freediver wrote on May 13
th, 2019 at 4:40pm:
And if they do not stop using them? Does it tell us anything relevant?
yes petal. The price is elastic.
freediver wrote on May 13
th, 2019 at 4:40pm:
This was, after all, what you claimed - that people would not forgo water or electricity.
So you are claiming that people do forego water and electricity?
freediver wrote on May 13
th, 2019 at 4:40pm:
So, how is that relevant to whether they would reduce their consumption in response to a price increase?
Have people reduced their consumption due to price rises?
freediver wrote on May 13
th, 2019 at 4:40pm:
The wikipedia article on Australia's carbon tax gives a rundown on the reduction that was achieved over the short time it was in operation.
From your reference -
"In February 2012, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Clean Energy Future carbon price scheme had not deterred new investment in the coal industry, as spending on exploration had increased by 62% in 2010-2011, more than any other mineral commodity. "
"Falls in carbon emissions were observed following implementation of this policy.[6] It was noted that emissions from sectors subject to the pricing mechanism were 1.0% lower[7] and nine months after the introduction of the pricing scheme, Australia's carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation had fallen to a 10-year low, with coal generation down 11% from 2008 to 2009.[8] However,
attribution of these trends to carbon pricing have been disputed, with Frontier Economics claiming trends are largely explained by factors unrelated to the carbon tax.[9][10]"
Seems like much ado about nothing.
freediver wrote on May 13
th, 2019 at 4:40pm:
They are the cheapest, or most economically efficient way to reduce GHG emissions.
So you want to decrease water vapour too? Isn't Australia a dry continent already?