Prius drivers may claim they want to help the poor but they are less likely to want to slow down and let them cross the road.
You’d think Prius drivers would hold pedestrians, who emit less carbon, in high regard. But alas, roadside tests show about one third of Prius drivers broke crosswalk laws, putting the Prius drivers in the most-unethical-driver class. (As with all generalizations we ought remember that two thirds of Prius drivers did the right thing.) The common factor among unethical drivers was that shiny expensive cars were three times as likely to plow through the crosswalk. It’s not so much the hybrid, or the greenness, it’s the status…
In a final experiment, the researchers took their hypothesis to the streets. At a busy intersection in the San Francisco Bay area, the team stationed “pedestrians” at crosswalks, with instructions to approach the crossing at a point when oncoming drivers would have a chance to stop. Observers coded the status of the cars’ drivers based on the vehicles’ age, make, and appearance. Drivers of shiny, expensive cars were three times more likely than those of old clunkers to plow through a crosswalk, failing to yield to pedestrians as required by California state law. High-status motorists were also four times more likely than those with cheaper, older cars to cut off other drivers at a four-way stop.
In an interesting twist, about one-third of Prius drivers broke crosswalk laws, putting the hybrid among the highest “unethical driving” car brands. “This is a good demonstration of the ‘moral licensing’ phenomenon, in which hybrid-car drivers who believe they’re saving the Earth may feel entitled to behave unethically in other ways,” Piff says. (The Prius results were observed but not analyzed for statistical significance in the study.)
Source: Science Mag
It could be a case of moral-licensing — the sense that drivers are helping the community by driving the hybrid car, so they are entitled to be a more selfish driver. This occurred with Green shoppers too. People who bought more “green” items were less generous when dividing up money and more likely to lie in tests where there was a financial reward.
But the real culprit could be status. The bigger implications of the study show that when people consider themselves higher up the social scale they are more likely to cheat, and when classes are split according to income, the upper class are more likely to lie, deceive, and take from others.
Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior
Piff et al, 2011
Abstract
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.
[Source: Piff et al (2012) Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior PNAS]
The question then is which came first? How many of the upper class got there because they cheated, and how many turned into cheats because they gained a high rank? Then there’s that other confounding question: how many lied about their income on the test?
The PNAS study suggests that even lower class people can behave badly if things are framed so they feel higher up the scale:
When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically. In one test, subjects were asked to compare themselves with people at the top or the bottom of the social scale (Donald Trump or a homeless person, for example.) They were then permitted to take candies from a jar ostensibly meant for a group of children in a nearby lab. Subjects whose role-playing raised their status in their own eyes took twice as many candies as those who compared themselves to “The Donald,” the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Source: Science Mag
This study, below, suggests the problem may be the ancient sin of pride. Those who were induced to feel proud were more likely to be moral hypocrites. Those who were in a grateful mood were not.
Abstract
Moral hypocrisy occurs when a person explicitly endorses a moral standard and yet behaves in violation of it. This study examined the effects of two positive emotions, pride and gratitude, on moral hypocrisy in an Asian context. Under a neutral mood condition, the level of moral hypocrisy found in the current Asian sample was about as high as that found in previous American studies. More importantly, compared to this neutral mood condition, participants induced to feel pride showed a similarly high level of moral hypocrisy, but those induced to feel gratitude exhibited little evidence of it.
[Source: Tong E. and Yang, Z. 2010. Effects of Anger, Guilt, and Envy on Moral Hypocrisy Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin January 1, 2012 38: 129-139 ]
Could it be that a class war brings out the worst behavior, and that all these research studies are just telling us what the old and wise have said for centuries, that there are seven deadly sins, and pride is the worst.
Image: Wikimedia, Author, Autophoto
“…and pride is the worst.”
I disagree, if you have pride in self you will exhibit the best of your moral standards and not the worst. The problem is that people think so little of themselves they will violate their highest moral principles. This is because, at their core, they don’t believe their self is worth preserving and will unfailingly act in a self destructive way by violating what they think is the best way to live.
The reported studies are totally bogus because there was no control for how the people involved came to be part of the so called “upper class”. Did they actually earn it or did they steal it by fraud and special favors from government and other thugs?
20
The ‘self-esteem’ movement encourages everyone to feel good about themselves no matter how badly they behave. Their sense of moral superiority is seen in everything they do.
True self-esteem comes from recognising and accepting one’s own faults and actively trying to improve one’s behaviour. This usually requires a healthy dose of humility.
The Prius car is the obvious choice of the people who need to boost their faux ‘self-esteem’ and look down on the polluting peasants. Their subsequent bad behaviour is not only unsurprising, but inevitable.
21
What faults?
The truth of the matter is much more simple, than all this “psycho” analysis stuff.
The Prius driver is aware that his silly car has less starts from standstill than those old scruffy things still have even in their old age, & is loath to waste even one of them on some scruffy pedestrian, or other car.
Note my daily drive, for the last 10 years is a Triumph, now 31 years old, so I can’t be biased.
10
I think you mean they drive a Pius.
Amen Jo.
11
Smug Alert! – Watch out peeps!
10
yes, I do not even have to check out the link. I know, and I am killing myself laughing because that was the same thought that came into my head… the cloud of smugness and George Clooney droning on and on and on…. and as always the Prius owners who think that they can emit bad odour but that it smells sweet when they sniff their own…. ROFL
11
Reminds me of an episode of South Park –
Comedy Gold!
Smug Alert!
00
LOL…. Waffle has already linked to it above. My bad….
I will read all previous posts prior to hitting the send button
I will read all previous posts prior to hitting the send button
I will read all previous posts prior to hitting the send button
I will read all previous posts prior to hitting the send button
etc…..
00
It isn’t so much the brand, though that often plays a part, but it is the “status” issue. I’ve seen this numerous times from soccer mom’s in brand new fully loaded Chevy Suburbans to doctors in their new BMW. They will cut people off, not use their mirrors, ignore traffic lights, etc.
They after all are “special” and the rules that apply to the rest of us don’t seem to apply to them.
Nothing new here, just a new model thrown into the mix.
00
Jo,
That’s the difference between a ‘Prius’ driver and an absolute pineapple. At the very least, we know that a pineapple has its pricks on the outside.
00
Nothing untoward here.
I see this as a logical extension of pious, eco loon, Prius drivers’ raison d’etre – to reduce the population and hence CO2 emissions.
Simples!
00
Could it have to do with the weight (just short of 3000 pounds) of all that battery? It just makes it hard to stop before running over the lowly pedestrian.
I’m very happy, though, that they didn’t “study” Dodge Ram truck (with the 390 Hp Hemi) owners……. 🙂
00
Don’t be so silly. Those Dodge Ram drivers are greenies of the highest order, after all, they are spending more than most feeding the trees.
It is also well known they love stopping for pedestrians, [or anything else]. What’s the point of having 390 BHP, if you don’t stop regularly, then use all that lovely horse power to demonstrate how fast your thing will accelerate?
00
The Dodge Ram Truck driver is not in the habit of watching the battery charge up on regenerative braking (he probably watches the road instead). The problem with regenerative braking designs is that they require the driver to plan ahead as they drive, and almost no driver can do this.
Besides, when you have a big donk, using the brakes just means you get to use the accelerator again. Life is good huh?
00
Lionel: I think “pride”, in that context, may more refer to “conceit” or “hubris”.
Of course, what you say about the common understanding of the word “pride” is true, and it’s a virtuous cycle: Living your life in a way of which you can be proud invests you in doing so (because you may have had to sacrifice or to have humbled yourself) and so you will want to continue to do so simply to not throw away your investment.
A type of example (although not in the domain of “morality”, it illustrates the principle): After a relatively uninspired high-school career, my daughter achieved a 4.0 GPA in her first year at college. This served as an incentive for her to study hard for her entire degree because she didn’t want to let herself down by letting her standards slip. This is the good sense of “pride”, and I don’t think it is what the “deadly sins” sense of pride is about.
On the other hand, I was a precocious kid who studied calculus in my spare time at the age of 12. I did poorly in college because of conceit, thinking I was above it all. This was “pride” in the “deadly sins” sense, I believe.
00
Nonsense, I’m a hardcore scepticus and conservative and I drive a Prius, purely for tax reasons, which, in my country, can go up to 40% in my advance. Otherwise it’s a boring car for boring people
00
here’s the answer… most Prius drivers are wealthy skeptics looking to save $$$ like Hoi Polloi. It is only the “assumption” that nice tree huggling hippies drive Prius that makes the results of the study appear strange.
00
In economics profit is described as “extracting surplus value”. Haha. Ah. Funny.
Could we dispense with the euphemisms and just call it “greed”? Since that’s what it is. Charging the customer more than the product cost, paying employees slightly less than their work is worth, and taking home the difference in value which was derived from absolutely no work of your own. Greed.
Not saying it hasn’t worked well, and it’s no excuse for crony capitalism, but surely profit is the one greed we permit each other to do?
So I can understand the prius and mercedes drivers of the world grimacing at pedestrians whilst muttering “watch it walker, didn’t get where I am today by being fair!”
00
Sorry this is OT but important to Wind Power aficionados:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/billions-blown-away-on-wind-power-says-british-study/story-fn59niix-1226294168155
They must have been reading here on Jo’s site to get their information………
00
You don’t think that we have a mole in our organisation, do you?
What if they found the list of our funding sources, and published it on the web? That would be disastrous!
We must remain vigilant. 😉
00
You’re oh so right about that Mark, but wait, wind gets even worse…
Wind farms in Pacific Northwest paid to not produce
Basically the Bonneville Power Administration runs both hydroelectric dams and wind farms. In this comedy of errors even the greenies are left red-faced:
What a twisted web we weave! But is there something fishy going on…
Yes! You heard it! Wind Power is not getting a fair go because of an evil conspiracy by… Big Hydro!
I couldn’t script it any better. 😀
00
As with George (Bush )snr, I always thought that who ever registered the appropriate birth name of “Prius” was pissed & wrote one of the letters so poorly that it was incorrectly recorded & wrong for all time.
00
@Andrew McRae
You don’t seem to understand how capitalism works, which probably explains your apparent bitterness.
Who is going to make a product just to sell it for what it cost to make it? So let’s see, I go out and buy raw materials for $100, and put in 20 hours of labor making something, according to you, I should just sell it for $100? I’m not entitled to get paid for my labor? So let’s assume nobody is stupid enough to argue that. Instead let’s assume that you think, for my 20 hours of labor, I should be entitled to some profit (that is, not work for free, as you would have to stipulate, because you see no problem with “workers” getting paid). So, therefore, not all profit is bad, right?
So how much is the right amount of profit for me? Well, of course, when people look at my finished object and then look at the price tag, they are completely free to say “I could make that myself with the same $100 in raw materials, and could do it in 10 hours”. They then, either implicitly or explicitly, decide whether my profit is worth the same or less than the number of dollars per hour at which they value their own time, multiplied by their 10 hours. If my profit is less, and they desire the object, then they will buy it from me rather than make it themselves, right? And I will have my profit, and nobody will say that’s unjust, right?
So let’s say I’m very frugal with my justly-earned profits, and I use it to study 10 years at a very expensive school (leaving out any discussion as to why it is so expensive ;), and furthermore, I save whatever is left carefully so I have some money in the bank. In order to do both those things, I have to live a bare-bones existence, living on toast and tinned tuna — I can’t afford cell-phones, SUV’s with big, shiny spinners, new fashion sports shoes every month, a flat-screen TV or any of the other modern-day trappings seen to be so important. I continue to work 10 hours a day making my finished products, as well as study 8 hours a day at school. At the end of my 10 years of study, I have acquired some highly-specialized knowledge, and take the money I saved to research and develop a very advanced machine (that I really didn’t know would work, and if it failed, all my education and money would have been wasted) that will take the same $100 worth of raw materials and convert it to the same finished product, but now it only requires my labor for 5 minutes for every finished product I produce. According to you, I should now only charge the $100, plus 1/12 of my former hourly rate as profit? Wouldn’t that, according to you, be cruel and evil because I would then, by virtue of my lower price, put all my competitors, who want to get a “decent” wage for the 10 hours it still takes them to make the same thing, out of business (let’s ignore all the consumers of the product who would be very happy to be getting such a bargain). On the other hand, you no doubt would accuse me of being evil and cruel if I charged the same price as my competitors and consequently (apparently) made 12 times the profit that they make.
So one would have to conclude, therefore, that you believe I’m evil and cruel for saving and investing in myself and my future, because no matter what I do, the outcome will be to the disadvantage of my competitors who spent all their profits on beer, cigarettes, contraceptives and abortions (oh, I forgot, the latter 2 are “free”, and we won’t discuss how the technology that makes them possible came about). So therefore, I should just accept my lot in life, and join the herd, refusing to waste my money on self-improvement, forgetting about making a better life for my family, ignoring all the good I could do with those evil profits, and letting civilization grind down to the lowest common denominator. But that’s the *very definition* of anti-progress and anti-science, and it’s the only possible outcome of anti-capitalism, as has been clearly demonstrated for over a century now. It’s also completely contrary to human nature.
I think you need to understand that socialism is a philosophy that was embraced by ignorant peasants *because* they were ignorant peasants. That it still persists today is a huge indictment of our system of education. People who consider themselves educated would probably do well to be a little more worldly in their understanding of human nature, economics and progress.
00
Dammit Mike, you beat me to it.
I would like to add that those exibiting envy of businesses making profits and hence paying proportionally large volumes of tax, don’t realize that businesses have to devote extraordinary amounts of time and resources in regulatory compliance. I would estimate that 30% of my proffesional time goes into doing just that. Apparently businesses should just shut up and absorb the expense. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and it shows the ignorance of those that envy business people working hard, smart and ethically to make a decent living for themselves and their employees. In part I think that that was the general thrust of Jo’s post.
Ironically driving a Prios hard consumes far more fuel than driving an petrol engined sedan reasonably. The Prios is a dog to drive, ugly to look at and an environmental time bomb when it’s toxic nickel based batteries reach end of product life.
00
Rohan,
And the batteries have about 15kg of lanthanum in them also – I think this element reacts with water and expands – a quite toxic result. Here’s a photo link to the lovely mining area for lanthanum (also in Canada)
Not that environmentally friendly after all!
00
Driving from Dallas to Houston, cruising with the traffic at around 70 MPH, in a Corvette Z06 getting just over 28 MPG, while listening to Creedence I was passed by a Prius with 5 large blokes in it. The engine in the Prius was working so hard as it went by I thought about turning up the volume, as it was drowning out the music.
About 40 miles up the road there was the Prius at a gas station with all the guys stretching their legs so I remarked to my wife that they would be far more comfortable and use less gas in almost any SUV you can name.
They eventually caught us up again on the Beltway in Houston.
Pretty much sums it all up right there.
00
A Corvette Z06 and Credence Clearwater eh?
“I Heard it through the Grapevine“ that it was quite difficult to handle. A classic car that can “Put a Spell on You”. Doood doood doo you can’t be “Looking Out Your Back Door” coz it ain’t got any.
“Have You Ever Seen the Rain“and how it effects the crappy front wheel drive Prius? As you blow the doors off of that toy car, you have the proud look that says “I Put a Spell on You“.
Nothing beats shifting the gears “Down on the Corner“ and “Up Around the Bend“ and accellerating out effortlesly.
Driving from Dallas to Houston in a Z06? You sure are a “Fortunate Son“. I hope the “Midnight Special“ shone a light on you “Proud
MaryKneel”.00
You hit him with the cluebat there, Mike.
00
Dear Mike F.Oz,
You’ve jumped to conclusions and we agree on more than you realise.
1. Cost Acounting Strawman
Your entire argument is predicated on the negative rhetorical question: “Who is going to make a product just to sell it for what it cost to make it?” Ironically, you then proceed to justify selling a product only for what it costs to make by showing just how many factors and overheads should be amortised into product pricing to provide long term customer support by running a successful business as both a legal entity and a person plying a trade and living a life.
Then you agreed with my assumption that capitalism is synonymous with taking profits (extracting surplus value) because although I only mentioned “crony capitalism”, you decide to go off on a tangent defending all capitalism against some perceived attack. You did not seem to notice that fully accounting for the costs of business does not justify extracting surplus value, it only justifies a profit (in the conventional business accounting sense of the word) which ignores the costs of the owner’s lifestyle and focuses on costs directly related to the running of the business regardless of who runs it.
Entire countries of people have run successful businesses in both capitalist and socialist arrangements, sometimes concurrently. Congratulations, you know how to run a successful business in an honest free market by incorporating all the costs of production, direct or otherwise. This doesn’t prove anything for or against capitalism.
2. Socialism Strawman
Please understand the meanings of the words “capitalism” and “socialism” before using them in serious conversation. There are at least three different forms (or levels) of socialism: worker socialism, guilds/unions, and State socialism. The common meaning to the word “socialism” is that the worker controls the means of production, these 3 forms differing only in the social fictions used to define the “worker” and justify how they “own” the important factors.
History shows State socialism rapidly devolves into a nightmare. I do not recommend trying it, not even once.
The example you give of saving up money for your R&D and product improvement culminates in you owning a machine that can cut the costs of your widget production. You just gave a socialist worker example as though it were capitalist. Capitalists do not have a monopoly on taking risk or being innovative. (First man in space? First woman in space?)
About 50% of IT workers today work as freelance consultants under contracts or as sole traders. They bring their own tools to the job. Their employer didn’t pay for their education, they work with their own laptop, they spend some of their time gathering the raw materials (information) from their employer who is effectively their customer. The product of their work may be owned by their customer only via contract, not by some overarching legal fiat. They are in capitalist terminology “self employed”. Note that under the definition of socialism about 50% of IT workers today are therefore socialists (of the worker variety) and they probably don’t even know it, just like you. And you’d call them ignorant peasants! Ignorant peasants contributing to progress in capitalist enterprise. So clearly “socialism” works, as long as we are specific about which form works, and under what circumstances. Worker Socialism would never have succeeded for IT jobs when computers were the size of a room and cost millions of dollars – only the capitalists and the State socialists (eg Defense department) could afford them. Cost reduction in computing changed which forms of labour relations could be used successfully in IT.
Consider the military still operates as a communist organisation because it is the only economic paradigm that is successful for a national war machine, and I will withdraw that statement the first time I see the 1st Regiment running a lamington drive to raise money to buy a new helicopter. They have an unusual situation as a business: a high “production” capability must be maintained constantly even when it will have no “customers” (citizens being harmed by enemies) for 99.9% of the time. It operates like a communist bureaucracy. Resources flow from each taxpayer according to his ability to pay, to each unit according to the central planners assessment of that unit’s operational needs and tactical value. Totally commie, and proud of it, and it quite clearly works very well in that specific type of enterprise. And as we all know, progress in military technology is practically stone-age as a result of their “socialist” arrangement. (haha)
So having identified the Strawman as being composed entirely of straw, let’s get to the sticky point.
3. Fairness in business transactions
The difference between greedy and fair is subjective so it does not surprise me some would disagree. I agree to disagree, since universal agreement is not required.
Basically I see the difference as being in the pricing philosophy. Does the capitalist price the product according to the maximum price they can get from any customer and then decrease until the sales volume exceeds costs, versus, do they price it simply based on all costs of business including their own lifestyle? The price difference in these strategies may be zero if it is a commodity that people want to pay the least possible price for, so it is only the philosophy that is different then. But in the case that all costs have been paid for and you still charge more for no added value, surely that counts as greed? When this is excessive it is called “gouging” or “profiteering”, but this is a difference of degree, not of substance. Therefore the rest of the time it is greed that we permit on a small routine scale.
4. The greed taboo
As I said, if greed is good (because it has worked so well), why can’t we just admit it? What’s with the euphemism of “extracting surplus value”? What if we say “a little bit of greed is good”? I just want to call a spade a spade.
5. Mea Culpa
Actually here’s the mistake we both made: assuming the pushy Mercedes owner is a capitalist rather than it being a government car driven by a chauffeur acting under contract from its oligarch passenger. I guess sometimes life doesn’t neatly fit into ideologies.
You also invented a Bitterness Strawman. I was not attacking capitalism. I’ve been a de facto capitalist for 11 years simply by working for an employer and did quite well out of it, loved my job the whole time. In fact for the last 5 years I must have been paid more than the cost of my products, because I could have paid off the cost of my education during the first 6 years and still have money saved up today. Under my own logic… I am greedy! Just like every other capitalist. Why can society not just admit it?
6. Antipedestrianism is actually Auto-autophilia
The snide profiteer driving the Mercedes decides to accelerate (and interrupt the pedestrian competing for passage) due to the motive of taking the most they can get at whatever cost to competitors (just as you enthused), rather than the fair capitalist who drives a Ford deciding the likely cost of stopping for 15 seconds is insignificant and that the higher profit option is not justified compared with their own idea of a fair society.
That is orthogonal to the class warfare argument, which would say that the posh driver class values 15 seconds of their time vastly more than 15 seconds of the pedestrian class’s time. Since not enough information is available to the driver to justify such an assessment of a particular pedestrian, let alone determine which socioeconomic class the pedestrian is in, that is the hint that driver greed is at work rather than walker class-warfare.
Now that (for the first time) you have discovered my opinion, I invite you to have the last word and tell me which bits I got right and which bits I am still misguided about. As you value education you will no doubt take the time to be constructive. I’ll treat it as a learning experience.
00
Andrew,
I have no idea why you are getting thumbs down over this. One of best summaries I have seen of the commercial/political spectrum.
Only one thing I would add, in the category of Pricing Philosophy, is the strategy of “expectation marketing”; charging whatever your customer expects, as long as it is above your “all costs plus profit” model.
IBM was successful at doing this for years, on the basis that they could charge a premium because of an expectation of quality service, and “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”. Is that gouging? Or are people simply getting what they perceive they are paying for?
00
Yeah, okay, let’s follow that. Value is perceived, so who’s to say what the customer perceives. When is quality worthwhile and when is it just gold plated tennis shoes. And what is brand value good for anyway. I’ll attempt a general answer, but I suspect this may get into specific product types.
When the customer chooses to buy a product from IBM primarily due to reputation it’s because they have no decent risk assessment of the purchase. Trust in the brand has become a substitute for detailed knowledge of the needs. So there’s no way the customer could not get what they perceive as wanting. It’s vacuous. They could not judge the risk that the capability they bought into was greater than necessary. Considering a larger company can retain 5th level support experts that are hardly ever needed, it’s even more likely that Joe Schmo is paying for capability they don’t need. If IBM is not forthcoming with a more detailed assessment of the customer’s needs, is that a “lie by omission” and taking advantage of the clueless? Sounds a little bit like greed, possibly borderline.
Now add in the fact that no business shows their cost price to customers before nominating a sale price, and you can see our transactions are based on deception, which I think is to conceal the extent of the greed. An itemised bill has “margin” spread across all the items, so you don’t see a line item called “Greed $2000.00”
If the customer can find a cheaper price elsewhere that still meets their needs, does the addition of that new knowledge to the situation retroactively cast IBM as greedy? Well I think it does. It’s an insistence that the customer’s wallet stretch up to match IBM’s brand value, rather than IBM scaling down to provide good value.
In a barter situation the amount the vendor comes down in price (or the buyer goes up) from the initial offer can show just how greedy they were being to start with. This house, oh, a million, oh..err.. but for *you* special customer, special price, only 800 grand, no oh, well how about 650?? Dodgy dodgy. This “price discovery” is nothing more than discovering how much you can get away with. The greed that pays.
And then IBM smiles more, so what value does the customer perceive smiles to have? The customer won’t be billed for smiles, and the capitalist won’t pay staff to smile more, but customers are more likely to buy from the capitalist with smiling staff, so is that legitimate value delivered greedily?
Bah, I give up, value is voodoo.
00
Anyone who still thinks I have some violent bitterness towards capitalism, watch this video: “Connecting the Dots, 2 of 14”
The whole series looks to be well worth watching, but in this one clip the presenter reiterates the points that both Mike and I were trying to make.
* Being able to keep all the proceeds and value of your work is an enormous incentive for progress.
* Communism retards progress and is a nightmare.
* The Army operates on communism and this retards advancement.
* That many of the great American inventions of the 19th and early 20th century (until 1913) were made by people who are sometimes today wrongly called “greedy” simply because they kept all the money that their work generated for them.
As I said above, the greed is in taking significantly more than you have to, simply because you can. It’s not greed to keep the proceeds of your work without giving it away to governments and ne’er-do-wells. If, after having received the money from sales, nobody else is entitled to the profit then it isn’t greed to keep it. (This is where Mike got his wires crossed.) The greed is in the initial pricing and the equity contrivance.
Capitalism demands an unending return on a single capital investment without having contributed any labour, which therefore is taking far more than it gave (in kind) and also far more than it must (unlimited repayment on a finite loan). If capitalism is good, then greed is good, therefore greed is good. You can question whether capitalism is good, or you can question whether greed is “taking more than you need”, but everything else seems logical.
We’ve done quite well out of capitalism thus far, but the question is, can we do better? One word: GIABO.
00
Aw Mike formerly from OZ,
when it is slow and there aren’t any trolls to pounce on, a few here take to setting bait so that they can return with a logic exercise replete with accusations of various debate violations and strawman against strawman argument, whereupon they will claim a smug victory (complete with ad-hom) at the expense of the opponent. Don’t take it personally, just smile and nod. I expect virtually no one would have thought the word GREED would have been used in a positive connotation and McRae is just showing off.
No Mcrae, you stated that:
Since greed is one of the seven deadly sins it is an obvious negative implication that profit = extracting surplus value = sin.
For those of us that know what GREED means, McRae has simply made an A** of himself and that can be his “learning experience”.
00
Mark, the reason why it is considered very poor form to accuse someone of being a troll is because it is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis.
As to the argument: “Since greed is one of the seven deadly sins it is an obvious negative implication that profit = extracting surplus value = sin. ”
Well hey, if the Christian Bible says so, who am I to argue? Why don’t we just use religion as the basis of all our dealings and values? Oh wait, we already tried that, it was called the Dark Ages. And yes, I’m implying that was a bad arrangement.
I am still waiting for someone to show where the flaw in my argument was. There must be a flaw there somewhere; I couldn’t be an “a**” if the argument was… shudder…correct. That’s unless social niceties and conformance trumps truth, in which case I could go to RealClimate and get similar treatment. Maybe I am an “a**” simply because you say so, and that ought to be enough proof… of something.
00
So the Bible and Church don’t exist?
Greed is a deadly sin and you can’t simply ignore the meaning ascribed by the Faithful.
The way Mike reacted IS the “proof” you seek.
.
.
.
.
.
One deserves to be called a Troll when they behave as a Troll. One deserves to be called an A** when their behavior is the same as the behavior of an A**. Being an A** does not mean right or wrong. It is also only my OPINION formed after observation and yes I “say so”. However, supporting this opinion “the proof” is your choice of words. One could also form the opinion that I too may also be an A** for the way I am pointing these things out.
I don’t think I’m treating you any worse than you treated Mike Fomerly of Oz. Whether that is the same treatment as you’d receive at RealClimate is not my concern, however it wouldn’t surprise me that one might find people there react similarly to the way people react here, they are presumed to be people after all.
“Social niceties” are just that and useful when one is interested in preventing war.
00
I agree. The other thing I’ve noticed with Prius drivers is many seem to have an inferiority complex over their car’s lack of performance relative to most ‘dirty’ 100% Petrol powered cars. Many seem anxious to be first away from the lights or fastest up the hill. This also suggests these people often exhibit hypocritical behaviour when we compare their actions (driving) to their message (I am environmentally and socially responsible) – I drive a Prius so I can do what I want!
It seems for a large majority, the reason for buying a Prius can only be to make a moral statement. To be economically beneficial you need to drive a Prius large distances or own the car longer to recoup the higher initial costs compared with Petrol fueled cars of similar size e.g. Corolla.
00
I agree. I have observed in my extended family this phenomenon. i.e. with purely inherited wealth their snobbish behaviour became more evident. In short, the less they worked for their wealth the more they looked down on others with less. But most people with inherited (or old) money will pretend they earned it from ‘log cabin’ beginnings. Well, maybe their forebears did.
00
I am surprised that I had to read half-way through the article (or precis or compilation) before those questions were asked – Cause and effect – gets the unwary every time.
My hypothesis is that arrogant [include expletive of choice], who don’t give a thought to other people, are more likely to: a. Buy expensive cars (of any make); b. Psychologically identify with the car as being part of their self expression; and c. drive in a way that shows off their car and gets them noticed – like forcing the issue at crosswalks.
I fail to see any causal link that would have a normally polite person suddenly turn arrogant just because of the car they have climbed into, but I can see a causal link the other way.
Research Topic: What proportion of people, who hire expensive “luxury” cars when they are away from home, drive differently to the way they would normally drive their family car when at home?
A couple of million in funding should be sufficient, I think. Direct payment into my Cayman Islands bank account will do nicely, thank you.
00
‘Don’t know so much, RW. I drive an v.expensive sports car, I observe pedestrian crossings closely and don’t threaten pedestrians (as they can damage the hood ornament, LOL).
On the other hand, we eat regularly at a friend’s restaurant that overlooks a pedestrian crossing in a 40km speed zone … low speed because the peds were being flattened too regularly. I have mentioned on more than one occasion to my wife that it would appear to me that the greatest transgressors at speeding and barging through that pedestrian crossing are average Queensland clunkers and kids driving over accessorised bling mobiles.
In my driving experience, I find that drivers of SUV’s and quasi eco-cars the ones most prone to poor driving manners on the road … not indicating, not being alert when the traffic moves off, talking / texting on mobile phones, etc., and unfortunately females being overly represented in my observations.
00
Rereke, I know it sounds hard to believe, but that’s exactly what a couple of those studies I mentioned did show. Give people green choices on their shopping trip, and if they buy green, they go on to be more morally-hypocritical. Likewise, ask them to compare themselves with Trump or a homeless guy and the ones who compared themselves with the homeless guy are more likely to take extra lollies from the kiddies jar. The implications are that our moods shift the bell curve of responses in a measurable way. Obviously personality and temperament aren’t rewritten because someone asks you to think about your place in the pecking order.
I didn’t like the implications of pride being a bad thing, as per the Asian study, but maybe the finer line is that pride mixed with gratitude brings out a higher moral being than pride mixed with smuggery and disdain.
00
It’s like the effect of PV solar systems in conjunction with obese infeed tarifs.
In Germany, those with the biggest (domestic) PV systems tend to be the biggest consumers of grid electricity; because it’s “free”. They used to get almost 5kWh “free” for every kWh that they fed into the grid. Which made it economical to run grid power through the PV panels to de-ice them in winter, letting them catch an hour or two of PV.
“Doing something for the planet” is justification for sticking your hands in other people’s wallets and having them pay for your righteousness.
00
The Western Australian Government know how to sort out people with mental problems –
Proposed Mental Health Bill in Western Australia to give children 12 years and older the right to `consent’ to sterilisation, psychosurgery, Electro-Convulsive Therapy, to be restrained with manacles, belts, and straps, and to be imprisoned by psychiatrists for up to 14 days on `suspicion’ of mental illness.
The potential dangers and horrors in this proposal for the children of Western Australia are immense.
How can this have even been conceived in modern day Australia?.
http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au/Libraries/pdf_docs/Discussion_Draft_for_Mental_Health_Bill_2011_v3.sflb.ashx
This one really should be sent out across the globe with indignation. I don’t know what kind of inhuman psychopaths have cooked this up, but our kids are now under attack.
Objections can be submitted to parliamentary members in each state till 9 March.
Proposal is for child sterilisation … Also, 12 year olds to be allowed to consent to psychosurgery and electroshock… and more attrocities. The document looks so innocent and colourful at face value, but very sinister regression to the old asylums of yesteryear where they did brain ice pick surgery.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF APPLIED SCHOLASTICS WESTERN AUSTRALIA
FROM: The Athena School
DATE: 29 February 2012
Hello to all Students and Parents of Applied Scholastics and to the people who have signed up for our Newsletters.
My name is Alison Tarrant and I am the Director of Applied Scholastics Western Australia based in Perth. My staff and I have helped you or your children in the area of education and most of you know us quite well.
Some very disturbing information has come across our path in relation to a Draft Mental Health Bill which concerns our precious children and our rights as parents. When I read it I was quite shocked and thought someone was playing a joke on me but then I went onto the main website http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au which is the Government Department of the Mental Health Commission and looked at the actual Draft Bill.
This is an extremely lengthy document which you can easily get lost in and miss the main points of the Draft Mental Health Bill that the Mental Health Commission is wanting to pass as law in our society.
I have done you a big favour and provided you with the main points below (with pages numbers relating to the draft bill) which you should absolutely be made aware of.
If you don’t like what you read below you have until the 9th March, 2012 to send a letter/submission to the Mental Health Commission and others stating exactly what you think and also an opportunity to reject this Proposed Bill:
Write expressing your objections to the Mental Health Commission and to your state legislator.
Feedback closes 9th March 2012 at 5pm.
Email: on contactus@mentalhealth.wa.gov.au or
Mail: GPO Box X2299 Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847
Send a copy of your objections to the Mental Health Minister, Health Minister and your local Member of Parliament.
Find their addresses at: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers
Please read below for the main points:
*CHILDREN OF ANY AGE TO CONSENT TO STERILISATION: If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation. Parental consent will not be needed. Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. [Pages: 135 & 136 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
*12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO PSYCHOSURGERY: Banned in N.S.W. and the N.T., psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes. This draft bill proposes to allow a 12 year old child, if considered to be sufficiently mature by a psychiatrist, to be able to consent to psychosurgery. Once the child has consented it goes before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) for approval. Parental consent is also not needed for the MHT to approve the psychosurgery. [Pages: 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213]
*12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO ELECTROSHOCK (ECT): Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head. Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is “mature” enough, will be able to consent to electroshock. Also, once consent is given, there is no requirement for parents or anyone, including the MHT, to approve the electroshock. Electroshock should be banned. Its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105]
*RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN: Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution, with the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and bodily force. Chemical restraint – the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person – is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application. Death can result from all forms of restraint. [Pages: 122, 121, 113, 246]
*INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN: A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if “suspected” of mental illness. Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home. The psychiatrist can then make a “continuation order” to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period. During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home. The MHT hold hearings on the detainment of a child, but there is no guarantee the child will be able to go home. In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages and only 58 people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary. [Pages: 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77]
*WHO WILL BE ABLE TO DETAIN A CHILD IS NOT FULLY KNOWN: An “authorised mental health practitioner” can also detain a child or adult in the draft bill. Exactly who an authorised mental health practitioner is, is not defined by the draft bill. The Chief Psychiatrist can literally give anyone or any profession the power to detain someone just because he considers they are qualified and by publishing the decision in the Gazette. This clause must be removed from the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011. Only a judge or magistrate should have the power to order someone be detained, and only with full legal representation for the person facing depravation of liberty [Pages: 246, 247, 21, 22]
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DRAFT BILL?: The W.A. Mental Health Commission (MHC) were responsible for writing the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011, with Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist, Mr Eddie Bartnik overseeing the process.
Has the above information shocked you as much as it has shocked me??
I suggest you write your letter saying exactly what you think.
Yours sincerely
Alison Tarrant
Director
APPLIED SCHOLASTICS
WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC.)
Website: http://www.apswa.org.au
Mobile:
0419 780 454
Postal address for all mail:
PO Box 466 BELMONT WA
Source: The Crowhouse
00
The first thing I noticed about “green” was that it was a result of a superiority complex — I know better than you do. Look at how much better I’m doing than you are. That’s the pervasive attitude I see everywhere.
When the Prius first appeared I was very curious about how it worked and did a lot of research. One of the things I found was a site called “Prius Chat”. The attitude I saw there bears me out. They weren’t driving a relatively expensive nothing of a car for the good gas mileage. They were on a crusade to save the planet. Some were outspokenly hostile to those who didn’t drive a care with an engine that stopped when the car stopped. It was that bad. Even when my neighbor bought one her attitude was similar. The things are a status symbol.
I finally got a chance to drive one for a few miles and was reasonably impressed. If you want a hotrod get something else. But they will keep up in traffic. I’m regularly passed by them as I chug along at 80 MPH (129 KMH) in my old Toyota. So they have something going under the hood — Al Gore’s son was arrested doing 110 MPH (177 KMH) in his red Prius).
I’ve wished wistfully to myself more than once that I had a BMW or similar car “so I could drive like some fool who violated all the rules”. But unfortunately some just plain no-status car drivers do the same things.
00
This looks at bit like some post modern research done by some academic to justify a bit of “let’s bash the rich”. There may well be a difference between people who have money and people who are successfull business people. It is very difficult to be a long term success in business without have a high degree of personal integrity. To be a success in business long term all of the people who you deal with need to have some trust that you will do as you say and to honour your committments to them.
This is, of course, different to being hard noses and driving a good bargain or fighting for your success neither of which precliudes you having a good moral sense. I can not imagine that any person who is successfull in business who would buy a prius. The simple cost benefit analysis would clearly show that it was dud deal.
00
The real reason of course is that Prius drivers are acutely aware of their “carbon footprint”. Thus they realise that to slow, let alone stop, their Prius entails an increase in “carbon pollution”.
So don’t be hard on them when they don’t defer to pedestrians, it is not that they are inconsiderate but simply because of their concern for the planet.
00
So, by running over pensioners on pedestrian crossings, Prius drivers leave a sizeable carbon tyre print, rather than a carbon footprint.
00
hmmmm…. see above link for cartoon. It explains everything about some Prius owners.
It kinda goes with what you are saying if you watch the portion of the episode in San Francisco.
00
“Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior” which doesn’t imply it causes it. It could be that unethical behavior leads to higher social class. In fact, it’s almost a tautology.
00
Rod even that could be the wrong way round. Remember that modern ethics leads to baby killing and giving disease infected mosquitoes the right to vote. If you want to find an ethicist to ask about this just follow the chicken noises coming from under the sink in a public wash room etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/on_lawfully_killing_small_babies/
00
Hey, off topic I know, but I wonder if any of these animal rights bods ever swatted a mozzie, or fly, or ever stomped a cocky, or if they immunise their children against bugs in their bodies.
Just wonderin’ where that line is drawn.
Tony.
00
The line is drawn at the cuteness factor zone.
No money in saving some ugly obnoxious critter. You gots to go fo da cute critters so the plebs can say “awwwwww!!!!!!” and reach for their wallets.
00
Well those 942 words are certainly words. I love inference and rhetoric.
00
Priuses are simply wheeled menhirs flogged to millenialist druids and gullible patricians. Hey, see I do read the classics.
00
Good one Bruce ,
though the financial shennanigans with the menhirs in the story reminds me more of the whole wind turbine subsidy rort . I also noticed that the person wrote the article has no idea how free market capitalism actually works .
00
Bruce,
without doubt, when it comes to The Classics, Asterix The Gaul would have to be the best of them all.
Tony.
00
A Prius is nothing more than a green badge of courage. It is in keeping with the Eco loon policy of all pain and no gain.
An entry level BMW with a stick gets better mileage than a Prius. The battery is made from ore mined from an open pit in Canada that is a gross polluter.
A Hummer is cheaper to own, drive and maintain. The battery on a Prius is only good for about 100,000 miles. After which, the car is scrap. A Hummer is good for 325,000 miles. You need to buy 3 plus priuses to equal 1 Hummer.
The cost to buy a Prius versus a comparable Toyota is so great that, even with the gas savings, you will never recoup the extra sticker cost.
They should change the name of the vehicle to The Lemming.
00
What about Electric Lemon?
00
Ed,
How about the Edsell MKII?
By the way Ross and yourself had a lively discussion the other day about Hansens failed predictions here is another:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/08/hey-hansen-wheres-the-beef/#comment-916660
00
Jo
To add to your argument, I only have two words.
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Henry Ford built indestructible plastic cars using hemp, and ran 40.000 vehicles on hemp fuels produced from only 10.000 acres.
As usual,if it is too good it won’t make money and therefore won’t last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_plastic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8&feature=related
00
stop start stop start stop start… don’t you guys know what that does to fuel efficiency!
00
Nice attempt at humour there, MattB.
Trust you to stand up for the right of Prius owmers not to stop at pedestrian crossings, and finding a reason for it.
So, let me see if I have this right. They don’t stop because in fact they are caring for the environment by trying to conserve as much fuel as possible, by not stopping and starting.
Tony.
(Tony thinks to self about Matt’s response – “Hey I didn’t mean that.”)
00
Thats strange i get emails of peoples comments but have to refresh the page several times before they appear here usually it is instantaneous.
Kevin,
Henry was before his time, too bad his sons were morons
Heywood in 3,
I know a real life idiot that has an electric car, he thinks he is now a superior being and saving the planet because he can drive all the way from Gawler East to Gawler and back before he has to rely on coal power to recharge the battery. You cant actually achieve anything when you drive the car because it has no boot and the additional weight of a passenger and or goods reduces the battery life and you have to walk most of the way, but as i said he thinks he is a superior being and thats all that counts i suppose.
00
.
If you’re gonna get an electric car, get a REAL electric car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RESC54vHr40&feature=related
00
Fun video!
If you know electric motors you know that they are 3:1 or better horsepower for horsepower. I have no doubt that an electric auto can and will out drag a petrol powered example.
On the other hand lets see what they can do in the Indy 500……..
00
Let me add: a PROPERLY SET UP electric auto (not a Pious) can and will out drag a petrol powered example.
00
But what will it SOUND like ? 🙂
00
I have a friend who has been a fan of electric cars for quite a while. All of them would get off the line startlingly fast. The reason is that DC electric motors develop their maximum torque at zero RPM. Any motor capable of sustained highway speeds will start up like a drag racer, unless the manufacturer builds a governor into the control electronics (probably what is happening with the new ones).
The down side is that 2000 lb of batteries gives you about the same energy storage as 1 gallon of gas.
00
Nah nah nah I call bulchit on that Mark.
I was once a proud owner of a Torana XU1, (google it) until my old man made me sell it coz he thought I’d kill myself in it.
I used to take it on to a freeway (pre radar days), ease up alongside another car doing 100kph, drop my XU1 into 2nd, hit the accellerator and watch the other car as its doors got blown off as soon as my racing cam came into play at 4000rpm.
Them were the days. Now you get a $300 ticket for doing 65 in a 60 zone driving a Prius. Yuk!!!
00
Baa Humbug,
My old man made me sell my GTHO Phase IV – before I killed myself. I used to take it onto the highway and ease up to an XU1, didn’t do anything apart from plant it – and blow the doors off that minature Holden!
I have decided not to rate your comment at all – because you consider that an XU1 is the superior petrol machine to take on Marks inferior little lithium number! Even though I know that you could achieve what you stated with that inferior XU1!
Amazing an XU1 could beat a Lithium NiCAD!
Also notice that this website makes the number 1 little – when used in conjunction with XU1! As it should – but the IV of Phase IV is BIG!
00
Hmm! Dave,
just wonderin’ here.
Ford Oz planned to construct the Phase iv HO in 72, the first of the XA’s, and actually constructed four of them. They never saw the light of day for purchase by the general public when Ford canned the project.
So, if you have a genuine Phase iv, then I might suggest you could name your own seven figure price for it.
I might suggest this may just be a porkie! sorry.
Also, I heard a story once about those XU1’s. Of the 1100 that Holden built, there’s only 16,000 of them left running. (Nyuk nyuk nyuk!)
Tony.
00
Tony – Yes you’re correct,
I had the (HUM! very embrassed here) XA GT 2 door hardtop – which was all but a GTHO Phase 4 except in name – The original XA 2000 plus Phase 4’s (XA GT’s) street GT’s were 4 door! I bought it 2nd hand in late 79 – then sold it!
The first 4 (collectors items) were made and then 196 plus produced XA GT’S were virtually Phase 4’S! After that the balance of only abot 2,400 or so were the XA GT!
I worked at Laverack Barracks (civilian) in T’ville and there were heaps of 70’s & 80’s muscle cars there!
And I think there is only one original Phase 4 left?
Didn’t realise ther’d be another revhead here – sorry Tony – or you may just research every comment!
Cheers Dave
00
Baa, read carefully, I said drag race That means quarter mile or less and 0 to max speed in seconds.
The battery in my example would be dead before you got to “pull along side” anyone to blow the doors off.
Electric motors can be built with nearly any torque band and any RPM. They do not suffer from aspiration problems. They are able to direct couple with no transmission and no shifting. Battery weight can be an advantage to keep the tires stuck to the road in a drag vehicle.
As a road racing car they’d suck
00
No revhead me.
First car was a 69 Corolla New. Then 3 more new Corollas, a new Camry and now a 2001 Astra, my first non Toyota, and my first car not purchased new.
I always wanted a German car, just didn’t expect it to be a derivative.
Only 6 cars in 41 years.
I loved those muscle cars though, even if I could never really afford one of them, and keenly followed most Motor sport, hence an interest in cars as all men seem to have.
I see that a Dodge Ram was mentioned above in an earlier comment.
At one stage the Dodge Ram was the fastest ‘truck’ on the Planet, and it was just a big ‘ute’ really, but say ute in the U.S. and they have no idea what you’re on about. They call them pickups or trucks.
That Dodge Ram was the fastest recorded truck on Earth with no equal, series production that is.
Holden’s HSV Maloo Ute set the new and current fastest speed for a ‘truck’ at the Woomera test ground in 2006 at 277KPH (173MPH) and the Americans just were dumbfounded, that such a ‘tiny’ little half truck could actually do that, and if you’ve ever seen those big Dodge Ram’s you know what I mean.
They haven’t even bothered to try and get it back.
The Americans sort of tried out Utes with their Chev El Camino, but they could never find a way to market them correctly.
Tony.
00
PS watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6062890668995958197
Dodge viper against Battery
No BullChit! 🙂
00
Back in 1973 I was in the R.A.N. and purchased a Ford RPO83 Coupe in Yellow Glow. 4Speed.
There were way more Torana XU1’s than V8 Fords back then. Track days and going to Touring Car races to watch Brock, Moffat, Bond, Jane, Goss etc do battle was “fun” to say the least.
Bruce McPhee purchased the only Phase 4 that got out of the Ford factory and that was because he got his early to turn into a rally car before the Media blew the “Supercar” scare out of all proportion. One more remained the property of Ford Australia and was driven by a senior executive whose name escapes me at the moment. The others that had been built became Race cars to meet the regulations of the day so none were wasted.
Kneel.
00
I do know of one Phase 4 that actually is in a collection.
It’s Alan Moffatt’s 1972 XA four door, and it is in the collection of a Queensland Company called Bowden’s Own at Buderim, and that collection is
Only one of the 4 was completed before the project was cancelled.
Those other 3 GT’s converted to HO specs were sold by Ford to specific individuals, and who better to have one than that Canadian guy.
Tony.
00
Only trouble is they stop with an empty battery, before they can get out of sight.
00
It may have to do with how your browser checks for updates to the page vs using the cached page. I generally have to hit refresh quite a few times in order to update to the “latest” version of the comments.
I just checked and for Firefox my default setting appeared to be to only check the document if it seems outdated.
If you go to “about:config” and look for the string “browser.cache.check_doc_frequency” these are the values it can use:
3 – only check if it seems outdated
2 – always use cached version
1 – always check for newer version
0 – check for newer version once per session
You may want to try setting it to 1. Once upon a time I could have told you how to tweak that in IE as well, now there are just too many browsers to bother trying to keep track of all the settings and quirks they have.
00
I’m not here to defend the Smugmobile or its smug owners. But, really, guys, we need to devote universities to growing urgently needed mental capital. We cannot afford to run the places for flaky “studies”, where sloppy speculations and assumptions are supported by graphs and statistics. After the speculations and assumptions, and the gorgeous maths, we get the sloppy conclusions and interpretations: “Studies have shown” etc.
God help us, soon we’ll paying these flakes to do “moral modelling” in Faculties of Higher Ethics. Wait! Please don’t tell me that’s already happening!
00
Amen, Brother.
00
My perception of this problem is that the Prius is such an obvious car, and by that I mean the only thing it resembles is in fact a Prius.
You don’t hear the same thing about the Honda Hybrid or the Camry Hybrid, because both look exactly the same as their counterparts in the same range, the Honda Civic, and the Toyota Camry.
Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not standing up for Hybrids or electric cars for that fact, as both types are enormously expensive for what they do, and offer only marginal results.
My brother owns a Camry Hybrid, and I got to drive it, admittedly only over 120 kilometres or so around the Gold Coast, both in built up stop start situations and also on the Highway.
They are as easy to drive as any other car. However, fuel consumption savings are still only marginal, and as Eddy says above, those savings are still not enough to cover the original cost price over the life of the car, hence being an expensive solution to a perceived non existent problem.
The technology interested me, coming as I do from an electrically based background. That technology is complex, introducing complexities that would obviously mean higher expense all round for cars of this nature.
Now I live here in Rockhampton, I have noticed the local large Taxi Company uses both Hybrids almost exclusively, the Prius and the Camry Hybrids both, so obviously, they have done the sums as to how a vehicle of this nature is best suited for this application.
Having said that, if any of you wish to have a read on how these cars work, then I have two Posts on the subject at my site, and there you go Tony, shamelessly linking into your own site again.
However, some of you may find them of interest.
Why Hybrid Cars (Part 1)
Why Hybrid Cars (Part 2)
Keep in mind both Posts are from June 2010, so some things have changed since then, the cost of fuel for one, and the exchange rate for another.
Tony.
00
If you buy a hybrid, you’re probably not paying the full price. Those models tend to be subsidised by sales of other models. Low production volumes and the high investment in R&D for all that complexity makes if very difficult to recoup costs over a small production run.
I’d rather have a Veyron; which sells for a million Euros; but costs about 3 million Euros to make.
Oh; and didn’t Keving Rudd gift Toyota $35,000,000 (from our pockets) to make the Camry Hybrid in Australia?
00
Ah, Bernd, the old waterbed principle.
Tony.
00
Waterbeds don’t sustain support for pointy objects.
00
You’ve done an excellent presentation on batteries and electric motors. But the real reason that hybrids can get the good gas mileage they do isn’t anything directly to do with the battery or electric motors except that those are a means to an end. Remember, all the energy required to run that hybrid must come from the gas burned in its engine. Here is what my research into the Prius found.
The normal gas engine in a car has to run at whatever speed is required for the speed and gear range of the car. It’s pretty much never operating at its most fuel efficient RPM. Enter the hybrid. By decoupling the engine from the speed of the car it’s possible to run it at a constant RPM. It may be providing more or less power to the wheels but it can stay at its most efficient speed. If more power is needed you add fuel but don’t increase RPM. When less power is needed you throttle down some but you still keep the most efficient RPM.
It’s possible to keep the constant RPM because the engine can drive one of the two motors in the Toyota as a generator and feed that power to the other motor to help power the wheels. Some of that generator output can also charge the battery. The drive system is a simple planetary setup with a ring gear, planet gears and a sun gear. Motor generators are connected to the ring and sun gears and the engine drives the planet gear set. The ring gear is connected to the differential on the drive shaft. Only the ring gear is forced to move at a speed demanded by the speed of the car.
Now once you have the ability to keep a constant RPM you have the possibility of modifying the combustion cycle to be more efficient.
Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive does both of these things — it tries to keep the engine at its most efficient RPM and it uses a modified combustion cycle to take advantage of the constant speed. This is where most of the higher gas mileage comes from, simply smarter use of the gasoline engine.
It’s helpful that the engine need not run when the car is stopped. And it’s helpful that dynamic breaking can put some of the car’s kinetic energy back into the battery when you step on the pedal. But there is no benefit of not running the engine when driving at low speed because the engine must eventually recharge the battery.
The bottom line though is that all the energy needed to run the hybrid car still comes from burning gas in the engine. And the only way to get higher gas mileage is to burn that gas a lot more efficiently.
PS:
The original Prius had a range on the battery of only about 3 to 5 miles. Not very impressive even though the save-the-planet bunch thought it was nirvana. The real advantage of the hybrid is simply missed by people who are trying to solve the wrong problem by asking the wrong question.
PPS:
The original Prius had 10 computers devoted to keeping it all running smoothly. That’s a lot of room for trouble and accordingly there were numerous incidents requiring field upgrades to software. There are also 9 confirmed deaths from uncontrolled acceleration in the Prius. There is no ignition switch that you can turn off either. Too much reliance on automation for me — I’ll take my old Camry any day.
00
I drive a Ford Falcoln. It is not economic for city stop start driving, but on the open road it outshines something like the Prius because it is so very fuel efficient.
Our other car is a Nissan Tiida. It is also fuel efficient. It does not have “the status” given to the Prius… but then again we do not sniff our own….
00
my 1993 charade has heaps of status.
Does this count as a spacer comment if the thread is itself a spacer?
00
GA
Bwahhhahahahahahahah!
At least it’s better than unthreaded?
00
Unthreaded can lead in interesting directions.
00
Hah, we have much in common. A 1993 Applause here, nearly as good mileage as a Prius, only much cheaper. If my calculations are correct I would have to drive my car for only 57 more years to equalise the price of a Prius in terms of fuel saved (ie $39.9k for a Prius vs about $31k for mine, new, in 2012 dollars, only I bought mine second hand 13 years ago). Ok, ok, Toyota have cut their price this year so I’d only have to drive another 18 or so years before the Prius’d catch up with my zippy and miserly Appy.
But I have to say nothing can compare to Gaia manifesting. See Prof Flannery was right, except he churlishly bought a Prius instead.
00
applause is just the charade for toffs. You can fit anything into a tardis charade but the sedan applause is for those who hark bake to the days before the Renault 4.
00
Hello Margaret,
When Nissan released the Tiida the advertising campaign was built solely around the idea that women driving them over speed bumps would experience orgasms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1TKd3bMODY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2veOnHb7c
I’ve always wondered . . . but have never known a woman owner I could ask before . . .
00
Nissan took one of the top-selling nameplates in the business with the Pulsar, and threw it away and marketed the Tiida as a chicks car, for people who watched sex in the city.
Alienating 50% of your target market isn’t too smart. Alienating 50% of the remaining was particularly stupid.
I sincerely hope whichever marketing exec came up with the twin ideas of dumping the Pulsar name and marketing the Tiida using that actress is sweeping factory floors at Nissan.
Never market a car exclusively to women. This means no man will ever buy it, and those that are married to a woman won’t let them buy it if it means they’ll have to drive it. It’s OK to market to families, but never to women directly.
00
.
Yeah – I’ve often wondered which was the bigger marketing disaster:
Dropping the immensely successful “Pulsar” label, or
replacing it with a mobile dildo.
00
My mother would have dismissively said that at least the one third would have been “noveaux riche” with an inuendo that it was unlikely they would remain rich – not that we were particularly well off. She was of the old school that believed in “noblesse oblige” and would expect them to be the kind of people to adopt fashionable opinions for no reason other than that they perceived social advantage in doing so. Do they sound like AGW scaremongers?
00
My Mother said the same things.
00
“Quem Deus Vult Perdere Dementat Prius.”
Whom the god would destroy is nuts about the Prius.
00
The strange thing is – stop start driving is the only place in which a Prius can deliver superior fuel consumption. It excels at city traffic.
Otherwise it’s just another 4 cylinder hatch with a couple of hundred kilos of batteries in the boot. Their open road performance is terrible for this fact.
I do have good friends who traded in a prius on a camry hybrid – so far I haven’t heard any smugness from them – I don’t know if they just like the cars or have detected a certain aura from me with regards to hybrid cars.
In fact, I’m all for variety in vehicle and propulsion types. As long as there isn’t any government policies trying to pick the winner, then I’m all for it. Same goes for energy generation – stick within the guidelines laid down, and may the best tech win. Most people only have a beef when tax dollars are given to someone for making a particular choice.
When I ask people if they support an extra 5c fuel tax to give a 10c fuel rebate to people who buy an efficient BMW diesel, 100% of people asked say no. When I point out this is exactly the same as solar subsidies, an open mouth and no comment is the usual reply.
00
And the biggest Prius driver behaving badly all the time:
Is “The Australian Prius Driver of the Year“
00
Hilarious. It’s amazing that has been there for over a year without being taken down. It’s totally libellous and the odd thing is that the nearest parallel I can recall was the “Pauline Pantsdown” song parody from 1998. That’s odd because Pauline Hanson was a politician not a scientist, and we practically expect politicians to become subjects of parody at some point. Unless it’s not so odd because… Dr Flannery has crossed the line into politics??? Surely not???
00
Here guys. Have fun with this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/worriers-have-anxiety-over-climate-change3a-study/3880372
00
Due to lake of volunteers and funds, CU draws its sample from undergrads. Usually 1st year humanities students.
They go straight from their sustainability lectures thru to the assessment clinic. So it is more the demographic of the test samples that derive the studies conclusion than any real perception of ones carbon foot-printing.
Jonnyboy, you have hung around with the sceptics long enough to know any science report by the ABC is suspect.
00
The Galaxy Song – Monty Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA
00
I dont know any Prius owners……………is this a problem ????? 😀
00
It must be because you live in the real universe and not in the fantasy one inhabited by the green-left.
00
No!
00
Without trying to read too much into this…
So the theory is that ‘Green advocates’ who drive a Prius feel superior to others and can blame non-conformers as the root cause of global warming. Therefore, a likely reason for failure to stop the Prius could be a sub-conscious effort to rid the world of the perceived problem.
And….
If this Prius study is applied more broadly to the ‘Green’ mindset, then perhaps we can draw an important conclusion on what drives green policy such as – The carbon tax, the conversion to useless alternative energy sources, the massive debt generation, the removal of water for agriculture, the ban on building dams and so on….
You get the picture 🙂
00
When in the US on an extended stay in 2010, I frequently travelled on I-66 east into Washington DC. There is a HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane in operation during peak times in which you can only travel if you have two or more people in the car. This particular money-spinner is well patrolled by the traffic cops. There’s always someone in a hurry who decides to chance it and like a stray gazelle departing from the pack is picked off by the predator – in this case a traffic cop.
Now to my point: I was forever astonished at the disproportionately high number of Toyota Priuses (rhymes with “pious”, of course) I observed who had been pulled over for driving in the HOV lane with just one occupant – the driver (naturally). I have remarked on this many times since in conversation. It was truly remarkable. Of all the myriad makes and models on the US roads (many more than in Australia) Prius drivers were way, way over-represented. This is just an anecdote – but I see that it is indicative of a general trend.
Is there anything whatsoever to like about the Prius-driving type of person? Not much that I can discern. They tick all the wrong boxes, especially the HYPOCRITE box.
As an aside, it is diverting to observe the ingenuity of humans. When the HOV lanes first came into operation many, many moons ago, it was common for people to drive around with a mannequin in the passenger seat in a desperate but ultimately doomed attempt to shave a few measly seconds off their travel time. It still goes on; and it’s highly amusing to drive past a motorist who has been stopped by a traffic cop – and there’s the mannequin sitting mute and blank eyed in the passenger seat as it stares unconsciously into the distance. Boy, those drivers must be wishing they could shrivel up and disappear.
00
Watching the HOV lanes around here would show them nearly empty, a total waste of concrete and asphalt.
People continuously vote with their money at the gas pump and their tires on the road but the “we-know-better-than-you” crowd never listens.
Then there’s the problem when someone is whizzing along in that lane while the rest of traffic is crawling at a snail’s pace and they get to where they have to get out of that lane and move through maybe three or four densely packed lanes to get to their exit. Oops! They don’t work the way they’re intended to because when traffic is moving well any lane will do and when traffic is not moving well the HOV lane is a trap.
00
I have a few serious problems with this group of studies. First and foremost is the confusion of money with class. Membership of the upper classes is defined by history, manners, honour, duty, attitude and behaviour and published silently through acceptance by one’s peers and the evidence of one’s deeds – not financial status or words shouted. There are many members of the upper classes who are comparatively poor. The upper classes amass their wealth, not in a single generation but by handing it down over multiple generations, yet the presence of wealth does not define class membership.
By definition, someone who would risk their status as a member of “the club” by stealing from a lolly jar is automatically not a member of the upper classes. The fear of dishonour and resulting loss of face and status amongst one’s peers makes compliance with these unwritten rules more likely than not.
The studies used self identification to identify people of the upper classes. There, immediately, is the problem. People are invariably the opposite of what the claim most loudly to be. The self proclaimed honest man is a liar, the ostentatiously rich man is one share crash away from poverty, and the self appointed protector of the public morals is corrupted to the core – this observation has been proven to me through life time and time again. My parents told me, and life has proven them correct – that one does not need class to go to a private school – simply money, and that appearance is deceptive because only the truly rich can afford to wear rags.
I measure wealth as the difference between total liquifiable assets and total debt. This comes down to how much you own versus what the bank owns and lets you use. The driver of the expensive car living in a McMansion is usually not in my experience truly wealthy because they own only a tiny portion of what they advertise they have.
If you work because you must, not because you choose to do so, you are not wealthy, possibly well off, but not wealthy – regardless of where you live or what you drive. This does not, however, define one’s class.
If one is truly wealthy one does not generally go out of one’s way to advertise it (because wealth does not hold the mistique that it does for those without it – but you do live in fear of losing it), and if one has higher class status one most certainly would not be participating in such studies as these (because, in part, those who feel they need to study it will never understand it).
All these studies have demonstrated is that people who want others to think they are rich are more likely to steal from children’s lolly jars, be inconsiderate and ungentlemanly. A fact I would have thought was self evident. It does not say anything about the character of people who are true members of any given class – high or low.
00
Darkstone, this statement of your bears repeating:
It is one manifestation of psychological projection of one’s failings onto others as a defence
– an absolute epidemic in our progressive societies. The biggest victim of this disease is our Labor government, projecting every single failing onto others – their incompetence and unelectability onto Abbott, their profligacy with our taxes onto the greed of the wealthy, their thirst for control of media onto the Gina Rhinehearts, their consumption with hate onto the ‘hate media’. It is a psychologist’s picnic out there.
00
Here’s a thing.
According to my local (Cambridge, UK) paper, a local dealership is starting to market the Chevrolet Volt. Now, in the UK, the government subsidises the sale of electric cars (because they are too expensive and no-one wants them) by £5000 a pop. So – the Volt gets £5000 off its eye-watering £34000 showroom price. HOWEVER – in order to avoid ‘range anxiety’,the Volt has – whisper it oh-so-quietly – a PETROL ENGINE which tops up the battery, and stops you running out of ‘volts’ (well, amps actually) when a hundred miles from home..
Isn’t this – what’s the word I’m looking for – CHEATING..??
00
Rumor has it that U.S. dealers are selling so many Volts that they’re trying to get GM to take them back and refund the cost to the dealer.
Nice car, the Volt…at least if you need a large boat moored somewhere offshore a ways…real good boat anchor.
00
Speaking of arrogance, I have to share this example of the body of knowledge residing at the Hot Topic blog in NZ, to which the odd ozzie contributes BTW (the “idiot” is me):-
Note that my previous comment was:-
Out of curiosity, I have asked Ian what he thinks the speed of light is
00
Richard, I had a gink at that hot topic site, and all I can say is that you are masochist!
Full marks for trying, though.
00
Yes FD, I’ve about as much AGWCOD as I can take for a while.
I treat it as an intermittent learning experience. This latest term is about to be terminated.
00
For some time now I have been a bemused observer of vehicle- pedestrian interactions at non-controlled intersections, particularly roundabouts.
It seems that for many drivers there is no concept of pedestrian crossings, and no respect for pedestrians crossing. Pedestrians are simply inconvenient, or invisible. The common behaviour is that drivers do not give way, and seem to be looking intensly in the other direction to avoid “seeing” pedestrians who are already on the road.
The big shiny cars drive fastest, and are less likely to give way either to pedestrians or to vehicles already in roundabouts.
I don’t think many drivers are aware of laws for roundabouts. It may be that the laws are genuinely defective. There is no evidence of enforcement.
IMHO the rule should be that on the entry side of an intersection vehicles give way to pedestrians; on the exit side pedestrians give way to vehicles.
As for vehicles in roundabouts, my bullbar is bigger than your bullbar, so don’t bother pretending not to see me.
(P.S. Roundabouts usually have four entry/exit roads. The signs indicating roundabouts have three tail-chasing arrows, none indicating priority. Is someone paid to design these things?)
00
Been a bad week for virtuous vehicles. First unethical Prius drivers, then Flannery’s manifesting Gaia and now bad car Karma:
Not to mention Volte facing. GM CEO Dan Akerson: On Chevy Volt Future and Climate Change:
I think this says a lot about how consumers currently interpret the Volt.
00
8 March: UK Telegraph: Kingsnorth power plant to close in a year as EU rules hit
Kingsnorth power station in Kent is to be shut in March 2013 with the loss of 123 jobs, energy giant E.ON announced
The coal-fired plant, which generates enough power for nearly 2m homes, will be forced to close because it will run out of its allocated operating hours under EU environmental legislation, the power company said. Under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), polluting power stations that were not adapted to meet emissions-reduction targets will have to close by the end of 2015, or when they use up an allowance of 20,000 generating hours from January 2008 – whichever comes first…
Union GMB said the closure of the plant, which was first commissioned in 1970, was “absolutely devastating” for the local community and warned that suppliers and contractors would be affected as well as the E.ON employees…
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said there was “no immediate threat to security of electricity supply” and the market was “responding to the need for new energy infrastructure to replace closing plants”.
E.ON is also withdrawing its application for consent for new carbon capture and storage (CCS) coal units at Kingsnorth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9131849/Kingsnorth-power-plant-to-close-in-a-year-as-EU-rules-hit.html
00
9 March: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: Poland blocks EU efforts on carbon limits
(Additional reporting by Charlie Dunmore and Francesco Guarascio in Brussels and Gabriela Baczynska in Warsaw; Editing by David Gregorio)
Coal-reliant Poland on Friday vetoed European Union efforts to move further towards a low carbon economy, pitting itself against the rest of the 27-member bloc…
But Poland, which relies on carbon-intensive coal for more than 90 percent of its electricity, said it could not agree to any inclusion of milestones for future carbon reductions in an EU text debated at a meeting of environment ministers.
“Unfortunately, one delegation has blocked,” Denmark’s Climate and Energy Minister Martin Lidegaard told reporters. “It has been a tough day. It would have been better if 27 countries would have been on board, but 26 is very encouraging.”
The text of an environmental council meeting does not have firm policy status within the EU’s complex decision-making process, but it is a signal, which is weakened if consensus cannot be achieved.
Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the backing of almost the entire bloc was enough to allow the Commission, the EU’s executive arm, to keep working on further progress.
“Twenty-six member states want us to move ahead with the low carbon road-map,” she told Reuters.
To help fill the policy vacuum after a firm goal of a 20 percent carbon cut by 2020 expires, the roadmap lays out a route towards a long-term aim to reduce the bloc’s carbon emissions by 80 percent by the middle of the century…
Whereas Poland opposed increased ambition, other EU nations have objected to what they see as a step in the wrong direction, with the dropping of the 25 percent marker for 2020.
Britain is among those wanting an early increase in ambition.
“The outcome shows how we must redouble our efforts in explaining to Poland that shifting to a low-carbon economy is part of long term growth in Europe,” Britain’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey said in a statement.
“There’ll be no pause in the UK’s efforts to push for a 30 percent emissions target for 2020, providing the much needed certainty that business needs to invest in the green technologies of the future.”…
Even at the international climate talks in Durban, Poland was isolated from other EU nations in its refusal to agree a plan to reduce a surplus of Kyoto carbon permits, known as Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), which it wants to hold on to because it can sell them on international markets…
Environmental groups and the European Parliament, which has been pushing for environmental ambition, said Poland was missing a huge opportunity in its resistance to a low carbon future.
“Poland is not only slowing down their own country, but also the aspirations and opportunities for sustainable growth in the other 26 Member States,” Jo Leinen, a German Social Democrat said in a statement.
“Poland is adding to its image of an outdated economy and is holding back progress for the entire continent,” Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said in a statement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-eu-environment-idUSBRE8281DV20120309
00
8 March: Seattle Times: Angela Charlton: Airbus says China blocking orders over EU scheme
China is blocking orders for at least $12 billion worth of Airbus jets to protest the European Union’s emissions trading fees, in a new challenge to the program aimed at fighting global warming, the planemaker said Thursday…
With some analysts warning of a brewing trade war, Airbus spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said his company is seeing “retaliation threats” from 26 countries, “in particular from China.”…
EU officials defended the emissions system. Asked about the Airbus complaint at the daily midday briefing, EU spokesman Isaac Valero Ladron said, “I’m not in a position to make any comments about possible trade decisions. I think it’s in everybody’s interest to reduce greenhouse gases, which affects climate change, and airplanes affect that, as well.”…
The United States, China, Russia, India and many other countries are opposed and say the bloc cannot impose taxes on flights outside its own airspace…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017698262_apeufranceairbuschina.html
00
O/T but can help posting the following:
9 March: ABC RN Life Matters: Friday talkback: whose news do you choose
Australia’s media makers are under scrutiny, with the inquiry into the media and media regulation by former judge Ray Finkelstein (see the link to the full report below). Insiders reckon they’re doing an okay job, others aren’t so sure.
What’s your opinion—is the media generally fair, informative, accurate or mostly sensational?…
Guests:
Margaret Simons
Writer and journalist
Judy Prisk
Readers’ Editor, Fairfax publications, Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/friday-talkback3a-whose-news-do-you-choose/3877148
Wikipedia: Margaret Simons
She is currently the media commentator for Crikey…
Simons also writes for The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Monthly. For many years, she wrote the Earthmother gardening column for The Australian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Simons
this program was so full of ABC self-love, it was disgusting.
00
The problem with these type of vehicle, be they Hybrids like the Prius, or all electric like the Chevy Volt, (which, incidentally has ceased production) is the batteries themselves, and here you need to have an understanding of batteries in a vehicle application, any vehicle for that fact.
These Hybrids and electric vehicles have a battery bank, as opposed to a single 12 Volt battery in your car.
When I was working as an electrical tradesman in the RAAF on a variety of combat aircraft, the battery system was 24/28 Volts, and typically these were Nickel Cadmium batteries. These batteries were made up of a number of cells, similar to a car’s 12 Volt battery which has 6 cells internally.
All cells have to be at their optimum for the full charge to be able to be used in normal operation. If one cell ‘dies’ for any reason, then no matter how functional all the other cells are, that battery is compromised, and in every case, need to be replaced. This could happen at any time in the life of a battery, and typically, a battery in a vehicle application has a finite life, usually seven years, and the same applies even with the new technology batteries, as used in these newer type of hybrids and all electric vehicles.
Now, with a bank of batteries for these vehicles, that battery pack now becomes a very very expensive component of that vehicle.
If one of those batteries goes dead, then the whole pack needs replacing, and even if the pack stays operational for the expected life of the batteries, it would still need to be replaced after seven or so years, hence these vehicles become commensurately more expensive, as replacement of that battery pack is not just your ordinary vehicle servicing cost.
Then, and remember here I mentioned how you need to understand battery technology.
Typically, rechargeable batteries will last considerably longer if the battery is allowed to run completely flat each time before recharging.
If the battery is kept in a constant state of charge, then something else comes into play. The battery has a certain level of charge, and think of this as a beaker. The full volume of the beaker is that full charge. If allowed to fully discharge then that whole of beaker volume constitutes the full charge.
If the volume goes down just a little and is then recharged, and this is done consistently, then, over time, the battery itself thinks that it is starting to be flat at that small level of discharge before the recharge, if you can see that point, and it’s a difficult thing to understand.
So over time, that length of time between fully charged and flat becomes less and less, and I understand this is an esoteric concept to grasp.
Newer technology batteries such as the Lithium batteries hold their full charge for longer, and work at their optimum right up to the point of going completely flat, whereas earlier technology batteries (NiCad) will tend to lose their grunt as they reach a lower level of charge.
However, those Lithium batteries are comprehensively more expensive.
Either way, replacing a battery pack in those Hybrids or all electrics is a very expensive thing.
Incidentally, that thing about the batteries and charging only when fully flat applies with all batteries used in appliances new tech gadgets and everything. You should only charge them after they go completely flat. This will actually extend the life of the battery.
Again, what I have mentioned here is understandably a difficult concept to grasp, but it is something that needs to be taken into account with anything that has batteries as a major part of its normal operation.
Tony.
00
Tony, as usual you point out the inconvenient truth about everything relating to power generation, including batteries.
Batteries are a problem and are environmentally bad usually because of their manufacturing requirements, their limited life span and the difficulty in disposing of them effectively.
My optimistic future of the motor vehicle lies with hydrogen fuel cell cars.
00
Sorry Truthseeker, but hydrogen anything is never going to fly (barring the odd rocket..lol)
Hint: Hydrogen (gas form) is the smallest molecule in nature.
Bigger hint: so small it finds its way even through even the normal micro-fractures occurring in steel/aluminium/plastic tanks (never mind threads of fittings)
Yet larger hint: Hydrogen is extremely flammable/explosive.
Final hint: Picture NASA (the good part thereof) levels of safety required for hydrogen fueling of rockets….not going to happen in consumer land is it?
This is why all the commercial level interest is in methanol fuel cells
00
The other problem is they use lithium, which is not common. About enough is mined per year for maybe 2 million Telsa style battery packs. The US alone buys about 8 million new cars a year. So any meaningful mass production of EV’s is going to see the lithium price hit orbit.
Few battery systems avoid this problem. Only sodium-sulfur uses cheap elements, but it has to operate above 200 C, which is inconvenient. Nickel metal hydride is not too bad, but nickel is already fairly pricey. And the other problem with both NiMH and hydrogen fuel cells is hydrogen goes bang quite powerfully.
Cars do catch fire even with petrol engines (I was behind one which did this on the Pacific Hwy one day, we had to let it melt the tarmac as there wasn’t much anyone could do about it). Fire and a big NiMH battery or a H2 fuel cell would be a nightmare scenario.
00
10 March: ABC: Economist backs Greenpeace reef campaign
An economic researcher says Greenpeace is right to be fighting the coal industry over an increase in coal mines and shipping near the Great Barrier Reef…
But Australia Institute director Dr Richard Denniss agrees with the Greenpeace strategy.
“The exchange rate is already at a record high thanks to the mining industry,” he said.
“If this massive planned expansion goes ahead, the exchange rate will go up; manufacturing jobs, tourism jobs and agriculture jobs will go offshore.
“So Greenpeace is doing their job in drawing these concerns to people’s attention.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-10/economist-backs-greenpeace-reef-campaign/3881416
how ABC can imagine they have any credibility as far as impartiality or objectivity are concerned, is beyond me. nothing but propaganda day and night.
Wikipedia: Richard Denniss
Denniss is the co-author (with Clive Hamilton) of best-selling book Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough.[3] and An introduction to Australian Public Policy (with Sarah Maddison)…
The Institute and its researchers are prominent commentators on public policy issues, including recent work on climate change and emissions trading, taxation policy, paid parental leave and unemployment…
Prior to his appointment at The Australia Institute, Denniss was Senior Strategic Advisor to Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown and was also researcher to Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, former Leader of the Australian Democrats. Denniss has also worked as a researcher at the H.V. Evatt Memorial Foundation (the ‘Evatt Foundation’), a public policy organisation with strong links to the Australian Labor Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Denniss
00
Speaking of cars, the future is obvious. Driverless. In Australia we could save ~2000 lives a year by not allowing people to control a tonne of machinery at high speeds. You could work while on your way to work. You could send the kids to school, and the car could drive itself back home again. Deliveries would be cheap, because – no driver. Taxi’s would be cheap – no driver.
And until that is introduced, can we have driving licenses issued based on real driving and performance in a simulator? In the simulator, you could have a pedestrian step in front of a car, and if the drivers reactions are not good enough – no license. It goes without saying that simply sitting down in the simulator while still having a hat on is an automatic fail.
Oh, and if you want to talk about cars, making snide observations about Prius drivers is not really aiming high, is it?
00
Interesting idea. But it wouldn’t happen for the same reason why you can’t herd cats. Think about it.
For good or ill cars are not just a mode of transport.
00
Oddly, the single best road safety campaign in Australian history, (and in fact probably on the whole Planet) was mounted by one of those dastardly media outlets, The Sun News Pictorial, as it was called in those days.
In 1970 The Sun mounted a year long campaign they called ‘Declare War on 1034’. (and say that as ten thirty four to rhyme)
Every day for that year, The Sun ran with that logo in large bold type on top of the front page.
That number, 1034, was the number of people killed on the roads, JUST IN VICTORIA during the one calendar year, the year before the campaign, 1969.
To say that the campaign worked would be a gross understatement.
It led to the first seat belt legislation (for Victoria) mandated on Earth.
So, with the current Oz total around 2000, car safety has come a long way since then.
I was stationed with the RAAF, learning my trade, at the ‘school’ at Forest Hill near Wagga Wagga, and The Sun was the biggest selling daily on the Base, and even as young guys, this was something that was actually talked about, even as we were just starting out as car owners ourselves.
Prior to that campaign, very few wore seat belts. As the year wore on, you couldn’t get into a car without hearing everybody clicking their belts in place.
Tony.
00
Hi John,
But I like driving.
00
Driver less cars are good few years off – the trouble is not the driving, its working out what to do in an emergency with incomplete information; e.g. going outside of what it is programmed to deal with.
I still remember the reaction of a friend of mine a few years back. He used to work writing code to control satellites. We went on the Docklands Light Railway – he asked ‘where is the driver’, I said “it doesn’t have one, its automatic” – his face drained of colour and he demanded to get off at the next stop.
Computers are only capable of dealing with what they have been coded to deal with – anything beyond that is anyone’s guess. They have no common sense or derived intelligent behavior… GIGO even applies to driver less cars..
00
RE: Driverless cars,
Sure – the system could be developed by the same crowd that did Myki or the southbank ferris wheel thingamijig.
HAW HAW HAW.
00
Anyone who thinks the future is obvious, is obviously too stupid to learn history.
Back in the 60’s 70’s, the future was obvious. By the year 2000 we’d be commuting like the Jetsons and listening to weird spacey music.
Reality turned out different. We still commute rubber on asphalt, only more slowly bumper closer to bumper.
The music? It turned out to be some incomprehensible gargle profanely sang by kids who can’t sing; Called gangsta rap.
What other future is “obvious” to you John?
00
I’m all for it. In fact, how about testing in the simulator after 3 pints of beer? If I can still meet the standard then my license should permit me to drive after 3 pints. To hell with arbitrary blood alcohol tests. I KNOW I can drive better than many even after 3 pints.
How about assessing performance and then based on reaction time, license the driver for a maximum speed? Little old ladies only get to go 30. Experts like me 160
00
I’ve thought for a long time (since I got flipped out of my brother’s and my dune buggy going 50 mph across the prairie when I was 13), that everyone’s driving would improve immensely if they could go through a realistic crash simulator. The kinetic energy that has to be dissipated between 50 mph and stop boggles the mind when you experience it personally. What saved me was that the grass was long and there was nothing solid to hit. When I finally stopped, I had nothing left in my pockets (from tumbling) and was one big grass stain. I had exactly zero control of my body during the event.
00
@MarkD
Hahahahah hahaha I Love it. Couldn’t stop laughing. Well done MD
00
John,
Trains already exist as a mass transport system.
Kneel.
00
Off topic but I ran across this yesterday and thought it was an excellent example of a scientist who makes tell the truth look easy. I hop you enjoy.
http://youtu.be/Rh7nHtFhceg
00
I propose that when appropriate, warmists be known as ‘Yangers’
I support my proposal by reference to the Yin Yang Theory. Yang is associated with energetic qualities e.g. heat and hot. See:-
‘What is the Yin Yang Theory?’
http://www.shen-nong.com/eng/principles/whatyinyang.html
00
as expected, Gleick is back!
9 March: nofrakkingconsensus: 17 Days Later, Peter Gleick is Back in the Saddle
Yesterday he delivered a speech to a two-day California Water Policy Conference. There was nothing minor or low-profile about it. The conference website clearly labels Gleick’s appearance as the opening, “keynote presentation.” Last night Gleick advised his Twitter followers that the experience had been great. Josh Rosenau, an employee at the National Center for Science Education, thought that observation so momentous he himself re-tweeted it.
So let’s think about this for a moment. Gleick has admitted to lying and stealing. Not for monetary gain, but to advance the climate change cause…
Three hundred people were reportedly in attendance at the conference yesterday (backup link here). It’s difficult to believe that all of them are grateful for the fact that their keynote speaker was someone who remains under a cloud as we await word of whether criminal charges will be laid and whether the think tank will be filing civil lawsuits.
Among the conference sponsors we find:
•the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
•the San Diego County Water Authority
•the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
•and the Sonoma County Water Agency…
h/t Tom Nelson
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/09/17-days-later-peter-gleick-is-back-in-the-saddle/
shocking but, for the CAGW crowd, par for the course.
did any Republican politicians speak up about Fakegate?
did the MSM report accurately on Fakegate?
No, and no.
00
Hey, here’s something I’ve noticed, and it bears a little resemblance to what pat mentions here about Gleik, how the main point should be the theft he was associated with, but they have effectively changed the subject, and that is where I’m coming from here.
I’m tentatively going to the occasional site that supports the CAGW meme, and leaving the odd comment, mainly wrt renewable power.
What I find amazing is that side’s ability to change the subject away from what I actually mention.
My biggest advantage is the humungous cost of all these renewable power plants, and even though I ask direct questions as to costings, and then state the bleeding obvious, none of those things is addressed. I also mention these Plant’s failure to deliver power, another sore point with them, that in they main they do not understand, and because of that, they just don’t believe that either.
Instead, they will concentrate on other things completely, seemingly not even blinking as they change the subject.
I though it might be an isolated thing from one or two respondents, but all of them do it, and frankly, they even do it here as well.
The reason, (as I perceive it) is to take readers away from the point I am making.
I have even replied to responses asking the same question, and still it is not addressed, and in one case, I mentioned it in three successive comments, all assiduously avoided.
My perception here is that (a) they have no idea at all, (which is as I suspected) or (b) this is a point that they do not want made, as this is the weak point in their argument.
It is just so obvious.
It sort of reminds me of Doctor Smith saying he wouldn’t respond because the comment had a spelling mistake in it.
It makes me smile, but what is worrying is probably that point (a) I made above, mainly because the people reporting it know journalism, but nothing about the technical aspects of plants of this nature.
This further accentuates the worth of sites like this one where (some of) these things actually can get an audience, and from that, people do gain a realistic idea about it. (sounds like I’m beating my own drum here, but nothing could be further from the truth, because my perception is that people really DO want to know about it)
So, when we ear of stories about Gliek being lauded, it’s all well and good, but he knows what he did.
It’s the same with all of them. I’ll bet that in moments of privacy at home where no one can see him, Flannery must squirm as every bold prediction he makes is being shredded. He has to keep face, but I’m willing to bet he feels a little shell shocked in those private moments.
Tony.
00
Tony,
This would be the same Dr Smith who suggested that Labor were only advocating solar and wind because they knew that renewables were impractical, but sought to prove it so that the way could be open for Nuclear power to be considered an acceptable alternative! The truth is only relative to these people.
People like DrSmith don’t realise the damage they are doing by undermining fundamental priciples that underpin scientific reasoning and even social responsibility, all for their under-developed adolescent sense of a “noble” cause in eliminating fossil fuels. I would personally like to see them phased out also at an appropriate time in favour of other technological advances, but only once such a practical alternative becomes available, not before. It makes no sense whatsoever to risks the very foundations of Western democracy and economic stability, unless of course you really do wish to see your country ruined, your fellow citizens impoverished and a totaliarian governmental system replacing one that is at least striving to be representational of its people.
It’s not like we have anything important to lose or anything, now is it?
00
Another of the inconvenient truths that these people don’t like pointed out is the fact that they have no concept of just how important coal fired power really is.
Having been at this for four years now, I have some things I can call upon.
One of those is the U.S. power data, and even that site is now being ‘cleansed’ to reflect the current Administration’s aversion to coal fired power, but one of the things they cannot cleanse is the actual data itself.
In those four years, the US has doubled the Capacity of Wind Power. What is something that bears observing here is that the U.S. currently has the same Nameplate Capacity for Wind Power as for the total Nameplate Capacity for every power plant in Australia of every variety. However the total power actually delivered from all those Wind Plants in the U.S. is only one third of the Power currently consumed in Australia.
However, what is of main note here is that ramping up of wind power in the U.S. over those 4 years has seen them doubling that amount of Wind Capacity to now stand at around 42,000MW, which is the equivalent Capacity of 21 Large scale coal fired power plants (2000MW)
However, over those same four years, NOT ONE coal fired plant over 1500MW Capacity has closed. The only coal fired plants closing are small ones, (mostly less than 100MW) that are in fact time expired, most older than 50 years.
Point out that stark fact, easily verifiable, and again, the response is to change the subject totally.
It is just so obvious.
That’s why I can sometimes be so bold as to suggest that, hey, just shut one of them down and see what happens. That’s no bluff. There would be anarchy.
People don’t know that, and in fact, don’t even want to know that.
I am quite often accused of not bothering about the Science, and it may seem irrelevant to that Science when I harp on about electrical power, but in fact, that is the end result of complying with that Science, and again, people just do not want to equate the two things together.
Tony.
00
Winston
“I would personally like to see them phased out also at an appropriate time
It makes no sense whatsoever to risks the very foundations of Western democracy and economic stability, unless of course you really do wish to see your country ruined, your fellow citizens impoverished and a totaliarian governmental system replacing one that is at least striving to be representational of its people.”
That’s the core issue.
Nicely summarised.
🙂
Now for the hard bit.
How do we counter the continuous propaganda on radio and Teev
00
This is pretty serious I know, but what would work was if a coal fired plant operator was to actually agree with the Green ‘urgers’ and allow his plant to close down.
It would only be of a temporary nature, because within less than an hour the chaos caused would do more harm for their green cause and see the whole thing be brought to so much notice that the public would see what would happen.
I know it’s probably one of the single most damaging things that could be done, but it would bring the whole thing to notice.
One of the most pleasing aspects of a ‘disaster’ (and it would be) of this nature is that Milne and Brown and their whole Party would be totally and utterly finished off forever.
It’s a dream I know, and a pretty drastic measure I know, but seriously, this is all it would take.
Bob Brown would be so chuffed at having the plant closed, he could probably even be coerced into figuratively closing the switch, because I feel sure even he has no idea what would happen.
While this would entail taking the power off the grid, the furnace could be left going , because it would only take an hour believe me.
It would take a few hours to get the plant back up and running, but gas fired plants could be taking up the slack in a short time, enough for the coal fired plant to get back connected to the grid.
Hazelwood might be the best option for this, or even better, Liddell, because shut down Bayswater and that would be disaster.
These greens have no idea whatsoever.
Radical, but it would finish them off forever. They would never be noticed again.
That friends, is just how serious it really is.
Without that coal fired power, everything grinds to a halt. The biggest effect would be on Industry and Commerce.
No electricity …… nothing.
Tony.
00
Pushing sh*t uphill, I know, but stubborn reiteration and cogent arguments will hopefully triumph eventually- I think people underestimate the power of efforts like those of our charming hostess, Jo. One individual putting it out there then word of mouth to do the rest- convince one that all is not as has been represented, and then they talk to people who talk to people etc. Not also to underestimate the intelligence and nascent cynicism of the general public.
00
TonyfromOz #54.1
I have EXACTLY the same experience but not just with bloggers. In the course of a recent “discussion” I sought the view of Dr Kevin Trenberth on a couple of questions. I presented the evidence that anthro CO2 emissions cannot “force” OHC, the main paper being H&Q73 and corroborations. Dr Roy Clark presented the same evidence to the US Senate in his EPA Submission ‘A Null Hypothesis For C02’. KT studiously ignored my evidence as did the US Senate Dr Clark’s.
I also put 3 geo science papers in front of KT that indicate seismicity modulates El Nino (if not the driver of it) but KT ignored those too, preferring to make the following off-the-cuff assessment:-
Climate science and geo science are world’s apart on this.
Not sure about that “torque on the earth” bit either. Conjures up visions of a low-pressure gaseous friction-braking mechanism that I don’t think would catch on even with Prius drivers making emergency stops.
00
Hi Tony,
I have also noticed this phenomenon. It is truly widespread within the warmist community.
The problem is (from my POV) that their intellectual framework contains a line that says “if the information being presented does not accord with what I already believe, then ignore it, and move to another point that I do agree with.”
Such a framework does not allow for any challenge to previously conceived beliefs.
It is not impervious – but must be truly shocked on a visceral level to break the intellectual armouring around the core belief system.
(think deprogramming a cult victim…)
00
The nature of extremists and other fundamentalists (such as Warmists) is that they keep all doubts (and they do have them) about their core beliefs an absolute and deeply held, intimate secret.
It is the nature of their “doubt as secret” that they are so inflamed and vitriolic when confronted by dissent and contrary evidence. Such events feel like an attack on their innermost selves.
It is deeply disturbing for a Warmist to entertain doubt about MMGW, it feels as if their world is being turned upside down. So they avoid it like the plague.
So have the gumption to actually persist long enough to break free… but it is not easy – to break those chains.
00
On various occasions I have had the unfortunate luck to caught behind one of these vehicle on a freeway. The drivers seem to have a habit of moving into the overtaking lane blocking traffic and not passing anyone, usually driving at 10 to 20 kph under the limit. Flashing head lights at them seems to make them slow down but not move over. Not smug or pious just plain rude and ignorant.
00
we’re in the middle of a global financial crisis, and Abbott’s plan is just another reason i’ll be voting informally:
10 March: Adelaide Advertiser: Tony’s great big tax
TONY Abbott’s paid parental leave would ultimatly affect more companies than the carbon tax, writes Samantha Maiden
Abbott’s tax levy would hit an estimated 3300 businesses with a 1.5 per cent levy…
Would a 1.5 per cent paid parental leave tax on electricity generators, for example, drive up power bills? By how much? Would Woolworths and Coles increase the price of milk and bread?
Is it possible that some low-emission, high-profit companies such as banks and retailers could actually pay more upfront under Abbott’s parental leave plan than the carbon tax? Wouldn’t that be hoot.
If the Coalition argues the cost impact would be modest, how does that stack up with their claims the carbon tax will be catastrophic?
And what happens if Abbott is elected prime minister but a hostile Senate dominated by the Greens will not allow him to wind back the carbon tax?
Would companies be forced to pay both the $5 billion carbon tax and the $3 billion paid parental leave levy? So many questions…
That’s substantially more than Abbott’s $3 billion paid parental leave scheme, but bear in mind there’s no compensation to cover cost-of-living impacts. The carbon tax by comparison will raise a lot of cash but it will also distribute $5 billion in tax cuts and welfare payments as compensation.
As the Coalition policy documents show, it would cost taxpayers a whopping $4.5 billion a year to run Abbott’s parental leave scheme.
It would be paid for by a 1.5 per cent levy on businesses with taxable incomes over $5 million…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/maiden-tonys-great-big-tax/story-fn6br25t-1226295921746
00
One big difference, Pat- the Carbon tax is meant to increase progressively and remorselessly over time to $50 a tonne or more, and last time I heard, women have 6 months paternity leave to rear children were unlikely to lead to power stations shutting down, coal miners becoming economically unviable and moving off shore,Alcoa shutting up shop etc, etc- so an informal vote is really a proxy pro carbon tax vote effectively. It’s one thing to not like either party, it’s another to not take a stand against the greater evil- if Hitler and Malcolm Turnbull were standing for election against one another- I would vote for Malcolm- it would be line ball mind you, but I would have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
00
.
Aaah – the old “lesser of two evils” argument.
I weep for my country.
00
Not playing fair there, MV.
The choice Pat has offered as a reason to donkey vote is between a paid maternity leave scheme (which I don’t find entirely offensive in design or motivation) and an exponentially increasing carbon tax( which is reprehensible and counterproductive no matter how you look at it). No small difference between those 2 evils as far as I’m concerned- by all means provide a counter argument to suggest they are somehow comparable, if that is what you believe, but I recall you being very adamant in your opposition to such a scheme in previous posts.
Secondly, every vote in every democracy since day dot has been a lesser of two evils- because no candidate can give 100% correlation with my opinion, your opinion or everyone else’s opinion- we are not all cut from the same cloth, have different priorities, beliefs and ideals- no candidate could ever please everyone. It is a false dichotomy to suggest anything different now.
The alternative- A benign dictatorship with yourself , MV, as supreme ruler over all you survey, so that you can have every last desire fulfilled, every idea strictly adhered to or accepted as the common prevailing truth. I don’t think that is your desire, MV, any more than it is mine. In fact your posts suggest entirely the opposite to be your particular creed.
John Howard was, IMO, an excellent PM and leader of this country- however I could sit down and enunciate at length many things I feel he did poorly, or at least fell below my expectations, and many things I disagreed with partially, or even entirely in terms of individual policy, but overall, he practiced good governance, appropriate management of taxpayers funds with some modicum of respect for the bottom line and fundamentally in improving government debt when the rest of the world was spending their way into enormous problems which are now coming home to roost. I would still vote for him tomorrow, as would a large percentage of the country, if he was to stand as a candidate for PM in the upcoming election. However, the attitude you seem to espouse is either vote for nobody until they fall into line with your accepted beliefs totally & completely which is unrealistic in a 2 party preferred democracy. Any vote for anyone else other than Liberal at the next election, or to vote informal, is bound to favour Labor disproportionately and allow them to continue to perpetrate their brand of tax and spend wealth redistribution based not on merit but on class warfare.
You have consistently stated your belief that Abbott will not repeal the Carbon tax if he is elected, in spite of his categorically promising “in blood” to repeal it. I think we should hold him to that. The tax has already arguably killed off 2 leaders in this country, plus one leader of the opposition, so he would be mad to do not do that- and a resounding triumph at the next election would allow him to send Turnbull to purgatory where he belongs. Sometimes you just have to play the cards you are dealt, doesn’t matter so long as you win the hand, MV.
00
Pat and MemoryVault, Winston is essentially correct. An informal vote is doing nothing.
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Of course, as an alternative, you could take the Mae West approach …
“When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.”
00
If you find that you are choosing between two evils – there are unquestioned assumptions in your thinking that are blocking the good alternatives.
You need to question your “unquestioned” assumptions to open up the non-considered alternatives that would give you a viable alternative that could be chosen without choosing a “lesser evil”.
The choosing of a lesser evil is a psychopaths game, that you have been maneuvered into. It’s up to you to do the hard work and confront your own beliefs to establish an alternative path that doesn’t result in compromising yourself with a “lesser of two evils” choice.
00
While I don’t disagree that choosing between say Hitler and Stalin is a poor option, though I seem to recall we did just that in a little minor skirmish called WW2, and that not searching for a better alternative is often lazy and morally unjustifiable when there are multiple options to choose from, the fact is we live in a democracy with only 2 major parties with any chance of running the country, each of which present a clear choice in this case- one in favour of a carbon tax and opting to continue ad infinitum in spite of no similar tax elsewhere in the world, and one who states it will repeal it- what other option would you like? If they don’t live up to that promise, then the electorate will feel they have been lied to and will vote accordingly the next time- just ask Gillard to see how breaking a promise is going for her. Call me old-fashioned but I rather like a democracy, even when the options are less than ideal in my eyes.
While the libs can be clueless in alot of ways, at least they are promising to do that- Don’t you think Labor would just love to think that those most skeptical of CAGW can’t even agree to vote against the Carbon tax for the only possible alternative? Has no one ever heard of “divide and conquer”? I think they would be most pleased to see that their anti-Abbott theme is working even among those die hards ardently opposed to them.
So, I say to anyone still listening- for God sake pick a side.
00
Say Yes to Prius.
Say Yes to carbon tax.
Say Yea to Green Energy Future.
Why fight it? It’s so easy to just keep on saying yeeeessss
00
O/T Jo, but the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer has released the latest NGER information on some of Gillard’s ‘500’ ‘derdy polluding’ companies.
Perhaps Tonyfromoz and/or others with the necessary expertise might pull the list apart and categorise the unfortunates together with estimates of what carbon-dioxide tax they’re likely be paying on the figures given. As none of these figures would have been available to Treasury when they did their modelling, one wonders on what it was based!
Given the financial and implementation shambles this government has made of every other scheme it has started, many of them subsequently scrapped after widespread rorting, it’s odds on this will be the greatest bungling bureaucratic stuff-up yet.
You might even consider it worth having a permanent updating post as additional figures etc., become available. Concerned Australians are desperate for a place to come for reliable information and we sure as hell won’t get it from this duplicitous rabble of a Government!
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/nger-greenhouse-energy-information-2010-11.aspx
00
Oh dear!
How embarrassing!
Note from this NGER list that the number is slowly but inevitably creeping up towards that number of Julia’s derdy polluders of 500. It has now reached a tick over 400.
There may also be a large number not on that list because, er, there is a clause at the top that says:
Now, where that comes into importance is all those Government Departments who may have Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions, where it may be, er, embarrassing to be on that list.
What is actually horrendous in all of this is the administration involved, just related to reporting, and it goes on and on and on, thousands of pages of it.
So now, EVERY Corporation and Company needs to find specialists capable of trawling through all of that just to see how it affects their Company, and then correctly fill out the reams and reams of reporting documents, doing the math perfectly wrt the legislation.
Note also that it lists CO2 and also its equivalence gases as I have mentioned, and all of that is explained in those thousands of pages.
Note where it mentions equivalence, it takes into account Methane production (as a multiplier equivalence) hence all landfills now come into play, and eventually, all crop farmers and graziers of ruminant animals. Note that while farming grazing are not currently aimed at as targets, the intent as has been mentioned is to include them.
Note it also takes into account Natural gas suppliers (Methane) because while you burn NG in your homes, this legislation provides for the suppliers to pay for that NG they distribute.
Note also wrt equivalence every supplier of refrigerant gases, at their huge multiplier, and that will acoount for every fridge, freezer, aircon unit, be it at home or atop every building in every city, and every Commercial building in every town or city that has aircon, and every high rise housing apartment complex, and every shopping centre, and the Coles and Woolies with their cold storage facilities in their stores.
Note how many Institutes of higher learning (Universities) are on the list.
Note how many hospitals and large Health providers are on the list.
Note how many City Councils are on the list.
Luckily, my name is NOT on that list, but gee I wonder whose might be.
Say John Brookes, isn’t that your University listed there.
Say MattB, has your Council submitted its NGER compliance yet.
Note that while this list still only comes to just on 400 names, the intent is for the top 500, and that’s covered by those who don’t want their Organisation published.
Gee, wouldn’t it be odd if Government entities made it onto the list, and when you look closely some of those listed names there are indeed really small fry, and fancy that, they are all of a sudden those 500 filthy disgusting rotten derdy polluders.
Couldn’t have Government Departments being pointed at as being on the list now could we.
Gee, also note how they get EVERYBODY coming and going.
You pay the tax for emitting the CO2 (or equivalence) and then you pay again in the increased price of electricity. Not just those on the list, but everybody.
Gee, wasn’t that lucky now.
Now, some small part of the money raised will be refunded to (some) individuals, so any cost increases for electricity will be (partially) offset.
However, that does not apply to the Commerce sector or the Industrial sector, so they pay the tax as emitters, and they pay for the increased cost of electricity.
Gee how lucky was it that those State Governments mostly under Labor divested themselves of those power plants, well some of them anyway, because some are still in the hands of the State, and here that clause above keeps them off the list, eh! Gee, no wonder Kristina was so desperate to sell off those power plants, even at fire sale prices. How would that have looked for Labor, being one of the biggest of those derdy polluders out there.
I could go on and on and on, but perhaps one observation here.
How surprising that Federal Labor would set up a bureaucracy this monumentally huge. Talk about increasing the Public Sector.
So far. this list indicates around $10 Billion in Government inflow for the tax, and keep in mind that this is just what is shown here.
Oh, and don’t fill out the thousands of pages correctly, (all companies must report) and there’ll be a visit from the Carbon Cops, and there will be fines, and there will be more to pay, and there will be legal proceedings, and there will be public outings.
This shows all the hallmarks of making insulation batts, and the school halls program look like a game of marbles.
Oh, and where will you hear about all of this? Well, you guess!
Oh dear!
How Embarrassing!
Say John and Matt. Now that you’ve been outed as part of Julia’s 500, might you mention to us plans your organisations have to lower your emissions, and how this Tax will achieve that wrt the establishments you are part of.
Tony.
00
I’ve been a Nova denizen for a while now.
This is one of the best comments I’ve read on this blog.
Kudos Tony
00
Seconded
00
“However, that does not apply to the Commerce sector or the Industrial sector, so they pay the tax as emitters, and they pay for the increased cost of electricity.”
Is that a fact? when it comes to electricity then your electricity supplier (generator) will pay the tax and indeed pass on the costs, but the consumer of the elxtricity does not pay again as an “emitter”. They may well pay for other emissions they are directly responsible for (so for example an industry that both uses grid electricity and also has some sort of gas furnace directly emitting).
I really don’t see the problem here… big emitter = NGER requirements. What exactly is the problem here?
Being on the list of 400/500 is not a badge of shame… it jsut means you are a big organisation with a lot of energy use.
00
You just don’t get it do you Matt.
Let’s then look at just one example shall we.
Hey, let’s even go for a Government entity, the CSIRO, also on that list.
Scope 1 emissions + Scope 2 emissions and multiplied by $23 per tonne, comes in at $3.04 Million Dollars.
Then for all the electricity that organisation consumes, at all their plces across the Country comes in at 723398GJ, or 201 Million KWH, all sourced from the electrical power grids across the Country.
The power plants that generate that electricity will be passing on the cost of the CO2 tax down to all consumers, at around 1.3 cents per KWH (wholesale, and passed in full to the customer at retail) hence an extra $2 million for the electricity they consume.
This is not for power that the CSIRO generates itself, because I doubt they own any large scale power plants.
So, they pay the CO2 tax for their emissions, and then they pay the increased cost of electricity.
The same applies for all Commercial and Industrial entities that are subject to the Tax.
They pay for their scope 1 and 2 emissions and then the cost of the power they use.
Let’s then look at just at Woolies, $6.37 Million for their scope 1 and 2 emissions and an extra $43 Million for the electricity they consume, and er, I wonder how much that will increase the price of your weekly supermarket shop.
The average householder pays the increase for the cost of electricity, and (some of them) will get some of it back in the form of the Government bribes.
However, Commerce and Industry do not receive any compensation for the electricity that they consume.
And Matt, big emitters. Hey man, go and look at the list. Hospitals, councils, Uni’s etc etc. Big emitters.
You must be so embarrassed Matt. Fancy standing up for something like this. You should be ashamed.
Tony.
00
it was not my understanding that a consumer of electricity would pay both the increased costs of electricity from their supplier AND a $23 per tonne of CO2 that the organisaion is “responsible for” including the electricity that a carbon tax is already applied to.
NGER reporting is not, as I understand it, used to calculate a GHGx$23 bill to the government. It is just a public reporting tool.
00
And you still don’t get it.
Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions has nothing whatsoever to do with the electricity they CONSUME.
Scope 1 and scope 2 are DIRECT CO2 emissions and their many many equivalents, all calculated at their multipliers.
They pay for their scope 1 and 2 emissions, and on top of that they pay their increased cost for the electricity that they consume.
Note also from the menu down the left of that NGER report how much bureaucracy has been put in place, and there it explains everything about this.
It explains that each Company needs to do their separate calculations, submit that, and from those submissions, the Government HAS TO PUBLISH (NGER) and from that, the cost is then worked out.
Here’s an example of (just one) sample of what needs to be filled out, and this is a pdf document 42 pages long, on how to calculate your Company’s reporting process.
Note also from this document that with each subsequent year, the Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions totals falls, hence catching more and more companies in the net, and bringing the Government more and more income, and those 500 derdy polluders blows out to every company in Australia.
Tony.
00
Then what’s the problem… sorry I thought you were accusing of double counting. If in fact you are complaining that they pay for (i) GHGs they emit themselves and (ii) GHGs emitted due to electricity use…. then… ummm… sorry what are you complaining about again? it all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
00
MattB,
Sorta says it all eh!
St Vincent’s Health Australia Ltd – Scope 1 + Scope 2 X $23 comes in at $2.8 Million in direct CO2 or equivalent emissions paid as the CO2 Tax.
Then add on the extra cost for the electricity they consume, an extra $2.7 Million on top of their normal electricity bills.
So, a hospital now needs to find an extra $5.5 Million from their budget to cover the CO2 Tax.
Gee, imagine a hospital being one of those derdy polluders, eh!
That’s just one hospital of many, MattB.
I’ll bet you wish you hadn’t said that now.
Tony.
00
Why ever would I wish that Tony?
From their environmental documents it appears they are pretty happy with looking after the planet:
“Our Mission Framework has its theological foundation in the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. The
relationship of communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, mirrors for us a true model of
human relationships. This relational God is constantly creating, healing, reconciling, transforming
and uniting the world. Trinitarian theology has profound implications for our everyday life. Faith in
the Trinity is not only about accepting the theological interpretation it is also about understanding
and accepting the dynamic relationship that exists between our living God and all creation.
Our relationship with the environment is intrinsically connected to our relationship with each other.
The concern of many citizens in the current climate change debate is generally linked to the
accuracy of scientific findings, the economic cost of funding the solution, or the strength of political
will. However environmental challenges are issues for faith as well as science, economics and
politics. One of the greatest challenges facing us is to rethink our relationship with the world we
inhabit. Human beings are related, interconnected and interdependent, with all creation. To
change our view of being in the world, Pope John Paul believed what was urgently needed most of
all was “ecological conversion”.i Only with this conversion can our relationship with the world be
seen as intrinsic to our human identity.
The relationship of human life to the rest of creation is anchored in the biblical view that faith is
lived out in a particular space and time. Nature is always the work of God; and “God saw that it
was good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25.) God created human beings “in his own image” (Gen 1,27).
Only by understanding the dynamic relationship that exists between all creation and the living God
can a commitment to environmental issues find its proper expression. All of creation is “the work of
God’s hands” (Ps 8:6).
The belief that our actions are our legacy to future generations expresses a faith in our collective
future and an implied belief that all of creation is in a balanced relationship. To be committed to
environmental issues resonates deeply with the hope to live harmoniously and at one in
relationship with nature.”
and I note St Vincents Health Australia has 15,000 staff, across a couple of dozen health facilities. Hardly “just one hospital” rather a giant of healthcare.
“reported revenues of $1,745 million in 2010-11”
So we are talking 0.5% of revenue here. 0.4% of assets of $1.5million.
YOu should check the website and annual report… like many many businesses they see energy management as increasingly important and are more than happy to do their bit via energy savings… which will be even more sensible in the future.
00
Just in case you didn;t read the whole post due to the long quote to start with:
from the annual report: I note St Vincents Health Australia has 15,000 staff, across a couple of dozen health facilities. Hardly “just one hospital” rather a giant of healthcare.
“reported revenues of $1,745 million in 2010-11″
So we are talking 0.5% of revenue here. 0.4% of assets of $1.5million.”
00
weird that you need Mattb to look before you leap. Not sure I like the look.
00
Oh Matt,
it’s squirm squirm squirm, and change the subject with you isn’t it.
Imagine how the public, the general public, will look at this when news gets out that Hospitals, Universities, Church groups, Councils, etc etc are now targets.
Take an hour Matt and read through the list, and see just who IS on it. It might even be only small change, but those two to five millions all add up Matt.
The perception all along, and what Julia et al have said, ans said so strongly is that the target is big Industry, big power producers, etc. They were the target, and all of a sudden they find that there is an awful lot more on the list than just that.
This was not their intent, and they didn’t tell us that.
When the general public sees this, there will be no need to ‘serious’ this Labor Government out of Office. There will be no need to ‘Policy’ this Labor Government out of Office.
They will be laughed out of Office, ridiculed.
The public will see hospitals, rail companies, etc, and on and on.
If you can’t see that Matt, then I’m afraid that you are the one in deltaechonovemberindiaalphalima.
Not even you realised this, and neither did anybody from your side. It had to be explained to you.
Matt, make all the excuses you like, because all along you have said yourself that this is aimed at those ‘big guys’. Well Matt, imagine when all those costs get passed on at every level.
This is more than just one sausage sanga a week mate.
Tony.
00
St Vincent’s Health Australia is the nation’s largest not-for-profit Catholic health and aged care provider!
MattyB – you’d probably charge everyone including St Vincents, Salvo’s etc – who else!
St Vinnies is a great big dirty polluter according to you (one of the 500)! This is a joke!
Their fund raising will have to fill the shortfall $5.5 million – not from revenue or assets!
00
Tony I don’t write ALP spin and policy. So I’m not interested in debating whether or not Julia’s representation as “dirty polluters” will or will not be the only ones paying a carbon tax. But to me if you emit a tonne of GHG, whether you are BHP or Jimmy’s Fish and Chip Shop, somewhere along the line it will cost you the going rate of a tonne of GHG.
Dave – that’s my point… the LARGEST… with a turnover of $1,750 million and assets of 1,500 million. A huge organisation… why should the burden of a carbon tax only fall in mining companies? It makes no sense.
00
Tony you always struck me as a guy who knew his energy and had a brain. I can’t figure why it has only just occurred to you that the point is to have as manay GHGs as possible covered under a pricing scheme.
00
Matt,
as you well know, I have mentioned the many and numerous GHG’s right from Day One, and their equivalence, and their multipliers.
And, as I have always said, had you even bothered to read, this is more than energy.
It’s NG supply, it’s Refrigerant supply, it’s landfill, it’s farming, it’s grazing, it’s on and on and on, just as I have always been saying Matt.
I have not come to this SUDDEN realisation.
I’ve been saying this all along Matt.
Again Matt, here you make false assertions that I have somehow only just discovered this.
Again, see how you guys change the subject and attempt to divert away from what is being said, and then attempt to drown the original intent with a number of comments attempting to draw people’s attention away from what was originally said.
Oh Matt, you guys are so obvious.
Tony.
00
MattB The savings needed at the hospitals could easily be meet by turning off the artificial ventilators and humicribs this however is not the preferred solution by most people. The preferred option is dump this idiot tax.
I note with some amusement that you are quoting scripture,I also have a quote for you direct from god, in fact it was an order. “Go forth and subdue the world” oddly enough for thinking people this means to tame it and make it more user friendly.
We have done that, much to our betterment, those that have not ,still live in miserable poverty. Third world countries and those achieving development laugh at the stupidity of the green wet dream. The new generation of young people in Asia are savvy to the world and they are saying we want the same living conditions as what the west has got, they will get it very fast overwhelming anything we do.
Political correctness and BS science they laugh at in Asia, it is time for the MattB’s of the world to have a slow long look around at the real world. Making the west poorer makes it harder to help those in need.
00
Wayne I’m quoting from St Vincent’s annual report. Being a Catholic health organisation they are the ones quoting scripture.
00
were any of those “Gee’s” directed to me? Seriously a couple could.
00
I never understood why the Prius had an R in the name and added an O?
Surely it’s misrepresenting it’s owners by not calling it the Pious?
00
From a purely statistics and scientific POV, and I know this is late in the piece, Jo could you imagine the outcry from many on this and other blogs if the MSM were headlining some piece of warmist journalism as though it was oh-so-important, despite the disclaimer “The … results were observed but not analyzed for statistical significance in the study.”
I mean how bloody slack is that. They have survey data available, data that could be analysed in practically no time at all, but prefer to make headline grabbing conclusions, and how they relate to a possible broader issue they term “moral licensing”. Either that or the media have given us headlines that are totally unjustified by the actual article/findings.
Either way it is bloody sloppy research/journalism, with at least one and possibly both stages (research and reporting) clearly looking for “conclusions” that are not backed up by the cold hard data.
Lets call a spade a spade here.
00
The RACV cost of ownership report last year said that the Prius was the most expensive car to run in the small car field. Running costs were actually higher than quite a few 6 cylinder sedans in the medium size car field.
With electricity prices to go through the roof with the introduction of the CO2 tax in July, it might be cheaper to own a large V8 than hang onto a Prius.
Prius owners might feel warm and fluffy inside, but they are heading towards increased running costs and falling resale values.
00
but a Prius doesn’t run on mains electricity, so the cost of running a prius is not related to the price of electricity. Depreciation is a killer. You can use a prius to save fuel, but not costs (unless you drive a lot of kms).
00
I would believe that it illegal to double dip on any tax by any government. If power stations pay the CO2 tax on electricity it would be unconstitutional to charge large users of electricity a further CO2 tax on the electricity.
Why in heavens name could a hospital be charged with a CO2 tax, is it too many people in one place breathing out. A tax on a tax is fraud.
00
fortunately for the tax system, hospitals will not be charged twice for emissions. I think Tony just makes it sound that way, possibly by accident.
00
MattB, you fool, and I know that’s ad hom, but you just do not get it, do you.
They are not being charged twice for their emissions and I never said that at all.
They are charged for their Scope 1 plus their Scope 2 emissions, added together and then multiplied by the $23 per tonne.
These are their direct emissions Matt, and how many times do you need to be told this.
Then on top of that, as consumers of electricity, they pay the added cost of that electricity that they use, that cost passed down from the power plants who pass on the full cost of their emissions to ALL consumers in increased costs for the electricity they consume.
Matt, please try and understand this, and do not spread misinformation unless you understand what you are talking about.
Four times I have explained this to you.
GET IT RIGHT.
Matt I gave you more credit than this.
You really are ignorant, that you cannot understand something when it is explained to you so many times.
You literally have no concept of what you are saying.
Keep saying it Matt, and no worries mate, I’ll keep calling you out on it.
Tony.
00
well Wayne seems to think that was what you were saying…
00
0.5% of their turnover Tony… 0.5%. It’s not that they are rich, it is that the tax is a small proportion of the overall flow of money.
00
And Matt, while we’re at it here, you mentioned above that you couldn’t care less about a hospital being listed amongst the top 500 polluters, and anyway they were rich. They can afford it.
So tell me now Matt, having admitted that this is just a cash cow for the Government to raise huge amounts of money, you have the floor, so let’s here your answer for this.
On that list, so far not reaching the 500 yet, there are 15 hospitals and health groups and gee, even a fitness group.
They’re all rich enough to afford it, eh!
So tell me this.
How does levying a tax on those 15 hospital groups, and providers of aged care, etc, well how is that Tax going to cause them to lower their emissions Matt.
Had a look around any hospital recently Matt. Can they change their bulbs for new curly bulbs.
Less lighting in the Theatres, hey cut back on the air conditioning.
Don’t sterilise their instruments.
Less use of the operating theatre.
Close down Wards.
How Matt, how is a Tax going to lower the emissions in a hospital.
Oh also Matt, those 11 Universities on that list, how is this tax going to cause them to lower their emissions. What services are they going to cut back on Matt.
Matt, I don’t mind that you have no concept of what all this means.
I have no worries that you come in and poke fun at me. I have no worries about that at all.
What it shows is that you really do have no idea at all, and every time you press Enter, you show YOURSELF up Matt.
Keep talkin mate.
Your callous disregard that 15 hospitals are listed in that 500 derdy polluders tells us more and more about you.
You guys make it too easy.
You need to take serious stock of yourself Matt. Your ideology has overrun your compassion.
Tony.
00
“So tell me now Matt, having admitted that this is just a cash cow for the Government to raise huge amounts of money,”
lol and you accuse ME of manipulating YOUR words…
00
I tell you what, how I’ll get back to you in a day or two once I get a reply from one of my former workmates and still good buddy, who just happens to have been St Vincent’s environmental coordinator for about 3 years. But it will influence building construction in new buildings, building management systems, indeed lighting, heating, space cooling and heating options, car fleet management, staff transport habits, teleconferencing, air travel, construction materials – all without compromising the quality of health care.
hmm how about rather than wait for my mate you just have a read of: http://www.svha.org.au/aboutus/Pages/Caringfortheenviroment.aspx
and
http://www.svha.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environmental%20Framework%20publication.pdf
“St Vincent’s Health Australia, together with its partners, is one of Australia’s largest not-for-profit diversified Catholic healthcare providers. Our Mission, based on the Gospel and Catholic social teaching in the spirit of Mary Aikenhead, founder of the Sisters of Charity, is to bring the healing ministry of Jesus to all who seek our care. Implicit in our Mission is the transformation of healthcare to make it environmentally responsible and safe.”
so suck it up buddy, St Vincent’s don’t seem to have a problem.
00
MattB said
0.5% of their turnover Tony.
Turnover is definately NOT profit Matt.
MattB said
St Vincent’s Health Australia, together with its partners, is one of Australia’s largest not-for-profit diversified Catholic healthcare providers.
So being that St Vincents is a not for profit organisation where do you think the extra $5.5 million is going to come from Matt?
Kneel.
00
[SNIP]
[you’ve been asked several times. Do you have a reasonable answer to offer?] ED
00
I can only answer a question so many times Ed. Carbon tax impost = a tiny fraction of the budget of St Vincent’s Health. Costs will be met through efficiencies, or as with any cost to a service provider, it will be passed on to customers via direct costs or increases to health insurance policy costs.
Personally, though, I thought that “from their not-for-profits” was quite a good natured reponse. I’m wasted on you guys. If you would prefer I post like a robot or zombie then you jsut have to ask.
00
What we would prefer Matt is for you to answer the question, and from a point of actually understanding what I have told you.
Scope 1 emissions are actual emissions from the entity, in this case a hospital, health care provider, old age care provider.
Scope 2 are emissions in support of doing their business.
You might say ‘pshaw’, who cares, they can afford to pay.
So then Matt, do the same exercise for all 15 hospitals.
Do the same for the 10 Universities.
You give the impression that you think Scope 1 emissions are the same as for their consumption of electricity.
The two are not related Matt.
So, Matt, before you slag off at me as you ever so subtly did a couple of times, prove to us that you actually know what is being said.
Four times I have explained it to you, and all you can say is that they can afford it.
And we also note your clever little ploy to get the snipped statement introduced in your further comment.
Matt, you’ve tried to bury this and all that has happened is that you have been shown up.
15 Hospitals Matt. These are your big polluters Matt. 15 hospitals.
I really hope that you have friends in all 15 of those hospitals Matt, and that they all get back to you.
How does a hospital cut back its scope1 emissions, Scope 2, hey send out less ambulances, consume less electricity all round.
Matt, get back to us when you know these things.
Tony.
00
Tony they are not required to cut back on Scope 1 or Scope 2 or service related (eg the electricity they consume) emissions… they are jsut required to account for them and to pay for them. It is up to them what economic/efficiency measures they take to sensibly reduce their liability.
regarding my not knowing what is Source 1 or Source 2… in all honestly it did sound to me (above) that you were lamenting that there was some sort of double payment going on. I don’t think that is the case, and if you don’t either then great we are on the same page.
So yeah, as I’ve said, they will cut back what is economically rational, and they will pass on the costs for any carbon liability that remains. I’m not really sure what all the hoo-ha is about, unless you somehow think that a GHG emission from a hospital is magically not a GHG that causes warming at the same rate as a GHG emission from a power plant.
YOu can get caught up in some sort of worry about whether a hospital is a “derdy polluter” or not… but to me it is simple… you emit CO2 and you pays the tax – big/small/dirty/clean.
00
MattyB,
You say:
But didn’t you say that the idea of the CO2 Tax was to reduce emmissions!
Now I know – it’s just about the money – & you don’t care who pays!!
AT last you are honest and just after the money here! Should have stated that in the beginning!
00
No Dave it’s not just about the money. The emissions reductions will come from a whole range of companies and individuals choosing to do what is economically sensible for them. That way companies whose marginal cost of abatement is low will abate, those with high marginal costs of abatement will purchase the rights to keep emitting – via a tax or eventually an ETS.
Why would you want someone who makes $100 profit for every tonne of CO2e they emit to have to cut emissions when there are companies that make $10 profit for every tonne of CO2e they emit?
00
Wayne, We already pay GST on top of Federal Govt levies and taxes so double dipping has been in play for many years already.
Kneel.
00
Actually Kneel, the GST replaced many State level taxes, so it was not as “double dipping” as you may think.
00
The federal government under Howard tried repeatedly to make the Labour states drop the taxes that were meant to be abolished by the GST to no avail, in some instances they put a GST on the state levies, that is double dipping.
00