Carbon Tax

[777]

If "Global Warming" is both happening and is made made then my argument is that taxing Carbon Dioxide is a waste of time ... as there is really nothing that can effectively be done.

I don't follow your logic. If carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming then reducing those emissions logically reduces the level, the rate of change, and the degree of warming does it not?

If you're argument is that the policy does not reduce emissions then that's a different argument but you can't simultaneously argue that the policy will close emission intensive industries and that it will have no impact - logically you have to argue one or the other.

 

[serfty]

I don't follow your logic. If carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming then reducing those emissions logically reduces the level, the rate of change, and the degree of warming does it not?

If you're argument is that the policy does not reduce emissions then that's a different argument but you can't simultaneously argue that the policy will close emission intensive industries and that it will have no impact - logically you have to argue one or the other.

It's the former, and I used the term effective. Refer to figures like"0.00000016%".

Changeists don't use those figures as it advertises the relative uselessness of reducing made made emissions of Carbon Dioxide Tax. They refer to things like "per capita" or "rate of Change" to get a figure they can spin.

I also dispute the latter argument, the Carbon dioxide tax will in all likelihood make many carbon dioxide emission intensive industries unviable. As a results many may close. This will not have no impact, but will have no effective impact.

To quote Mr Flannery again:

... If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO[sub]2[/sub] that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

 

[777]

It's the former, and I used the term effective. Refer to figures like"0.00000016%".

Changeists don't use those figures as it advertises the hopelessness of reducing made made emissions of Carbon Dioxide Tax. They refer to things like "per capita" or "rate of Change" to get a figure they can spin.

So an 80% reduction of Australia's carbon emissions by 2050 would have no impact? It's extremely selective to take Australia's figures in isolation -- the point is that it's a global issue and we must proportionally (to our emissions and our capacity) contribute to the solution.

It's like saying when there's a fundraising appeal that an individual $5 donation makes no difference - following you logic it doesn't as it is not in and of itself enough money to build a new hospital, discover a new vacine or clean up after a natural disaster. However, the bigger picture is the coughulative impact and that involves many people, countries, and companies taking individual and ideally coordinated action.

Again you have gone back to the Flannery quote but missed the point of it. This is not a binary problem - global warming is not "on" or "off" it is a problem where the scale, degree of impact, and cost of adaptation will be proportionate to the degree of warming and to the amount of gasses in the atmosphere. That's not a difficult concept to understand and there's not a lot of actual points to be scored in misrepresenting it.

 

[rechoboam]

I think in the short term that's probably true - the impact is low and the effect is low - but if you look at the long term targets of 80% reductions by 2050 then the difference becomes much more easily quantifiable. We are pretty much the largest per capita carbon emitters in the world. If you assume we need some reductions - either for environmental reasons, or because the rest of the world may punish us in trade terms (eg. The EU threatening to slap Qantas) oro because the long term cost of carbon and fossil fuels is likely to rise and we should prudently reduce our dependence on it or some combination of the above - we need to have some mechanism to get there and this framework provides such a mechanism.

Will it do it all, quickly, no. But you need to start somewhere and you can pretty much rip anything apart on the basis that the beginning of the process doesn't get you to the end immediately - it's a debating trick but not a serious argument.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting we should do nothing or that strategically that this is not the right thing to do? They are two very different positions and i always like to know where people stand.

We should have a carbon tax, with no exceptions. Other taxes (on avgas, petrol etc) which distort should be removed at the same time. All income tax rates should be reduced and not just for focus group targets. And most importantly the parties must not give out vast sums to 'green energy'. 100 billion dollars they are talking about now.

You "targets" of 80% are irrelevant because the way this is set up, nothing like that will ever happen. But for the record, if we gradually reduce dependence on carbon fuels by 2050, what would be the impact on the climate? Again, I would suggest, not measurable.

In my business if you give me a proposal you are expected to have comprehensive costings and be able to outline concrete benefits, otherwise it's not business, it's a joke.

 

[rechoboam]

Just to clarify, I presume the idea was originally that once you price the carbon the market sees to everything else using the engines of capitalism.
Gillard et al clearly never quite grasped this.

 

[777]

In my business if you give me a proposal you are expected to have comprehensive costings and be able to outline concrete benefits, otherwise it's not business, it's a joke.

No offence but i would think the standard of modelling, costing and impact evaluation within Treasury is probably up there with your business.

 

[777]

Just to clarify, I presume the idea was originally that once you price the carbon the market sees to everything else using the engines of capitalism.
Gillard et al clearly never quite grasped this.

Actually, personally, i largely agree with you about purer carbon tax with few exceptions and less in the way of distorting government led investments. However it is import to remember that the opposition's proposal is reliant on 100% government funded, bureaucrat chosen, investments in abatement, green energy, and they are looking at spending of billions of dollars from consolidated revenue (i.e. our taxes) in order to fund it.

Remember this is not a debate in isolation. There are actually two competing models for how to achieve the same outcome on the table here - both the government and the opposition claim that they will reduce emissions by 5% from 2000 levels by 2020. I am yet to see a single person argue - even begrudgingly - that the oppositions approach will do that cheaper and more effectively than the governments. Those who don't like the government's plan tend to simply ignore that we will get something much worse and much less effective if the opposition is elected.

 

[rechoboam]

No offence but i would think the standard of modelling, costing and impact evaluation within Treasury is probably up there with your business.

Well I agree. But the issue isn't the technical analytic skills of Treasury, it's the strategic planning ability of the ministries. Look at the pink batts saga. That would have been costed but the entire concept was cooked up on the basis of political expediency. Wiser heads might have said that having the Federal Government overseeing an army of thousands of geographically distant subcontractors was fundamentally foolish.

Surely it's obvious that all the Feds need to do is set a carbon price and have Treasury model what income tax cuts are needed to neutralise this across the board. Instead we are looking at billions of dollars being channelled from taxpayer to renewable energy company via the federal bureaucracy. Treasury don't approve this - it's not their job.

If I decide my strategy is to spend all my business' net profits on distributions of vintage Belle Epoque to the employees, my accountant might be the best financial brain in the world, but he can't stop me, as long as I can pay my debts and meet tax obligations.

My comment is based on the interaction between financial and strategic decision making.

 

[drron]

I don't follow your logic. If carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming then reducing those emissions logically reduces the level, the rate of change, and the degree of warming does it not?

If you're argument is that the policy does not reduce emissions then that's a different argument but you can't simultaneously argue that the policy will close emission intensive industries and that it will have no impact - logically you have to argue one or the other.

No in this case you can argue both.For example the Aluminium smelters are emission intensive.They dont have that much room to move on price as open to OS competitors.So quite possible they in the long term will close.Output increases OS so Global emissions are not affected though we can pat ourselves on the back saying we have done our bit.Yes it will take some time but end result-zero effect on emissions,jobs lost here and our our balance of payments adversely affected as our imports of aluminium rise.

Though what worries me is thar Ganaut has said it will take a carbon price of $26 a tonne to reduce emissions by 5% by 2022.julia claims they will come down by 30%.Seems there are a lot more costs that we wont be told about until after the election.Of course here all political parties must come clean(pardon the pun).If we are seriously going to reduce CO2 emissions there will be a high price to pay.And talk of hundreds of thousands of green jobs appearing is Pie in the Sky.

 

[serfty]

So an 80% reduction of Australia's carbon emissions by 2050 would have no impact? It's extremely selective to take Australia's figures in isolation -- the point is that it's a global issue and we must proportionally (to our emissions and our capacity) contribute to the solution.

It's like saying when there's a fundraising appeal that an individual $5 donation makes no difference - following you logic it doesn't as it is not in and of itself enough money to build a new hospital, discover a new vacine or clean up after a natural disaster. However, the bigger picture is the coughulative impact and that involves many people, countries, and companies taking individual and ideally coordinated action.

Again you have gone back to the Flannery quote but missed the point of it. This is not a binary problem - global warming is not "on" or "off" it is a problem where the scale, degree of impact, and cost of adaptation will be proportionate to the degree of warming and to the amount of gasses in the atmosphere. That's not a difficult concept to understand and there's not a lot of actual points to be scored in misrepresenting it.

I am not mis-representing anything. You believe I am since it contradicts your beliefs, so be it - I won't convince you

For a start I don't consider "man" is making ANY significant contribution to any measured changes in climate.

As for a $5 dollar donation? Just for an example, let's say that contributes toward a $3.125million dollar hospital project. Thus it represents 0.00016% of the total amount.

That is still 10³ greater magnitude than that of the above "pin".

IMHO this carbon dioxide tax is waste of time and effort and will result in a march larger degradation of the living standard for residents of Australia than any, realistically possible effect that artificial "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" might ever have.

Footnote

There are people who reason one way and there are people who reason the opposite and there are many in between. Those who reason¹ one way or the other are unlikely to be swayed, most of those "in between" have probably given up on this thread long ago.

I tried not to get involved in this thread; avoiding even reading it since it's inception two months ago. It went quiet for a while well and good; but recently raised it's head again. I finally read some posts and after a time felt the need to correct some mis-information². I now will cease posting herein and leave this to others to debate.

¹ I use the word reason as these have convinced themselves of the correctness of their beliefs through whatever reason process they have.
² What I consider.​

 

[777]

No in this case you can argue both.For example the Aluminium smelters are emission intensive.They dont have that much room to move on price as open to OS competitors.So quite possible they in the long term will close.Output increases OS so Global emissions are not affected though we can pat ourselves on the back saying we have done our bit.Yes it will take some time but end result-zero effect on emissions,jobs lost here and our our balance of payments adversely affected as our imports of aluminium rise.

Well that assumes a couple of things that i don't think are accurate - the first is that power in Australia is uniquely "clean" by international standards. We actually have amongst the most carbon intensive power sectors in the world so either moving offshore or de-carbonising the power sector will both likely lead to a net reduction in emissions. But it also ignores the more substantive point that the incentives are reasonably strong to reduce emissions across the board.

Though what worries me is thar Ganaut has said it will take a carbon price of $26 a tonne to reduce emissions by 5% by 2022.julia claims they will come down by 30%.Seems there are a lot more costs that we wont be told about until after the election.Of course here all political parties must come clean(pardon the pun).If we are seriously going to reduce CO2 emissions there will be a high price to pay.And talk of hundreds of thousands of green jobs appearing is Pie in the Sky.

I have not seen that 30% by 2022 target anywhere - have you got a source for that?

 

[drron]

Julia in her TV address claimed we would reduce CO2 emissions by 160 mt by 2022.Going to the C'wealth government's climate change website our carbon emissions were 543 mt in 2010.So Julia's figure is 30% of that.

 

[777]

I am not mis-representing anything. You believe I am since it contradicts your beliefs, so be it - I won't convince you

For a start I don't consider "man" is making ANY significant contribution to any measured changes in climate.

As for a $5 dollar donation? Just for an example, let's say that contributes toward a $3.125million dollar hospital project. Thus it represents 0.00016% of the total amount.

That is still 10³ greater magnitude than that of the above "pin".

IMHO this carbon dioxide tax is waste of time and effort and will result in a march larger degradation of the living standard for residents of Australia than any, realistically possible effect that artificial "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" might ever have.

Ok, your position is clear now. You do not believe that action is necessary because you believe the problem isn't real and therefore it follows for you that *any* action is not worth undertaking. I don't agree with you but i won't accuse you of being logically incoherent. However, i assume the same criticism applies to the opposition's "direct action" plans as applies to the government's? I.e. that they are wasteful and ineffective. Have you taken the time to consider which of the two is more wasteful and ineffective?

 

[777]

Julia in her TV address claimed we would reduce CO2 emissions by 160 mt by 2022.Going to the C'wealth government's climate change website our carbon emissions were 543 mt in 2010.So Julia's figure is 30% of that.

Without a reference it's a bit hard to discuss this but I think you're confusing different numbers. As i understand it the target is 5% off a base year (2000?) and the reductions offered at the press conference are likely based on anticipated baseline scenario without any government action. A 5% reduction from 2000 levels could also be a 30% reduction from business as usual levels.

To go back to your original point i think you need to look at Garnaut's original numbers to see which base line he was using. That will probably reveal whether there is an actual inconsistency worth being concerned about.

 

[connieguy]

If "Global Warming" is both happening and is man made then my argument is that taxing Carbon Dioxide is a waste of time ... as there is really nothing that can effectively be done.

Sadly I agree with you Serfty. It is now too late.

Seems the miners have already started setting out claims in Greenland:

Melting ice caps open up Arctic for 'white gold rush'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/ice-caps-arctic-white-gold-rush

 

[oz_mark]

Qantas ASX statement on the Effect of Carbon Tax - basically $3.50 a sector

The Australian Government's introduction of a carbon price system from 1 July 2012 will have an estimated cost impact of approximately $110-115 million on the Qantas Group in the financial year ending 30 June 2013.

Domestic airlines will be exposed to the full starting carbon price of $23 per tonne through an increase in aviation fuel excise from July 2012 and will not have access to transitional assistance or compensation arrangements. International aviation fuel will be excluded from the carbon price scheme.

Following the transition to an emissions trading scheme in July 2015, aviation fuel excise increases will be determined based on a six-month average of the market price for carbon.

In the context of the significant challenges facing the global aviation industry, the Qantas Group will be unable to absorb the additional costs associated with the carbon price and there will be a full pass-through to customers.

Based on the estimated additional costs, the Qantas Group expects that the price of a single domestic flight sector will increase on average by approximately $3.50 in FY13. Fare increases will vary depending on sector length and will be communicated transparently to consumers.

 

[rechoboam]

80% off current levels with twice the population within 40 years- not possible with current technology. 500 years maybe.

 

[serfty]

One Post suspension of my Moratorium purely to answer specific questions directed to me.

... However, i assume the same criticism applies to the opposition's "direct action" plans as applies to the government's? I.e. that they are wasteful and ineffective. Have you taken the time to consider which of the two is more wasteful and ineffective?

Absolutely, I have the same issue with Abbott's proposed "action".

I believe there is no need for either plan - ineffective is as ineffective does; Hence I don't support either plan.

FWIW, I have not cast a primary vote for a major party for many a year and am unlikely to do so going forward. (Thereby saving the state/federal treasury coffers several dollars each election. It does make filling out the Senate paper a real cough though. )

 

[drron]

So here is the goverment figures-
Australia's emissions - Think Change

From that the 2000 emissions were 496 mt.In 2007 when Garnaut was coming up with his model they were 542 MT.
Julia's 160 mt reduction is in numerous reports and is straight out of her mouth on news bulletins.I did hear 1 commentator say that represented 5% reduction in emissions which would put our emissions at 3200 mt.The difference between that and the government's website is mind blowing.If that is the order of accuracy of measurements then nothing is proven
My gut feeling though is Julia has added an extra nought.If so funny that no one has noticed.

 

[777]

So here is the goverment figures-
Australia's emissions - Think Change

From that the 2000 emissions were 496 mt.In 2007 when Garnaut was coming up with his model they were 542 MT.
Julia's 160 mt reduction is in numerous reports and is straight out of her mouth on news bulletins.I did hear 1 commentator say that represented 5% reduction in emissions which would put our emissions at 3200 mt.The difference between that and the government's website is mind blowing.If that is the order of accuracy of measurements then nothing is proven
My gut feeling though is Julia has added an extra nought.If so funny that no one has noticed.

That seems to fit roughly with what i thought above: the difference between the baseline number and the current/ anticipated growth. I.e. that left unchecked emissions would grow to 630ish mt by 2020 and this plan aims to bring them back under 500. Does that sound about right?