Avgas and the carbon tax

[old man emu]

Correspondence from BP Australia contained the following information concerning the rise in the exise on Avgas as a result of the introduction of the Carbon Tax on 1 July 2012:

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel today (14/6/12) is 3.556 cents per litre (cpl)

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2012 - 2013 estimated 8.61 cpl, an increase of 242%

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2013 - 2014 estimated 8.86 cpl, an increase of 3%

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2014 - 2015 estimated 9.14 cpl, an increase of 3%

 

Based on Government advice correct as of 31/3/2012.

 

"On 1st July 2015 the intention is for the carbon price to float and the carbon pricing mechanism to transition into a non-fixed-price carbon trading scheme. The anticipated effect on aviation excise will be a change on a six monthly basis (based on the average carbon price over the previous six months) in line with the movement in the carbon price."

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

So the planet will cool slightly more each year then?

 

What a con.

 

 

[frank marriott]

We all get a chance to vote next year

 

 

[Mick]

So the planet will cool slightly more each year then?

Damn, next they will be taxing Anti-Freeze for our Rotax's!!!!

 

 

[eightyknots]

Correspondence from BP Australia contained the following information concerning the rise in the exise on Avgas as a result of the introduction of the Carbon Tax on 1 July 2012:Excise on domestic aviation fuel today (14/6/12) is 3.556 cents per litre (cpl)

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2012 - 2013 estimated 8.61 cpl, an increase of 242%

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2013 - 2014 estimated 8.86 cpl, an increase of 3%

 

Excise on domestic aviation fuel 2014 - 2015 estimated 9.14 cpl, an increase of 3%

 

Based on Government advice correct as of 31/3/2012.

 

"On 1st July 2015 the intention is for the carbon price to float and the carbon pricing mechanism to transition into a non-fixed-price carbon trading scheme. The anticipated effect on aviation excise will be a change on a six monthly basis (based on the average carbon price over the previous six months) in line with the movement in the carbon price."

 

Old Man Emu

And the fact is that the amount of carbon in the world has not changed for thousands of years! No carbon tax can really interfere with the natural carbon cycle. If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere, the trees, shrubs and grasses will grow faster (by absorbing the CO2) until the equillibrium is reached once again. It's a con based on faulty scientific assumptions.

 

And, oh, it's also a handy excuse for introducing a new tax so that an earlier surplus may be achieved.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

an aviator and a climate scientist. nice work if you can get it

 

 

[old man emu]

I didn't post the above as a political statement. It was meant to be a useful piece of information so that members could get an idea of what they could expect as a rise in the price of fuel.

 

If you want to get all political, let's keep an eye on how much the capitalist dog fuel companies add on as their extra bit of gouge. We also might like to see how many shares in petroleum companies members of the Conservative parties hold.

 

OME

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Time to go solar power! Sorry to all those IFR pilots, you're dead of out luck!!!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

And the fact is that the amount of carbon in the world has not changed for thousands of years! No carbon tax can really interfere with the natural carbon cycle. If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere, the trees, shrubs and grasses will grow faster (by absorbing the CO2) until the equillibrium is reached once again. It's a con...

If only you were right about this. The science tells us otherwise. Yes, the earth will adjust to more CO2, but these adjustments will be painfull. Even slight climate changes in the past have displaced millions. Future environmental refugees might just get in the way of our rec. flying.

 

 

[Chrism]

242% is a bit of a wack!

 

Luckily too many people vote to risk putting a CT price on MOGAS. Roughly how many of us use ULP as opposed to AVGAS? Generally speaking, don't Rotax prefer ULP while Jabs prefer AVGAS?

 

cm

 

 

[eightyknots]

Time to go solar power! Sorry to all those IFR pilots, you're dead of out luck!!!

Night VFR might be a bit of a problem too!

 

 

[facthunter]

The amount of CARBON on earth has remained constant since the earth formed. We are talking about the effect of a compound called carbon dioxide which is a known greenhouse gas ( there are many others but it is probably the most significant) which has been increasing for about 200years to a level that has not been around since the Dinosaurs. The sea has absorbed a great deal of it but has now so much that the acids formed by it's absorption are threatening the basic life forms that live there particularly their ability to form shells crustacians, Plankton etc This is a pretty serious consequence without the warming effect.

 

The carbon tax should only be applied to the carbon component of the fuel, as fuel is a hydrocarbon, whereas black coal is just carbon, and would therefore have a bigger price per ton. I think the atomic weights of carbon and hydrogen are 14 and 1 . so there might be something like C6H13 as a ratio 84/13., so you can see that carbon is the lion's share of the mass of the fuel About 86%. ota.. Nev

 

 

[Vev]

Sadly the CT impacts on Av-fuels will mean our flying will become slightly more expensive and will also cause a knock on effect into higher GST that most won't be able to recover in private use.

 

Whilst some individuals will continue to argue the science is a nonsense, it is now clear, in my mind, that there are no credible institutions apposed to the mainstream scientific belief that, among other gases, Co2 is harmful to our atmosphere and is one of the key factors in causing global warming. I do not wish to debate this point as this is my belief based on my own research and understanding ... I am happy for you to have your opinion whatever it may be.

 

I terms of tax .... There are some that will argue that the use of a tax impost is only locally effective and not as globally efficient as applying a commodity trading options in offsets credits ... some will argue that simply applying CO2 caps and penalties is even more locally effective than a CT. Personally I can see the point of all 3 different approaches dependent upon the various political landscapes and levels of capabilities of countries at any one point in time.

 

As for us in Australia, the political influence has had more to do with which mechanism has been used and the CT has won out for now ... overtime it will evolve into (in my opinion) a more globally effective trading mechanism that will help change global behaviour and target the lower hanging technology fruit to assist in CO2 reduction in a more meaningful and cost effective way.

 

Unfortunately, Av-fuels carbon taxes is here to stay.... it's a one way street and it's up hill from here on out, unless we find and use an alternative.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

One bit of good news is that the oil price is on the way down - 20% drop in a month although we've not seen that at the bowser yet. Hopefully this will flow through and negate a lot of the extra tax grab. And the worlds known oil reserves have more than doubled just in the last few years so the longer term trend is down especially with the global financial crisis approaching. Also the Middle East is increasingly being sidelined by production elsewhere, good for peace.

 

 

[facthunter]

We still get oil products cheaper than most. The americans go to a lot of trouble to get cheap oil, and it is a commodity that is going to cause a lot of hostility as it gets harder to find. Extraction processes are more of a threat to the environment than ever before with deep offshore drilling ( like the gulf of mexico, )with a damage bill of billions.

 

A GST increase would do more to put up costs and some are proposing that. That hits people on low incomes who never have money left over to invest so they pay GST on ALL their money. We're not too badly off here. I wouldn't swap it for anywhere else. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

Whilst some individuals will continue to argue the science is a nonsense, it is now clear, in my mind, that there are no credible institutions apposed to the mainstream scientific belief that, among other gases, Co2 is harmful to our atmosphere and is one of the key factors in causing global warming.

WHAT!!!??? Are you saying Alan Jones is not credible!!! What the!!!???

 

 

[kaz3g]

. I think the atomic weights of carbon and hydrogen are 14 and 1 . so there might be something like C6H13 as a ratio 84/13., so you can see that carbon is the lion's share of the mass of the fuel About 86%. ota.. Nev

Carbon = 12.0107 ± 0.0008 u Carbon is the 6th element in the Periodic Table and the marker element for all organic materials. It is a really interesting element because it is found in three different molecular forms represented by graphite, coal and diamonds.

 

It has the capacity to bond with a large number of other elements in a variety of ways. In the ordinary course of events, the total amount of carbon associated with the earth remains the same but much of it is not elemental carbon, rather it is present in any one of the many compounds of which it is part. So, if we burn carbonaceous fuels, we reduce the amount of carbon trapped in coal or petroleum and release it into the atmosphere as CO2. Eventually, after many hundreds of thousands of years it will probably return to the earth via the carbon cycle process if we don't stuff things up so badly in the meantime even the plants stop growing.

 

kaz

 

 

[spacesailor]

And the low income folk can return to burning wood & coal for heating and cooking,

 

 

[eightyknots]

And the low income folk can return to burning wood & coal for heating and cooking,

The two are somewhat different: Wood burning is far better than, say, an air conditioner powered by a coal-fired power station. The CO2 released from burnt wood will be absorbed by surrounding vegetation. For trees, CO2 is an essential life-sustaining gas. Once the trees have reached maturity, they may be cut down for more fire wood, etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

Wood in that scenario is a renewable resource. In central africa it has resulted in the deserts increasing in size. Deforestation is releasing an enormous amount of carbon that would have been stored, had it been used for long lasting items or left growing.. tons of wood are just burnt to plant palm oil trees for diesel and human consumption. Algae looks promising as an oil source. The world is currrently "hooked" on hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are used in making plastics too. All CO2 is the same no matter where it comes from. If it has other chemicals in it , of course it is not the same then. Methane "marsh gas" is worse than CO2.. thats why it is often flamed off at refineries..Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Wood in that scenario is a renewable resource. In central africa it has resulted in the deserts increasing in size. Deforestation is releasing an enormous amount of carbon that would have been stored, had it been used for long lasting items or left growing.. tons of wood are just burnt to plant palm oil trees for diesel and human consumption. Algae looks promising as an oil source. The world is currrently "hooked" on hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are used in making plastics too. All CO2 is the same no matter where it comes from. If it has other chemicals in it , of course it is not the same then. Methane "marsh gas" is worse than CO2.. thats why it is often flamed off at refineries..Nev

You have a point there, if wood is not harvested in a sustainable fashion. The concept is surprisingly simple: if a tree takes, say, 100 years to grow to maturity then once a year every hundredth tree in the forest may be harvested. As soon as there is a hole in the canopy, a number of seedlings will grow up with the extra sunlight on the forest floor. The strongest/fastest will eventually fill the gap. Next year, another 1 in a 100 trees may be harvested, taking care not to harvest a tree near the new juvenile tree(s) growing in last year's gap. This sustainable practice would be adjusted for trees that take 25, 50, 150 (or whatever) number of years to get to maturity.

 

The biggest problem with desertification, especially in Africa, is that wood is harvested en masse near the edge of the desert. Few (or no) replacement trees will grow in such a position. Even in situations away from the desert, en masse harvesting will seldom result in viable re-aforestation. This frequently occurs in South America and certain parts of Asia. The cleared areas are taken over by grasslands.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

We all get a chance to vote next year

We all had a chance two years ago and we stuffed it up!

 

an aviator and a climate scientist. nice work if you can get it

That's just it there is no 'climate science', in science we test our hypotheses...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

We all get a chance to vote next year

You are right Frank, but gawd, there's not much of a choice!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

And the low income folk can return to burning wood & coal for heating and cooking,

Grow trees, then burn them- still probably the most efficient use of solar power.

 

We don't have an energy shortage; we have over consumption. In wartime we were able to make enormous savings in the use of food, materials and energy. Today we waste so much, and resent any efforts to change this. Take a look at the lights left on all day, gas burned off without the energy being captured, houses built to depend on electricity to keep them comfortable... gee I get fired up, don't I.

 

 

[eightyknots]

The following is a quotation from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance. I won't comment any further except for the fact that the Department of Climate Change charged the ATA $750.00 for the release of this information under the Freedom of Information Act:

 

" Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40!

 

And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes!

 

 

The hypocrisy is staggering – it’s one rule for them, and another rule for us. No wonder they are happy to slug airlines with the carbon tax – they don’t have to pay the bill! "