Being dependant on tank water makes you stop wasting water, that is my point.

Giving away free tanks won't make people dependent on tank water.

The point is that tanks may be expensive, but they are the most effective means of storing water we have.

Effective how? I would measure the effectiveness by cost. By that measure dams are far more effective.

The government has taken their money, it should at least be spent well.

What are you implying? That taxation is already done and can't be helped now?

This is a good thing, really, a lot of great things come directly out of government grant money, things that a majority do like say for instance the arts.

Things that for various reasons, the free market cannot provide to the extent the public are willing to pay for. Tanks are not one of them.

The money is there, a decentralised system of water tanks is a superior solution to large dams and mains water supply.

In what way? Decentralisation is not inherently 'good'.

The reason I brought up the point about living off your own supply is because when that is all you have you realise how precious water is

That is not the case for the tanks that are given away for free. If people were in that situation they would have already paid for a tank. In fact, the free tanks are ONLY available to people that are already hooked up to the mains water supply. The subsidies are specifically excluded for people who actually need the tanks as their only water supply.

Dams are inefficient, we don't need to build hundreds of dams, the rivers just stop flowing when we do that, we need a far more efficient way of collecting water and storing it.

Reducing water consumption makes far more sense. This is the point that the people who promote subsidies always miss. They have this assumption that we need to go on consuming at the same rate no matter how little water there is and how much it costs to supply it. They would skew the market in favour of excessive consumption rather than conservation.

Why subsidies are a bad idea:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2007 at 10:46am:

Your green tax shift only addresses half the problem, if that.

Firstly, you propose to not raise tax but shift it, ultimately you want net tax reduced correct? You should understand that individual and market demand is only relevant to a fixed volume of capital at the disposal of the individual or market. You are basically proposing to increase that capital by cutting some taxes and then increase taxes on wasteful activities. You may be giving a price signal to consumers through hiking water and fuel costs, but you are also hiking up their demand by handing them more cash, the net result will be far less response in demand than you are seeking since higher prices mean less if people have more money at their disposal to meet those prices.

Secondly, you are talking about altering the demand of demand-inelastic commodities through principles that apply to elastic demand. You can hike the price of water, oil and coal by massive quantities and demand will not shift in any meaningful way, because these are commodities with inelastic demand. I will concede that there is some room in water to reduce waste but only to a point, from which demand cannot be altered and price signals do not work.

Finally, you neglect any means by which to address the causes of this inelastic demand ,and this is where government intervention comes into it. In the case of work generating power sources (oil and coal) this is a technology issue, people can't walk away from these things because there are no current alternatives, price signals do not change this fact. In the case of water there is some degree of flexibility in terms of reduced waste, but again this is a technology issue for a part at least as I have outlined above, our means of collecting, storing and distributing water is wasteful in the extreme. In any case you always consider technology as fixed and unchangeable in the short term but what we really need is to change technology regardless of this. What this means is that by imposing government regulation that will encourage the adoption of new technology, in the short term the economy takes a hit, even if it is beneficial in the long term, businesses and people will be loathe to make such a sacrifice in the short term. This is where the subsidy is effective, it can be used to cause a relatively painless transition to a superior technology before any policy is enacted that will cause the ultimate reductions in waste.

Just think, why do new cars have air bags? Initially of course it was a luxury item, but now it is required in all new cars, there is no cost benefit for cheap Asian imports to have airbags, but they are superior technology and the government requires it. Think of water tanks as the air bags of water supply, they secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of.

I will concede that there is some room in water to reduce waste but only to a point, from which demand cannot be altered and price signals do not work.

There is massive room. Australians use more water per capita than any other country. This is because it is so cheap. We do not have a water shortage problem. We have a water wastage problem. And I am not talking about leaky pipes. I am talking about giving away a scarce resource as if we had an infinite supply of it.

In the case of work generating power sources (oil and coal) this is a technology issue, people can't walk away from these things because there are no current alternatives, price signals do not change this fact.

First of all, you are focussing on alternative sources again and ignoring the option of a reduction in consumption. There is massive scope for improving the efficiency with which water and power is used. Second, there are plenty of alternative power sources, like wind, solar, nuclear etc. Both the alternative sources and the efficiency changes come down to cost, not lack of availability.

What this means is that by imposing government regulation that will encourage the adoption of new technology, in the short term the economy takes a hit, even if it is beneficial in the long term, businesses and people will be loathe to make such a sacrifice in the short term.

You do not need direct government intervention. You just need to adjust the price signals. Direct government intervetion is the wrong way to go about it, because it always presupposes one solution for all. Some companies may want to just pay the extra price and pass it onto consumers and suffer whatever reduction in sales the incur. Some may have several ways to improve efficiency that become economical when the price goes up. Some may have alternative sources that because of local conditions they are more favourable. Government has no business making these decisions for them. The rpice signal should be attached to what matters - carbon emissions or consuming town water. You then let everyone figure out the most economical way of dealing with it. It will be different solutions for different people.

This is where the subsidy is effective, it can be used to cause a relatively painless transition to a superior technology before any policy is enacted that will cause the ultimate reductions in waste.

The subsidy is not painless. A tank still costs society the same amount whether it is subsidised or not. Paying for it through taxation increases the pain for society rather than decreasing it because as well as actually paying for the tank, the taxes slow the economy. Also, it means they will be used where it doesn't make economic sense and never will.

Initially of course it was a luxury item, but now it is required in all new cars

Wrong. They are not mandatory in Australia.

Think of water tanks as the air bags of water supply, they secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of.

There is no meaningful parallel there. Tanks are not a new technology. They are an old technology that needs to be judged on their cost just like any other solution. Furthermore they do not secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of. It's quite the opposite. Dams secure our water in ways that tanks are simply not capable of, at a far lower cost.

---

Bligh considers tax changes in budget

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Bligh-considers-tax-changes-in-budget/2007/05/11/1178390529844.html

Queensland Treasurer Anna Bligh says further incentives to save water will top the agenda as she finalises next month's state budget.

The acting premier also said on Friday the government would provide tax relief if possible, but declined to provide any details.

Ms Bligh said major new water projects and extra rebates for water-saving devices, such as tanks, were "obviously top of the agenda".

She attended the opening of a desalination plant installed as a drought-proofing measure by a Brisbane business which will save enough drinking water for 7,000 people a day.

The $1 million plant was installed by fertiliser manufacturer Incitec Pivot at its Murrarie plant, in Brisbane's east.

The plant will operate until the company starts taking supplies from the western corridor recycled water pipeline, which is due to be completed in December next year.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2007 at 2:28pm:

Weather patterns have changed, right now water is falling on cities and not in catchment areas, dams will do nothing to change this. Tanks are old tech, but efficient and long lasting tanks made of polymers are recent, and far far superior to dams. We need tanks now to catch the water where it is falling, tanks can then store this water in a more efficient way. A report was recently handed to the government demonstrating through cost-benefit analysis that water tanks are superior to dams for water catchment and storage.

What I am saying is that the government should roll out some infrastructure by subsidising tanks, then when you have large market penetration you can excise mains water. I never said anything about not fixing the leaks, I believe it should be done, but how do you propose to stop the evaporation from dams? How do you propose to stop the damage caused to rivers by dams?

What use is a dam if it dries up the river it is located on? What use is a dam if it never fills to begin with? What use is the water in the dam if half of it evaporates into the atmosphere and the other half leaches into the ground? What good is the cheap dirty alternative that destroys the environment when we need to be preserving the environment and paying more for water to begin with?  You might as well change a few words in your argument and say we should keep using coal power but conserve it. The argument does not address the issue! And this is one reason I am getting sick of climate change, there are far more pressing environmental issues out there, such as those caused by damming rivers.

Your arguments just reflect the stupid ignorant attitude that got us where we are in the first place. The water wastage and water storage problems are inextricably linked.

Quote:

Oh dear god you twit, this is exactly what I said! Demand is inelastic in the short term in these industries because it is tied to technology, you cannot just change your technology in the short term. You may be able to force elasticity into the energy market by pushing stupidly high tax hikes but it will only come as a result in a shift in technology. If you push a shift in technology by simply hiking the price of a commodity then over the short term the economy takes a dive, something that businesses and consumers (read: voters) will not tolerate. What I am proposing is that the government assist a change in technology before hiking prices, therefore not doing stupid dangerous things to the economy 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1897777.htm

These economists seem to agree with me...

The full report:
http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_rainwater_tanks.pdf

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2007 at 5:03pm:

Read the report, tanks can be competitive with dams on a per unit basis, in the right situation.

I'd also note that when it doesnt rain, efficiency has a lot to do with the amount wasted.

And ahh... aren't you telling me that you are the one advocating less waste? And yet here you are saying you don't care how much dams waste? Make up your mind!

Quote:

What do you think... look it up if you have to.

Quote:

But that doesn't address the issue of sustainability now does it?

Quote:

The issue absolutely is about where we get electricity from, non renewable resources are not sustainable.

Quote:

If you think I am arguing for wastage then you have not been reading what I have written. Please take the time to read everything again if you missed this point... By advocating dams over water tanks, you are advocating waste, I am advocating conservation in every sense of the word.

Quote:

Exactly what difference does it make?

If a subsidy means families on low incomes will adopt tank water then it is not waste. Again you seem to be massively out of touch with people on low income.

Quote:

Water use (wastage not considered) transport, food and energy are inelastic commodities. This does not mean they do not respond to price signals, it means demand will respond in a negligible way. Everything is elastic, elasticity is relative... way to state the obvious. When you say something is 'inelastic' you simply say that consumption is not effected dramatically by price, ie people have to eat, drink water, drive to work and turn on the lights. Price fluctuations don't change this, they just hurt people when they go up.

Quote:

So you propose to hike prices and let the market suffer the consequences until new technology is adopted? You can only conserve so much water freediver, I can really see that you have not lived off of tanks before...

Quote:

The economists argue the case for increased subsidies!

I am advocating taxes!! I am trying to offer a solution that forces business to carry the weight of the tax, by giving households an alternative.

Read the report, tanks can be competitive with dams on a per unit basis, in the right situation.

Sure in the right situation, but not the current situation. New tanks are not competitive with existing dams. New tanks are not competitive with reduced consumtion and improved efficiency.

What do you think... look it up if you have to.

I want to know what you mean, not what a dictionary says. I am not asking because I don't know what the word means. I am asking in case it is why you aren't making sense.

But that doesn't address the issue of sustainability now does it?

Yes it does. Improved efficiency and reduced consumption adresses sustainability directly. What you promote involves ever increasing consumption in response to scarcity.

The issue absolutely is about where we get electricity from, non renewable resources are not sustainable.

No. See this is where you are wrong. You are wrong because you start by stating the problem incorrectly. If you state that the problem is where we get our electricity from, you only solution will be other sources. If you recognise the real problem (emissions) you will open up far more economical solutions that are just as good (probably better) from an environmental perspective. We need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels before they run out, not because they are running out. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect, we could safely burn them all then switch to renewables as they get scarcer.

If you think I am arguing for wastage then you have not been reading what I have written.

Yes I have. You are arguing for economic wastage for a questionable environmental gain. Do you think the free tank the government is spending a fortune to give me will reduce my water consumption? It won't. It is just more free water. They are lowering the cost of water when they should be icnreasing it. The price signal they send says 'there is nothing wrong with how much water you consume so use as much as you want, the only problem is finding more ways to give you free water.'

By advocating dams over water tanks, you are advocating waste,

No I'm not. The dams are already there. And as I said I am not necessarily arguing in favour of dams. It's not that I don't understand your argument, it's that you don't yet realise the implicit waste behind it.

I am advocating conservation in every sense of the word

Giving away free water in a drought is not conservation.

Exactly what difference does it make?

There are two big differences:

1) It leads to an increase in water consumption when it should be decreasing. It is based on the 'ever more consumption' mentality

2) Even if it does reduce consumption of town water, it does so in a very expensive and roundabout way. It skews the market in favour of one of the options when other options are better in many circumstances. It prevents people from making a decision that is economically rational from societies perspective.

Water use (wastage not considered) transport, food and energy are inelastic commodities.

Wrong. Water use is extremly elastic. So is transport and energy. Food is fairly inelastic on a kJ basis, but is also fairly elastic on a cost basis.

When you say something is 'inelastic' you simply say that consumption is not effected dramatically by price, ie people have to eat, drink water, drive to work and turn on the lights.

People don't need to drive to work. Turing on the lights is not the same as greenhouse emissions. I don't want to tax light switches, or even electricity consumption. I want to tax emissions. There are many ways to achieve the same outcome (light) without the same greenhouse emissions. Water for drinking makes up only a tiny amount of domestic consumption. Look into it. There is massive waste - because water is so cheap.

Price fluctuations don't change this, they just hurt people when they go up.

Here you are ignoring the third word again. Shift.

So you propose to hike prices and let the market suffer the consequences until new technology is adopted?

No. Adopting new technologies is only one of many ways to respond. It tends to be favoured politically because governments are seen to be taking action, but it ignores the reality of the situation.

You can only conserve so much water freediver, I can really see that you have not lived off of tanks before...

You are contradicting yourself. Look into how much water people on tanks (only) vs town water use. You seem to know about this, yet you fail to recognise the huge elasticity it so clearly demonstrates.

The economists argue the case for increased subsidies!

Compared to worse options. They do not argue for them in an absolute sense, only in a relative sense. If you look into it more deeply, you will see that economists strongly favour a green tax shift over subsidies. The economic consensus is strongly on my side on this.

I am advocating taxes!!

You are advocating taxes and bad subsidies. I am advocating taxes and tax cuts. Got it?

I am trying to offer a solution that forces business to carry the weight of the tax, by giving households an alternative.

Look into the economics of this too. The concept is flawed.