Getting rid of the Carbon Tax

[HiEquity]

Hi Peter. To answer your questions:
- Many people here don't have any faith in the peer reviewed scientific process. To them any action on climate change is foolhardy. I'm not in that camp and don't engage in discussion about the science (alarmist or sceptic) after the evidence I've seen. It's up to everyone to review that evidence for themselves if they don't accept the peer review process, in spite of how well it has served humanity to date.
- Our emission reductions alone will not effect the climate but we are not alone. Many other countries are taking similar actions, mostly through other avenues than a carbon tax. I can only suggest reading the productivity commission report into this if you have an interest.
- A carbon tax is just one avenue to reduce emissions - there are a lot of others, some better and many worse in my view. In any case this is not a carbon tax after three years (turns into an ETS) and three years is neither here or there in the scheme of things.
- No-one is going to develop new technologies to save carbon if carbon isn't worth anything! Why would you? To provide any reason at all for someone to develop these technologies you have to provide a market for them. Either through a carbon price or equivalent means (i.e. banning the status quo for example as some here like the idea of).
- The carbon tax stimulates the economy nearly as much as it imposes (minus bureaucratic running costs). This is because it funds tax cuts in other areas such as tripling the tax free threshold. So while it looks like an impost the vast majority gets returned to the economy through lower taxes in other areas. Little new net taxation is actually involved as a result so our competitiveness is not hindered as much as some would like to think.
- As to whether the carbon tax works just in theory or also in practice, I guess we're about to find out hey? We'll never know if we don't give it a go...

 

[Neil Young]

You're not helping your cause. There is no soot from natural gas power plants and yet there is a tax on them. There is no soot from coal power plants with appropriate electrostatic precipitators / baghouses on them (the vast majority in Australia) and yet there is a tax on them.

Soot is not the issue...

Never said it was the issue, just part of it. For you to dismiss black carbon soot as unworthy of attention is interesting. Agenda?

This study disagrees ,
We suggest that climate-change-mitigation policies should aim at reducing fossil-fuel black-carbon emissions.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo918.html

 

[Dazz]

A carbon tax is just one avenue to reduce emissions - there are a lot of others, some better and many worse in my view.

I'd prefer to let the people of Australia have their say on the Carbon Tax first.

We haven't been given an opportunity to say whether we like it or not

In any case this is not a carbon tax after three years (turns into an ETS) and three years is neither here or there in the scheme of things.

I'd disagree with that. 3 years is a full term of Parliament...lots can happen in that time. 3 years is a hell of long time to people struggling with cost of living pressures that have to endure higher prices still due to a carbon price.

I don't for a moment believe that people struggling with high bills will be happy paying more for everything, and I have no confidence whatsoever that the Govt's modelling is correct.....we're about to see though.

No-one is going to develop new technologies to save carbon if carbon isn't worth anything! Why would you?

That's not true IMO. The only way a green technology is going to get up and flourish is if it can stand on it's own two feet. If it can produce power at a cost less than traditional sources, people (the market) will support it in droves. This is the only way it will stack up long term. Continually and permanently subsidising a more expensive method isn't sustainable.

As to whether the carbon tax works just in theory or also in practice, I guess we're about to find out hey? We'll never know if we don't give it a go...

I don't think sending the worlds biggest Carbon Tax slugging through the Aust. economy at a time like this is wise. I'll be doing everything to resist it all the way.....until and unless the people of Australia have their say.

If the majority of Australian people vote for it, then I'll come onboard.....but I've got a hunch they won't.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Good Morning

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge Hi Equity and Dazz posts above. Both put good points and are courteous. Well done to all of us!

Hi Equity,

I agree with some of your comments and especially on humanity's impact on the world. I also believe we cannot continue to grow and consume and wear out this planet. So we agree here.

I appreciate you acknowledge the Carbon Tax is not the best and not the worst solution.

So to me that leads to what Dazz said: we don't know the best or worst because we never got to vote for it.

I think the majority of Australian want Climate action but fiercely object to a minority group (in this case the Greens) pushing through their agenda against the majority and their PM changing a key commitment.

Because of this done deal we never got the people commission to assess all options and whilst I do not pretend to know or even read extensively about the experts on this, what I do know is common sense and I wonder this:

In 2010 I went to France. Part of the EU so it has carbon tax. They are one of the lowest Carbon Use in the Modern World. How??? Carbon Tax, Legislation? etc..

As I drove almost the entire country and saw lots of Wind Turbines. Thus I thought, .....there you go, they use Wind so why cannot we?

Then I found out the truth that they have low carbon because around 80 to 90% of the Energy comes from Nuclear. Put in long before any carbon issue, economically viable, no tax needed to pay for it.

In our Country , Labor to their credit floated the idea of considering a least looking at Nuclear and got howled down.

I am a simple man. So I cannot understand if the French: an uber green, socialist and naturalist society, densely populated in small area, with no reserves of Uranium is happy with Nuclear then why our Country with massive area, stable seismology, and significant reserves of fuel, and 1/3 less in population not willing to even look at it?

All solutions should be on the table.

It is not the problem (global warming) I object to, but the solution (carbon tax).

Regards Peter 14.7

 

[HiEquity]

Hi gents - a few points:
- I agree the Carbon Tax should have gone to an election and the electorate is right to be aggrieved at being misled / lied to. I can't see why Gillard couldn't have just pushed back on the Greens on the three year fixed price thing - I mean what were they going to do - support Abbott? If she did that she could have avoided the whole "lying" issue.
- We'll have to disagree on the economic materiality of three years of fixed pricing.
- I have mirrored much of the govt's modelling of the effect on electricity prices and have little doubt it is very close to being correct. See Synergy's (and other electricity retailers) recent notification of how much they are increasing their tariffs in response - all very much in line with predictions. We have already seen this.
- While new power technologies may be developed to access the power market, I wasn't just referring to that. I was also referring to the much bigger market of reducing or sequestering carbon emissions (independent of the power market), where no technologies would ever be developed unless there was a market for the product. Why develop a wonderful technology to sequester carbon if it's free to emit?
- IMO the better options to reduce carbon acknowledge that carbon isn't the only issue. For example, a very large number of people support renewable energy but don't support carbon pricing. This is because renewables offers other benefits like energy supply diversity, energy security, leverages our resources, reduces our dependence on large corporations, builds regional employment etc etc etc. Carbon pricing alone doesn't do any of that and certainly doesn't offer the renewable energy industry anything (as I've explained before - and I make just as much money out of the conventional energy industry as I do out of renewables...).

The Nuclear topic is frustrating for me. I previously made this post about it:

Such a frustrating subject. The quality of public debate on the matter is abysmal. Some inconvenient truths about nuclear:
1) There has never been a nuclear power station built anywhere in the world without a government guarantee sitting behind it for either its performance, finance or both.
2) If the governments of the world all said today that it's open slather and anyone can build a nuclear power station anywhere they like to compete openly in the power market without government subsidy, there would never be another nuclear power station built anywhere in the world in the foreseeable future.
3) No private company will take on the risks involved. Only governments do that. And generally only when they are running out of options.

If people believe renewable energy gets a lot of subsidy then they really have no idea about nuclear - it absolutely takes the cake, with cherries and cream on top on the subsidy front. Loan guarantees, performance guarantees, massively long guaranteed off take contracts for full output day and night, indemnities against accident risks, funding for decommissioning - you name it, nuclear gets it. Private equity owners in the US get all the upside, get massive leverage of their capital at bargain basement rates through loan guarantees and any losses get socialised - including under Obama.

Personally I believe the Australian govt should allow nuclear power in Australia but refuse to support it financially - let it compete with the benefit of a carbon price! Or even let it be eligible for renewable energy certificates - it wouldn't matter. Just don't give them any government indemnities or loan guarantees.

At least then we would never hear these bum steer arguments about nuclear again!

BTW, while I know people feel the Carbon Tax has been debated to death and the electorate is fully informed, that is not the case. The level of misunderstanding out there on the issues in the people I talk to (not least of which on nuclear power) is amazing to me still. The real information is buried in govt reports and industry publications - as most people still rely on the MSM and blogs for information they are nowhere near the truth. Certainly one way to demonstrate the real impact is to actually do it - then all these opinions and scare campaigns can be ignored in the face of the facts.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi gents - a few points:
- I agree the Carbon Tax should have gone to an election and the electorate is right to be aggrieved at being misled / lied to. I can't see why Gillard couldn't have just pushed back on the Greens on the three year fixed price thing - I mean what were they going to do - support Abbott? If she did that she could have avoided the whole "lying" issue.
- We'll have to disagree on the economic materiality of three years of fixed pricing.
- I have mirrored much of the govt's modelling of the effect on electricity prices and have little doubt it is very close to being correct. See Synergy's (and other electricity retailers) recent notification of how much they are increasing their tariffs in response - all very much in line with predictions. We have already seen this.
- While new power technologies may be developed to access the power market, I wasn't just referring to that. I was also referring to the much bigger market of reducing or sequestering carbon emissions (independent of the power market), where no technologies would ever be developed unless there was a market for the product. Why develop a wonderful technology to sequester carbon if it's free to emit?
- IMO the better options to reduce carbon acknowledge that carbon isn't the only issue. For example, a very large number of people support renewable energy but don't support carbon pricing. This is because renewables offers other benefits like energy supply diversity, energy security, leverages our resources, reduces our dependence on large corporations, builds regional employment etc etc etc. Carbon pricing alone doesn't do any of that and certainly doesn't offer the renewable energy industry anything (as I've explained before - and I make just as much money out of the conventional energy industry as I do out of renewables...).

The Nuclear topic is frustrating for me. I previously made this post about it:



BTW, while I know people feel the Carbon Tax has been debated to death and the electorate is fully informed, that is not the case. The level of misunderstanding out there on the issues in the people I talk to (not least of which on nuclear power) is amazing to me still. The real information is buried in govt reports and industry publications - as most people still rely on the MSM and blogs for information they are nowhere near the truth. Certainly one way to demonstrate the real impact is to actually do it - then all these opinions and scare campaigns can be ignored in the face of the facts.

All good stuff above

So I guess, in the end, we can agree the whole change was botched.

If it really was a considered approach then we would have seen the numbers and voted for it or against it. It would have defined Labor V Libs, pro V cons.

For instance: we could have put a Carbon Tax equivalent on products from Countries Overseas without a Carbon Tax to level the field and encourage them to act.

But now it lost.

Thanks for stating the obvious on Nuclear that any system should be on it merits and not political.

So we have 1000s on homes with dinky PV systems on their roof only viable because the Gov forced sellers to pay up to 80c per Kwh insted of masive Solar Park in say Mildura.

Peter 14.7

 

[Sunfish]

Each year, a smaller percentage of adults believe the Global Warming hoax, and that's what it is.

We all agree that we are degrading our planet every year though so why don't we prioritise where we spend our resources?

If you still believe the world is undergoing unprecedented warming, read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...te-data-that-hasnt-been-published/#more-65583