Caborn Tax? How about a sulphur tax!

sparoz · 09-14-2011, 07:23 PM

I have just been looking at the sulphur content of the fuel in Australia compare to around the world, and found that we are even worst than the US with our standard. Australia = <150ppm, US = 30-80ppm, EU = <10ppm.

The carbon tax in Australia is such a political agenda from the Greens, where they should be better off dealing with issues which are immediate. Despite the fact the correlation of global warming and carbon is not conclusive (we saw a decrease in temperature around the globe in the past 10 years with an increase of carbon emissions), we know the danger and immediate effect of health and pollution problems with sulphur emissions.

Yet, we have one of the highest sulphur content fuel amongst developed countries.

Just a little bit of a vent after a little bit of research this morning.

TimMc · 09-14-2011, 11:02 PM

Thanks Sparoz.
So this <150ppm standard, would our 95 & 98 octane be to the same standard (or lack thereof)? I presume 95/98 is just 91/92 with some additives?

sparoz · 09-15-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimMc

Thanks Sparoz.
So this <150ppm standard, would our 95 & 98 octane be to the same standard (or lack thereof)? I presume 95/98 is just 91/92 with some additives?

<150pmm is in the 95/98. 91/92 standard is <500ppm.

TimMc · 09-15-2011, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparoz

<150pmm is in the 95/98. 91/92 standard is <500ppm.

Fark!
Thanks Steve.

Tit · 09-15-2011, 05:26 AM

Politics in this country since Howard has turned into a circus! The carbon tax retardation is going to put us at unnecessary economic risk right around the next dip in the global recession...

...how about we actually directly address major sources of pollution instead of adding an entire additional layer of taxation and bureaucracy over the economy....

MickyD · 09-15-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparoz

<150pmm is in the 95/98. 91/92 standard is <500ppm.

you sure?

this document seems to indicate 150 for ULP, and 50 for PULP as of 05/08

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosp...rol/index.html

sparoz · 09-15-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickyD

you sure?

this document seems to indicate 150 for ULP, and 50 for PULP as of 05/08

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosp...rol/index.html

My bad, looking at old data. Two bad posts in a matter of days. However, my argument from OP still stands.

130iWanted · 09-16-2011, 03:12 AM

+1 THIS is the sort of pollution, particulates that are toxic or otherwise bad for your health to be breathed in, that we should be working towards reducing and eliminating through better processes and substitutes.

A carbon tax will do SFA to global temps anyway and siphons funding into developing tech that doesn't deal with real pollution.

09-14-2011, 07:23 PM	#1
sparoz Brigadier General 191 Rep 4,848 Posts Drives: VO 1///M; Macan Turbo Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Sunshine Coast iTrader: (0)	Caborn Tax? How about a sulphur tax! I have just been looking at the sulphur content of the fuel in Australia compare to around the world, and found that we are even worst than the US with our standard. Australia = <150ppm, US = 30-80ppm, EU = <10ppm. The carbon tax in Australia is such a political agenda from the Greens, where they should be better off dealing with issues which are immediate. Despite the fact the correlation of global warming and carbon is not conclusive (we saw a decrease in temperature around the globe in the past 10 years with an increase of carbon emissions), we know the danger and immediate effect of health and pollution problems with sulphur emissions. Yet, we have one of the highest sulphur content fuel amongst developed countries. Just a little bit of a vent after a little bit of research this morning. __________________ Macan S Diesel - Carrera White Macan Turbo - White 1///M - Valencia Orange
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

09-14-2011, 11:02 PM	#2
TimMc Lieutenant Colonel 44 Rep 1,883 Posts Drives: E90 M3 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia iTrader: (0)	Thanks Sparoz. So this <150ppm standard, would our 95 & 98 octane be to the same standard (or lack thereof)? I presume 95/98 is just 91/92 with some additives?
	Appreciate 0 Quote

09-15-2011, 05:26 AM	#5
Tit ... 15 Rep 201 Posts Drives: 964C2 // 1M // R56JCW Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Australia iTrader: (0)	Politics in this country since Howard has turned into a circus! The carbon tax retardation is going to put us at unnecessary economic risk right around the next dip in the global recession... ...how about we actually directly address major sources of pollution instead of adding an entire additional layer of taxation and bureaucracy over the economy.... __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

09-16-2011, 03:12 AM	#8
130iWanted Captain Slow 17 Rep 153 Posts Drives: 2016 X3 xDrive20D Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Sydney, Australia iTrader: (0)	+1 THIS is the sort of pollution, particulates that are toxic or otherwise bad for your health to be breathed in, that we should be working towards reducing and eliminating through better processes and substitutes. A carbon tax will do SFA to global temps anyway and siphons funding into developing tech that doesn't deal with real pollution.
	Appreciate 0 Quote