Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once.

However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive!

The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products).

I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lets not forget that the greens want $100 a tonne co2 tax on everyting.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect.

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect.

No need to. There will be no carbon tax. There will be and is no need for a carbon tax under a government I lead, because climate change as we know it is pure political, nut empirical.

Gillard promised to price carbon. Abbott feeds climate change denialism. Those who take note of the science understand who will be condemned by future generations for failing to act.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:29pm:

Gillard promised to price carbon. Abbott feeds climate change denialism. Those who take note of the science understand who will be condemned by future generations for failing to act. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

Too bad that graph is full of homogenized and biased data. Otherwise it may actually look like it had a trend other than looking like an agenda piece.

What about this one, progs.

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png

So besides the met office and NASA, who else is part of this conspiracy.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Once again tweedle dum is wrong on so many levels ...

- they did not say there would be no effect from the carbon tax on electricity prices, they said carbon tax would make electricity and other associated costs push up the cost of living by about $9.70. per week, and they were going to compensate most people $10 per week

- secondly, they are not saying the carbon tax hasn't pushed up electricity prices, they are saying the carbon prioce only accounts for a small percentage of the price rises .. their $9.70 estimates were actually a little more than the real affect being felt now.


-third, I'm sure this has being explained to you dozens of times, but you are to stupid to understand or you're pretending not to understand for convenience sake ... the compensation is for you, you don't pay any tax .. the electricity providers do ...  you can always move to a alternate supplier who uses less polluting methods and pays less tax, thereby offering lower prices ... the polluters that pay the tax invest in more alternate energies so as to minimise their tax bills ... its already working and emission levels are down. .. there was a thread on it either earlier this week or last week ...

as for your farmer .... what a load of rubbish .... unless the farmer is in the top 250 polluters he doesn't pay carbon tax.

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect.

Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects.

:D :D :D :D

And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function.

Perhaps Mother Nature herself.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra14mEm1Gmk/TcDEKdHModI/AAAAAAAABE4/OrVJTehVoSc/s1600/arctic_ice-melting.jpg

Here's the 'hilarious';

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
Gillard says 'NO' to Carbon Tax - August 2010

Not forgeting Swan's statement shown in the video.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect. Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects. :D :D :D :D And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function.

Away you go, Shane. Explain it.

What Penny Wong used to say about a carbon tax;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69KoyIYWSGs&feature=relmfu

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

Perhaps Mother Nature herself. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra14mEm1Gmk/TcDEKdHModI/AAAAAAAABE4/OrVJTehVoSc/s1600/arctic_ice-melting.jpg

Clearly a fake photograph...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

Clearly a fake photograph...

not as fake as that thing in your head pretending to be a brain ....

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:54pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect. Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects. :D :D :D :D And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function. Away you go, Shane. Explain it.

Why don't you have a go at it seeing as you think you know it all. I can grade you as I have been a lecturer at ANU.

I've been putting my neck out and posting up charts and analysis.

More than happy to draw you up a quote for this and your other request on government debt. I get paid to do this stuff every day.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:56pm: Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:54pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect. Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects. :D :D :D :D And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function. Away you go, Shane. Explain it. Why don't you have a go at it seeing as you think you know it all. I can grade you as I have been a lecturer at ANU. I've been putting my neck out and posting up charts and analysis. More than happy to draw you up a quote for this and your other request on government debt. I get paid to do this stuff every day.

ANU must really be dropping their standards .....

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Try again sonny.

The whole point of the tax was NOT to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once.

The whole point of the tax was  to make electricity generated by burning fossil fuels more expensive in the expectation that generators would use other means to generate electricity in order to save money and the environment all at once.

Are you really that ignorant?  Or are you just deliberately lying?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Try again sonny. The whole point of the tax was NOT to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. The whole point of the tax was  to make electricity generated by burning fossil fuels more expensive in the expectation that generators would use other means to generate electricity in order to save money and the environment all at once. Are you really that ignorant?  Or are you just deliberately lying?

Sorry, it's designed to do both. The Treasury modelling says:

Carbon pricing reduces emissions from electricity generation by shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies and moderating growth in electricity demand.

http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/update/Modelling_update.asp

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:56pm: Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:54pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect. Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects. :D :D :D :D And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function. Away you go, Shane. Explain it. Why don't you have a go at it seeing as you think you know it all. I can grade you as I have been a lecturer at ANU. I've been putting my neck out and posting up charts and analysis. More than happy to draw you up a quote for this and your other request on government debt. I get paid to do this stuff every day.

Cetainly. An increase in price will have a substitution effect and an income effect. An increase in price will reduce real income, reducing demand for all goods, it will also encourage consumers to switch their consumption to goods that are relatively cheaper. Both will lead to a fall in demand. If we compensate workers for the income effect, demand will increase, but to a level below the initial level of demand. The difference is the substitution effect. Although consumers have the same level of income they will shift their consumption from the more expensive good to the cheaper substitute.

So Shane, are you going to deny the substitution effect.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 9:12pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Try again sonny. The whole point of the tax was NOT to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. The whole point of the tax was  to make electricity generated by burning fossil fuels more expensive in the expectation that generators would use other means to generate electricity in order to save money and the environment all at once. Are you really that ignorant?  Or are you just deliberately lying? Sorry, it's designed to do both. The Treasury modelling says: Carbon pricing reduces emissions from electricity generation by shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies and moderating growth in electricity demand. http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/update/Modelling_update.asp

Yes - exactly.  Just as I wrote previously


The whole point of the tax was NOT to make electricity more expensive in the expectation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once.

To write what he did - AP is either very ignorant or very dishonest.

Well done, HD. You got the bit right about the substution effect, which a lot find very confusing.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Well done, HD. You got the bit right about the substution effect, which a lot find very confusing.

Briliant, since we both understand the substitution effect, perhaps you can explain how compensating consumers for the income effect will negate the substitution effect.

I can understand why most people don't get it, but as an economist why don't you get it?

I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:52pm:

I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive.

I think you are displaying you ignorance because the demand is not at all inelastic and alternatives are very much price competitive, even with the massive subsidies given to coal production and coal fired generation.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:52pm:

I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile looking at some data. Is your opinion informed by data?

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 9:52pm: I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive. Perhaps it might be worthwhile looking at some data. Is your opinion informed by data?

Yes.  Show us the data about alternatives being "more expensive" (and remember to subtract the subsides to coal)


Solar power generated by photovoltaic cells on Australian rooftops has become so cheap and efficient that they now produce electricity for the same price that is charged by the electricity grid.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebrates-grid-parity/2875592



The cost of electricity from onshore wind turbines will drop 12% in the next five years thanks to a mix of lower-cost equipment and gains in output efficiency, according to new research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016.
http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172

If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:54pm: Perhaps Mother Nature herself. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra14mEm1Gmk/TcDEKdHModI/AAAAAAAABE4/OrVJTehVoSc/s1600/arctic_ice-melting.jpg Clearly a fake photograph...

Are you serious, armchair?

Is there some level of irony I'm missing here?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:58pm:

Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 9:52pm: I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive. I think you are displaying you ignorance because the demand is not at all inelastic and alternatives are very much price competitive, even with the massive subsidies given to coal production and coal fired generation.

Um, yes it is inelastic. Here are some estimates reviewed by the Productivity Commission last year:

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109929/21-carbon-prices-appendixl.pdf

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed.

As you so helpfully quoted for us earlier:

Carbon pricing reduces emissions from electricity generation by shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies and moderating growth in electricity demand.

Moderating growth in electricity demand is only a small part of the equation.  The major emissions reductions will come from shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies.  That is the main point of the carbon price.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed.

"If the households are compensated enough to consume the same level of electricity," this is economic speak for households being compensated more than the income effect. As if, Shane.

If any of you are contemplating sending your kids to ANU to study economics, pull out their application forms, now.

MOTR wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:19pm:

Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 10:08pm: If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed. "If the households are compensated enough to consume the same level of electricity," this is economic speak for households being compensated more than the income effect. As if, Shane. If any of you are contemplating sending your kids to ANU to study economics, pull out their application forms, now.

Full compensation means that the income effect is not relevant, and some households are being fully or overcompensated by the Government. If households have enough additional money to offset the increase in prices then they can choose to spend this additional income on electricity, for example, and not reduce their carbon consumption. But the substitution effect will still operate. Households will face changes in relative prices, with goods made with fewer emissions becoming relatively cheaper. By choosing less emissions-intensive goods and services, and improvimg energy efficiency households will be able to save money.

Higher-income households who don’t receive compensation will have stronger incentives to economise, as both the income and substitution effects will operate.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:15pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 9:58pm: Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 9:52pm: I think with the carbon tax the substitution effect will be extremely small due to denand being inelastic and alternatives relatively more  expensive. I think you are displaying you ignorance because the demand is not at all inelastic and alternatives are very much price competitive, even with the massive subsidies given to coal production and coal fired generation. Um, yes it is inelastic. Here are some estimates reviewed by the Productivity Commission last year: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109929/21-carbon-prices-appendixl.pdf

The price elasticity of electricity will certainly be inelastic, however, that just means the contraction in demand will be proportionally less than the increase in price. The figures you have supplied actually contradict your claim that the substitution effect will be extremely small.

It is deceptive to imply that inelastic means virtually unresponsive. Here is the most pertinent bit in the link provided by Shane.


Quote:

The own-price elasticity of electricity demand measures the proportional change in electricity consumption in response to a unit change in the price. It is usually negative, since a price increase will typically reduce consumption. Thus, an elasticity of -0.5 indicates that a 1 per cent rise in the electricity price reduces demand by 0.5 per cent. The elasticity also tends to be lower in the short term than in the long term, because it takes time for consumers to substitute towards less energy-intensive appliances. A recent cross-country review of elasticity estimates for electricity demand found that they typically range from -0.2 to -0.4 in the short term, and -0.5 to -0.7 in the long term (Fan and Hyndman 2011).

So long term we are looking at an elasticity of somewhere between -0.5 and -0.7. This is certainly significant.

Now, Shane the economist, how about you explain the impact of carbon pricing on supply side abatement.

Shane B wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Prior to actually passing the legislation enabling the carbon dioxide tax to become law, the Greens and ALP went to great lengths to explain that while the cost of electricity would rise and we'd get (some/little) compensation, the whole point of the tax was to make electricity more expensive in the expec tation that we'd use it less in order to save money and the environment all at once. However, now that electricity prices are rising at nearly double the CPI, the ALP and Greens are going to equally great lengths to say that the tax isn't causing electricity prices to rise (or not by much at the least), in a direct contradiction to their previous position on this issue. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone from the Greens or ALP to stand up and tell us that this is the whole point of the carbon dioxide tax - to make electricity more expensive! The other hilarious aspect of this tax is the compensation. Why tax us on one hand while giving compensation with the other? Kinda makes the whole deal rather pointless, eh! Also, Gillard's assertion that businesses can simply pass on the extra costs associated with the carbon dioxide tax to customers. That sounds good, but unfortunately our PM and Treasurer live in a world of make-believe because in the real world that we live in, it's not always possible to do so, as is the case with fruit and vegie growers who supply to large supermarkets, as those supermarkets refuse to accept any price rises (but gladly pass on the added cost of electricity to their customers - you and me - in the form of more expensive products). I tell ya, it's a strange, strange world we live in under Labor and the Greens!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Perhaps Shane the economist will come on later to explain the income effect and the price effect. Don't forget the substitution effect, because the price effect is the sum of the substitution and income effects. :D :D :D :D And supposing that Gillard has compensated households adequately then might want to consider the Hicksian demand function.

Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!

Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!
Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!

Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!
Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!

Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!
Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!

Jevons Pardox says you can't win the argument on energy not being priced correctly!

-->> ROSS GITTINS TOLD US THAT ECONOMICS IS BROKEN PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT OF EXTERNALITIES AND YOU CAN'T SPIN THE EARTH IN REVERSE FAST ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT STATEMENT BACK!

SO, .....CUM GET SUM PUNK!!  :o  ::)  :-[  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*  ;D  :'(

so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it..

can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?..

so thats a step in the right direction..

I and most other sceptics..

those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,,


will await the result of this CARBON TAX/PRICE

to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing...

in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard...

not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either...

but we are expected to believe them... hilarious.

People are cutting their use of electricity so the pricing of carbon is already working.
Extra money in the pocket thanks to the compensation payments and conserving electricity thus saving them money and curbing the amount of CO2 we are sending into the atmosphere.
All round a good thing Im sure you will all agree

cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it..

No - burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming, and there are many other ways of producing electricity that do not involve burning fossil fuels.  Ideally - we should be using more electricity - not less - to replace other fossil fuel use such as space and water heating and transportation.


cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?.. so thats a step in the right direction..

I can't speak for everyone, but I have replaces gas heating with electricity, and by installing more insulation and PV my energy costs and carbon footprint have decrease considerably


cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

I and most other sceptics.. those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,,

You are not a "sceptic".   Ignorance is not "scepticism".




cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing...

No - no scientists have told you that "the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years..".  David Rose of the Daily Mail told you that.

Science tells us that the ongoing warming of the planet is clear and unambiguous


cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard...

You had a voice.  It was at the last election.  Remember? - The majority of Australians voted for parties that had policies to price carbon.  Just as happened in the 2007 election.

The ignorant deniers have lost.  No one is listening to you anymore.  Suck it up Princess.

cods wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either....

No - that is because it is not a tax.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:15pm:

Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 10:08pm: If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed. As you so helpfully quoted for us earlier: Carbon pricing reduces emissions from electricity generation by shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies and moderating growth in electricity demand. Moderating growth in electricity demand is only a small part of the equation.  The major emissions reductions will come from shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies.  That is the main point of the carbon price.

Well that's good to know, because many people believe the carbon tax is all about 'redistributing the weath'...taxing us to the hilt and sending it off to the UN.

bambu wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 10:15pm: Shane B wrote on Oct 25th, 2012 at 10:08pm: If the households are compensated enough, this will offset the substituion effect by allowing them to purchase a combination of goods on their original indifference curve. A Hicksian demand curve will show the households new consumption choice after the price change while being compensated enough to allow the household to have the same level of utility as they did previously. Albeit the composition of the consumption bundle might have changed. As you so helpfully quoted for us earlier: Carbon pricing reduces emissions from electricity generation by shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies and moderating growth in electricity demand. Moderating growth in electricity demand is only a small part of the equation.  The major emissions reductions will come from shifting the generation mix towards cleaner technologies.  That is the main point of the carbon price. Well that's good to know, because many people believe the carbon tax is all about 'redistributing the weath'...taxing us to the hilt and sending it off to the UN.

Yes.  Some people are really stupid.

bambu wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Well that's good to know, because many people believe the carbon tax is all about 'redistributing the weath'...taxing us to the hilt and sending it off to the UN.

THen you obviously have no idea how the carbon tax works.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 12:39pm:

cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it.. No - burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming, and there are many other ways of producing electricity that do not involve burning fossil fuels.  Ideally - we should be using more electricity - not less - to replace other fossil fuel use such as space and water heating and transportation. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?.. so thats a step in the right direction.. I can't speak for everyone, but I have replaces gas heating with electricity, and by installing more insulation and PV my energy costs and carbon footprint have decrease considerably cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: I and most other sceptics.. those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,, You are not a "sceptic".   Ignorance is not "scepticism". cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing... No - no scientists have told you that "the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years..".  David Rose of the Daily Mail told you that. Science tells us that the ongoing warming of the planet is clear and unambiguous cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard... You had a voice.  It was at the last election.  Remember? - The majority of Australians voted for parties that had policies to price carbon.  Just as happened in the 2007 election. The ignorant deniers have lost.  No one is listening to you anymore.  Suck it up Princess. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either.... No - that is because it is not a tax.

How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures? More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth. To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!!

Lets stop looking at power and look at other industries that actually have a choice to move O/Seas or pay.
Last year in one move the ALP allowed world emissions to increase by almost 400,000tons of CO2 ;) How you ask? simple ; halve production at BSL port kembla which will be replaced by chinese product which uses 30% more coal /ton, but is discounted by a chinese govt bonus on every ton exported as well as their currency discount of about 17%.

Further lets look to the U.K/E.U and see how their carbon credit scheme has been going. The word fiasco comes to mind when you read the latest reports on actual CONSUMPTION :o along with free credits and where those credits can be purchased. It makes us look really stupid when talking about power as well!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2012 at 5:48am:

How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures?

By absorbing and re-emitting energy of certain wavelengths back towards the surface of the earth.

Most school children could explain it to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect


Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2012 at 5:48am:

More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever

By absorbing and re-emitting energy of certain wavelengths back towards the surface of the earth.

Most school children could explain it to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Australia ranks 14th in the amount of historic emissions produced, which are impacting upon climate now
http://theconversation.edu.au/history-shows-australia-is-no-pissant-when-it-comes-to-emissions-1589


Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2012 at 5:48am:

when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth.

Carbon pricing of some type is currently in place or planned for the EU, parts of the USA, China, India, NZ, South Korea, South Africa etc etc.

Virtually everyone on earth IS adopting carbon pricing.  Live with it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/Factbox-Carbon-taxes-around-the-world


Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2012 at 5:48am:

To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!!

I think you need to look up what the word "pollutant" means.

Co2, when it exists in concentrations in the atmosphere which have a negative impact on the planet's climate is a pollutant.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2012 at 5:48am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 27th, 2012 at 12:39pm: cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it.. No - burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming, and there are many other ways of producing electricity that do not involve burning fossil fuels.  Ideally - we should be using more electricity - not less - to replace other fossil fuel use such as space and water heating and transportation. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?.. so thats a step in the right direction.. I can't speak for everyone, but I have replaces gas heating with electricity, and by installing more insulation and PV my energy costs and carbon footprint have decrease considerably cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: I and most other sceptics.. those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,, You are not a "sceptic".   Ignorance is not "scepticism". cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing... No - no scientists have told you that "the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years..".  David Rose of the Daily Mail told you that. Science tells us that the ongoing warming of the planet is clear and unambiguous cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard... You had a voice.  It was at the last election.  Remember? - The majority of Australians voted for parties that had policies to price carbon.  Just as happened in the 2007 election. The ignorant deniers have lost.  No one is listening to you anymore.  Suck it up Princess. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either.... No - that is because it is not a tax. How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures? More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth. To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!!

It does stuff all.

As evidenced by no warming for 16 years. That is real evidence, not modeled evidence.

Also, you might want to check out

Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming

1      Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve

2      Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative

3      R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

4      Miskolczi – The optical depth of the atmosphere hasn’t changed

5      McShane and Wyner24 – The Hockeystick is broken

6      McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman26 - The hot spot is really missing

7      Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N.: The only thing certain is the models are wrong.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures? By absorbing and re-emitting energy of certain wavelengths back towards the surface of the earth. Most school children could explain it to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever By absorbing and re-emitting energy of certain wavelengths back towards the surface of the earth. Most school children could explain it to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Australia ranks 14th in the amount of historic emissions produced, which are impacting upon climate now http://theconversation.edu.au/history-shows-australia-is-no-pissant-when-it-comes-to-emissions-1589 Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth. Carbon pricing of some type is currently in place or planned for the EU, parts of the USA, China, India, NZ, South Korea, South Africa etc etc. Virtually everyone on earth IS adopting carbon pricing.  Live with it. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/Factbox-Carbon-taxes-around-the-world Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!! I think you need to look up what the word "pollutant" means. Co2, when it exists in concentrations in the atmosphere which have a negative impact on the planet's climate is a pollutant.

Very few EU countries are doing this as most are struggling with financial strife (eg Greece) and are in need of bailouts, so saving the environment is so far down their list of priorities it isn't funny! Only a handful of the states in the US are doing or planning to do anything even similar to the carbon dioxide tax. China has no intention of going down this road for decades and is in fact increasing it's pollution output. Same goes for India and NZ is scaling back their carbon tax to almost nothing. More countries are refusing to adopt an economy-wide tax or are scaling back their existing carbon dioxide tax than there are countries installing one. We are well and truly in the minority - something Labor had better get used to.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 27th, 2012 at 12:39pm: cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it.. No - burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming, and there are many other ways of producing electricity that do not involve burning fossil fuels.  Ideally - we should be using more electricity - not less - to replace other fossil fuel use such as space and water heating and transportation. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?.. so thats a step in the right direction.. I can't speak for everyone, but I have replaces gas heating with electricity, and by installing more insulation and PV my energy costs and carbon footprint have decrease considerably cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: I and most other sceptics.. those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,, You are not a "sceptic".   Ignorance is not "scepticism". cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing... No - no scientists have told you that "the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years..".  David Rose of the Daily Mail told you that. Science tells us that the ongoing warming of the planet is clear and unambiguous cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard... You had a voice.  It was at the last election.  Remember? - The majority of Australians voted for parties that had policies to price carbon.  Just as happened in the 2007 election. The ignorant deniers have lost.  No one is listening to you anymore.  Suck it up Princess. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either.... No - that is because it is not a tax. How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures? More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth. To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!! It does stuff all. As evidenced by no warming for 16 years. That is real evidence, not modeled evidence. Also, you might want to check out Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming 1      Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve 2      Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative 3      R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean. 4      Miskolczi – The optical depth of the atmosphere hasn’t changed 5      McShane and Wyner24 – The Hockeystick is broken 6      McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman26 - The hot spot is really missing 7      Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N.: The only thing certain is the models are wrong. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html

None of these papers disprove global warming. Pick anyone of them and tell us how it disproves global warming. 16 years ago there was a spike in temperatures due to an extreme El Niño. This has nothing to do with trend. If you take out the known natural forcings the trend is as obvious as your desire to create a sense of doubt. In reality there are very few climate scientists who dispute AGW, and with so much at stake it is irrational to play against the odds. Progs wants us to play Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. He's as mad as a March hare.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/climate_scan_consesus.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/97_Climate_Experts_500.jpg

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png

Why do you ppl have to argue about minor details? Climate change is happening and we need to stop it. IMO taxing it isnt going to do much but @ least governments are doing something.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 31^st, 2012 at 3:43am:

Why do you ppl have to argue about minor details? Climate change is happening and we need to stop it. IMO taxing it isnt going to do much but @ least governments are doing something. SOB

Actually your all missing the MAJOR point that a carbon tax/scheme/scam does NOTHING and has been proven to actually INCREASE global emissions by a country's increased CONSUMPTION via imports of goods and power the E.U is a perfect example. U.k carbon emissions via consumption (there is actually a govt report along with ones from as far back as 07/8 detailing the problems)are UP 25% OR MORE!!! Depending upon survey/report. this is because IMPORTs have almost tripled over their carbon tax period and don't count in the e.u scheme.
The other MAJOR point people like to ignore when spouting off that India/China are going to introduce a scheme is that their "scheme" has no credits and NO CAP!!!!!! what this means is that you can Emmit as much as you like as long as it's less CO2 per unit than originally produced whereas we and the e.u have a cap so any real growth in a sector must come at the cost of another or from IMPORTING foreign carbon credits like those India sell from a COAL FIRED power plant!

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29th, 2012 at 5:48am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 27th, 2012 at 12:39pm: cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: so electricity is the sole cause of GW.. and now we have to find a way to live without it.. No - burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming, and there are many other ways of producing electricity that do not involve burning fossil fuels.  Ideally - we should be using more electricity - not less - to replace other fossil fuel use such as space and water heating and transportation. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: can we assume that our green friends have already stopped using anything that remotely needs coal. to power it?.. so thats a step in the right direction.. I can't speak for everyone, but I have replaces gas heating with electricity, and by installing more insulation and PV my energy costs and carbon footprint have decrease considerably cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: I and most other sceptics.. those nasty people that believe in GW being a natural phenomenon and not a human caused catastrophy,, You are not a "sceptic".   Ignorance is not "scepticism". cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: to really get the true picture..on the one hand we get scientists saying the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years.. on the other we get all sorts of graphs telling us otherwise..its very confusing... No - no scientists have told you that "the planet hasnt changed temperature wise in 17years..".  David Rose of the Daily Mail told you that. Science tells us that the ongoing warming of the planet is clear and unambiguous cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: in the mean time of course we have to pay we are not given a voice in that regard... You had a voice.  It was at the last election.  Remember? - The majority of Australians voted for parties that had policies to price carbon.  Just as happened in the 2007 election. The ignorant deniers have lost.  No one is listening to you anymore.  Suck it up Princess. cods wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 7:20pm: not only that.. this CARBON TAX isnt reaping in anything..LOL>..they didnt get that right either.... No - that is because it is not a tax. How can man-made CO2 (which accounts for about 3% of global CO2 in the atmosphere) affect global temperatures? More to the point, how can Australia's contribution (which is 1% of 1%) have any effect on global temperatures whatsoever when virtually no one else who matters is adopting a carbon dioxide tax? Carbon dioxide is essential to support all life on Earth. To call it a pollutant is ludicrous. We may as well call oxygen a pollutant too!!! progressiveslol wrote on Oct 30th, 2012 at 9:50pm: It does stuff all. As evidenced by no warming for 16 years. That is real evidence, not modeled evidence. THe earth has been warming for 16 years and longer.  This is what actual measurements of surface temperature, ocean heat content, sea level, glacial mass balance and the arctic ice cap tells us. Sorry - but An article you read in the Daily Mail by David Rose is not actual evidence. You have been fooled [quote author=657B75717F7A7A160 link=1351159236/45#45 date=1351597837]Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming 1      Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve 2      Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative 3      R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean. 4      Miskolczi – The optical depth of the atmosphere hasn’t changed 5      McShane and Wyner24 – The Hockeystick is broken 6      McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman26 - The hot spot is really missing 7      Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N.: The only thing certain is the models are wrong. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html

No - none of those papers disprove global warming.

You have been fooled again.

Frantic wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 11:39am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 31st, 2012 at 3:43am: Why do you ppl have to argue about minor details? Climate change is happening and we need to stop it. IMO taxing it isnt going to do much but @ least governments are doing something. SOB Actually your all missing the MAJOR point that a carbon tax/scheme/scam does NOTHING and has been proven to actually INCREASE global emissions by a country's increased CONSUMPTION via imports of goods and power the E.U is a perfect example. U.k carbon emissions via consumption (there is actually a govt report along with ones from as far back as 07/8 detailing the problems)are UP 25% OR MORE!!! Depending upon survey/report. this is because IMPORTs have almost tripled over their carbon tax period and don't count in the e.u scheme. The other MAJOR point people like to ignore when spouting off that India/China are going to introduce a scheme is that their "scheme" has no credits and NO CAP!!!!!! what this means is that you can Emmit as much as you like as long as it's less CO2 per unit than originally produced whereas we and the e.u have a cap so any real growth in a sector must come at the cost of another or from IMPORTING foreign carbon credits like those India sell from a COAL FIRED power plant!

Exactly. Think about it. If the customers of a power company are being compensated, then the power companies have little need to upgrade or change to cleaner technology urgently because that technology costs money that customers would have to pay through higher bills. So if you're a power company, why bother changing when customers are being compensated by the government?

With power the E.U are laughing at gillard and Australia like where idiots, ;D ;D they import power and gas from the good old Russia so that does not count in their carbon cap.
They give their steel mills so many extra credits that they currently hold enough to run for 12 months without purchasing a single one or could further collapse the carbon credit scam..Opps scheme by dumping them on the market.
The E.U does not count any emissions from imported goods or the transport of those goods, which is a handy thing when your imports have gone up by 200-300% :o :o They have a report which basically states the E.U is to worried about upsetting China and India and causing a diplomatic incident to consider charging a carbon levy on the imported goods >:( So lets just ramp up the export of all heavy industry to the third world.

Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns.
I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race.

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race.

Der, I think this is for you


Hurricane expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says:


The only accurate part of this Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover is “stupid”

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race.

Der, and this.

This graph shows why AGW credibility is going out the door fast and why Abbott is best to steer clear of the AGW loons and makes Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. correct

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_142-aug-04-07-42.jpg

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race.

Actually they would laugh at your ignorance!!!!!
A tax that INCREASES emissions GREAT IDEA!!!!!

The emissions from global shipping are expected to double to be around 8-10%, this is from massive bulk oil burning vessels that have virtually no emissions controls and are the main cause of acid rain in many port cities, your support of a carbon tax increases those emissions, WELL DONE :P

Frantic wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 5:32pm:

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race. Actually they would laugh at your ignorance!!!!! A tax that INCREASES emissions GREAT IDEA!!!!! The emissions from global shipping are expected to double to be around 8-10%, this is from massive bulk oil burning vessels that have virtually no emissions controls and are the main cause of acid rain in many port cities, your support of a carbon tax increases those emissions, WELL DONE :P

What a lovely surprise..prevailings cellmate is having a turn on the hospital computer  :D

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 5:38pm:

Frantic wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 5:32pm: adelcrow wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race. Actually they would laugh at your ignorance!!!!! A tax that INCREASES emissions GREAT IDEA!!!!! The emissions from global shipping are expected to double to be around 8-10%, this is from massive bulk oil burning vessels that have virtually no emissions controls and are the main cause of acid rain in many port cities, your support of a carbon tax increases those emissions, WELL DONE :P What a lovely surprise..prevailings cellmate is having a turn on the hospital computer  :D

Play the ball not the man.
First as you cannot answer the facts you try and divert it to being about climate change rather than a tax which does nothing but increase emissions.
Then you try the insult route, still cant actually answer the issue though, good luck going down tony abbott's path ;)

Frantic wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 6:03pm:

adelcrow wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 5:38pm: Frantic wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 5:32pm: adelcrow wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 2:34pm: Tell those in the USA, Cuba, Haiti and Canada that just got blown to crap by hurricane Sandy that climate change isn't causing more severe and dangerous weather patterns. I bet those that lost everything wouldnt think a carbon tax is to great a price to pay to secure the future of the human race. Actually they would laugh at your ignorance!!!!! A tax that INCREASES emissions GREAT IDEA!!!!! The emissions from global shipping are expected to double to be around 8-10%, this is from massive bulk oil burning vessels that have virtually no emissions controls and are the main cause of acid rain in many port cities, your support of a carbon tax increases those emissions, WELL DONE :P What a lovely surprise..prevailings cellmate is having a turn on the hospital computer  :D Play the ball not the man. First as you cannot answer the facts you try and divert it to being about climate change rather than a tax which does nothing but increase emissions. Then you try the insult route, still cant actually answer the issue though, good luck going down tony abbott's path ;)

My apologies..from your answer I assumed you were posting from a mental asylum..my mistake

Again, cant answer the failure of the E.U carbon scheme so you revert to implied insults.
So in your blind faith you support a tax that has a negative impact on the enviroment?(increases CO2 )....... Then again why ask , you'll just resort to insults or change the subject as you cannot accept something that challenges your faith.

The next report from DEFRA ,the uk govt org that is not only watching emissions but consumtion is due dec 13 should be interesting ;) According to the uk govt to 05 , 15years into the carbon scheme consumption had caused an increase of 35% in uk caused emissions of co2. Because of the GFC this had dropped to 20% over 1990 levels in 08-09.