The saviours of the planet are good on rhetoric but short on facts. Those who support the Government’s Carbon Tax obviously are persons who have an extensive knowledge and understanding of the tax and its implications for the economy and the world’s climate. One would assume they also have a in-depth understanding of alternative sources of energy. These persons of superior intelligence and knowledge might assist us who are not so well endowed with intelligence and ability to comprehend simple matters like the carbon tax and to understand the benefits of Julia Gillard’s tax by answering a few simple questions:
(1) By how much will this Carbon Tax reduce the world temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts and cyclones. If the answer to these question is Nil, why then do we need this tax.
(2) If the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action, just what in financial terms is the cost of both action and inaction?
(3) Both industry and the unions have expressed concern about loss of jobs and industry. Just what will be the degree of carbon leakage caused by industry moving offshore?
(4)Why was it necessary to change the scare campaign slogan from global warming to climate change?
(5) Why is it necessary for the Government and those who support the carbon tax to conduct a scare campaign on Climate change? If it is such a danger, why can’t they supply empirical evidence to support their stance and not rely on rhetoric and spin.
(6) Where is the evidence that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant? Carbon Dioxide is a harmless, trace gas, clear, tastsless and ordourless, it is necessary for life just as oxygen and nitrogen.
(7) The Carbon tax is designed to force consumers and industry to change behaviour. How will providing compensation bribes achieve the objective of changed behaviour? On the contrary, it will encourage all to continue with their present behaviours.
(8) Treasury papers show there will be loss of jobs caused by this tax. How do they suggest government should compensate persons for loss of jobs?
(9) The Government claim the tax will add only one per cent to the cost of living, industry claims it will be five per cent. What is the correct rate of predicted additional inflation?
The Canadian experience has shown that wind energy is not economically variable. To generate 2000 megawatts of wind energy would cost $13 billion and require more than 4000 large wind turbines and some 65,000 hectares of land. Just how many animals will be killed by these turbines, plants and land destroyed by clearing for the construction of roads for access to the turbines?
On the other hand, the most recent Canadian nuclear generating station with 4 CANDU reactors has a capacity of 3500 megawatts with an operational lifetime capacity of 80 per cent, yielding an availability of 2800 megawatts. It occupies 200 hectares of land at a cost of $14 billion, including all cost overruns.
Given the enormity of the looming energy demand/shortfall it doesn’t make sense to bank on wind energy as a solution to this problem.
Wind could make a contribution, but it can’t economically amount to more than a few percent of total capacity/requirements. The costs are high and land requirements extreme. Another major dis-advantage is that wind can never act as a dispatchable baseload form of generation, for the wind is just too variable. Nuclear, on the other hand, yields similar air pollution benefits, requires a negligible amount of land, and costs less per unit of energy generated and can act as a reliable baseload.
Shouldn’t government be looking at the cumulative effects of multiple projects and stop trying to look at each in a bubble?
If wind is so efficient, especially on a large scale, why hasn’t it been used on a wider scale when we’ve had access to it all this time?
Wouldn’t it be a more effective energy plan to place more emphasis and assistance on the nuclear and growing solar energy industry, especially on smallscale opportunities for home owners .
We all want a clean environment but can’t see how a carbon tax with large compensation bribes will do anything to change the world’s climates. Innovation and subsidy which will not harm industry or jobs is preferable to an inflationary and destructive tax which is being proposed by our arrogant and out of touch government.
Don Campbell
Port Macquarie
