they can get a cost advantage over their competitors.
Tiger74 said:
Reductions in weight such as e.g. McCains French Fries who sell virtually 500 gram of fries from a 750 gram pack? ;D
Tiger74 said:
Old mechanistic companies will be hard to push.
TigerForce said:
last point is a good one, and they lose as a result.
I knew the guys I worked with reviewed packaging dimensions to maximize units per pallet. Then they worked closely with the packaging companies to improve design of outer corrugated boards to minimize weight and cost. Then they redesigned on shelf packaging to minimize pointless board use (i.e. switch from a 6 sided box to a 4 sided wrap).
They even reviewed raw material arrangements, pushing suppliers to move to bulk or reusable delivery units to again reduce waste and costs.
All minor changes, but total effect saved a bucket of money
On the "why should companies pay the govt to emit carbon", companies already pay the govt to bury waste at a tip site. And again from personal experience, the high cost of that dumping meant most companies I worked with all had waste management teams to minimize the amount they sent to dumps.
TigerForce said:
actually deal with them a lot now in my new gig. shipping and weight is a massive issue for them. you even get the packaging minimization too. no more mass ps peanuts in the box, most use ps blocks designed to provide maximum protection during shipment. also many durables switch to smarter boxes now. Both my fridge and my plasma were 5 sided boxes, not the traditional 6
material selection gets interesting these days. already some clients in furniture and homewares are switching to bamboo due to its rapid growth and renewable nature.
timber industry actually argue one interesting point though. For a wood product that is not disposed of (i.e. not paper, but a timber house or table), that product is actually a carbon sink. Because the carbon is stored in the "table" and is not broken down and released until burnt or decomposed, technically it can be argued a wooden table is preventing a carbon release.
Tiger74 said:
I wonder if it's to do with my council refusing to pick up 3 old wooden garage doors we don't need. I suppose gas heaters would have to be looked at also, even considering my cousin still uses a 1983 Rinnai which is really warm during winter but only because the thermo broke and is now producing less than 5 ppms of carbon monoxide into the air.
TigerForce said:
heaters are actually getting better too - replaced mine with effectively the same model recently. Its lighter, more efficient, and has more effective insulation. and mine is an average thing. some of the newer technologies are pretty damn good, and the price premium is minimal
