Thread: Save $$ Damn Greenies

Originally Posted by wheelinround

Whats your thoughts

I don't understand the post.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

But would it is it a case of companies still want their proffits no matter what???

and the problem with that is????

I'm sure the employees all want pay rises and better conditions no matter what.

If you don't like the cost, don't use the service.

P

Originally Posted by wheelinround

Ok LOML are heading for one hell of an argument thanks to Greenies save the enviroment save money save the planet.

All this talk of save the enviroment LOML (she's been trying to convert me for years) & I took it on cutting power usage cutting water usage gas fuel etc.

But in the last 12 months our bills have gone up a whole stick while consumption has gone down just as much. Yeh I know if we were using what we used to it would cost more...

But would it is it a case of companies still want their proffits no matter what???

It is how ever false advertising by Greenies and the same companies electric mostly saying here use these light globes it will cut your bills even gave us a whole house full of FREE new globes.

Whats your thoughts

OK,

This light bulbs offer thats going around. The bulbs you sign up for do use less energy and theoretically reduce your consumption, theoretically less to pay. If your bill is going up and youve cut usage it menas your rate has gone up. Could be less off peak usage, could be increased cost from your provider or increased government rape/tax. Youll have to work out which.

Now how can this very generous offer be made? the money must come from somewhere. I dont know about all of these free bulb schemes but the ones Ive seen are all by Phillips. Phillips is incorporated in the EU and operates around the world. It desperately needs carbon credits and so what its doing is replacing bulbs and claiming the carbon credits in the EU where there is an emissions trading program with binding targets in place. You notice you sign a form when you get the bulbs, it also prevents you from claiming the credits. Treats dumb Aussies as third world citizens with resources to pillage (carbon credits) which is effectively what we are in the environmental stakes. The credits must be paying for the free bulbs and admin or else they wouldnt do it. I'd be surprised if it wasnt profitable.

Now I dont know if the greenies have a financial stake, probably not as they are idealists, but the companies doing it must. There are no free lunches in life,

Sebastiaan

The same could be said for water usage...consumers use less as requested, the council therefore makes less profit, so to top up the shortfall they increase the rate per megalitre!


cheers

Well I guess it does result in the (limited) resource being saved, and cost of the product increases to what the market is prepared to pay.

Don't know how the individual is meant to afford the bill of "saving the planet", rather than the companies. My wage certainly hasn't gone up accordingly.

Do I use less water? Not really - I use what I need to
Do I use less electricity? Not really - I use what I need to
Will it affect future buying trends - probably, but as an individual, I'd buy a new washing machine or whatever once every 10 years or so. So the resource is saved, but again, it is the individual footing the bill.
User pays? Only applicable if all users pay the same rate. I bet my water / power / whatever costs a hell of a lot more than what businesses that use megalitres/watts pay, so if it is "User Pays" it is about time they started paying.

If that means that certain items need to increase in price as they are more expensive to produce - that's true "user pays". Means I might buy Coke in a plastic container rather than an aluminium can because the cost of the can is so high (as it takes a hell of a lot of electricity to produce aluminium) then so be it - true cost of items, including true environmental cost then means that we will buy those items that have a lesser effect on the environment, and if I choose the expensive option, that money ends up paying to support the raw resource. That's fairer.

It may be that plastic container is also too expensive (oil), so a new option will be developed that has less environmental impact. Everyone wins.

Originally Posted by Stuart.

Don't know how the individual is meant to afford the bill of "saving the planet", rather than the companies.

See, there's this widely held theory that companies are wealthy and can afford to do all this charitable work out of the goodness of their own hearts!

Wake up everyone! Who pays in the end??

If a company spends a dollar, it borrows that dollar so it probably costs $1.50, then it has overheads which probably double that to $3.00, then it needs to make a profit for it's shareholders so it now costs $3.50.

Who pays for that? The company?? No, the consumer, because that's how the company makes its living, the consumer pays the $3.50 begrudgingly, and feels its paid its due, so tends not to consume more.

So, forget making companies take responsibility. Let the consumer take responsibility, it will cost $1.00, and the consumer may think twice about spending it in future!

Cheers,

P

Not asking for charity, asking for parity.

If everything was true cost, true decisions could be made. If that means a can is $10, plastic $5, glass $4, and ?paper or whatever? $1, then we'd make our choice.

If some things become too expensive, then perhaps they should be unaffordable. They are obviously not sustainable.

Other things should then be cheaper.

If some things become too expensive, then perhaps they should be unaffordable. They are obviously not sustainable.

Other things should then be cheaper.

This is the much vaunted "market" at work. A great example is petrol, price goes up, people slow consumption, except now the pain has dissipated and now people just pay more.

Part of the question is the environmental cost of resources. Most greenies reckon natural resources are undervalued. This is because no individual "owns" them, they are collective property and as such no one can claim the real cost. I reckon markets push prices down, the fact that Wheelins costs have gone up means there is a lack of market forces at work. Prices rise when there is shortage, drop where there is surplus.

I agree with Midge about companies. All they are is a means of moving money around, a lot behave very poorly, but so do a lot humans and companies are organised humans. What they will do is exploit opportunities to move more money through themselves. This is where the environmental needs to use the system better. A friend and I are looking very closely at the Federal Governments solar panel rebate thing. Its not ready yet where there is money to be made, not yet, but the moment it is we (and many others) will jump. This has already happened in Germany and Spain. Then another resource thats free, the sun, will have a $ value attached.

Sebastiaan

Just wait until the various metropolitan 'power' companies figure they can do what some rural authorities have been doing - putting a 'special levy' on properties that have solar hot water systems installed.

Won't take too long for someone to work out that solar water heaters, solar electric power panels etc are costing them potential profits & that they can charge the 'customer' for trying to reduce their costs.

A past example of this sort of thinking was the requirement that all houses built in Sydney have NO provision for collecting & storing rainwater, and nowhere to put the tanks in the design. Now we are seeing a limited reaction from today's Government to have tiny tanks stuck into cramped corners to try to overcome a general lack of spending on necessary infrastructure.

Just wait a few more years, until we are in a 'wet' cycle, and the Government of the day wants a few $$$'s, we will see people being charged for having 'on site water storage' just as the farmers in Western NSW & Qld are being charged fees based on the storage capacity of the dams they built - I wonder if they have tried billing the water authorities for 'failure to deliver'?

Originally Posted by bsrlee

Just wait until the various metropolitan 'power' companies figure they can do what some rural authorities have been doing - putting a 'special levy' on properties that have solar hot water systems installed.

Won't take too long for someone to work out that solar water heaters, solar electric power panels etc are costing them potential profits & that they can charge the 'customer' for trying to reduce their costs.

A past example of this sort of thinking was the requirement that all houses built in Sydney have NO provision for collecting & storing rainwater, and nowhere to put the tanks in the design. Now we are seeing a limited reaction from today's Government to have tiny tanks stuck into cramped corners to try to overcome a general lack of spending on necessary infrastructure.

Just wait a few more years, until we are in a 'wet' cycle, and the Government of the day wants a few $$$'s, we will see people being charged for having 'on site water storage' just as the farmers in Western NSW & Qld are being charged fees based on the storage capacity of the dams they built - I wonder if they have tried billing the water authorities for 'failure to deliver'?

Finally, someone more cynical than me!! Welcome, welcome, share the bitter dregs with me!!

There has been a two way switch available for years for those who have solar panels and inverters in their houses. When you pull from the grid, you pay, when you push to the grid you get paid. First time I saw it it came from UNSW, we decided not to install it as the math didnt work. Still doesnt add up, one day it will.

As for the government rape and pillage, this will continue as funds are being moved from States to the Feds. States are down 2% since the GST was introduced and need to recoup the cash. GST may have been part of a long term plan to essentially change the structure of the federation (now that is cynical),

Sebastiaan

There's a very fine line between cynicism and realism.

Unfortunately, what is often seen as cynicism today is in fact tomorrow's reality.