Cap and Trade Explained - One Cuckoo Short of a Nest (low resolution)

[Eppsi37774]

It will become like Water trading. Companies will make more money from selling there permits and close there doors.

[kuliwil]

@Eppsi37774 The idea is that the businesses eventually move over to renewable energy. What they deem as best practice is up to the businesses. There should obviously be regulation though to stop rorting etc.

I'm guessing you're against this, Mark? Or did I misjudge the tone of your comment?

[Eppsi37774]

@kuliwil Definitely against it. Putting an additional cost to businesses that produce carbon i think will see more businesses close there doors and sell there permits. The only benefit of which is lower greenhouse gases. Moving over to renewable energies is currently not a cost effective or efficient way to provide a base load of power. When the energy industry is looking for investors to develop it, they will see this and be put off and put there money elseware

[kuliwil]

@Eppsi37774 Do you actually watch the news? There is substantial interest in the renewable sector and if we don't move to a carbon trading economy we stand to LOSE international trade!

[Eppsi37774]

@kuliwil Carbon trading will only apear to make renewable energies cheaper. Renewable sources cost around 80c a KW and fossil sourced costs around 30c a KW [along those lines, it costs at least double fossil] Carbon trading will bring up the price of fossil sourced energy to a higher level than Renewable making renewable worthwhile.

I agree that somthing needs to be done about carbon output, i just don't believe this is the way to go about it

[kuliwil]

@Eppsi37774 Renewables need investment to become cheaper - making coal and such more expensive forces that investment to be made.

[Eppsi37774]

@kuliwil but there no more efficient and still don't provide a baseload, i know they need investment to improve, i just don't think it is economical at this time. I also think that making no decision is worse, as no one wants to invest either way

[kuliwil]

@Eppsi37774 There ARE MANY companies eager to invest in renewable energy. Look at Origin and AGL for one, and there are man many other companies, not just distributors, who are keen on shifting to green sources!

And if we don't reduce carbon pollution we'll probably end up with many uneconomical things, such as more frequent bushfires, decreases in tourism (we've already lost the Barrier Reef) and tourism = money, and further water shortages.

[Eppsi37774]

@kuliwil I'm saying that companies don't want to invest right away in Renewable because no real decision has been made about carbon emission's. Everyday Australian's don't want to see an increase in bills. Industry also = money.

[DdlyHeadshot]

Could do with sound...

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot For more complicated ones I plan to do that. That was like my first one ever, so I wasn't really ready to do that.

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot But thanks for the advice :D

[DdlyHeadshot]

314 views - It's a Sign!

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot Haha, hopefully of 314 THOUSAND views!

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot FINALLY it moves on!

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot Now it seems stuck on 341.....

[DdlyHeadshot]

@kuliwil I got 342

[kuliwil]

@DdlyHeadshot Oh good! That means that FINALLY it is counting properly! :D

[Beckett125]

just makes it so the government controls the energy economy

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 Not really - it doesn't control any generation method bar coal, and that's control of emissions, not of the company.

I'll grant you that it allows some control of energy sources.

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil I'm pretty sure that if the government can tell you how much you can pollute, that gives them the right to control the energy economy. Remember ENRON? now imagine the government is ENRON. And it won't do anything, because a single resource like CO2 can't influence the climate as much as "claimed"

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 ENRON was a fraudulent business...... the Government is admitting its deficit so that's like comparing apples to oranges.

As for the science behind climate change, there is significant grounds for what is being proposed as going to happen. Even if it is wrong it'd be a good idea to take out insurance so to speak.

Anyway,we are going to run out of fossil fuels at some point, it'd be better develop the technology to move over to renewables rather than scrambling in a blackouts later.

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil yes and the cap and trade plan is fraudulent, all the money we pay to the government for the cap and trade tax will go into politicians hands and do nothing to create "clean energy" BTW why not build a nuclear plant, most of germany and france are supplied but it, its renewable and doesn't cause "global warming" and no significant warming has occured since 1995, and we don't know what temperatures were like a thousand years ago

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 I think in Australia the government is looking at investing the money back into the energy system, but I'll have to look that up. I'm not sure that politicians are that corrupt, even in the US.

Nuclear throws up several other issues: what to do with the waste, the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl and the risk that any state may use nuclear material to make weapons. There is also a risk that nuclear material may fall into the hands of terrorists.

[kuliwil]

@kuliwil well, sorry, some countries do have incredibly corrupt politicians, but from what I can see the US aint one of them.

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil think about this, France pays terrorist organizations not to overthrow them with union money, and they run nearly on nuclear power. Chernobyl was purely because the soviets didn't have the technology. and we've had the ability to dispose of nuclear waste the right way for 30 years. If we just built 4 reactors it would be enough to show we could build more. an organization that was invested heavily by goldman sachs and owned by Obama owns the only right to sell cap and trade bonds

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 Cap and trade isn't only in the US-EG:this video was created with an Australian audience in mind however it applies in the US too.It's all in the application, and a system of carbon reduction should not be given to private companies as it will either benefit one company or not work.I THINK that is a reply to your last bit,please correct me if I misunderstood what you were trying to say there.

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 ...The Soviets knew how to, but it was a mistake that caused the explosion - that could happen anywhere - human error is the same in any country.

Please explain this safe method of disposal for nuclear material! Last time I checked it was still a risk to barrel and bury, especially given tectonic activity etc. And don't say blast it into space - read Arthur C Clark and you'l see that that isn't a viable option either.

(I keep running out of characters - another reply coming up)

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil Green energy proposals have been shown in history to be used by Socialists and Communists to gain power and failed the economy (see Spain and Iceland). Nothing ends up happening. THese same proposals occured during the 70s and again, nothing happened. We'll just have coal and natural gas till electric is perfected. And cutting off oil all at once will destroy the economy. Not wise

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 Who said anything about cutting oil off at once?The Cap and Trade system allows for a gradual withdrawal that can be altered in accordance with the economic needs of the time

Also,this isn't being used by any group,communist or otherwise,2 gain power as the people pushing it r already in power.It has been on election agenda yes,but it relied on a democratic system-nothing communist about it. Have you actually checked for reds under ur bed?There aint any there!Haven't been since91! :P

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125

Dr Karl mentioned on Good News Week (Aust. TV show) last night that we only need an area the size of Victoria (a smaller Australian State) to be able to power the WHOLE WORLD off solar, and then mix in some solar-thermal and we have 24hour solar power! Cheap, green and easy!

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil its all good brother. Solar Energy has not been proven to work or else the chinese would invest in it, which they haven't. Nuclear transportation is fool proof (videos of trains smashing into eachother with nukes on board and nothing happened) waste will be secured in a facility beneath the nevada desert. Solar energy may be viable in Australia (huge parts of it are not habitable) but in United States, it can't be done. It couldn't possibly power the world either.

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 It could power the world, I just told you how. Do you know what solar-thermal is?

As for those trains, I'll admit I haven't seen the video BUT I'm guessing it's a controlled situation? Which means that nothing could have gone wrong. In the REAL world things could be a little... different. What happens when the trains get old and the equipments starts to fail, like in Chernobyl?

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 You also have to remember that China is a developing country, and the government would have to put climate issues on the agenda for anything to be done. They may not be a democracy, nor are they communist really, but they still act solely in their national interest. As with any country. And because China haven't got the infrastructure for its own solar applications they don't have a good starting point.

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 Hold on, how does France paying terrorists (as much a money drain as you claim cap and trade is and more of a danger (nuclear = terrorist magnet maybe)) support your argument?

[Beckett125]

@kuliwil EXACTLY! thats why France is going bankrupt as fast as Greece. The French govenrment pays the unions insane amounts of money and who controls the unions? French terrorists groups. As for terrorist magnets, the internet is a terrorist magnet, so ar tall buildings oil rigs and military bases, should we eliminate them too? hah the only way to stop terrorism is to fight them. according to your argument we shouldn't have anything terrorists will use to hurt us, which makes no sense

[kuliwil]

@Beckett125 No, that's not my argument and you are just clutching at straws here.Anyway, it was actually part of your argument.

My primary reason for avoiding nuclear is the risk of mistakes and issues with the removal of the waste.THEN terrorists.The difference with terrorists with nuclear material, in comparison to the other risk areas you identified, is that it can be used to cause widespread destruction where ever they blow it up or release it-a bit different to defensible buildings and net.

[kuliwil]

Annoying thing is that the original file was HD!

[kuliwil]

The smoothness of this has deteoriated because of the codec I used to shrink the file for uploading. At least now it loads quickly!