I'm glad you are not of the "do nothing" variety. Those types really p1ss me off.  Adn I'm glad you share the opinion that Australia needs only worry about its own backyard. We cant control the world, so lets not try.

so, the question becomes what is the best thing to do.  The goals are obviously going to be:
1) Reduce our c02 emissions.
2) Minimize cost to the economy.
3) Immune to political whims and corruption.

There will be a cost. That cant be escaped. We get electricity from a very cheap, but poluting source; coal.

Many studies have shown that a market based approach is more cost effective than a big government approach.  

We have seen the big government approach fail already in Australia. In NSW we have had the solar industry go from boom to bust just on the changing of government.  It was an expensive scheme targetting only one solution (PV). This is the government picking winners approach. And a bit of a mess.

The market approach is to price (tax) carbon dioxide to a level to drive down the amount generated. Initially, the price will still make coal cheaper than alternatives, but more expensive than it is now.
This will drive those not getting full compo to seek more efficient useage.
Once the price rises to a point where other alternatives are viable, private and public money can be invested to build these with a known price "guarantee" return on investment.

Why would only peak drop with greater efficiency ?

The first step is to slow the growth of electricity demand so we dont build more coal powered stations.

Like I said above, the carbon tax is the stick, seed funding in alternatives is the carrot.  But the government shouldnt be the ones picking and choosing which technologies to invest in. Its too corruptable.  We've already seen 100's of millions wasted on carbon seqestation. Stupid idea spruked by the coal industry. Let the market decide.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:53pm:


Well, thats actually four issues, but anyway.....
1. Theres no shortage of deforested land we can replant that has little or no agricultural potential.
2. So what; plenty of broke farms out there unable to produce anything cost effectively. Also see point 1.
3. Thats one tree, the forest ecosystem holds the carbon as long as the forest is there
4. Theres been fires from day one on planet earth and yet there's still plenty of forests about. Forests are never "destroyed" by fires, Australian forests need fire to facilitate reproduction.  They grow back pretty quickly too.   

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 8:51am:


It's interesting that you're in favour of a tax with no potential to effect the environment, yet dismiss out of hand an accepted method of reducing existing C02.

At any rate, the sequestration issue probably belongs on another thread if you are interested in continuing on that track.

Australia's current CO2e emissions represent approximately 1.5% of the current global total. Some suggest that this seems to be a rather small portion, and that imposing a tax or price on carbon emission in Australia will have little or no effect.

I would just like to point out that if we were to exempt every country whose emissions represent 1.5% or less of the global total, we would exempt approximately 41% of global emissions!

Australia is a large emitter in absolute terms, and an absolutely bloody enormous emitter on a per capita basis.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/charting-course-through-carbon-war...

Original Reeper wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 4:33pm:


Yes it's worth it. Despite what the deniers and delayers would have us believe, there WILL be an international agreement, it is inevitable, and we will end up having to do this eventually anyway. And the plain fact of it is that the longer we delay pricing carbon then the more expensive the change will be. It makes economic sense to get this reform over and done with.

Why is the Govt purporting a carbon price will benefit the environment? Why is the opposition not challenging this assertion directly?

An ETS puts a cap on emissions and the cap determines the price of emitting greenhouse gases. National emissions are capped, and the cap gradually tightened over time. A market is created in which emissions permits can be traded. There is now an incentive for business to reduce greenhouse emissions, as there is a price for emitting. The governments proposal is an ETS with an initial fixed price period. The fixed price period works effectively as a tax, because there is no cap on emissions and the permits expire each year. The main reductions during this period are going to come from direct funding of carbon projects through revenue, not from the market.

Has anyone actually examined what the potential drop in carbon emissions would be based on different levels of tax?

A tax, which again is not what the governments policy is, effectively caps emissions by making emitting more expensive than investing in reducing emissions. The higher the tax the greater the incentive for business to lower their emissions. There probably has been reports done on this but the question is largely irrelevant to the current policy debate.

Are households realistically able to reduce carbon emitting power useage to mitigate the increased price of power? If so, how much useage behaviour can be changed before resorting to a tax?

Depends individually on each household. However an ETS is not really about changing individuals behaviour, it's about transforming the economy. Households are ultimately limited by the source of their power. If you're getting your power from brown coal power plants individual reductions won't be enough to make a significant difference.

What will be the inflationary effect of business passing increased costs onto consumers?

I think we can all be pretty safe to assume that business will pass on 100% of the costs to consumers. However, the point of an ETS, or for that matter a carbon tax, is that business' that find ways to reduce their emissions will be able to offer cheaper products/services and therefore be more successful.

Will it result in decreased consumption overall and slow the economy?

The policy of an ETS is based on a long term cost-benefit analyses of the predicted impacts of climate change on the economy. However in the short term I'm afraid I don't know enough about economics to answer that. There is an argument that a clear policy of an ETS, especially if it were to have bipartisan support (unfortunately however that is not the case) would drive long term investment as it gives some certainty to the economy. The government is providing significant compensation, I don't think that it will cause a slow down in the economy, but that's just my opinion. Whatever else Ross Garnaut might be, he is a well respected and successful economist.

Will the fact Imports are not as heavily effected simply lead to an increase in imports?

This I am unsure of, I think it will have to wait until the policy is announced. Australia's coal exports are estimated to increase by about 40% over the next 10 years. But I'm unsure how the ETS will deal with exports. I was rather under the impression that, for instance in the case of oil, the miners are obligated to buy emissions permits based on a scale of the projected emissions of their product once it is sold. Now, the government has indicated that private citizens won't pay more for petrol, so don't take this example too literally. But for instance if private use of petrol wasn't exempt, when you buy petrol from the pump, you will pay for the projected emissions that you're going to make. You could, for instance, not emit anything and bury a barrel of petrol in your backyard. However you will still have paid for the emissions that you would have made for driving that car. But whether or not this applies if the oil is sold to someone overseas, I don't know.

Why is the Opposition not arguing a case that highlights this fundamental flaw?

What flaw? They do not want to restrict exports of coal in any way. It is far better for them to simply call the policy "a great big new tax", or a "tax on breathing", or whatever the latest soundbyte is, than to draw attention to their own sad excuse for a policy.

Why has the press not examined the economic fail?

What economic fail? Most economists agree that the governments policy is better than Abbotts.

In light of this I would ask all proponents of a carbon tax to please stop using the lie that it is to do something about climate change. Its not, Garnaut himself has said so. It's about impressing other countries. Is it worth it?

This is just your personal opinion and Garnauts report does not back up your point of view. He cites that there are many countries who already have an ETS or who are heading towards an ETS and that Australia as an emissions heavy economy is extremely vulnerable in this area. That should we find ourselves caught behind on introducing an ETS it could have serious consequences to our global competitiveness.

Personally I do not see Abbotts policy as an alternative to the governments. I think that in reality, an Abbott led coalition represents climate sceptics who are not interested in serious action on climate change. Malcolm Turnbull should be their shadow climate change minister

Original Reeper wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

sequestration aint 'accepted' you propaganda merchant!!!

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 7:45pm:



Your premise (highlighted) is wrong and I'm not surprised you don't provide evidence, because it's a baseless claim.

Secondly, if you had really been following this issue, the problem is not the warming so far, but the warming projected for the future.