Yes, the Government could do a lot just with a swipe of a pen. But that would cost them tax revenue.
Today, in the SMH, it is obvious that CO2 is not their priority, - as it should be. The EPA apparently thinks that carbon dioxide, - a non-poisonous greenhouse gas, - is not as bad as sulphur (dioxide) a poisonous notorious nasty smog-producing pollution gas;
"THE only service station in Sydney that offered greenhouse-friendly biofuel has stopped selling it after the fuel failed government air quality tests.
The B100 fuel can power an unmodified diesel engine and reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by more than 80 per cent (I doubt that figure, diesels produce little CO2) as well as reducing engine wear, but federal Environment Department tests show it was releasing unacceptable levels of sulphur (dioxide).
Manildra Park, which distributes the fuel to the service station, was unable to comment yesterday on the source of the fuel. Two industry sources said the fuel might have been from an imported batch.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- carbon tax - unintended consequences
carbon tax - unintended consequences, page-46
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 6 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
SER
STRATEGIC ENERGY RESOURCES LIMITED
David DeTata, Managing Director
David DeTata
Managing Director
SPONSORED BY The Market Online