Last week the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that carbon emissions would be taxed from July 1, 2012.
The Prime Minister explained that by making products that generate carbon emissions more expensive, people will use less of them and this will be a good thing for Australia.
For example, if the carbon tax increases the average Australian family’s electricity bill by $500 and the electricity bill of an average small business by $2,000, families and businesses will use less electricity and this will be a good thing for Australia.
At the same time the Prime Minister announced the tax, she explained that families would be compensated for any increase in electricity charges. But how will families be compensated? The Prime Minister must be careful that families are not compensated in a way that would result in them using more electricity.
Indeed, wouldn’t it make more sense if the Prime Minister didn’t compensate anyone for the tax?
*******
http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/climate-change-framework-announced
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good stuff Charlotte, of course it would make more sense if there was no compensation and of course it will lead to more use of carbon based goodies.
Problem is the loss of votes would be so horrendous that they’d be booted out at the next election and hopefully wouldn’t return for 10 to 20 years.
That will probably happen with a smaller swing anyway because of this tax plus the fact that this govt is led by a liar and is even more hopeless and useless than the krudd govt before it.
Fact is even if we shut down Australia for the next 100 years the effect on CC would be diddily squat because all the developing world emissions would replace our tiny contribution many times over that period.
Don’t forget the developing world won’t even consider a carbon tax and China and India ( combined )have an extra 1.5 billion people at least that would like a home with electricity and all the mod cons we take for granted.
But gee 1.5 billion people is only 750 times Australi’s population, surely they wouldn’t produce and emit much co2 on their road to modernity?
Good point Charlotte and Neville
It is quite amusing that there is likely no net gain in either revenue or reducing CO2 emissions. The only thing I can see happening is we will be paying yet another bunch of self important and over paid federal bureaucrats! You realise that the Government is in the process of creating a whole new department that needs to be staffed and therefore paid wages don’t you? It will also have to fund a whole plethora of new inquiries and feasibility studies and university studies and etc, etc, etc bloody etc!
And the productive or environmental gains from this manoeuvre? HMMM? Can anyone see another benefit?
Of course anyone who can see employment & government funding possibilities from this will think it’s an excellent idea.
The real question is what are the economic, market and CO2 reduction gains? Isn’t it?
Spot on Debbie, but if we are to ponder this stupid tax what about the 10% (?) pledged to the UN? I mean how many billions will that add up to and how much more corruption and fraud will it encourage?
This idiot govt led by this pathetic liar couldn’t get any worse could it?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/just_answer_the_question_prime_minister/
Good stuff from Lomborg and pig ignorance from Tony Jones on Lateline.
Video and transcript available.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm
“It is quite amusing that there is likely no net gain in either revenue or reducing CO2 emissions.”
So what is your problem, Debbie?
Rog,
I guess you think it’s a great idea that we are further taxed so we can fund a new bureaucratic department and a whole new set of government funding for no measurable gain to either the economy or the environment?
Otherwise, hopefully, you were practicing the great art of irony?
So, just in case.
My problem is that there is likely to be a great amount of social upheaval, all of us getting slugged with more taxes AND there will be no true benefit in reducing CO2 emissions or in our economy.
So frankly I see it as an incredible waste of time and money and resources.
Did I explain the problem OK that time?
test
Debbie,
with all due respect you started off OK with the “I” bit but came unstuck with the next bit, “guess you think”
Why do you people continue with ‘guessing what other people think’ thing?
As for the rest of what you say, why it’s just all guesssing, guessing and more guessing.
BTW, any sign of this elusive Mr Harris?
Harris is still AWOL. I ‘guess’ Jen will clarify.
Rog,
Your comments about Harris are becoming tedious and are off-topic given this thread.
As I have explained I don’t know who Harris is/was, but consider the quotes (posted elsewhere) insightful and particularly relevant in the context of some of the discussions at this blog.
Gee Rog,
With all due respect, I’m not all that enamoured with the idea that we’re likely to be taxed on guessing, guessing, guessing either!
Instead of trying to make fun of the developing discussion in a rather empty and sarcastic manner, how about you advance your case about the actual topic that is being discussed here?
What is your opinion or your observations of the original post by Charlotte?
Sarcasm and vague comments about someone named Harris don’t really achieve much.
Of course, with all due respect Rog.
Where do I start with this Carbon Tax? It really beggars belief that this government cannot see the far reaching negative affects this policy will have on families and business in this country. It is nothing more than a product of grubby back room politics designed to appease a certain minority group and their viewpoint in order to secure support for a weak and lost government. It has ZERO to do with emissions or the environment. We are being told we need this tax to reduce emissions; to transform our economy and bring it into the 21st century. We are being told we are smart and we will find ways to adapt in a low carbon economy. Well that sounds great if you’re smart enough to work out how you can run your home or business without electricity or fuel or food or products and services that haven’t used fuel or electricity within their production or delivery. I suppose you could trade “hot air”, now that’s a novel idea! At the end of the day the only “certainty” this tax will bring is 1. All us apparently greedy (greedy also means employed to some of a certain political persuasion 🙂 people will be poorer and 2. Our businesses will be less competitive, thus risking jobs.
My apologies for being tedious, I promise to never mention Harris again.
A carbon tax has been in use in various European countries without any discernible impact on their economies, no social upheaval – why not look at the success/failure of their models?
As to the topic under review, there is no evidence that compensation will induce greater usage of a taxed product.
A similar discussion is happening over at the ABC’s Unleashed (Mungo McCullum) and I was shocked (shocked I tell you) at the large number of zealots commenting.
Rog, it must be gratifying to know you’re in the majority?
Meanwhile China will be building 1000 CF power stations in the next ten years and hundreds more will be built in the rest of the developing world.
Australia over that time will be hammering its citizens with a carbon tax to hopefully reduce co2 by 5% or 1.3% less .07 = 1.23% of the worlds co2 emissions.
As we hurt our economy for zero return on our investment and hurt our citizens by making all our energy supplies ( plus everything else) much more expensive we will be selling much more coal and iron ore overseas so that other countries can build more power stations and infrastructure, producing much higher levels of co2.
While our jobs and businesses head off overseas we will be content with reducing our emissions by a paltry .07% of global emissions, an ammount replaced in a matter of months ( and then forever )by the hyper developing world.
What hypocrisy to hurt our own citizens and country and at the same time merrily export increasing tonnes of coal so other countries can prosper and become wealthier and send much higher levels of co2 into the atmosphere.
What sort of delusional, bi polar disorder is that?
rog
“A carbon tax has been in use in various European countries without any discernible impact on their economies,”
Anyone who makes a sweeping statement like that without backing it up, is not worth listening to.
Germany lost a great part of its chemical industry to China.
France refused to apply a carbon tax. Spain is in financial trouble because of the massive subsidies
it pays for renewable energy productions.
If you want to know more about it read this,
http://www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf
Thanks for your comments Rog,
I had the opportunity to listen to the upper and lower house debates/question times during the week as I was driving in ever decreasing circles preparing country for next year’s cropping porgram.
I will first note that I was rather disgusted with the childish and churlish behaviour of our elected representatives on both sides of parliament, but I was keenly listening for the philosphy behind their positions on the carbon tax.
I did not like the personal attacks and recriminations but I have to agree that Ms Gillard did definitely state that there would be no carbon tax in a parliament that she leads.
Now that there seems we are going to have one and she is saying it’s because it’s what this country needs to do I would dearly love to hear why it really is something that Australia needs to do.
So far, and it appears that Rog agrees with this, the only oft repeated argument is that we risk being left behind the rest of the world. It seems as if our government has to do this because the rest of the world is looking at it.
This is my problem. There is compelling evidence that the rest of the world, particularly countries like China and India, have absolutely no intention of doing any such thing.
Not only that but as Neville points out, Australia as a nation contributes diddly squat to CO2 emmissions globally and therefore this grand plan to reduce our emissions by 5% will not achieve any stated noble goals to reduce global emissions.
Tony from Oz points out elsewhere on this blog that our coal fired power stations cannot really reduce emissions because of the way they’re designed. Slugging them with a tax will just mean they will have to pass the cost on to consumers.
The next oft repeated goal is that we need to move towards a clean energy economy. That sounds reasonable and quite noble, but there is absolutely no explanation how charging a bloody tax will achieve that goal!
As regular visitors to this blog know, the clean energy alternatives are regularly blocked by several different lobby groups but particularly the greens.
What are our clean alternatives?
Nuclear? Well they don’t like that.
Wind? Well that one is good but so far the technology is not capable of supplying power reliably. We have plenty of evidence globally that testifies to that. We also have environmental groups complaining that wind farms are interfering with surrounding ecosystems and also they are too noisy etc….
Hydro? An excellent and time tested alternative BUT (and this is a whopper), we would have to build more dams and diversion infrastructure and the greens definitely don’t like that! Look what happened to TAS when they tried to do it! Look what happens anytime a State Govt tries to put new dams and diversion infrastructure on their agendas. This is clean energy and reliable energy but at this stage has very little chance of political success.
Solar? It definitely has possibilities but my understanding is it suffers from unreliabilty and that the batteries and storage methods are highly unpopular with lobby groups.
Geothermal? This is wrong for me to say, but, because Tim Flannery supports this one I am immediately suspicious! I am also of the understanding that the technology is not up to scratch and that the expense associated with this one is mind boggling. I’m also wondering if it’s a good idea to mess with geothermal energy? There could be rather scary unintended consequences from doing that.
I’m sure there could be others. We have bio fuels but of course we will have to crop millions and millions of extra hectares globally to supply the raw material for them and I’m sure that won’t be popular!
So how is charging a tax going to help us over these hurdles? Where is the evidence to prove that will happen?
The stated goals do sound reasonable and noble but there is no oomph behind them!
I do believe it’s a good idea to move towards clean energy, I just don’t believe that creating a new bureaucracy and loudly stating unfounded goals about social restructuring and major economic reform will achieve the stated goal. I also don’t believe that the rest of the world intends to do it and that somehow means we risk being left behind. Even if that was true, how does charging a tax solve that dilemna?
As Charlotte also pointed out, it’s also absurd to compensate households so that they can then obviously continue consuming the same amount of energy and continue to increase their consumption of energy!
I also agree with Neville’s point about our Government loudly proclaiming the need to reduce emissions but then happily increasing our CO2 emitting exports so the rest of the world can increase their emissions. HUH? Definitely bi polar!
I’ve shown this before but the first two charts here are important if you want to understand the incredible scale of Chinese development.
The timeline starts at 1990 and goes to 2030, but the first couple of charts are amazing to look at and just try and comprehend. Click to enlarge.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
How I wish Juliar and labor could comprehend their embarrassing stupidity.
At the site where I contribute, I’m an Editor, and I get to select the Posts that are scheduled for the day, as well as adding my own there too.
More than 2 years back now, I contacted Andrew Bolt, and asked if if he might allow us to copy some of his Posts across to our site, and he kindly permits us to take one of his Posts a day.
Four days back now, he Posted an article indicating the largest CO2 emitters by Company. In that Post he included an image of a list of those Companies, and that Post is at the following link:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/can_your_boss_afford_to_pay_another_60_million_a_year_to_gillard/
When I copied the Post across to our site, I added something to the image by placing small black squares against those Companies that are in fact providers of electrical power.
The copied Post at our site with the amended image is at this link:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/can-your-boss-afford-to-pay-another-100-million-a-year-to-gillard/
Compare the two images.
15 of the top 20 Companies by emissions of CO2 are in fact providers of electrical power.
If this, er, ‘price on Carbon’ (Dioxide) is introduced, rest assured that all those added costs to those big Emitters, (as Bob and Christine always refer to them as) will be passed directly down to consumers.
The two images are stark when you are aware of their context.
Tony.
Worse than getting a large and increasing price on electricity, is the imapct on the viability of the producers of electricity.
The whole idea BEHIND this new tax, and one that the government and the greens do not talk about, is to keep increasing this tax until electricity generated from coal is no longer viable and the companies close down.
Despite all the starry eyed talk, there is no viable to coal based electrcity for Australia for many generations to come.
Most commentators are not aware how financial markets work.
Once banks come to realise that the generators will not be viable in the future, then they will not renew their loans to the generators.
(Would you put your super money into a non viable business? I certainly would not).
Once the loans are withdrawn, the generators will close and our whole electricity network will collapse.
This is not scaremongering and is why former PM Rudd sent a merchant bank helter skelter to rescure a Victorian generator a year or so ago, when it seemed that banks, fearing the loss of their money, were about to pull the plug.
The financial market works much quicker than politics.
The government is playing with fire and does not understand, any more than they understood the housing insulation fiasco.
Australians and Americans and all westerners should note closely that Britain is now telling its citizens that thinks to AGW policy demands, electricity is no loner a dependable commodity.
Electricity is an essential of life these days, and to place a huge tax on the direct source of what supplies 60 to 65% of all power that is required absolutely, 24 hours of every day is tantamount to suicide for any Government, and once they realise this, or more importantly, once the people realise this and throw them out, that Government is virtually signing itself into oblivion.
People think of electricity as what they consume in a household environment.
Virtually everything you do, work play, shop, live, depends on access to a constant, regulated and regular supply of electricity.
Tony.
Thanks for that Tony,
I went to your link, how interesting!
How can we possibly educate enough people about the absurdity of this tax?
Obviously people must believe those evil polluting power companies can just suddenly and magically change how they produce power?
Or maybe they think that they can slow down or turn off the turbines after 8pm or something similar?
I guess as you pointed out in your post, it is very hard to explain because the process is rather complex.
The power companies are of course going to put their prices up, what other choices do they have?
Look how much extra this tax is going to cost them at $26/tonne.
And as Charlotte pointed out on the domestic front, how is helping power companies through the transition (pollie talk today) going to encourage them to stop polluting?
I’m also interested to know if anyone can figure out just how this tax is going to achieve the stated goals?
I really believe we should be looking to alternative and cleaner power sources but I can’t see how this grand plan to er ‘price carbon’ (and how come we don’t hear the 02 anymore?) will achieve that.
I’m entirely unconvinced and very confused!
I also found that Bolt had more to say on the subject here.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/combet-admits-to-the-great-carbon-tax-con/
A carbon dioxide tax is on the nose in NSW just before the election.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-mugs-kristina-keneally/story-fn59niix-1226016177155
Also saw somewhere that Flannery has resigned from his Coastwatcher’s job.
AND why are we even considering this crazy scheme; oh; to cut dangerous man made carbon dioxide emissions and combat dangerous man made global warming
Just to add a bit of perspective on that dangerous man made global warming
2010 – where does it fit in the warmest year list?
1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998. But does it really matter? Regardless of which year wins the temperature adjustment battle, how significant will that be? To answer that question, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia.
….
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#more-30425
(the links to Dr Ira Glickstein in the article are well worth reading too)
AND Professor Carter on why is no one discussing the science
…
Despite this lack of evidence for dangerous, or potentially dangerous, warming, and despite the lack of efficacy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions as a means of preventing the trivial warming that is likely to occur (cutting all of Australia’s emissions would theoretically prevent, perhaps, around one-thousandth of a degree of warming), the political course in Canberra is now set on carbon tax autopilot, and the plane is flying squarely into the eye of a storm that is labelled “let’s spin a regressive new tax as a virtuous environmental measure”.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science
The timing of this tax I suspect has more to do with getting figures to put into the budget than saving the world – we can expect another budget of smoke and mirrors
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science
and as to China’s carbon cap much trumpeted yesterday Ken Stewart has been doing some calculations
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/chinas-claytons-carbon-cap/
Four times I heard on ABC radio this morning, confirmed by a Google search, that China has unveiled a plan to produce 11% of its power from non-fossil (i.e. nuclear) fuels by 2015, and to cap its energy consumption from fossil fuels at 4 billion tonnes of coal equivalent. Wow! And just in time to shame Australians who aren’t keen on Julia Gillard’s (or anyone’s ) Carbon Tax.
…
and what’s it mean for keeping the lights on?
British families have been told the shocking truth about the price of green energy. They must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods, warns UK’s top electricity boss.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/31784.html
And exactly what difference to the temperature will Gillard’s tax make?
DEAR Prime Minister Gillard,
Thank you for making the weather nicer by forcing us to pay more for everything. Who knew that fixing the global climate was so simple?
Still, one or two questions remain about your new plan and a few related matters.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/and_exactly_what_difference_to_the_temperature_will_gillards_tax_make
there’s a list of questions; I like this one:
INSTEAD of creating a tax system that eventually gives people their money back, why not just let them keep their own damn money in the first place?
but you might think of a few more
final one for the day; there’s an online petition
http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/
I love the part where we are told that every cent raised will be returned to the people.
Wait a minute.
1. Those ‘big emitters’ (in the main, the electricity providers) pay into the Government coffers, and because their cost is so huge, they pass those costs down to consumers. So those ‘big emitters’ get their money back ….. from the consumers. So, really, there’s no need for them to ease back on their emissions.
2. If all the money raised by Government is then returned to the people so that they are not financially worse off, then the people get their money that they paid to ‘the emitters’ back. So, really, there’s no need for the people to change the way they use things that cause greater emissions, like, er, using less electricity.
Those proposing this must think we’re a pack of idiots if they think we will actually believe that. No, there’s a buck in this for the Government, and a big buck at that, a very big one.
Tony.
Renewables cannot supply enough baseload in Britain to keep the lights on.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-janfeb-11-renewables-will-not-keep-the-lights-on-john-constable-wind-power-energy
Are we witnessing the decline of western civilization?
Well said Tony,
That observation
“there’s a buck in this for the Government, and a big buck at that, a very big one.”
Is the only one that actually makes sense.
All the other pro and con arguments really don’t make sense at all.
This one posted by Val is also good:
“let’s spin a regressive new tax as a virtuous environmental measure”.
I know I keep asking but does anyone know HOW an Australian carbon (02) tax will assist in creating a clean energy global environment?
I find it rather disappointing that the only arguments raised by our elected representatives are nothing but political rhetoric.
Even though they loudly proclaim it as a “virtuous environmental measure” there is not one tiny scrap of evidence about HOW they are going to achieve their virtuous environmental goals.
If I could see some solid evidence that this tax would actually foster a reliable clean energy alternative, I would support it.
All I can see is more of our money going to pay yet another department full of self important bureaucrats. The remainder will go to funding another group of “scientists” who will happily accept the money to prove that there is a reason to keep the new bureaucrats! They will have to spend all of it to justify their own existence!
Also, what’s all this “market driven” rubbish?
Isn’t that basically another form of ETS? That just means that governments are creating a false economy around carbon doesn’t it? Moving a lot of money around, collecting a lot of tax but (and this is the annoying part) no actual financial or environmental gain at the end.
I don’t know about anyone else but I really can’t see the point of creating a whole new economy around something that doesn’t actually return a thing, either financially or for the environment.
The losers are the taxpayers, the winners are those who get a job from it and also those who receive lucrative grants from it. The ultimate loser would have to be our own economy because we are blindly investing in something that HAS NO RETURN!
WAYNE Swan assured voters today that a carbon price would not hit their hip pockets directly as Labor sought to blunt a Coalition fear campaign on the cost of living.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/wayne-swan-moves-to-ease-carbon-tax-fears/story-e6frg6xf-1226016628626
but wait … would you believe anything this Government says; I don’t
and Tony correct me if I’m wrong but I have heard for every green created job there are over 3 lost jobs in a non green job
BUT I think Prof Carter has the right approach; think about the science; are we feeling warmer yet? To quote (I think) Barry Brill
A few statments , past, present, & future by our Labor.
1/- There will be no carbon tax by a government I lead.
2/- Well everyome knew I really meant to have a tax on carbon, to save the world.
3/- We will compensate everyone, so no one will be worse off with our carbom tax.
4/- A carbon tax will help produce lots of high paying green jobs, [in the public service].
5/- We are sorry our carbon tax cost you your job, home & everything you had worked for, but aren’ t you happy we saved the world.
6/- WE can’t understand why you don’t love us.
Which one, if any, do you think might be true?
Hasbeen, it’s no 1, and the current Deputy PM said it as well in slightly different terms
AND Now do you believe anything they say?
NONE of us will be worse off?
Jobs will grow?
I didn’t watch Laurie Oakes with DP Swan today but I understand it was more of the same
WOULD YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS GOVT SAYS
Sorry for shouting
well I didn’t have time to watch Swan with Laurie Oakes this am but I understand he said something like ‘that the carbon tax will result in increased consumer prices is a scare campaign
AND I do remember before the last election he said the Opposition’s claim that the Gillard Govt would bring in a carbon tax is a scare campaign
NOW one of the parties was telling porkies
AND would you believe a liar the second time around?