Another Tax and More Politics: The ETS Proposed for Australia
Posted by jennifer, December 11th, 2008 - under Good Causes.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Economics
I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.
We have a fundraising target of A$30,000 and already we have already raised just over $11,000 from donations. So we need another A$19,000.
The campaign website will be designed to help build a large online community; providing a place for action as well as information. Those who log on will be able to source information quickly as well as find their local MP so they can send him/her a message.
The website will be designed so that more than one campaign can be running at a time – and old campaigns can be archived. The campaign opposing the ETS will be just the first. The Australian Environment Foundation wants to be able to take a stand, and importantly help its members and supporters be heard, when decisions are being made against the weight of evidence.
So far donations have ranged from $25 to $2,000. Please make a contribution.
If you can make a financial contribution, please go to our website and donate through the PayPal facility using your credit card. http://www.aefweb.info/ .
If you prefer to use Internet banking: Australian Environment Foundation, BSB No: 013 308 Account No: 4978 00416.
Alternatively, send a cheque to the Australian Environment Foundation, PO Box 274, Deakin West, ACT 2600.
There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It is just another tax and more politics.
sorry…I should have included the source of the IPCC graph for anyone trying to follow along. It was listed in cohenite’s post to which I am replying. The IPCC graph is in Chapter 7 of AR4 WG1 at page 515. Here’s the link to Chapter 7:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf
takes a minute to download.
Joel:
“The green Jennifer is talking about is all the environmental things rich countries do that ISN’T CO2 related.”
Okay, that addresses one of my points. So what Jen is arguing for is a similar penalty/permit scheme for other kinds of pollution or environmentally damaging activity? Sounds great to me!
Wait, that’s not it at all. She’s arguing for nothing. She’s against the scheme because it will apparently (it isn’t explained how or why) force these high-CO2 but otherwise wonderfully green businesses overseas. Can she, you or anyone else name a single business that would fall in this category?
I take it nobody wants to touch the other part of what I said. The bit where it’s the rich countries (like us) who should do something, but doing something will make them poor, so they shouldn’t do anything; so they can stay rich and be in a position to do something, except if they do they’ll become poor, so they shouldn’t do anything…
FDB,
I don’t actually agree with many of your assumptions – including that we are particularly rich or developed relative to countries like Indonesia or China.
Consider Indonesia, with a population of just over 200 million, its middle class is arguably richer, more sophisiticated, and considerably larger, than the entire population of Australia.
The name is a bit strange fighting the radical greens with an inviro name is confusing and will be as you will find ,those who oppose this scam for taxes will hardly be falling over themselves to get to an inviro company ,your agenda is good but i also find that confusing too ,its a bit like saying i want you to quit smoking and my name is philip morris ,This is really about people that are fudging the data in order to make money ,lots of money ,there is collusion with news an tv stations leaving data out and not telling the true facts including that it is impossible for any model to predict anything in 100yrs let alone the weather ,clean and green going overseas ,i dont get that at all ,its about time someone questioned the non facts with facts but im not so sure you have the right approach ,sorry if i offended you but i just tell it like it is .
Great idea Jennifer.
Donation made.
This is badly needed. These AGW clowns are giving science a bad name.
Thanks Gordon.
Jennifer, most people are brainwashed and do not understand the POLITICS OF MORE TAXES, regarding climate change. Have a look at at what is happening in Poznan kiddies
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Jennifer, having said that, the $30K for the website is very expensive. I am sure a website could have been put up for next to nix and maintained for next to nix
We are in the BIGGEST financial crisis of global proportions and all governments are all looking at getting more of your tax dollars (the ones that will still have a job in the next few years) to support their BIG FAT Bureaucracy through people’s fears!
To all the people here who are rubbishing Jennifer, people who believe in man made climate change do some research and actually look up Climate Change Scams? Look them up.
Keep an open mind and do your own research, don’t just blindly follow like sheep. Look at the many sites that say it (Global Climate Change due to Man) is a scam and then research to disprove them, if you are so smart!
The evidence is starting to turn AGAINST man made climate change. Check it out. You are being conned. Governments are looking to SCARE YOU, and they will not only TAX you for that priviledge, but, reduce you freedoms as well!
AL Gore has made millions and is still jetting around the world (don’t you find that a teeny weeny bit disconcerting?) to warn of the perils of man made climate change!!!
Kevin Reign (Rudd) signed Kyoto and has been THE MOST TRAVELLED PM in Australian history in his first year! (don’t you find that a teeny weeny bit disconcerting?) Don’t you find that hypocritical?
Wake up! I have children who I love more than life itself, I would not risk them. I have researched and researched and I smell a RAT!
The old saying, Follow the Money. For that matter, have you ever known a government to work efficiently with YOUR MONEY?
We are more in danger of man made pollution of our water and our soil and you can do your bit!!! Recycle, PROPERLY. Get a composite bin. Flatten paper and recycle, don’t buy things made out of plastic, try to buy glass products, and for gods sake, turn off the light when you are not in the room!
AND lobby the government to fine the polluters, BIG BUCKS. I am talking MILLIONS. That will certainly make them clean up their act FAST. (ps just a little hint, governments won’t go hard on BIG POLLUTERS because they donate BIG BUCKS) Corruption!
We can’t save the world, and if you really want to and are passionate about it, like SJT “Shouldn’t you be spending that $30,000 on saving lives in the third world by ending malaria and giving people fresh water?” go to the 3rd world and educate them!
Dont believe everything you are fed. You are the luckiest generation as far as information is concerned and you are too busy believing tv and the newspapers. THey Lie! They have agendas!
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, WITHOUT WHINGEING ABOUT WHOSE FAULT IT IS! (ok I stole that one from JFK, except for the whingeing bit, true Assie there :))
Form your OWN opinions, not those that are fed to you by people with agendas!
Please see here the ULTIMATE INSANITY of the ETS. (TAX)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/protesting_against_gassy_greens/#commentsmore
‘Consider Indonesia, with a population of just over 200 million, its middle class is arguably richer, more sophisticated, and considerably larger, than the entire population of Australia’
If this is accurate then perhaps they will turn up their noses at Australian businesses wanting to relocate and who can blame them.
But Jennifer I don’t feel you have answered FDB and my questions, or given evidence, on why an ETS won’t work e.g. why its going to force industries off shore (and if it does will that matter as us tax payers might save some money) and finally the idea that only rich countries can choose to look after the environment etc.
I haven’t seen on this set of postings much evidence that people actually have an understanding of the aspects that make up the design of an ETS. I am skeptical about the worth of an ETS but thats because there are many things that can dilute its design e.g. handing out free permits or mis connecting the number of permits with the amount of emissions across a period of time. Thats why I think you can’t just have an ETS or run it in isolation from Complementary Measures (howls of protest from the religious fundamentalists at the Productivity Commission). One of the problems wrt to an ETS in Australia has been that lots of people have thought its is a silver bullet and its not, even Garnaut and Stern state separately that its not.
So what would you say on your proposed website that hasn’t already been said as per the above and as people become more realistic about Emissions Trading as they come to understand it then what purpose will your website serve?
I wonder how much the Internet Campaign site http://www.getup.org.au cost to set up. And I wonder how much it costs to run.
They raised A$30,000 in just one day not so long ago –
“Political activists GetUp have raised over $30,000 in less than a day to support their fight against the Government’s plan to censor the internet, a response the group has described as “unprecedented”.
The money will be put towards an advertising blitz designed to inform the public of the consequences of the plan, which experts say include slower internet speeds, significant false positives, failure to stop people from subverting the filters and the risk that the blacklist will be expanded to include the blocking of regular pornography, political views, gambling and pro-abortion sites.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/cash-floods-in-for-anticensorship-protests/2008/12/05/1228257282965.html
I am interested but why is Rudd’s photo here?
Jeremy C.
Why would you expect an ETS to work? There is no real market for carbon!
Paul Howes had a good piece in The Australian yesterday:
“THE hypocrisy of big banks such as Westpac and National Australia Bank that signed up to a corporate communique on climate change calling for aggressive unilateral targets needs to be exposed.
“Having participated in what can be described only as a global stuff-up of our financial system, they now are trying to tell Australian corporations that operate in the real economy, and generate real wealth and real jobs, how to behave on climate change.
“It’s time their dishonest motivation was exposed. Now that the huge profits made out of shoring up risky mortgage markets and fancy financial products have unwound – devastating the lives of countless millions of ordinary citizens – the banks are looking to create a new source of revenue from carbon-trading markets.
“I wonder how responsive they will be, safely wrapped in the cocoon of a government guarantee, when Australia’s coal-fired power generators come knocking on the door for debt refinancing to help them cope with the new carbon-trading world.
“The ANZ bank already has announced hundreds of job cuts, said to be more than 2per cent of its workforce. Employees at Westpac and elsewhere are steeling themselves for cuts. These bank workers, and the families they support, are the ones who will pay for the irresponsible management of financial regulation and poor loan practices of the past several years.
“Now the same people responsible for that debacle want to kill jobs in the real economy by calling for action far in excess of what Australia can realistically achieve without a comprehensive global agreement.”
And it’s not going to be my website, and it’s not going to be a blog site. It is will be a dedicated campaign site run by a team of volunteers from the AEF.
Perhaps I have come in late on this. What a bunch of idiot comments. Here is Jennifer trying to dumb down a complex message into a form that most of the populace can understand and what we get is pedantic carping over trivialities.
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
Message has been simplified: where the operative word is NOT .
Since many people believe that an ETS WILL change global temperatures.
This is a complex issue for sure but it has been brought down to a single
statement that counters the message being promulgated by the government
and others – that an ETS will change global temperatures.
2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
Message has been simplified: Australia has a relatively controlled manufacturing
and energy producing environment compared to other countries, with high focus
on the reduction of actual pollutants (rather than CO2, which is not a pollutant).
Penalising such high-standard industries based on their “carbon economy” will
give advantage to overseas manufacturing where critical standards (not to
mention labor conditions) are poorer or non-existent.
3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.
Message has been simplified and this is a parallel argument to the second point:
The quality of Australia’s industrial standards is tied to its wealth and living standards.
An ETS is an effective waste of resources (human capital) and thus by definition
(although perhaps not by GDP definition) Australia will (a) be poorer for it and
(b) result in poorer environmental outcomes.
PS The link for the full piece from which I drew the above quote is here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24781908-7583,00.html
And in advance, don’t criticise me for quoting someone from the AWU. I’m an empiricist – from a Labor Party family, who works for a think tank often associated with the Australian Liberals (for US readers Australian liberals represent the conservative side of politics here).
Thanks KJS. Spot on.
Having read the comments here I feel inspired to contribute, regardless of quibbles about cost-effectiveness. The tone of her critics makes me do it.
“Why would you expect an ETS to work? There is no real market for carbon! ”
Ultimately, all markets are an abstraction. Money is only paper, or, even worse, just variations in the magnetic field on a spinning disk in some darkened room somewhere. It works because we want it to work. Just look at the state the markets are in now. Make people question their suspension of disbelief, and chaos results.
Good move Jen and I’m in for $200 initially and more when required – cheques in the media transport system. And why respond to the likes of SJT over the cost of running a site when they are guzzling on the the fat tit of the Department of Climate Change or whatever? Don’t be drawn in (and what has SJT – ‘just variations in the magnetic field on a spinning disk in some darkened room somewhere’ – been smoking tonight anyway?). They have millions of bucks of our money and nothing to do but shout the correct message by blog during their day job, but we have brains on our side. It’s a house of cards so woohoo!
Lazlo
Jennifer,
I am a skeptic on the worth of an ETS, as per my previous posts. You are correct about it being an artificial market for carbon. And don’t forget the scenarios where emissions could increase under an ETS.
Concerning Paul Howes’ article, remember the ETS work was around before the present financial mess up emerged and its a bit rich taking his advantage of the present financial problems to slam dealing with CO2e emissions and I’m not convinced about the poor coal fired generators for two reasons:
i. A while ago I was dealing with a combined electricity network distributor and retailer and on the issue of supply from generators they were completely agnostic. That must be far more scary for the coal fireds than dealing with the banks on Howes’ hypothetical future.
ii. The coal fireds have known for years that emissions reduction is coming yet they have steadfastley refused to rejig their business plans. Sensible and serious efforts at emisioins reduction might show that a centralised baseload system is out of date and inefficient as there are a range of measures that can be combined to present availability and security of electricity supply. The coal fireds could just be left behind and why should I worry if that happens.
This is off the topic but my idea is that Australian industry and business is inefficient because our electricity costs are so low and that increasing costs of supply could
KJS.
Simplicity does not automatically equal accuracy. It requires work and an understanding of the subject to arrive at simplicity. Using ETS = cooling is inaccurate and misleading and why would you want to use something inaccurate and misleading, it will just defeat the purpose of what you are trying to do and you will lose credibility.
I have given a bunch of reasons as to why I think businesses wil not go offshore and no one has answered those yet plus my criticism of the faith statement that only rich countries can afford to look after the environment.
So Jennifer what are going to be your sources of accurate information and evidence that ETS in Australia wont work
Whoops! Let me finish that last sentence…
‘This is off the topic but my idea is that Australian industry and business is inefficient because our electricity costs are so low and that increasing costs of supply could’ just help the economy become more efficient.
Whoops
Yep, no worries Jennifer. I’ll support a website committed to opposing an ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme) or any tax regime designed to declare CO2 as malignant or polluting and attempts to tax the production of it.
It will be modest, but I’ll rattle the tin at my little network of friends and plumb the depths of their pockets, for a bit extra… ;-)
…. Oh… and you mob out there reading this who received $1400 bucks from Uncle Kev…. C’mon strip a 140 bucks orf that and send it to Jennifer…. It’s bloody not yours anyway…. Now there’s an Irony…. hehe.
Jennifer,
I applaud your initiative; it is a good start. You and at least 650 scientists are shining the light on why man made global warming does not exist.
I would like to support you with contributions, however, your premise in your request already accepts some of the wacko environmentalist terminology i.e. ‘climate change’. It started out being global warming and it is my belief it must remain with the term ‘global warming’ & we should not allow this term to be softened or smoothed by the left. Especially since evidences are proving that we are now entering a cooling phase. Climate can not be changed, it can not be damaged, destroyed or even created by us and it does not particularly care what type of light bulb one uses.
I shall monitor your progress on the website.
Best of luck
Sunny
Mermaid Waters, QLD
Happy to donate $100 to such a worthy cause. Those posts about the high cost are typical of the theorists who have never run a business and have no idea of costs.
You will cop a lot of flack for your effort Jennifer because the last thing the greenies and their cohorts want is organised opposition to their cause.
By the way when I clicked the button to review my donation details it all went a bit haywire pls confirm you did receive, you have my email.
[...] Jennifer Marohasy, December 11, [...]
Jeremy C – “I have given a bunch of reasons as to why I think businesses wil not go offshore and no one has answered those yet…”
All of the reasons you stated were pretty unsupported, as you admitted. The problem with your argument is that many industries (all of the large ones) are already multinational, hence shifting operations is not as difficult as you argue. Alumina is one example. Can you give any evidence that the aluminium industry is lying when they say Australian jobs will be lost? Whole operations may not shutdown, but its relatively easy for Alcoa as an example to shift significant production to China.
Jeremy C – “Using ETS = cooling is inaccurate and misleading and why would you want to use something inaccurate and misleading…”
The public is being bombarded by the Rudd government to reduce “carbon pollution”. You don’t call THAT “misleading”?!? Carbon pollution is supposed to be the route of global warming, hence any rational person joins the dots and thinks ETS = less global warming. I’m happy to argue semantics with you all day, but cooling and less warming are pretty damn similar. From an energy perspective they are the same.
Trying to waylay the obvious is part of the “Green’s” hysterical ranting about a non-existing event..
Global warming is a myth and supported by ignorant, self-appointed so called specialist whose only claim to fame is lying..
Europe is finally waking up to the “Great Global Warming Scam” and so should Australia..
By the way, you voted those clowns into office and now you are going to pay, and pay for a long time to come with no effect except growing poverty..
Well Done..
Call me when Volcanoes stop spewing billions of tons of carbon in the air every year..
“I don’t quite recall McIntyre putting that way. I think he said something more to the effect that CO2 densities were not in his field and he didn’t want to get into discussing stuff like that.
Someone on climateaudit actually knew Beck and pointed out that Beck was only trying to collate existing information. It’s not Beck’s fault that Nobelists did work that refuted IPCC claims.”
You think McIntyre is going to pass up the chance to move on to something new? At the moment, he’s just a one trick pony, and getting to be indistinguishable from a record with a scratch on it.
He won’t touch Beck because he knows becks statistical analysis is a joke. There is nothing wrong with the measurements of local CO2 levels that Beck is using, but they are not well mixed, and just represent local conditions. Hence the need for Mauna Loa to be established, to get the real background CO2 levels. If you think Mauna Loa is wrong, Australia has Cape Grim, and there are other properly set up stations around the world that confirm the Mauna Loa readings.
Jeffery Sachs the economist to the UN Secretary General and believer in AGW is critical of ETS -
“It’s such a mess administratively. It covers only a fraction of what needs to be covered. It’s hard to implement. It’s hard to monitor. It’s not transparent, it’s highly manipulative – which is why the banks love it.
Two points.
Its looks like another derivative for the financial industry to play around with and see how much money they can make before it all goes bust ala Mortgage Backed Securities.
Secondly, I think it is misleading and confusing to call it a tax. In fact I would prefer a straight carbon tax, at least the Government gets the money and it could be used for environmental issues. A carbon tax might even cut back on our insatiable and unsustainable reliance on oil.
Tried to donate by AnyPay, but was told the payee name was too long and the account number has too many digits.
[...] campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear: I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign [...]
[...] campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear: I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign [...]
“You and at least 650 scientists are ” that number is a lie.
Beck only has a Diploma, and is a science teacher, for a start.
and Freeman Dyson has only a Masters (or maybe less), and he is (IMHO) the greatest living scientist on the Planet.
SJT, I always considered you a pompous arrogant twit, you have now proved it.
People are judged on their accomplishments, not whether they have a certain piece of paper or not.
and I know some top astrophysicists who have, at some time in their career, taught high school. One in particular produced a thesis that was seminal. He is now back in research.
Next you will be telling me that Flannery is an expert climatologist (ROFL).
Joel,
Apoligies for not replying earlier. However I have a question wrt to your post. Why are you bringing up the aluminium industry? Are you making the assumptions that its one of Jennifer’s ‘clean and green industries’? I haven’t seen a list of the industries or sectors that Jennifer regards as ‘clean and green’ and that they need protecting from an ETS.
And thinking about it if an industry is ‘clean and green’ then why the assumption it needs protecting from an ETS? Surely a contradiction.
But back to the Aluminium Industry. Are you sure it will shift OS under an ETS? Can you tell give me figures that say compare the CO2e emissions from one tonne of Aluminum produced in Australia compared with the equivalent produced in say China or New Zealand. Also what’s the amount subsidy given to the Aluminium industry each year, say per head of employees across the industry?
If the aluminium industry in Australia can produce output with the same carbon foot print as aluminium producers in the third world and other places then as above what has it got to worry about from an ETS….?
‘Beck only has a Diploma, and is a science teacher, for a start.’ And Flannery is a complete fake who is being paraded in the Fairfax/ABC media in Poznan, and who are you SJT? Those who live by the ad hom…
Go for it!
It’s great to see a ‘Green’ group going against the grain.
Co2 is NOT a pollutant folks, so why is the ETS called ‘Carbon pollution reduction scheme’???
It’s a psychological ploy!
Following is a link to a website about The Club of Rome, a premier international think tank, responsible for coming up with the lie about Global Warming and the joke that it is being caused by your average joe. Back in 1992 they publilshed a major report entitled ” The First Global Revolution” . Here is a quote from that report, ” in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill” .
Here is another quote from ” The First Global Revolution”. , ” It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one imagined for this purpose”. The Club of Rome works with the United Nations to develop Policy Guidance Documents, which the U.N. uses in creating its policies and programs.
————————
The whole Gaia worship by radical green groups is nothing but a depopulation agenda at riding the earth of ‘useless eaters’.
Forget the cafe-latte sipping wanna-be environmentalists, all they are worried about is “Their’ environment being impacted by scum like us. Keep the world from breeding useless eaters and away form their cafes.
Another thing.
Where are these Green groups on Aspartame, Fluoride, Melamine, GMO, Cross-species chimeras, Mercury in vaccines??????????????? NOWHERE. They are just controlled opposition.
What about the land seizures by these Enviro-thugs who then don’t care if the land is developed into golf courses?
Jeremy C – “If the aluminium industry in Australia can produce output with the same carbon foot print as aluminium producers in the third world and other places then as above what has it got to worry about from an ETS….?”
Because countries such as China won’t implement an ETS and probably never will! By its very nature processing aluminium is energy intensive, so higher energy prices caused from an ETS will hit it hard.
If you can’t see this then there’s not much point in answering the rest of your post.
“People are judged on their accomplishments, not whether they have a certain piece of paper or not. ”
Morano has made a specific claim. It is false. He didn’t claim “scientists, and others who have shown by their accomplishments…”.
If you are going to judge Beck by his accomplishments, I am afraid you are just making the case even weaker.
Definitions of scientist:
Merriam-Webster – A person learned in science and especially natural science.
Oxford – A person who has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Wikipedia – A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.
SJT, you are the one making false claims with your narrow-minded definition of “scientist”.
Jennefer;
A link for your readers’ education.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
USA environment public works with answers to scientists not doing the goose step.
[...] notes that the Europeans are going cold on their emissions trading scheme, and she is leading a fight against an Australian ETS, and asking for your help. JC notes that James Hanson is also opposed to the ETS. Jim Fryar joins [...]