I had this emailed to me yesterday and thought it was very telling, so I am going to reproduce it here for you all to see.  It was written by T.L Cardwell and was addressed to the Editor of the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin.  I would invite Larissa Waters the Greens Senator I voted for and we helped get Elected to respond to this as I am a bit miffed by this Pseudo Green Carbon Tax policy that as far as I am concerned does nothing for our environment.

Mr Cardwell spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating various power units.  The last being the four 350 megawatt Munmorah power stations new Newcastle.

I have sat by for a number of years, frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example – the condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.

Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence..

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.

Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly
could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.

Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts
of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, – not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standingaround holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside..

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world’s total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by ..004%.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = …00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = …00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that?

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.

Whilst I don’t agree with the assertion that it will be crippling to our industry or economy it certainly won’t help… The cost will be far more then is being quoted by the Government and far less then that being quoted by the opposition, it will meet in the middle some where.

What has me feeling betrayed and disheartened is that the Greens are meant to be about the environment and the best they can come up with is a botched fiscal policy if the form of an emissions trading scheme which as proven to be a dud the world over?  Sorry but it just doesn’t cut it and it certainly won’t save the barrier reef… it’ll be business as usual.  The Greens have totally failed, and whats more they know they have failed yet continue to support a policy that will inflict more pain, more hurt on Australian families.

“We are here in the process of saving the Great Barrier Reek, Kakadu, Ningaloo, the snow country right across the south-east of Australia: our biodiversity, the wonderful wildlife of this nation both on land and in our oceans,” Senator Brown said.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said the $10 billion renewable energy fund was a Greens initiative that recognised that the $23 a tonne price “isn’t high enough to drive the revolution in renewables that we need”.

So the greens know full well that the creation of a emission permits commodity market will to nothing to change the way the “polluters” do business and won’t drive green technology, so I have to ask what the hell is the point?  Why are you doing it and supporting it?

We don’t need band aid solutions that have the ability to inflict great harm needlessly, if you are going to do something do it properly.  To quote someone I revere “No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought.”

Right now I have the election blues… but I can tell you now the Greens have had the last vote they’ll get from me any time soon.

When I think of environmental policy I don’t think of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, they leave me wondering what good they actually do for the environment around us.

How does this policy result in greener water ways, less destruction of our forests, a cleaner atmosphere, or a reduction in fossil fuel usage?

Surely to combat climate change we need environmental policy not more fiscal policy? This move to create a low carbon economy to me at least appears nothing more then conservative politics to give the money men a new financial playground at the expense of the consumer and local communities in developing nations.

Julia Gillard’s carbon tax is really just placing a fixed price on carbon permits till an emissions trading framework can be introduced. The legislation that goes before the house will be for an ETS not a carbon tax.

It seems Australia is set to embark on a domestic cap-and-trade emissions scheme, where by polluters can buy their way out of their obligations to the environment and pass on those costs to us the consumers while adding in a bit extra to cover the cost of doing business under the ETS.

Sure you the end user can do you bit and reduce your “carbon” foot print by changing your light bulbs and buying that prius etc but at the end of the day it’s not the consumer that creates these emissions it’s big business and resource infrastructure.

A cap-and-trade scheme has two sides, the first being to cap pollution and the second works by creating a commodities market where companies can trade emission permits. A company must hold enough permits to cover their pollution, so if a company goes over the cap they must acquire additional emission permits off the market from a company with spare emission permits to sell.

The problem I have with this is does this really encourage companies to go out of their way to restructure their business to reduce emission’s or are we just creating another false financial industry?

lets look at the European Union for a moment where an ETS and been operating since 2005 and is the largest multinational ETS in the world. How has this effected emission out put there? Well to be blunt it hasn’t, it’s been modest at best. In fact the big polluters ended up with a credit windfall as they were issued credit to begin with to cover their historical pollution levels.

More emission permits were granted in the EU then there were emissions, this resulted in the value of permits falling dramatically and the EU introducing a tighter command and control method that economists say should be avoided at all costs to reduce the cap.

Business always takes the path of least cost, when deciding on a course of action. Carbon trading actually encourages business to continue on as usual as emission permits are frequently more available from less developed nations and are a cheaper solution then long term structural changes to the business. This is magnified when those costs can be directly past onto the consumer.

All a global ETS does is allow countries like Australia to buy in emission permits from countries with less infrastructure at the expense of the population of those countries. Lets look as Zimbabwe as a hypothetical ruled by a dictator with little regard for his people and an out of control economy. We as a developed nation provide a new free export market to Zimbabwe in the form of emission permits what incentive is there for the leaders of that nation to better the lot of his people when he can sell their poverty and lack of infrastructure to us in the civilised world?

Still a if there must be an ETS surely a global agreement is the only way to go, how does this effect the level playing field of international markets? Industry leaders will tell you that if goods are imported from a nation without a carbon price then surely we must place a tariff on those goods, which just leads to “green protectionism” placing a burden on nations that may not be equipped to cope with these extra costs.

Domestically if we look at LNG which is a massive emerging resources industry here in Queensland it competes on a world stage with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Omen, Qatar, and Eastern Russia all of whom have no carbon price, and are not likely to introduce one. This could have a crippling effect on this industry as it tries to complete while having an extra tax placed upon it.

Of course our government likes the ETS, it’s something that’s on the world stage in the EU and wants to be seen as proactive, and of course lets not forget it creates a new revenue stream.

But lets me honest what is this market based approach to control pollution actually achieving, shouldn’t a greener, healthier environment be the basic tenant of any environmental policy?

This new economic theory may well create the worlds largest commodities market, and employ all those failed hedge fund mangers looking for jobs after the GFC but it could also create a state of emission leakage where domestic action to reduce emissions leads to the increase in global emissions by companies simply moving production to new less environmentally friendly places and ramping up that production.

Surely an ETS is environmentally ineffective, from the EU and every other ETS market alive today we can see they have resulted in scant all emission reductions, nor green jobs, nor technology. No what we need dear friends is a new radical approach to this problem, one that shifts societies thinking and beliefs with a focus on new technology that leaves whats left of the worlds fossil fuels safely underground.

When Julia tells you that she won’t put her ETS or carbon tax on petrol you know the policy is a dud. We need real policy and real incentives to change our ways not on the consumer level but at the supply end of the spectrum. Lets make it cheaper for business to restructure then to continue on in the old ways… to make it work it has to work on the balance sheets for industry and while emission permits exist as a cheaper option that’s the path business will travel.

Put in place the command and control regulations, and support emerging green technology on a large scale, don’t tax them give them R&D breaks, reduce their payroll tax etc etc etc. Use the tools to enable a new green industry don’t introduce economic theory that maintains the status quo and makes my investment banker more money, he doesn’t need it and the platypus doesn’t care.

Hello to the folks at whirlpool reading this… hope you find it helpful… – diomedes

I have always had a problem with the statement, it implies every one you do a transaction with is or could be shonky and well I just hate feeling like that’s the case.  It’s akin to the glass is half empty and most people that know me know how much I despise that view.

So to you the consumer I say buy with confidence and if something comes up then take solace in knowing you have the tools and protections to deal with them.

In Australia we are blessed to have the Trade Practices Act 1974 for transactions prior to January 2011 and for those new transactions we now have the Australian Consumer Law 2010 which provides greater protections while clearing up some ambiguities of the TPA.

What do these rights really mean to you?  At the heart of any transaction is the “contract”, we often don’t think of them like that as a consumer but that’s exactly what they are and all contracts have terms.  All contracts should have terms that align themselves with each party to the contact.

When you buy a house or enter into other financial arrangements you would generally sit down with the other party and hash those out, however when buying consumer goods this really doesn’t happen and you are left with terms as set down by the vendor leaving you without much of a say about anything other then to accept their terms.

It is the job of the TPA and now the ACL to be your voice in these contracts and set down binding terms on the vendor.  I should also point out that for the sake of the Act consumer rights generally apply to goods and or services not exceeding $40,000, but there are acceptions to this and it’s best to check your circumstances.

I live by two hard and fast rules when buying anything, never pay list price and never buy an extended warranty.  Extended warranties aren’t worth the paper they are written on as they are redundant, you already have ample protections that extend past the manufacturers expressed voluntary warranty period.

So lets talk about this for a moment, when you buy some kind of goods lets say white goods for example and the manufacturer says they provide a 12 month warranty this is the voluntary expressed manufacturers warranty.  However under the act your rights as a consumer  are compensatory with what you paid for it and what any reasonable person would expect.

This is outlined on page 10 of the Warranties and Refunds document from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission which states;

How long do consumers’ statutory rights apply?

Statutory rights are not limited to a set time period. Instead, they apply for the amount of time that is reasonable to expect, given the cost and quality of the item.

This means a consumer may be entitled to a remedy under their statutory rights after any manufacturers’s voluntary or extended warranty has expired.

So when you as a consumer purchases an appliance or other goods that cost say $1000 and it comes with a 12 months manufacturers warranty and then those goods fail after say 18/24 months the manufacturer will by default tell you sorry it’s out of warranty and this is where your Statutory rights kick in as in the contract of sale you have an implied Statutory warranty.

The basis comes down to would a reasonable person expect this $1000 item to last longer then 18/24 months, and if so how long would a reasonable person expect the item to last and if they had known it wouldn’t last that long would they have made the purchase in the first place.

So when you write to the manufacturer to ask for your claim to be assessed it is important you tell them you are not claiming under their manufacturers warranty but your implied statutory warranty;

The item must be of merchantable quality when you purchased it, meaning it must meet basic levels of quality and performance that would be reasonable to expect considering it’s price, the manner in which it was promoted and the amount of usage it has provided over the period of time it has been in service.

The amount of benefit the item has provided being taken into consideration you believe the manufacturer is in breach of the sales contract and statutory terms provided under the law as outlined in No.51 – Section 71 and No.51 – Section 66 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Lets look at these two sections of the act as they both support our main contention that all goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose or purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect.

Section 71;

(1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction or sale by
competitive tender) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition
that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section –

(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention
before the contract is made; or

(b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as
regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

(2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction or sale by competitive
tender) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by
implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent
negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is
an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are
reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are
commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that
it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

In part one of  section 71 it clearly states good must be of merchantable quality this forms the back bone of the statutory warranty and is expanded upon later.  Then part two of section 71 is that any expressed or implied use you may have for the item that you convey to the manufacturer or their agents with whom you are negotiating form part of the terms of the contract.

What this means is if you buy an item and intend to use it in a non standard fashion outside the manufacturers normal operating methods and they still sell it to you without declaring it can not be used that way they are indirectly saying it’s fit for that purpose and it becomes a binding term of the sales contract.

Section 66;

(1) In this Division-

(a) a reference to the quality of goods includes a reference to the state or condition of the goods;

(b) a reference to a contract does not include a reference to a contract made before the
commencing date;

(c) a reference to antecedent negotiations in relation to a contract for the supply by a
corporation of goods to a consumer is a reference to any negotiations or arrangements
conducted or made with the consumer by another person in the course of a business carried on by
the other person whereby the consumer was induced to make the contract or which otherwise
promoted the transaction to which the contract relates; and

(d) a reference to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations were conducted is a
reference to the person by whom the negotiations or arrangements concerned were conducted or
made.

(2) Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of this Division if they are as
fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is
reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and
all the other relevant circumstances.

This is actually my favorite section of the act as it deals with the marketing smoke and mirrors manufacturers and retailers use to induce sales while trying to leave them external to the sales contact.  All of part one of section 66 deals with presale negations and representations.  From literature a manufacturer produces making claims of quality and life cycle to conversations you have with sales stuff who tell you this product is the best on the market fully engineered in Germany.  These references and dealings also form a term of the sales contract in the form of an expressed warranty under the act as they have made direct representations to you that help you form your purchase choice.

Saving the best for last is part two of section 66 which expands on part one of section 71, not only does it again make plan that goods have to be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose but it also adds the reasonable expectation.

Reasonable expectation cuts both ways, in that there is no time limit applied as we saw earlier from the ACCC but what does have to be taken into consideration is the amount of benefit provided.  The act takes the stance that if two people buy the same item they both can reasonable expect to receive the same benefit outcome for the item regardless of time.

What that means is if person A buys an electric mixer and uses it every day while person B buys the same electric mixer and only uses it once a week but person B’s mixer fails after 13 months while person A’s still works they have not both enjoyed the same benefit and under the act person B can reasonable expect the mixer to have lasted longer and is entitled to remedy under the act regardless of the manufacturers expressed voluntary warranty.

Time to recap as that is a lot to take in.  Lets look at this scenario and I hope it drives home your rights as a consumer in Australia.

Sue goes into her local white goods retailer to purchase a new washing machine, the sales person John tells Sue that Brand X is of the highest quality and would serve her family well for years to come.  This sales pitch which induces Sue to enter in the contact to buy the washing machine is protection number one by way of an expressed warranty under the act.

Sue happily purchases Brand X washing machine from John for the princely sum of $1249 which comes with a manufacturers voluntary expressed 12 months warranty, this is protection number two.

John attempts to sell Sue a 36 month extended manufacturers warranty for $139 however Sue declines this as she can’t afford it and anyway what type of washing machine doesn’t last 36 months?  After all John said it was of the highest quality which forms protection number three by way of an implied statutory warranty under the act.  Given the value of the item,  the quality and the amount of benefit a reasonable person would expect to receive from such an item.

Sue comes out to her washing machine one Saturday 18 months from the day she purchased it to find it no longer works, she rings John who tells her sorry Sue you should have purchased that extended warranty as the washing machine is now out of it’s manufacturers warranty and she’d have to get it repaired at her cost or buy a new one.

Sue knowing her rights and Johns obligations under the act thanks John for his time and then sits down and pens a letter to John stating that she is not asking for her claim for remedy to be assessed under the manufacturers expressed warranty as it has expired but under her statutory warranty as provided by TPA discussed above, Sue kindly asks for the matter to be resolved within 10 business days.

John after the initial denial wheres off learns a lesson about consumer rights and then offers to Sue to have the washing machine repaired, replaced or refunded which ever is the most applicable, but should John still refuse after Sue’s letter Sue then contacts her states office of fair trading who will then make things happen rather quickly.  A complaint with all documentation to the ACCC also works wonders.

I have spoken a lot about the Trade Practices Act 1974 here and not a lot about the Australian Consumer Law this is really due to most people won’t be affected by the ACL yet and the same rights and protections are covered in both with the ACL referring to these as the consumer guarantee’s.

Never ever pay for an extended warranty and never put up with the spin from a retailer or manufacturer, you have rights, learn them and use them.

1.     The Greens stand up for what’s right, not just what’s easy. Whether it’s protecting the environment, introducing universal dental care, opposing the war in Iraq or advocating for refugees to be treated humanely, the Greens are driven by values, not polls.

2.     It’s the Party everyone’s heading to. The Greens are the third largest political party in Australia, with five national Senators, 21 State MPs and more than 100 local Greens councillors already playing a positive and constructive role across Australia. More than a million Australians voted Green in 2007, and we’re the fastest-growing party in the country.

3.     Break the deadlock in the Senate between the Government and the Opposition. Last time the Government of the day also got control of the Senate, and we got WorkChoices. This weekend, the Opposition could easily win control of the Senate, which would deliver Australians nothing but three years of deadlock. We deserve a Senate that will work for us and deliver strong, sensible action – not just spin.

4.     Provide future generations with clean air, clean water and clean soil. The Greens will tackle climate change by putting a price on carbon for big polluters in the next term of government. It’s time we created new clean energy jobs and started investing in the economy of the future.

5.     Make legislation better. When the Coalition tried to block the stimulus package that kept Australia out of recession, the Greens passed it with added environmental and small business benefits. The Greens will do the same thing to improve the mining super profits tax – to ensure Australians get a fair share of our resources.

6.     The Greens have vision. When Bob Brown first spoke to the Senate about climate change 14 years ago, his Labor and Liberal colleagues actually laughed at him, and now that they finally understand the magnitude of the issue, we’re laughing at their attempts to address it. The Greens are also the only party working to end all forms of legal discrimination against Australians based on sexuality. The Greens focus on what’s right for the next generation, not just the next election cycle.

7.     Not Steve Fielding. The power to scuttle legislation currently rests with Steve Fielding, who refuses to accept the science of climate change and have views out of touch with most Australians.

8.     An environmental party – and much, much more. The Greens stand for much more than just cutting carbon pollution, securing our water supplies and protecting our environment. Think better public schools, more funding for hospitals and fixing our broken mental health system. The Greens also drive great new ideas, like building high-speed rail between Australia’s major cities, which is now gaining momentum but would never have gotten up otherwise.

9.     For a more powerful vote. Another Labor or Liberal candidate will just vote the way they’re told. With the Greens, every vote is a conscience vote. If you’re disappointed with Labor but don’t want Tony Abbott, you can send a powerful message to Julia Gillard. And if your Greens candidate doesn’t win, your vote will simply go to the next candidate of your choice at full value.

10.  Bob Brown. A genuinely decent politician and the most experienced party leader in Parliament.