What Carbon

[RAM]

That is exactly what the "carbon tax" was aiming to achieve - drive market forces such that entrepreneurs develop the alternatives to be offered at a cheaper price to consumers.

Ah, well not quite.

From a fund's management perspective (invited to invest $100millions & more) what I saw where people who were jumping off previous band wagons or outright scammers. Do you remember the 'carbon offset' snake-oil salesmen/companies supposedly buying up vast amounts of virgin rainforest in Indonesia etc to protect it from logging for example? All but 2 /13 turned out to be scams and the last time I checked the other 2 had folded.

What about some of the clean energy newbies (post guaranteed funding from UK councils who have a "Climate Change" officer per council) who have been holding wonderful conferences (traveled to by air) in 4-5 star resorts complete with associated golf days, hunting safaris etc (Have some fun googling it is bizarre what some of the ancillary activites were).

Then there are the honest long termers like the Centre for Photo Voltaic Research at UNSW (name changed once the funding became widely available) which has been the world's leading research organisation since at least the early 1990s if not the mid 80s.

My point is that opportunism and 'picking winners' generally ends up with gross corruption and lost opportunity.

Decrease pollution = GOOD

Political parties picking 'winners' AKA Magic Pudding = Everyone loses

 

[james4321]

Ah, well not quite.

From a fund's management perspective (invited to invest $100millions & more) what I saw where people who were jumping off previous band wagons or outright scammers. Do you remember the 'carbon offset' snake-oil salesmen/companies supposedly buying up vast amounts of virgin rainforest in Indonesia etc to protect it from logging for example? All but 2 /13 turned out to be scams and the last time I checked the other 2 had folded.

What about some of the clean energy newbies (post guaranteed funding from UK councils who have a "Climate Change" officer per council) who have been holding wonderful conferences (traveled to by air) in 4-5 star resorts complete with associated golf days, hunting safaris etc (Have some fun googling it is bizarre what some of the ancillary activites were).

Then there are the honest long termers like the Centre for Photo Voltaic Research at UNSW (name changed once the funding became widely available) which has been the world's leading research organisation since at least the early 1990s if not the mid 80s.

My point is that opportunism and 'picking winners' generally ends up with gross corruption and lost opportunity.

Decrease pollution = GOOD

Political parties picking 'winners' AKA Magic Pudding = Everyone loses

I think that SBF's comment is correct. The objective of the carbon tax was as he stated. There will always be cowboys that rort initiatives, as there will be for sure those that will rort the Abbott Direct (in)Action proposal.

 

[RAM]

I think that SBF's comment is correct. The objective of the carbon tax was as he stated. There will always be cowboys that rort initiatives, as there will be for sure those that will rort the Abbott Direct (in)Action proposal.

That is my point - once politics takes over then reality is lost.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I think that SBF's comment is correct. The objective of the carbon tax was as he stated. There will always be cowboys that rort initiatives, as there will be for sure those that will rort the Abbott Direct (in)Action proposal.

Well one of the basic (yet most flawed) principles of free market economics is that all participants have equal access to all relevant information when making decisions, that then guides the balance of supply and demand.

It doesn't take much to realise this is a load of horse manure, and inevitably those without the information or even the access to information are easily exploited.

No doubt the same will happen if and when the carbon market opens up. It's just human behaviour and not limited to any particular persuasion (note to Johnk, see it is not a political thing!).

 

[SeatBackForward]

Decrease pollution = GOOD

Political parties picking 'winners' AKA Magic Pudding = Everyone loses

I'd have more faith in the market sorting out who the shonks are, by going through the typical bubble, burst, mergers and acquisitions before landing on stability, then any political party handing money out.

The markets do this for many things, consider Internet bubbleof the past, mobile commerce today, or graphene tomorrow... always the same story.

 

[777]

The basic logic of economic incentives is pretty straightforward.

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you actually save. Feel free to be as inventive as you like about it. Put your best minds on it.

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country and take billions of dollars of their money. Put it in a giant fund administered by bureaucrats and/or political appointees. Make up as yet undisclosed criteria then have the politically appointed ones hand out billions of dollars of other people's money to companies on the promise that they will pollute less.

I get that people are skeptical (though mostly incoherently so) about climate change but i'm amazed that anyone with half a brain thinks option 2 is likely to be the more efficient and effective than option 1. The only actual supporters of "direct action" i can find are people who mostly believe the government isn't actually going to do it and don't actually want anything done.

 

[james4321]

The basic logic of economic incentives is pretty straightforward.

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you actually save. Feel free to be as inventive as you like about it. Put your best minds on it.

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country and take billions of dollars of their money. Put it in a giant fund administered by bureaucrats and/or political appointees. Make up as yet undisclosed criteria then have the politically appointed ones hand out billions of dollars of other people's money to companies on the promise that they will pollute less.

I get that people are skeptical (though mostly incoherently so) about climate change but i'm amazed that anyone with half a brain thinks option 2 is likely to be the more efficient and effective than option 1. The only actual supporters of "direct action" i can find are people who mostly believe the government isn't actually going to do it and don't actually want anything done.

Spot On !!! Got it in one. Scrooge McDuck is alive and well!

 

[medhead]

The trouble is that countries, like China for example, are increasing their annual pollution AND carbon dioxide emissions (two different things btw) by a greater amount each year than Australia's TOTAL ANNUAL pollution generation or carbon dioxide generation.

The largest source of CO2 emissions in China/India are from burning coal for electricity - the benefits - child mortality has fallen 90% since the 1970s etc, but the drawbacks CO2 emissions.

When the annual increase from coal fired electricity generation (new coal fired power stations commissioned) from China is greater the total installed base in Australia - it makes the issue of Australia having a carbon dioxide tax a ridiculous argument.

China's increase in coal fired power station emissions have increased 450% since Dec 2002 (period ending 31.12.2011 are the latest figures I can find - and there are over 18 new power stations commissioned since then btw).

So the choice that is faced - cheap products and reduced premature deaths in developing countries or the warm inner glow in the comfort of the typical Australian air-conditioned, 2 car, 2 television household.

Hard choice?

So you're saying china has no right to industrialise? It is very interesting that you don't mention how much nuclear power china is installing as well. They are certainly taking steps to reduce the impact of their advancement. Why shouldn't china support each person with the same pollution output that is used to support the lifestyle of someone in Australia?

 

[eastwest101]

The basic logic of economic incentives is pretty straightforward.

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you don't emit despite the fact that only some other European countries are involved in a highly dubious emissions trading scheme cherry picked and corrupted beyond recognition with free permits, none of your competitors have an equivalent price so the market response is to export emissions intensive industries and their jobs to other nations. Provide generous feed in tariffs that distort investment into intermittent energy sources like wind and solar and reward people whom can have rooftop solar systems by increased prices for those whom can't install solar plus government bureacrats and/or political bodies..

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country.....etc

So Option 1 is not as economically 'pure' as some would like to present it.

 

[777]

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you don't emit despite the fact that only some other European countries are involved in a highly dubious emissions trading scheme cherry picked and corrupted beyond recognition with free permits, none of your competitors have an equivalent price so the market response is to export emissions intensive industries and their jobs to other nations. Provide generous feed in tariffs that distort investment into intermittent energy sources like wind and solar and reward people whom can have rooftop solar systems by increased prices for those whom can't install solar plus government bureacrats and/or political bodies..

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country.....etc

So Option 1 is not as economically 'pure' as some would like to present it.

Option 1 in my scenario was a carbon tax. Option 1 in your scenario wasn't. Not sure what your point is.

 

[RAM]

So you're saying china has no right to industrialise? No Medhead - it is you who say that. Please see me answering YOUR questions - my answers shown in blue.

My point was in answer to many of your statements about the importance of an Australian Carbon tax (rorts & all) in stopping global warming (a natural cycle that has been happening since before creatures came out of the oceans.)

Australia's action is a fraction of a rounding error when the impact of countries such as India and China for example are considered. I provided (early in this thread) the links to the EIA HARD data on CO2 generation - I encourage all to go and look at the reality of CO2 emissions - not the uninformed spin by political parties and vested interest groups who's very survival is dependent on the public teat.

"China's increase in coal fired power station emissions have increased 450% since Dec 2002 (period ending 31.12.2011 are the latest figures I can find - and there are over 18 new coal power stations commissioned since then btw)."

It is very interesting that you don't mention how much nuclear power china is installing as well.

I did not mention the nuclear as the thread topic is the carbon increase and taxes thereon. Nuclear whilst causing huge carbon emissions in its construction does not noticeably emit during operation (maintenance causes minor carbon emissions).

I would happily welcome your contribution in providing some hard data on nuclear power generation capacity currently operating in China, currently under construction in China and abandoned in China. Please provide the hard data to advance your discussion. I suppose I could say it is very interesting that you do not provide any data on how much nuclear power China is installing - making vague unsubstantiated statements is more a political obfuscation practice rather than a true debating approach.

They are certainly taking steps to reduce the impact of their advancement.

Well funny you should say that - what steps are they taking?

Did you know, for example in the 5-year plan two ago USD4bn was spent rehabilitating a 15km stretch of river in the far West that abutted one of the major cities. The water quality pre-spending was rated at the lowest possible scale - it killed any living thing it was used for, gave off noxious fumes and had a dead zone stretching either side of the river bank to a depth of over 1km.

Post spending the water quality was improved to unfit for human consumption but acceptable for some agricultural uses. In the subsequent 5 year plan there was no more funding provided. Within 6 weeks the water quality was back to the lowest level. The factories stopped treating their effluent (as required under the previous 5-yr plan progam), all the 'inspectors lost their jobs and there was no compliance authority left in existence. This is the reality that is China.

Perhaps that is why China is now the largest landowner in sub-Saharan Africa, 2nd only to the Brazilian Govt in South America and rising rapidly in the Australian ranking. USD4bn buys a lot of land - and that was just one 'pollution' project.

Similarly they spent >USD12bn and built several dozen sewerage plants in that same 5 year plan (as a fund manager it was highly profitable to invest in the mainly French companies involved in their design and technology licensing AND very useful being able to talk to senior people from those companies who were on the ground in China).

First blush - wonderful idea, increased the volume of sewerage treatment capacity by a little over 11% (from memory) over that 5 year period.

HOWEVER, like many centrally planned systems, there was a major flaw, there was no funding for their operation in that 5 year plan nor in the subsequent one. Actually there was not even any money for their maintenance nor to guard them as mothballed facilities. One of the French companies went back to do the post-commissioning 'warranty' maintenance for the 7 they were involved with and found the sewerage was indeed being pumped into them but the overflow gates were open at EVERY plant and the sewerage flowed straight into the rivers untreated. They did not find any security staff, at a couple of the plants they found that they had been stripped of all 'useful' equipment such as telephone handsets, the ovens out of the staff kitchens, light fittings, even the large window glass sheets had been taken. The best example though was the hurricane wire had been stripped from the entire perimeter fence at one plant but they left it on the two main gates - at least the local party officials had a sense of humour.

Why shouldn't china support each person with the same pollution output that is used to support the lifestyle of someone in Australia?

That was the question I left for you and others to answer actually? Can you please answer the question?

This comes right down to one of the crucial issues - hypocrisy - live as we say not as we do!

Dear Medhead - are you sure your nom-de-plume should not be "verbals" instead?

I did not mention the nuclear as the thread topic is the carbon increase and taxes thereon. Nuclear whilst causing huge carbon emissions in its construction does not noticeably emit during operation (maintenance causes minor carbon emissions).

I would happily welcome your contribution in providing some hard data on nuclear power generation capacity currently operating in China, currently under construction in China and abandoned in China. Please provide the hard data to advance your discussion.

 

[Limewood]

Maybe the Govt could have got "he who must be Obeid" in a carbon portfolio in State or Fed politics, now there is a bloke who gets things done at a price

 

[medhead]

Dear Medhead - are you sure your nom-de-plume should not be "verbals" instead?

I did not mention the nuclear as the thread topic is the carbon increase and taxes thereon. Nuclear whilst causing huge carbon emissions in its construction does not noticeably emit during operation (maintenance causes minor carbon emissions).

I would happily welcome your contribution in providing some hard data on nuclear power generation capacity currently operating in China, currently under construction in China and abandoned in China. Please provide the hard data to advance your discussion.

You're the one who keeps bringing up coal power in china and attacking china for increasing there power generation. I simply asked the obvious question given your apparent opposition to china building power plants. Do feel free to quote anywhere were I've attacked china for building power plants.

Nuclear is highly relevant to your rants about china precisely because it is a low emission power source, across the whole fuel cycle. It is interesting that nuclear is irrelevant in your opinion to carbon emissions. But then you bang on about sewerage treatment. You don't seem to understand that point and haven't addressed the questions raised about your post. The question about lifestyle is one for you, since your the one questioning their right to build power stations.

Instead we get spurious accusations about me. There is no need for me to provide anything, when you only seem interested in playing the man and not the ball.

 

[medhead]

Maybe the Govt could have got "he who must be Obeid" in a carbon portfolio in State or Fed politics, now there is a bloke who gets things done at a price

Yep and he's worked with both major parties and all. The current government and obeid should get on like a house on fire.

 

[RAM]

You're the one who keeps bringing up coal power in china and attacking china for increasing there power generation. I simply asked the obvious question given your apparent opposition to china building power plants. Do feel free to quote anywhere were I've attacked china for building power plants.

Nuclear is highly relevant to your rants about china precisely because it is a low emission power source, across the whole fuel cycle. You don't seem to understand that point and haven't addressed the questions raised about your post. Instead we get spurious accusations about me. There is no need for me to provide anything, when you only seem interested in playing the man and not the ball.

Dear Medhead - your responses keep changing, almost diametically, on July 30th you said:

And I forgot to mention the cost of nuclear power. If people couldn't pay the cost of coal power with a carbon tax, I'm not sure they'd accept paying for nuclear at a similar cost.

Then you change your tune to question why I have not mentioned the amount of nuclear planned for China. If you wish to raise that issue - then provide some hard information if you are really wanting to advance the discussion. If you merely are wanting to disparage that is your right (unlike in China) but at least be honest about it.

Your habit of not quoting the content of other's comments and instead 'verballing' them repeatedly is tiresome at best.

You ask questions of posters who do not share your point of view but you are not prepared to answer their questions in return. Are you not confident in your claims?

To avoid dealing with the issues I and others have raised about the Carbon tax in Australia being irrelevant on the world price for solar panels, CO2 emissions and related consequences - suggests that the answers are unpalatable to you. If you do not intend to extend the courtesy of answering others questions then perhaps stop asking questions of them.

This reminds me of the problem in the sitcom "Happy Days".
Do you, like the Fonz, have a problem admitting when you are wrong?

 

[drron]

Well here is the state of nuclear power in the world.The country with the most under construction or planned is indeed China-

In China, now with 15 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. Some 26 reactors are under construction and many more are likely to be so in 2012. Those under construction include the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant is due to start construction. Many more units are planned, with construction due to start within three years. But most capacity under construction is the largely indigenous CPR-1000 design. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020.

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

 

[RAM]

Well here is the state of nuclear power in the world.The country with the most under construction or planned is indeed China-


Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

Thank you DrRon, some hard data to analyse.

According to the IEA Clean Coal Centre, there are over 2300 coal-fired power stations worldwide (7000 individual units). Approximately 620 of these power stations are in China.

They are adding around 36 new gigawatt coal powered stations a year and expected to for the next 8 years at least. SO they need a lot of coal... they produce a lot of coal..Add India to China and between them they mine (and use) more coal than the rest of the world combined - in fact 4 times over! Australia's coal-fired generation capacity is less than 24GW and is on average only used to generate 13GW. Or at the present rate China is building Australia's total coal-fired capacity every 8 months.

Chinese coal-fired capacity nears 699,700 MW

21st February 2013



China's capacity use of these power stations is generally between 75 and 97% btw.

9. Who are the world's top coal producing companies?

World's Top Coal Producers in 2010 (million tonnes)

	Company	2010 Production
1.	Coal India	431
2.	Shenhua Group	352
3.	Peabody Energy	198
4.	Datong Coal	150
5.	Arch Coal	146
6.	China Coal	138
7.	BHP Billiton	104
8.	Shanxi Coal	101
9.	RWE Power	99
10.	Anglo American	97

Now the Chinese Nuclear reactors range from 600+ MW to 1250MW, and here are a sample of projected completions:

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Sanmen 2[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1250[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Hongyanhe 4[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Yangjiang 3[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Ningde 4[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CGNPC[/TD]
[TD]Fangchenggang 1[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Changjiang 1[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Changjiang 2[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]China, CNNC[/TD]
[TD]Fuqing 3[/TD]
[TD]PWR[/TD]
[TD]1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


The problem is the scale of coal-fired NEW plants is multiples of the Chinese Nuclear plans.

BNEF stressed that “in absolute terms, coal will continue to grow rapidly until 2022, adding on average 38 GW per year – equal to three large coal plants every month”. “It will then grow at a much lower rate, installing on average only 10 GW per year until 2030. Carbon emissions and local environmental problems resulting from coal, such as poor air quality will likely continue to worsen in the next 10-15 years despite the shift towards cleaner energy sources.” Jun Ying, country manager and head of research for China at BNEF, said: “China has started to change course towards a cleaner future. But despite significant progress in renewable energy deployment, coal looks set to remain dominant to 2030. More support for renewable energy, natural gas and energy efficiency will be needed if China wants to reduce its reliance on coal more quickly.” Milo Sjardin, head of Asia Pacific at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, added that the future of China’s energy sector “depends on a number of big questions, questions on which one can still only speculate: the cost at which China may be able to extract its shale gas reserves, the potential impact on fracking and thermal generation of water constraints; and potential accelerations in climate and environmental policy, including a potential price on carbon”. Yet the significance of China’s energy consumption growth and its evolving generation mix will be felt around the globe, stressed Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “It is hard to underestimate. The impacts will reach far beyond China and have major implications for the rest of the world, ranging from coal and gas prices to the cost and market size for renewable energy technologies – not to mention the health of the planet’s environment.”

So they have plans for more coal-fired power stations already scheduled than nuclear - approximately 9 times as many in fact. The avg coal fired is 1,000MW. So much carbon, so little time.

The increase in carbon emissions (if you believe in AGW) by China since 2002 together with their planned increases is the (to use KR's terms) greatest moral dilemma of our time.

• According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China accounted for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).
• According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.
• New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 developing countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.
• Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).
• The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of proposed new coal-fired plants.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you don't emit despite the fact that only some other European countries are involved in a highly dubious emissions trading scheme cherry picked and corrupted beyond recognition with free permits, none of your competitors have an equivalent price so the market response is to export emissions intensive industries and their jobs to other nations. Provide generous feed in tariffs that distort investment into intermittent energy sources like wind and solar and reward people whom can have rooftop solar systems by increased prices for those whom can't install solar plus government bureacrats and/or political bodies..

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country.....etc

So Option 1 is not as economically 'pure' as some would like to present it.

The European model was nothing like ours would have been. Not an equal comparison.

 

[dfcatch]

The basic logic of economic incentives is pretty straightforward.

Option 1: You get to keep $24 bucks for every tonne of carbon dioxide you actually save. Feel free to be as inventive as you like about it. Put your best minds on it.

Option 2: Tax everyone in the country and take billions of dollars of their money. Put it in a giant fund administered by bureaucrats and/or political appointees. Make up as yet undisclosed criteria then have the politically appointed ones hand out billions of dollars of other people's money to companies on the promise that they will pollute less.

I get that people are skeptical (though mostly incoherently so) about climate change but i'm amazed that anyone with half a brain thinks option 2 is likely to be the more efficient and effective than option 1. The only actual supporters of "direct action" i can find are people who mostly believe the government isn't actually going to do it and don't actually want anything done.

You also forget one important perspective.....

You fail to critically analyse Option 1, yet do so and criticize Option 2 (quite fair criticism too IMO).

Fact is that many recognize Option 1 is great in a textbook theory discussion, but many distrust it and consider it more open to rorting, fraud etc than Option 2.

That's why some peeps favour Option 2 because whilst it may not be the best in "theory", it will at least actually and factually reduce emissions on the ground right here at home.

Personally - I'm happy for your implied Option 3 - nothing happening.

At 1.5% of global emissions we could all die tomorrow and not stop anything.

A more fun way to reduce our per-capita emissions (which you bozos like to cherry pick as your preferred misleading measure) would simply be for us to go out and get on the job .

In 9 months - our per capita emissions will be greatly reduced

 

[SeatBackForward]

Personally - I'm happy for your implied Option 3 - nothing happening.

Are you actually cheerleading this outcome? or just believe that is what will transpire? I'd be disappointed in this outcome, but the realist in me think this is where it will land.

A more fun way to reduce our per-capita emissions (which you bozos like to cherry pick as your preferred misleading measure) would simply be for us to go out and get on the job .

In 9 months - our per capita emissions will be greatly reduced

In that case I'm doing my part! 5months ahead of that game in fact