freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2008 at 4:53pm:


Yes I know who wrote it. Recall, however they quoted groups like ABARE and the Productivity Commission. I think you will find that they have a few economists in their pay!   

Unpredictable, but undoubtedly dramatic. Economists' models are no help. Politics will shape the tax, applying it here and there as dictated by planners and the usual political pressures. Industry groups will fight for preferences, provinces and states will battle to protect their local economies, international trade will be at risk, developing countries will gain advantages. Carbon taxes, especially cap-and-trade systems, essentially require a total reordering of economic calculation around carbon atoms instead of money.

What do states do withall the new tax revenue?

This is the second part of the central planning nightmare. Local, provincial and national governments will begin massive planning efforts and plot new interventions to deploy the new tax revenues. They will claim to be "shifting" the revenue back to taxpayers through cuts in income and other taxes. They will want to use the new revenue to subsidize other non-carbon industries, and offset the burden of the carbon tax on injured industries.

That's consistent with Pigou's theory, which worked both ways. Not only should government tax to reduce the use of bad things, he thought government should subsidize good things, part of his belief that government should help distribute resources "in the most efficient way." His objective, he said, was to make it "feasible for governments to control the play of economic forces to promote the economic welfare, and through that, the total welfare, of their citizens as a whole."

So carbon tax programs are an experiment --although one that has already been tried. It imposes central planning on an economy based on carbon emissions rather than economic growth and welfare. It didn't work for the economy, it won't work for carbon.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2008 at 8:26pm:



No - that's 20% of the total load, and how many times do I have to explain that storage technology is already available?  

Quote:


Are there? Do you have some examples of these plans? I'd be totally amazed if you could take an exhaust stack and convert it to a CO2 extraction system by some process of retrofitting. Your retrofitting might leave the turbogenerators intact but that's about all.

The other question is - will this retrofitting technology be available within the projected lifespans of current coal fired power stations, or do we have to wait for the next generation?

Quote:


From what I've read, that's the main thrust of the current research, and I'm not aware that any results have been published yet, so I don't know where you get this idea that it doesn't seem to be a problem.  

If it's not possible to maintain a leakage rate of less than 0.01% over a 1000 year period, the whole thing becomes unworkable, and that's the bottom line.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-I-en.pdf

(See section 5.2.3)

Try this thread - the last post on there:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1178671084/30#30

I think the point that Tim Flannery is making is that the coal industry is dragging its heels.

I know that's the case. It's procrastination on a major scale. I think it will become apparent that clean coal is on a parallel with the emperor's new clothes.

If they're going to do something, I agree that it has to be sooner than later.

The main problem is that the coal lobby is putting its weight behind a clean coal future that is unlikely to materialise, and diverting time and energy from proven renewable technology.

As far as petrol is concerned, if we really want to reduce the cost of petrol medium term, we need to add additional taxes to reduce the demand, then use the extra revenue to subsidise more efficient transport options, such as hybrids. Hybrids are not perfect, but they use half the fuel of a conventional vehicle the same size. If we had more hybrids, the demand for fuel would drop again, and the pressure 
for higher fuel prices would be eased.

Of course, such a course of action is political suicide. I tend to agree with Tim Flannery's statement today that Climate Change might be too difficult for governments to manage.

Muso, there is no need to subsidise hybrids. Simply putting up the price would be enough.

Labor runs into trouble with its green machines

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23818737-2702,00.html

KEVIN Rudd's key economic advisory body has rejected as economically unsound his $500 million plan to subsidise the development of a hybrid car in Australia.

The Productivity Commission has also queried the Prime Minister's promise that the Green Car Innovation Fund would spark greater car industry innovation, advising it would make more economic sense for Australia to import hybrid cars than to subsidise local models.

The commission said plans to slash tariffs on imported vehicles to 5 per cent in 2010 and scrap the previous government's $500 million-a-year Automotive Competitiveness and Innovation Scheme by 2015 would accelerate downsizing of the car industry.

But it found the economy would be $500 million a year better off if the Government went ahead with the scheduled cuts, because of lower car prices and savings on subsidies.

The criticism came yesterday as Mr Rudd used World Environment Day to hail his $500million fund as a boon for the environment and the potential trigger for the recovery of the nation's car manufacturing industry.

The car sector employs 66,000 workers but has lost 11,000 since 1996, including 930 when a Mitsubishi plant in Adelaide closed earlier this year.

The decline has come despite taxpayer-funded support including tariffs on imports and direct subsidies worth $1.1 billion in 2006-07.

Mr Rudd told parliament yesterday a locally produced hybrid car would revitalise the industry while also reducing carbon emissions.

"The Government's view is that we need an Australian automotive sector that is sustainable in all senses - economic, social and environmental," the Prime Minister said.

"When all is said and done, we do not just want a green car - we want a green car industry - and industry that can provide secure, high-skill, high-wage jobs by meeting the global demand for a wide range of greenhouse-friendly technologies and an industry that is itself a model of clean and green production."

Labor promised its GCIF during last year's election campaign. Starting in 2011 - after the next scheduled election - it will draw on the fund to pay car manufacturers $1 for every $3 they spend on the development and manufacture of low-emission vehicles.
Mr Rudd has also commissioned former Victorian premier Steve Bracks to review the car industry and suggest ways to improve its efficiency and protect jobs while reducing carbon emissions.

As Mr Rudd told parliament yesterday that high fuel costs and climate change demanded government action on a hybrid car, the Productivity Commission said it was unwise to subside cars that would otherwise be uncommercial. "Assisted green car production is unlikely to lead either to innovation spillovers or lower greenhouse emissions," said the report commissioned by Mr Bracks, whose final study is due by the end of next month.

"The GCIF will likely encourage some buyers to switch from taxed, more efficiently produced imported hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles to subsidised, higher-cost, locally produced ones - without markedly increasing green car sales overall."

Industry Minister Kim Carr, who is about to travel overseas to lobby manufacturers with Australian operations to access the new GCIF, said through a spokeswoman last night the fund would go ahead regardless of the commission's view.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries attacked the commission report as flawed.

"To state that an innovation fund aimed at reducing emissions will not result in innovation or reduced emissions shows the commission's poor understanding of the competitive influences in the industry," said FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar. "The commission's report ignores the fact that the automotive industry is Australia's most valuable exporter after mining and that product innovation is essential to maintaining global competitiveness."

The commission's suggestion that the closure of more manufacturing facilities could boost the fortunes of remaining manufacturers was disturbing, he added.

"It is based on the false assumption that the cost to the economy of the closure of one or more vehicle manufacturers will be picked up by other car makers in the economy," he said.

Mr Rudd said his approach would help the car industry reinvent itself.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson backed Mr Rudd's efforts to cut greenhouse emissions but said Labor's policies were inconsistent, with imported hybrid cars subject to the same level of tax as petrol-guzzlers such as Hummers.

Muso asked for some sources regarding some of my earlier comments. Here's an article that covers some of the same ground as well as supplying sources:

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026

Global warming, an unsettled science

Image: CIA Factbook
The thesis of man-made global warming has been portrayed as a scientific consensus, but is this more a policymaker and media phenomenon than a settled matter?

By Simon Roughneen for ISN Security Watch (30/05/08)

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. This included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature rise.

Founding director of the UN Environment Programme Maurice Strong once analyzed global environmental challenges as follows:

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

"Industrial civilization" has been pumping additional carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect, whereby carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor combine to trap sunrays bouncing off the earth's surface, keeping the earth at a temperature conducive to supporting life.

What ultimate benefit the collapse of industrial civilization could bring at a time when - as Oxford University economist Paul Collier put it in his award-winning book The Bottom Billion - around four billion people are being lifted out of poverty, remains unclear.

However, the IPCC outlines that "deep cuts in global emission will be required," while the European Commission supports emissions cuts of 25-40 percent by 2020. The US, however, considers such cuts beyond reach, at least before 2050, while Japan says it is premature to commit to 2020 limits.

On 26 May, G8 environment ministers endorsed slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century, but failed to agree on much more contentious near-term targets.

Environmentalists were disappointed, according to AP reports: They missed the "opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations, but they failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough," said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan.

Whether or not such emissions cuts, and the industrial and economic turmoil that could ensue, are necessary, depends precisely on whether global warming or climate change is man-made, or whether the anthropogenic aspect outweighs natural factors.

On 10 May 2007, UN special climate envoy Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland declared the climate debate "over," adding that "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's scientific "consensus."

Questions about the "consensus" are mounting, however, as are apparently growing numbers of scientists who dispute the notion that "the science is settled."

Unraveling consensus
All four agencies that track Earth's temperature - the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California - report a 0.7C cooling in 2007 - a reversal of the warming that has taken place over the 20th Century.

A recent study in the journal Nature by scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, postulates that global temperatures are unlikely to rise again until around 2015-2020, after a decade-long leveling-off since the 1998 recorded high. In other words, it is possible that by 2020, the world will not have warmed for over 20 years.

Dr Vicky Pope of the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office told ISN Security Watch that natural climate variations linked to the Pacific cooling system known as La Niña, as well as a cooling phase of a system of Atlantic currents, contributed to the 2007 cooling and what the Leibniz/Nature study predicts for the coming decade.

The climate prediction modeling system used by the IPCC postulates that global temperatures will rise in tandem with carbon dioxide emissions, and at an unprecedented and dangerous rate, hence the need for, if not the collapse of industrial civilization, then reductions in carbon emissions as outlined since the Kyoto agreements in 1998.

Another study published in Nature in mid-May postulated that "Changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone," and that man-made climate change is having "a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally."

Speaking about this study to the Financial Times, Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide, said: "[We should] consider that there has been only 0.75ºC of temperature change so far, yet the expectation for this century is four to nine times that amount."

However, Richard Lindzen (Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology), told ISN Security Watch that predictions such as the IPCCs were based on flawed modeling:

While the US remains outside the Kyoto system, along with developing-country high carbon emitters such as China and India, US President George Bush has made conciliatory noises on climate issues in recent months, while all three remaining presidential candidates have been vocal about their commitment to offsetting.

Less commented-upon is the data on emissions reduction: The US has cut the rate of increase of its carbon emissions more than any party to Kyoto, according to the Index of Leading Economic Indicators' figures for 1997-2004, the last year for universal emission data.

The US Senate will convene next week to discuss a climate bill, which aims, through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, to reduce emissions 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, even though countries such as China, Russia and India have no such plans.

Alarmism misplaced?
Prior to the December Bali climate summit, some of the scientists who signed the Senate and Oregon letters penned an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, outlining their view that climate alarmism was misplaced, and the policy options discussed were futile:

"The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. […] Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the 'precautionary principle' because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. […] The current UN focus on "fighting climate change" […] is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take."

Whether this distraction results in the destruction of industrialized civilization or not, some analysts, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, believes that an inappropriate reaction to global warming will cause more problems than contribute solutions.

Carbon trading has been pitched as part-panacea to man-made global warming. Stanford University academics believe that the system does little to prevent emissions, while cynics believe that proponents of the schemes can benefit financially - a sort-of counter-argument to the "big oil funds climate dissent" view held by green activists.

Problems aside, Dr Terry Barker, director of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Research, tells ISN Security Watch that the ongoing climate negotiations need to "establish a global carbon price through a global cap-and-trade scheme for international transport, not adequately covered by national jurisdiction."

He adds: "Governments need to agree to quantified targets [...] with a reasonable chance of achieving the EU's 2 degree target."

It seems that policymakers are in a bind: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas reacted to the Bali summit as follows: "Now the real hard work must begin. It is essential that the agreement to be worked out over the next two years is ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels."

And more incongruently, only last week, Slovenia's UN ambassador Sanja Stiglic, speaking on behalf of the EU, whose rotating Presidency Ljubljana holds, said that "the present [food] situation highlights the urgent need to reach ambitious, global and comprehensive targets for reductions in CO2 emissions."

The massive rise in world food prices in the past two years came to a head recently, with widespread food riots in numerous countries, and many analysts point to the diversion of cropland to the subsidized biofuels industry - aimed to curb carbon emissions - as a contributory factor to the food crisis.

Global warming, therefore, is causing the food crisis, but most directly through human efforts to prevent warming. In any case, the IPCC itself concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 percent, "globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase."