http://barnabyisright.com/2013/07/28/spain-introduces-sunlight-tax-/#comments So now in Spain they are introducing levies on solar that give the advantage to fossil fuel energy.

What ever happened to the dangers of CO2 in causing catastrophic global warming ?

Six % tax on Feed in Tarrif is not going to disrupt anything. Any one that feeds into the grid becomes a co generator as / the contract you signed.
A feed in tariff of Eight cents + 6 % tax is not going to be cheaper to use fossil fuel.
A good story buggered up by spectacularisms.

Arjay,

This is just the tip of the iceberg that is currently ripping through the hull of the EU’s de-carbonized Titanic.

The EU seems to be going through schizophrenia. The once hallowed tree planting for CO2 mitigation has been turned on it’s head with the UK’s announcement that they are converting five power station to burn wood chip, WTF?

Angela Merkel is burning more coal; particularly lignite from her mining interests in the former East Germany, hard coal imports are up 25%, EU industry is moving off shore to low cost energy markets, VW’s new plant will be in the USA? EU emissions certificates have been declared “Junk Bond” status, energy poverty is rife, green energy tariffs and subsidies are being reduced or removed and German engineering giant Siemens has confirmed it is completely winding down its solar business. The involvement ended in a disaster, costing Siemens about one billion euros.

All going quite nicely it seems.

It appears that at the moment Governments worldwide are looking at new ways to TAX people.

Australia is now introducing levy on bank deposits, 0.05 per cent levy on bank deposits up to $250,000 will be collected from January 1, 2016 and is forecast to raise $733 million in its first 18 months.

It would be levied on the banks, not account holders, but the banking industry has indicated the costs will be passed on to customers.

HERE IS THE CRITICAL PART. "The money raised will go into a new Financial Stability Fund to be used in the event of a bank collapse, but will be counted as revenue in the budget."

Considering that most people have there pay deposited into a bank account it will hit nearly everyone.

A bank is a private entity, CEO'S and management etc on VERY HIGH salaries, why should the public be taxed to bail them out of incompetent decisions?

And we ant to introduce an ETS linked to EU.

It may well make the canon tax look like spare change in years to come.

As for a tax on solar rebates, we know that NOTHING in this world is free and, for every action, there must be a reaction.

But, as others here have said, we'd best get used to it as whether you're on the side of our debt being low, or high, the reality is it has gone from zero to hundreds of billions and this was during a mining boom.

Governments have to one, understand that we can only spend money once and two, they need to be made accou table for their actions, because even if they admit to makimg mistakes, it's our money they waste, not theirs.

It is interesting, I wonder how it relates to the "Bail In" process they have adopted to save the banks ?
Maybe it is the legal function they need to make the Bail In work.
They would on only have to change the percentage from 0.05 to 100% !

I had the impression that it was a tax on deposits, ie as deposits are made into the bank.
However if it is a tax, say yearly, then they could by regulation change the percentage to 100%.
That would comply with the G20 & IMF scheme as adoped and signed up by Wayne Swan as used in Cyprus.

Moody's has warned that Australian banks are at risk of defaulting because of heavy lending to housing loans.

Hmmmm

If everybody stopped paying their mortgage tomorrow you could be right.
Banks and lending is nothing out of the ordinary. At least the banks here give their ore to get your business. That means they are not going to show a negative profit anytime soon.

doog is under the false impression that our banks are safe and truly profitable. Our banks doog have derivative exposure of $21.5 trillion or 14 times our GDP. They are using our mortgages as collateral to borrow from OS central banks and gamble in the derivative market. All this "quantitative easing" money is mostly in the gambling economy.

How can banks make record profits on a shrinking world economy ? Easy. They just print more money that they know full well like the 1930's Depression will collapse. Both the IMF and Moodys have warned about the highly over inflated houses in Aust. What happens when interest rates go up and unemployment does likewise? What happens when there are too many houses on the market and not enough buyers?

"It appears that at the moment Governments worldwide are looking at new ways to TAX people."

I feel the same, just wonder when there will be a tax for breathing in oxygen...

Bazz - The bail in effects a bank and depositors of that bank get their money used to bail it out.

This system is every deposit is taxed payable by the bank but they will pass it onto the depositor, they money can then be used to bail out ANY bank.

The main part I don't like is this bit "the money will be counted as revenue in the federal budget." That suggests the politicians will use it deceptively to have a higher deficit, and could just commandeer it for there own use.

I believe you are right insofar as the percentage can be changed at a whim.

Phillip,
I think the risk is the government will indeed treat the tax as income
to be used as they wish.
Then when it hits the fan there will only be enough depositors money to
save one bank. That is what happened in Cyprus.
They will already have used the bank tax to pay the governments interest
bill.

It strikes me that the whole thing is very unstable and is likely to
collapse when shale oil in the US shows a significant decline in 2019 or
possibly earlier.

Derivative exposure!
You can't have a derivative unless you have the asset to protect. How else can a bank get insurance. Everybody that has insurance has a derivative, which expires every twelve months.
A very necessary component of business, that safeguards assets, when ordinary insurance does not.
Arjay has a lot of provisos, that all have to come together at the same time.

Bazz,

What “shows a significant decline in 2019 or possibly earlier”?

Spindoc,
The production of shale oil already shows signs that it has peaked.
Conventional oil has not increased since 2005.
At present it is on a bumpy plateau with some signs of decline.
It is being topped up with shale oil, but the number of shale oil rigs
has declined significantly, so shale oil production must follow.
Each shale oil well has a decline rate between 40% and 70% per year.
The problem with this is not that they cannot drill fast enough it is
just that they cannot keep the money flow up.

Bazz,

I asked you “what” showed you this information. Is it a report? Investment analysis? Where did you get your information?

Not much of what you said is supported by my research but you may be able to point me to something that does?

The following link provides a comprehensive global analysis by reserves, and recoverable resources.

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas

Sorry Spindoc,
There are a nuber of websites with articles on shale oil statistics.
Try theoildrum.com and resiliance.org.
Ther are also a couple on post carbon institute.

What has happened is that the shale oil has been hyped up to get finance.
Shale gas is somewhat different as the shale released gas much easier
than it releases oil because of the small size of the pores.
Here is one;

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-07-30/will-the-bakken-red-queen-have-to-run-faster

Just google shale oil decline.

The hype is typically way over the top, like the US being the new
Saudi Arabia etc etc.
The US still imports 40% of its consumption most of which comes not
from the Middle East but from West Africa.
All shale oil is doing is giving a bit more time get organised for
the overall decline.
The US imports about 7 million barrels a day and shale is about
1 1/2 million a day and looks like it could get to 2 million.

Bazz,

Your links were a disappointment because they are all on the “Peak Oil” mantra. If you start from that position you are assuming a false starting point.

The link I provided makes it clear what is and is not recoverable and why some forecasts have been revised down and others revised up. You also need to factor in the fact that 137 nations have shale reserves.

Peak Oil is dead and buried for the next 100 years and by then other fuels sources will have replaced some types of oil.

Try asking the question of Google properly, don’t ask for “shale oil decline”, ask for “shale oil reserves”. If you ask a closed question you will get a closed answer. Perhaps that’s what you wanted in order to support your preconceived position

Spindoc;
I thought you might say something like that.
I guess you have to look at what the various people who are or were in the business are saying.
The people still in the business have to take the oil companies position.
Those who are retired oil field enegineers or academics have a different opinion.
Also the retired geologists have a different opinion.
I suggest that you study the the oil drum papers.
Also you might like to argue with the OECD's International Energy Agency report for 2010.

Another source is Upsalla Univertities Global Energy Group.
Also the CEO of Total Oil.

Your agument is pointless.

I see there is some encouraging research being undertake to generate fuel from algi.(not sure of the spelling)

Eithe way, I am confident we will invent/discover an affordable energy replacement for oil.

My concerns though are as always, jobs!

Algae is well and truly underway. Airoplanes have been flying on the stuff. The Simpson desert is an ideal growing area, for quick turnover.
Algae are around 75% vegetable oil. To much oil around for it to be fair dinkum yet.

Hi Bazz,

I have followed up your links and they are either out of date or are proselytizing peak oil.

The research I provided is current as at June 2013.

Like I said, if you are predisposed to a particular answer, that’s what you will get. If you have some issues with current research you have two choices, accept it or challenge it by providing something more current. Stop looking back fondly on what you thought was once real.

rehctub,

I’m with you on jobs because it is the only thing that creates wealth and security.

When the developed world stops penalizing fossil fuel research or conversely, stops funding eye wateringly expensive renewables, industry will thrive to provide more jobs. Some renewables will eventually be market ready without subsidies, but not in the short term.

Methane hydrates has potential, some research indicates up to 15 times more methane than shale, but like shale it’s not all recoverable but still vast.

The peak oilers are struggling to come to terms with the vast reserves of non-conventional fossil fuels, they are fast becoming the Luddites of the planet and can only do what they do best, kill jobs, damage economies, increase energy costs and slug industrial productivity.

The world is made poorer by those who are driven by green ideology. Whilst so many in our society are struggling to work and trying to add value, the ideologues destroy value and contribute nothing.

http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/198761/japan-taps-methane-hydrates-pondering-explosive-implications

Bazz, spindoc,

Her's an article which examines the economic impact of the idea of "peak oil".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/23/peak-oil-bbc-shale-fracking-economy-recession

"Since 2005, though the price of oil has increased, production has still plateaued, suggesting that "supply is no longer able to match demand." This "inelastic supply of oil" creates a "price-production buffer against increasing economic growth." As global demand for oil increases, driven largely by emerging markets, this "leads to an increase in the price of oil." But this in turn means that "more unconventional resources become economically viable for development", leading to an increase in oil production.

However, the "potential for recession increases", because the whole cycle was set in motion by "an increase in the price of oil." As a seeming glut in unconventional production permits a nominal relaxation in prices, economic demand ramps up, once again pushing up oil prices as the economy hits the supply ceiling, reigniting the process. The result is an undulating production plateau correlating with higher but more volatile oil prices, as well as a prolonged recession punctuated by small cycles of 'recovery' and contraction.

"This feedback induces a drag on the economy," write the Eos authors, "and consistent economic growth is difficult against this price-production buffer." What does the future hold in this context? Rather than booming growth underpinned by fracking, they conclude:

"A 4% growth in GDP would require an annual increase in oil supply of 3%, and that would amount to an increase in oil production of 17 mb/d over the next 5 years. Because production of conventional oil appears stuck on a plateau of 75 mb/d, it is likely that economic growth may be difficult unless there is a transformation away from the historical relationship between energy use and economic growth."

Compare all this to the BBC's claim that the Eos paper describes peak oil as "a myth."

To the contrary, the paper suggests peak oil is alive and well - but that until we face up to the historic link between GDP growth and our over-dependence on cheap fossil fuels, we face the prospect of unrelenting economic strangulation."

This will be my last comment in this thread as it has echos of AGW.

1. The year of the largest discovery of oil was 1963.
2. The year that consumption exceeded discovery was 1983.
3. Production stopped rising in 2005.

That is all there is to it really, all the rest of the in channel noise
is just that as the wishful thinking never takes into account the scale
of the demand and consumption.

Poirot,

I’m impressed. I never knew that eco-economists at the Guardian were still commanding the tides to go back.

Like I said to Bazz, interrogate a closed source you get a closed answer and end up with a closed mind.

Just wondering if you or Bazz followed the link to the current research? Did you have any comment on this? Do you want to challenge it? Do you have anything more current or more comprehensive? Do you want to debate it? Do you have any questions? Have you thought of comparing what your eco-economist has to say with the current research? Are you beginning to wonder why Nafeez Ahmed’s opinions are at odds with the current research and the BBC? Do you think that Nafeez and the Guardian have form?

Just wondering but it does seem a bit lazy to grab links to media opinion when real research is available.

I guess that’s what closed minds do?

The only problem with oil alternatives is the big oil companies will buy the patent and company doing the research and then sit on anything that will effect there PROFITS.

.....The only problem with oil alternatives is the big oil companies will buy the patent and company doing the research and then sit on anything that will effect there PROFITS.

Unless of cause governments buy the patents, build the infrastructure and create the jobs.

rehctub - Highly unlikely, Government you mean the idiots that privatized the Commonwealth bank and outsource border surveillance etc.

Australia's big four banks - Westpac, Commonwealth, ANZ and National Australia - collectively made $94 billion in profits over the past four years.

The Commonwealth banks share could have helped Australians.

Philip I have long held the belief that we should own all our infrastructure, our super could have funded it all, had it not been released into the hands of profit makers and risk takers.

Oh what could have been!

Phillip/rehctub,

I share both your concerns but these fall into two distinct sets of issues. The first is how we capitalize on the resources in the first place and secondly, how we distribute the benefits to achieve social equity.

I am personally more disposed to direct investment by companies in the resources and energy sectors. They are the business end and should be the ones to provide the capital investment required rather than the public through subsidies and tariffs. The level of investment is huge but the potential profits are also huge, it’s risk/reward for them but that’s what they do for a living.

Social justice and equity is a different issue. By that I mean the fair distribution of benefits to the community. IMHO this should be through the normal, existing structures of taxation.

We have seen what happens when governments distort markets; the cost to the community has been horrendous. Much better in my view to use the normal mechanisms of both the “market” and the “tax system” to make sure that companies invest in their own future but to also make sure that jobs are created, profits are made and the wider community benefits.

Government has two distinct roles, front end and back end. Front end is to legislate for growth. This refers to enabling legislation rather than disabling legislation. They must create a business and productivity environment through legislation.

The back end role should be to ensure equitable distribution of the wealth created. I disagree with Phillip that this would benefit from public ownership because government does not have a strong record on running businesses; in any event public ownership is a substitute for failed government regulation.

So government needs to stand back from market interference but be on the front foot with wealth distribution but all through normal government and commercial instruments. Both entities are good at their core functions, they fail when they step into each others domains

spindoc - The critical part with big business is the tax they pay regrettably the bigger an organization, the less tax they pay by comparison to huge profits, thus leaving the tax burden on average taxpayers, who don't have access to tax havens, off shore accounts or charity status.

The above also applies to very rich people who have access to various tax avoidance schemes.

Only recently are Governments worldwide going after these people and organizations, but very slowly.

Yes Phillip, I’ve already agreed with you on the tax issue. The point is that this remains a failure of the Tax System which is a government responsibility. Like I said the government needs to do government things effectively, business needs to do business things effectively and ne’r the twain shall meet.

Consider the MRRT issue. The government failed to consult, to consider unintended consequences or to structure an “effective tax regime”.

Huge fail on an issue that should be the sole domain of government.

All the issues you mention are a failure of government, don’t try to fix the governments problems by blaming entities that are not government.

Do stop it Philip S, unless you can get it right.

PAYE tax payers barely stump up enough in tax to meet the welfare bill. The rest comes from other sources.

On the Spain bit, I guess after their love affair with alternative energy, & all the green industries, they don't have much left but the air to tax.

Just like us, unless Abbott wins government & dices the carbon tax/trading scheme, they are all ready taxing the air they breath.

Hasbeen - Very presumptuous of you, I wrote "average taxpayers" now this includes the tax they pay on wages PLUS all the other taxes they are stung with GST, stamp duties and lots more.

Hasbeen - Just went back through the pages to see what words of wisdom you have given in this thread except for your stupid statement "Do stop it Philip S, unless you can get it right." I can't find anything from you.

Philip you should be in full favor of GST, fuel, alcohol & nicotine taxes, after all the largest percentage of these are paid by the wealthy. Us poor types don't have all that much to spend, so can only pay so much tax on our expenditure.

Hi Phillip S,

The problem you face is one of understanding and substance.

When you have an opinion that is based on an opinion generated by someone else, obtained via a web link or an adopted ideology, you end up not being able to substantiate your position because you never worked it out for yourself in the first place.

You are trying to argue from a basis of having no real understanding of how things really work, just how you think they “should” work from your ideological and adopted opinion perspective.

Just a little scratching of your veneer reveals very little of substance. You seem incapable of getting past your determination to absolve those responsible for abdicating their primary role and then trying to transfer that blame onto those who have no authority to make the changes you want.

I did begin to question your plausibility when I read the words “big oil” and “profits” in the same sentence but hey, this is OLO and you are entitled to express your opinions like the rest of us. That said, if those opinions really are yours, why can’t you argue your position rather than offering proselytized narratives?

spindoc - Sorry to disappoint you but if you go back I stayed away from your "Big Oil" comments.

To quote you further "why can’t you argue your position rather than offering proselytized narratives?" I think you should be directing that to Hasbeen who could only come into the thread with sarcasm.

By your comments you try to set your self apart as the intellectual savior, try to remember people are different and don't all follow what you think should be the method of how a subject is debated.

Hi Philip,

So you stayed away from “big oil” comments?

Like this one you mean?

<< The only problem with oil alternatives is the big oil companies will buy the patent and company doing the research and then sit on anything that will effect there PROFITS >>.

Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 4 August 2013 1:24:49 PM

<< To quote you further "why can’t you argue your position rather than offering proselytized narratives?" I think you should be directing that to Hasbeen who could only come into the thread with sarcasm >>.

But I didn’t ask hasbeen, I asked you!

There, now you are free to argue YOUR case.

You cannot disappoint me because you are too predictable. We can all see that you will never argue your case because you don’t have one. It’s not about intellect Philip, it’s about a cogent case for debate to substantiate opinion.

Over to you.

spindoc - Trying to link two different things to make yourself out to be intellectually superior FAILED, you and Bazz were having a discussion about "shale oil" unless you are blind you will see I stayed away from that.

Later a comment was made regarding "oil alternatives" that is where I came in and it was in relation to suppressing technology.

To Quote you "Like I said to Bazz, interrogate a closed source you get a closed answer and end up with a closed mind." I thought this forum was intended to allow debate on subjects, appears like you use it for the purpose of as you put it "interrogation" you don't want debate you only want people who agree with you.

Therefore you are closed minded to what others have to say.

Further to quote you "Just wondering if you or Bazz followed the link to the current research?" What you are doing is using others research and opinions as your you whole argument rather than formulate your own opinion. What evidence do you have that all the links you provide have the correct data, remember the Global warming research that was later debunked by emails released from the researchers email accounts.

To quote you again "When you have an opinion that is based on an opinion generated by someone else, obtained via a web link or an adopted ideology, you end up not being able to substantiate your position because you never worked it out for yourself in the first place." That is an interesting one it implies therefore that others links and research are wrong BUT the ones you put up are RIGHT because that is exactly what you do use others information.

spindoc - Quote "You cannot disappoint me because you are too predictable. We can all see that you will never argue your case because you don’t have one."

That so describes YOU if anyone reads your posts they are rarely yours just loads of links to others research, which when not posting links you try to defend by claiming the other people have "closed minds"

Yes dear Philip,

So where is your rebuttal?

You can duck and weave as much as you like, you can go for volume, quantity or rhetoric but it still doesn’t constitute a case. All those words about how you “feel”, but nothing about what you “think”, absolutely no content.

Like I said “We can all see that you will never argue your case because you don’t have one”.

Lots of words, two posts and heaps of cut and paste but nothing, zilch, zero. Just an angry, petulant, juvenile, confused, excuse ridden pseudo-ideologue.

Man up and give us your case. Surely it can’t be that hard for something you feel so passionately about?

Please show me I’m wrong.

spindoc - To quote you "You can duck and weave as much as you like"
That sounds like what you are doing at the moment.

It also appears that you have nothing to say but reply with sarcasm.

Also I notice you have no opinion of you own rather you use others as your own.

Sarcasm the lowest form of wit.

Philip S, you even got that one wrong.

<< Sarcasm the lowest form of wit. >>

No, this should read “ Farcasm is the slowest worm of sit”

And your rebuttal is…………………….?

Child.

spindoc - Thanks for the last comment you now have shown me that trying to have a discussion with you that opposes your set beliefs, would be akin to trying to have a discussion with a brick wall.

Enjoy the silence.

Is this nonsense still going on ?
It hasn't changed since I went away.

I was asked for sources showing the position I presented and when I did
the rersponse was "Well of course that source would say that wouldn't they?"

Well, where the hell do you think I would go, to sources that opposed my opinion ?
You asked for information and I told you where you could get plenty of
real expert opinion.

If you bothered to check, you would find that many of articles are
written by people who are currently employed in the oil business
or are retired oil field geologists and engineers.
There are many articles by others but you would be hard put to decry
such as Colin Campbell, Jean Lafeere and Proffessor Aklett.

To think there isn't a looming problem, both financial and geological,
with shale oil is to deny reality.
Once the expensive unconventional oil gets mixed in increasing ratios
with old oil it will soon show up the problems of affordability.

Just watch the rig count, that tells a story on its own.

Bazz,

<< Well, where the hell do you think I would go, to sources that opposed my opinion? >>

Er, Bazz sorry mate but the answer to your question is absolutely YES!

I think you have just answered the question as to why you do indeed have a closed mind, because you are terrified to LOOK outside it.

This one just for you, don’t forget to say thanks to Divergence.

“Peak Oil” is Nonsense… Because There’s Enough Gas to Last 250 Years.

http://www.scitizen.com/future-energies/-peak-oil-is-nonsense-because-there-s-enough-gas-to-last-250-years-_a-14-3755.html

Yes peak anything has been a lie. At Coober Pedy we have $20 trillion of shale oil to make everyone of us a $ million, but who will be the real owners?