Australian carbon debate a joke

I don't often comment on politics, but this one really irked me.

The Australian steel makers (Bluescope and One Steel) complained about the proposed carbon tax, stating that it will increase their production cost by ~AUD40/t of steel at a carbon price of AUD20/t.

The government responded by stating that the numbers are incorrect, and that the increase will only be AUD2/t.

Let's get this straight. For every tonne of steel produced, about 2 tonnes of CO2 is produced (This varies from plant to plant, but only in the range of 1.8 to 2.5). So for a AUD20/t CO2 carbon tax, that is 20 AUD/t CO2 x 2 t CO2/t steel = AUD40/t steel.

Come on, Gillard Government. We are not all idiots. You will harm the manufacturing industry, and this may have consequences in terms of job losses and the general need to support people I am not sure you are prepared for. Or are you just lying to the general populous?

Why are we different?

What sets us apart from animals? From Animal Planet, Animals did it first: Spoken language, religion, drug use and self-destruction. My colleague DM added the role of grandparents. With animals you seldom see grandparents getting involved in the raising of the young.

Anyway, back to the show, which then went on to state that there is another characteristic, our inclination to care for those less fortunate than us, extending even to other species - helping animals, especially those that suffer because of our human actions. Embracing this altruistic behaviour could see us taking much better care of our planet.

My view is very similar. We were placed here to govern. But we are not necessarily doing a splendid job. Whether global warming is caused by us or not is irrelevant. Fact is that we pollute more than we should.

But the solution is not simple. We have developing countries wanting to grow, and even introducing a carbon trading scheme will not curb the rapid growth in emissions. If we ever get a sensible carbon tax (~USD50/t), will this stop people emitting? I doubt it. Ultimately industry can pass on this extra cost to the consumer, and the world will still exist.

So what exactly is the solution? How do we find the balance between short term financial gain (which is very important to the shareholders who invested their money in companies, and expecting the highest possible return) and our responsibility to care for our planet? ANd why do they seem to be mutually exclusive? Are they? It seems that tonight I have only questions, no answers.

Time to get some sleep. Answers will come, as always.

Whiteman Park - 5 May 2007

Took the in-laws there today, and saw some nice birds.

Coffee drinkers, save the rain forest, please

I was told about a serious malpractice today at work by a colleague. He watched a television programme that showed rain forest canopies being cut off to provide coffee plantations with more sunlight. This increases yield, and decreases costs dramatically. Instead of having to hand-pick beans off natural winding coffee plants, bushy, short plants are easier to harvest, and grow faster in the direct sunlight.

My immediate response was than I would no longer drink coffee then. The environment is important to me. More important than coffee, in fact.



Luckily there is an alternative. Rainforest Alliance certifies coffee beans grown sustainably. Don't settle for anything less. For more information see here.