Atheist knowledge

[Litespeed]

How about quoting some reliable facts and figures from some reputable sources......

That would be real easy but i will just skim the surface- keep in mind that the current and many past governments love to confuse the issue by claiming weird accounting practices when doing the national accounts to smokescreen things a bit or just funding groups like Geosciences Australia and not saying that is a subsidy but important government work. Of they claim it is ok that miners do not pay taxes on diesel because they do not use roads- miners use the infrastructure of the country that is meant to be paid for by taxes. Often we even make special infrastructure for their use even.

 

Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report

 

Why do we subsidise industry? | The Australia Institute

 

There are dozens of others and the total number depends on how far you can dig and what you count and does not include the massive tax dodges they use to get out of paying tax or the sweetheart deals on resource rent and royalties.

 

Some say any industry subsidy is wrong- I disagree but it must be for the substantial benefit of the current and future generations- not to prop up old tech that is dirty. And is doing its best to remove jobs and avoid its social contract.

 

 

[Marty_d]

How about quoting some reliable facts and figures from some reputable sources......

Fuel Tax Credit Scheme alone was over $6 billion in FY2016. (Source: Budget Paper 1, Australian Government Budget 2016-2017). This applies to diesel vehicles that are not driven on public roads. It was intended mainly for farm vehicles but has been mostly used by mining trucks, most of which would not fit on a public road in any case.

 

I think the Greens are the biggest threat to the environment ever. Their opposition to nuclear power AND their refusal to see population growth as a threat make them enemies of the environment.Nuclear power sure has its problems, but it is better than coal and gas by a country mile. And it is a baseload source, which solar and wind are not.

 

And as for population growth, I am at a complete loss to understand why they are not against this. Maybe Marty you can help here, just to explain their thinking, I'm not asking you to defend it.

 

The Pauline Hanson party is more appealing to me than the Greens these days, but they have at least one climate-change denier in their ranks, so that qualifies as crazy too .

Bruce, I can't speak for anyone else's thinking, but you've made a couple of... er... interesting statements (trying not to be rude here...)

 

Judging by your statement that the Pauline Hanson party is more appealing to you than the Greens, and the Greens are the biggest threat to the environment, I think we're pretty much on opposite ends of the voting spectrum, and nothing will be gained by discussing politics.

 

However your statement about solar and wind not being baseload sources are out of date. This may be valid if you want to use those "gold plated" poles and wires with their associated transmission losses and big centralised power stations. However there are storage options (hydro, battery, molten salt etc) and combinations of various types of renewables, in a distributed network does have the capability to provide baseload power.

 

Have a look at California's electricity breakdown for 2015: Total Electricity System Power

 

The short version is, renewables were 21.9%, "Large Hydro" 5.4%, natural gas 44% - in fact coal was only 6% and nuclear 9.2%. California has also codified its ambition to have 50% renewable by 2030, which means coal is definitely on the way out and natural gas would be reduced.

 

 

[facthunter]

Subsidies distort markets. That's true, but if others do it you are foolish to let then do you without lifting a hand. I may be alone here, but I believe the spin off from motor vehicle manufacture was worth the subsidy, and jobs here reduce payments and pay local taxes. We don't even have one ball race manufacturer here, and we must retain steel aluminium and magnesium production locally. We have only 3 (THREE) weeks of petroleum supplies reserve Here and reducing refining capability. There has to be a limit to how stupidly you run the country? Canada is about he same size and compare what THEY do with what we don't do and you can drive to the BIG USA next door. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Quoting the "Australia Institute" does not count as reputable...Diesel subsidies are well known and available to all who use petroleum fuel for production and not on roads, so you can discount that one straight up.

 

I agree that NG is a good thing...but tell that to the greens around here. They don't want coal, they don't want gas, they like solar, but don't want the mines and associated stuff required to manufacture it and the batteries need to make it even slightly viable.

 

They don't seem to get that someone has to use energy to make this stuff, and lots of it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes IF you farm and use it for that only, or run a diesel pump why should you pay a fee designed for road maintenance? Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

I agree,

 

The destruction of the local motor industry was vandalism writ large and all for a small amount of money given the multiplier effect it has on the economy. Complete stupidity by Abbott and Joe. Subsidies well used are a good thing to develop and maintain industries where appropriate- there is no such thing as free markets.

 

The car industry subsidy was a small investment- just look at the cost of all those lost jobs, lost taxes, lost skills and manufacturing. And it was a export industry as well.

 

 

[Litespeed]

The greens are not completey anti Natural Gas- they know it has its place and is much better than coal. But they are anti CSG as are farmers because of the massive risks for short term gain of a resource we already have in spades.

 

I could have quoted lots of sources- the Australia Institute is a credible source that goes to great lengths to attribute its information.

 

I do not have a problem with farmers getting the rebate- they feed us.

 

 

[facthunter]

There was a substantial return on investment in excess of $9/$1 for at least 3 years. The way that was done would make me wonder what was going on behind the scenes. Hockey utterly insulted GM, for WHAT purpose.? Gratuitous tomfoolery? No. There's a reason for everything. NOW was a bad time for putting so many out of work. Abbott said they could now get "DECENT" jobs.?????? NOW Morrison says ANY work is good ... Even part time at $2 a day? with the lovely GINA.. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Yes Nev,

 

I think they had a special plan ....such Cunning stunts.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Quoting the "Australia Institute" does not count as reputable...Diesel subsidies are well known and available to all who use petroleum fuel for production and not on roads, so you can discount that one straight up.I agree that NG is a good thing...but tell that to the greens around here. They don't want coal, they don't want gas, they like solar, but don't want the mines and associated stuff required to manufacture it and the batteries need to make it even slightly viable.

 

They don't seem to get that someone has to use energy to make this stuff, and lots of it.

Diesel subsidies should be limited to agriculture.

 

Natural gas is a good thing in some circumstances. It's not a good thing if it's CSG sourced by fracking, a process which has as yet unknown impacts on the groundwater tables and aquifers. It's also not a good thing if it involves the wrecking of agricultural land.

 

Now I'd like to ask you for some facts and figures from reputable sources - what would be the amount of carbon emitted by the processes undertaken to create and maintain renewable energy components, versus the amount of carbon emitted by the existing fossil fuel industry, to achieve the same power production?

 

Nev - Hockey is a clown and nothing he said should be taken seriously. This is the man that said "The age of entitlement is over" while using taxpayers money to rent a house in Canberra owned by his wife.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's nothing that would lead me to believe that making something to create green energy was particularly energy intensive. Energy intensive things are Aluminium Magnesium Copper etc where electrolysis is involved . When you remelt them much less energy is required, and CEMENT.. There's no reason solar can't be the source of that electrical energy. Scrap steel similarly is much less polluting than reducing the ore using carbon and lime and actually can produce a much higher quality alloy steel from an electric furnace than any other way. Your Rolls is made from 100% steel scrap should be a selling point. The impurities in most coal reduce it's quality (sulphur mainly).That's why Swedish steel produced using charcoal was a higher quality. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

The approximately 38c a litre "fuel tax" was originally put on fuel used in road vehicles, as a source of funds, that were to be specifically allocated to road improvement, and new roads and highways construction.

 

However, it didn't take too many years for the fuel tax monies to become huge, so the Govt then just used it as general revenue, and the amount allocated to roads only became a percentage of the monies collected.

 

Today, only around 11c of the 38.1c a litre in tax collected from fuel sales goes into road projects. The subsidy of 38c a litre off the cost of fuel used in off-road vehicles was originally designed to promote development in agriculture and mining.

 

In todays world, the fuel tax, and the subsidy, is seriously distorted. BHP-Billiton and Rio Tinto shouldn't be getting the fuel tax subsidy for mining projects that are on-going concerns. These are not "developments", they are profitable projects.

 

"Development" means doing work which is going to increase the nations competitiveness, increase job opportunities and increase the nations wealth.

 

As it is, Rio and BHP are multi-national corporations that are being subsidised by the Govt, so they can mine vast amounts of minerals, pay a pittance in royalties, and structure their companies so they pay very little income tax.

 

I notice in todays news, BHP-Billiton is fighting an ATO decision that has landed them with a $1B tax bill, because the ATO is accusing them of tax law manipulation, and essentially tax avoidance.

 

This is where the whole system is wrong. These multi-nationals employ scores of shiny-bum, double-degree tax accountant/lawyers, who can run rings around a Philadelphia lawyer when it comes to manipulation of tax laws.

 

The Govt would be far better off to bring in a system where the big multi-nationals pay a flat $X amount per tonne for every tonne mined, and tear up the 2500-page tax laws BS, that only ensures the companies can find more and more ways to avoid their tax responsibilities.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Quoting the "Australia Institute" does not count as reputable...

Crickey! So we simply reject any source whose findings we disagree with?

 

If the "Australia Institute" is not dependent on funding from big business (as are so many "research groups") does that mean it can't be trusted?

 

Note that Australia's most prestigious research organisation, the CSIRO, has been systematically weakened by governments who don't like the results of its research. Perhaps Australia should stop doing science and just trust those nice folks who run global corporations.

 

 

[facthunter]

One track...I agree with most of that. For the last bit it's already done and called royalties that goes to the states and is NOT based on profitability and hits the small guys the most. The BIG guys hate the small guys, and won't help them at all unless forced to do so. Share the rail lines and electricity networks. Don't think they have ever done the second and by overproducing in poor price situations they waste the ore by selling it at no margin of profit to speak of, and drive the prices lower and eliminate the small guys. so work towards a monopoly . Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Perhaps Australia should stop doing science and just trust those nice folks who run global corporations.

OK, have you been listening in on Cabinet discussions again???

 

 

[Marty_d]

One track...I agree with most of that. For the last bit it's already done and called royalties that goes to the states and is NOT based on profitability and hits the small guys the most. The BIG guys hate the small guys, and won't help them at all unless forced to do so. Share the rail lines and electricity networks. Don't think they have ever done the second and by overproducing in poor price situations they waste the ore by selling it at no margin of profit to speak of, and drive the prices lower and eliminate the small guys. so work towards a monopoly . Nev

Yeah, they should do something fair and tax the mining companies on super profits... oh wait! Didn't KRudd try that already? That's right.... then the big miners banded together, did a $20 million smear campaign, Abbott squeaked about Great Big Taxes and the mugs who couldn't think for themselves voted him in.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I agree,

The destruction of the local motor industry was vandalism writ large and all for a small amount of money given the multiplier effect it has on the economy. Complete stupidity by Abbott and Joe. Subsidies well used are a good thing to develop and maintain industries where appropriate- there is no such thing as free markets.

 

The car industry subsidy was a small investment- just look at the cost of all those lost jobs, losttaxes, lost skills and manufacturing. And it was a export industry as well.

...and we're told that other countries subsidise their car industries. Even Germany. The knock-on effect of losing our car builders will be colossal.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't "BELIEVE" science knows anything. Their stuff is just another opinion, and they sometimes get it wrong

 

. I believe in intelligent design and it should be taught as science in schools. There is no evolution. That stuff is made up by ATHEISTS. The universe is 6300 years old and fossils were made old by god. Now can I join the Liberal party?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

OK, have you been listening in on Cabinet discussions again???

Yes Marty, I've been sneaking in disguised as...

 

 

[M61A1]

Stanford scientists calculate the carbon footprint of grid-scale battery technologies

 

Crickey! So we simply reject any source whose findings we disagree with?If the "Australia Institute" is not dependent on funding from big business (as are so many "research groups") does that mean it can't be trusted?

 

Note that Australia's most prestigious research organisation, the CSIRO, has been systematically weakened by governments who don't like the results of its research. Perhaps Australia should stop doing science and just trust those nice folks who run global corporations.

They are well know to be leaned a long way left....in any case I quoted something from them once before on here and was told that that they aren't reliable:oh yeah:.(by some lefties) and looking a wiki about them it's not hard to see why.

 

...and we're told that other countries subsidise their car industries. Even Germany. The knock-on effect of losing our car builders will be colossal.

Yeah, but they make decent cars...

 

 

[facthunter]

M61A1 the keyword there is GRID scale. Grid = lots of copper. (transformers and wires) for heavy wattages. Local small storage areas are a different cup of tea. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I don't "BELIEVE" science knows anything. Their stuff is just another opinion, and they sometimes get it wrong. I believe in intelligent design and it should be taught as science in schools. There is no evolution. That stuff is made up by ATHEISTS. The universe is 6300 years old and fossils were made old by god....

...and people lived in harmony with dynosaurs in the Garden of Eden (also, the lions and tigers were vegetarian and played happily with the little lambs.)

 

 

[Marty_d]

Stanford scientists calculate the carbon footprint of grid-scale battery technologies

The Stanford article is interesting, but they're comparing batteries with pumped hydro, not against actual current fossil fuels.

 

...and people lived in harmony with dynosaurs

Are they the ones who ran really fast but stayed in the same spot??

 

 

[facthunter]

Genetics have to be ignored. How can a human be so complex? Must have been the work of a god. How could that be so otherwise. Answer..( at least a possibility) Over such a VAST period of time mutations and changes produce what they will. TIME is the key. Microbes and virus's change from year to year. So does any organism that adapts. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't "BELIEVE" science knows anything. Their stuff is just another opinion, and they sometimes get it wrong. I believe in intelligent design and it should be taught as science in schools. There is no evolution. That stuff is made up by ATHEISTS. The universe is 6300 years old and fossils were made old by god. Now can I join the Liberal party?

No, not yet.