-
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.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Tigers of Old said:
but ToO that is nothing compared to Plibersek pausing for a moment to consider whether she made a statement a couple of weeks prior at a community forum.
Freezer said:
Yeah, made me completely reavaluate all the science and my own interpretation of it.
Fair dinkum, whats the point? Just because a scenario has been outlined that people don't like, its therefore 'alarmist' and therefor wrong? That is the logic at play here.
Has any seen some of those central coast and north coast beach towns? Repton? Wooli? Brunswick Heads? Ballina? Check 'em out on maps people, some are 0.5 m above sea level. To say they are in trouble is not alarmist. To say Ballarat is in trouble might be alarmist. Currently the main street of Ballina floods on every king tide. Pretty alarming, but its happening.
Data people, data. Ev-id-dence.
Threat to rip tens of thousands of dollards off old homes and McMansions
Ben Pike and Kirsten Craze From: Herald Sun August 13, 2011
A NEW green scheme threatens to wipe tens of thousands of dollars from the market price of energy-guzzling old homes and McMansions.
The Federal Government aims to introduce mandatory energy star ratings for homes being sold or rented out as soon as next year.
Under the favoured system, vendors and landlords would have to pay about $200 to have their property assessed - a total cost of $1.1 billion over 10 years.
And housing experts say most older homes and McMansions would be likely to score very poorly.
Mick Fabar, director of private energy ratings firm Green Homes Australia, said many two-storey McMansions would be lucky to score zero.
Renovated old workers' cottages and Californian bungalows also were expected to score at the bottom end of the scale.
Experts said there would be significant financial implications for owners of these homes - either spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.
A federal government study into a similar ACT scheme operating since 1999, which rates properties out of 10 stars, found a one-star difference affected selling prices by 3 per cent.
If mirrored in Melbourne, a one-star variation would equal $17,700 - based on the REIV's median house price of $590,000, as reported in June. A three-star variation would equal $53,100.
Choice head of campaigns Matt Levey said homes that were energy inefficient would cost more to run, but star-rating models have been criticised for failing to factor in actual consumption, leading to questions about whether the changes will even cut power use.
The Herald Sun asked Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's office if the scheme would have a negative effect on the sale price of some homes.
"It will allow buyers and renters to better compare different properties, making it easier to identify a property that uses less energy or water and thereby save money," a spokeswoman said.
She said the Government had introduced a $100 million energy-efficiency program for low-income earners.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said the scheme would create "enormous uncertainty".
"It could push up the cost of rent for people just when they are feeling the cost of living pressures," he said.
"It's another cost imposed on people from the Government."
But Angus Raine, chief executive of major national real estate chain Raine & Horne, suggested people were so consumed with getting on the property ladder that star ratings would be discounted.
"People look at the physical property first and then (a mandatory disclosure system) is going to be one of their second or third considerations in their purchasing matrix," Mr Raine said.
A July 2011 "consultation regulation impact statement" prepared for the federal and state governments forecast the system would affect hundreds of thousands of homes in its first year of operation.
Link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/threat-to-devalue-old-homes-and-mcmansions/story-fn7x8me2-1226114121243
Ben Pike and Kirsten Craze From: Herald Sun August 13, 2011
A NEW green scheme threatens to wipe tens of thousands of dollars from the market price of energy-guzzling old homes and McMansions.
The Federal Government aims to introduce mandatory energy star ratings for homes being sold or rented out as soon as next year.
Under the favoured system, vendors and landlords would have to pay about $200 to have their property assessed - a total cost of $1.1 billion over 10 years.
And housing experts say most older homes and McMansions would be likely to score very poorly.
Mick Fabar, director of private energy ratings firm Green Homes Australia, said many two-storey McMansions would be lucky to score zero.
Renovated old workers' cottages and Californian bungalows also were expected to score at the bottom end of the scale.
Experts said there would be significant financial implications for owners of these homes - either spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.
A federal government study into a similar ACT scheme operating since 1999, which rates properties out of 10 stars, found a one-star difference affected selling prices by 3 per cent.
If mirrored in Melbourne, a one-star variation would equal $17,700 - based on the REIV's median house price of $590,000, as reported in June. A three-star variation would equal $53,100.
Choice head of campaigns Matt Levey said homes that were energy inefficient would cost more to run, but star-rating models have been criticised for failing to factor in actual consumption, leading to questions about whether the changes will even cut power use.
The Herald Sun asked Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's office if the scheme would have a negative effect on the sale price of some homes.
"It will allow buyers and renters to better compare different properties, making it easier to identify a property that uses less energy or water and thereby save money," a spokeswoman said.
She said the Government had introduced a $100 million energy-efficiency program for low-income earners.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said the scheme would create "enormous uncertainty".
"It could push up the cost of rent for people just when they are feeling the cost of living pressures," he said.
"It's another cost imposed on people from the Government."
But Angus Raine, chief executive of major national real estate chain Raine & Horne, suggested people were so consumed with getting on the property ladder that star ratings would be discounted.
"People look at the physical property first and then (a mandatory disclosure system) is going to be one of their second or third considerations in their purchasing matrix," Mr Raine said.
A July 2011 "consultation regulation impact statement" prepared for the federal and state governments forecast the system would affect hundreds of thousands of homes in its first year of operation.
Link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/threat-to-devalue-old-homes-and-mcmansions/story-fn7x8me2-1226114121243
This is nutty and I'll explain why.
An energy efficient house uses more energy if the heating's on high 24/7 than an inefficient house where care is taken with energy consumption.
This is just more green madness.
An energy efficient house uses more energy if the heating's on high 24/7 than an inefficient house where care is taken with energy consumption.
This is just more green madness.
I have a friend who is in the industry that will provide the ratings . Evidently a similar scheme runs already in the UK . I saw this article and asked him about it and he said he has no idea where these reduced valuation percentages come from or if they have any validity at all . The scheme's main aim is to give more information to buyers and renters about the costs they will incur and to encourage home owners who want to sell or rent to have more energy efficient properties .poppa x said:
I can't see how that is a bad thing . This valuation stuff sounds like a beat up to me .
poppa x said:
true, but an energy efficient house is a lot less likely to have the heating, or cooling, on high 24/7.
poppa x said:
actually you have completely missed the point
how you use the efficiency is up to you. its about having full disclosure when making a buying decision.
Today you know how much power your fridge uses, how much water your shower head uses, and how much petrol your car uses (per 100km). Some people disregard this info, but for many its a key part of their decision making process.
By letting people know the energy efficiency of the house, they can factor this into how much they want to pay for the house. As with water, some people are willing to pay a premium if the house has tanks, grey water, and water efficient garden irrigation/tap fixtures. Those who want an energy efficient house will pay a premium to get similar efficiencies with power.
the aliens are destroying us ..... bob down of the planet tasMANia,jools of the planet clueless ,wayne of the planet lameduck but wait here comes our saviours ,kev from sector 07 and malcolm from in the muddlemld said:
And here is an example of why I am so angry with the ALP/Greens Coalition for implementing the carbon tax:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/
If the congress won't ban the incandescent light bulb citing freedom of choice, you can bet your house on the fact that a carbon tax or an ETS will never ever get through there. Why is our government hanging this nation out to dry?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/
If the congress won't ban the incandescent light bulb citing freedom of choice, you can bet your house on the fact that a carbon tax or an ETS will never ever get through there. Why is our government hanging this nation out to dry?
A lot of reasons. Again that have been gone over and over and round and bloody round.
but 2 scenarios in a nutshell:
a) the rest of the world will fall into line, just a matter of when. Action always drags well behind rhetoric in regard to innovation. When they do fall into line we'll have the jump on 'em in all sorts of economically expanding ways.
b) the rest of the world doesn't fall into line. The environment as we know it is stuffed (not in our lifetimes). In the meantime the price of fossil fuel skyrockets and a CT will mean we are better placed than the rest of the world to cope with that.
I don't see the problem. So much is at stake but people sooking about a potentially bigger power bill. And to those who say a CT won't change anything, get some foresight. This is the first tiny step in what will take at least 100 years, (global industry has taken 170 odd years to get us here). But you have to take a first step.
but 2 scenarios in a nutshell:
a) the rest of the world will fall into line, just a matter of when. Action always drags well behind rhetoric in regard to innovation. When they do fall into line we'll have the jump on 'em in all sorts of economically expanding ways.
b) the rest of the world doesn't fall into line. The environment as we know it is stuffed (not in our lifetimes). In the meantime the price of fossil fuel skyrockets and a CT will mean we are better placed than the rest of the world to cope with that.
I don't see the problem. So much is at stake but people sooking about a potentially bigger power bill. And to those who say a CT won't change anything, get some foresight. This is the first tiny step in what will take at least 100 years, (global industry has taken 170 odd years to get us here). But you have to take a first step.
Total Tiger said:
You can bet your house pal, I reckon its a very dumb bet. Never is a long time
Total Tiger said:
Surely you're taking the *smile*? So lets be clear here: TT is saying he is more than willing, without hesitation due to the fact its a safe bet, to bet his house on the US congress never, thats never ever, passing a bill that puts a price on pollution emissions. All this given the fact that another large messy federation has already done so, Europe, and some US states are moving rapidly towards it. When you say 'never' do you actually mean 5 to 10 years? I'm perplexed by this.
Don't think you'd go through with it somehow total.
tigersnake said:
TT's a she and having lived in the states for a time, they will not get a carbon tax through the congress. EVER. They cannot get the banning on freaking incandescent light bulbs through.
Total Tiger said:
You wouldn't put your house on it though sister. And therein lies an example of the over the top rhetoric that clouds this debate. ('Hung out to dry' is another example) I can see the point you're trying to make re the lightbulbs, but really its a sideshow, Personally I think banning them is a dumb idea, its totally irrelevant to the long term policy goal. The cost of using them (which may include a CT), will render them irrelevant. Just like 7litre V8 cars, they'll still be legal, but museum pieces. Congress knows that. Most people would have thought there'd never, ever be a black president. As soon as the US economy recovers, it'll happen. That might take 2 years, might take 20. Or on the other hand they might get a burst of inspiration and think that a CT would actually help with an economic recovery> Wow what a crazy mental idea (it would).
