Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
GREEN TAX SHIFT (Read 150803 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
GREEN TAX SHIFT
Jan 6th, 2007 at 12:51pm
 
taken from this thread:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164007195

in response to:

Quote:
Do you have an environmental policy? Does it recommend or support alternative energy sources or mainstream, coal, gas and nuclear? Or do you intend to keep quiet on this issue?

The next election will involve Industrial and environmental policies. These policies will make or break you.

An answer for WorkPlace agreements need to be found as well as energy needs have to be answered along with a planned reduction of greenhouse emmissions. Please don't say Green Shift Tax. Green Shift Tax, like carbon tax, only hides the problem it doesn't solve it.


A green tax shift reduces carbon emissions. How does that 'not solve' the problem? It is only the method that may be hidden (to some). The outcome is just as real.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 25th, 2007 at 8:18pm by ozadmin »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #1 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 1:22pm
 
Green Shift Tax is a bandaid. Consumption will increase due to population growth. Alternative energy sources can negate any bandaid tax.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #2 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 1:25pm
 
A green tax shift will give you alternative sources. The only difference is that it is more thorough and will take advantage of other ways to reduce emissions as well. You are assuming that energy consumption needs to continue as it currently is, thereby ignoring the very attractive options for reducing emissions by reducing consumption and improving efficiency.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #3 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 1:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2007 at 1:25pm:
A green tax shift will give you alternative sources. The only difference is that it is more thorough and will take advantage of other ways to reduce emissions as well. You are assuming that energy consumption needs to continue as it currently is, thereby ignoring the very attractive options for reducing emissions by reducing consumption and improving efficiency.


It is not an assumption. Population is growing in this country by over 4% each year. If Green Shift Tax reduces emissions by 12% it would only have a minimal lifespan and as I said it just becomes a bandaid.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #4 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 1:50pm
 
How is this argument any different to the one you made?

If alternate sources reduce emissions by 12% it would only have a minimal lifespan and just becomes a bandaid.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #5 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 2:22pm
 
Sorry, should have explained properly.

What you save today will grow back due to population increase to a point of their is no saving to todays standards. There is no need for a new tax, just a new energy source.

Energy output increases when there is growth.

On the note of growth, your proposal is to restrict industry growth to the energy they can afford. If they want growth they would have to increase their prices to achieve this. Increased costs would eventually mean increased prices to the consumer.
Shocked

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Australian peoples Party
Reply #6 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 2:47pm
 
There is no need for a new tax, just a new energy source.

But the tax is the best way to achieve that new energy source, if it is even necessary to do so. What if we could reduce consumption by 90% for less than the cost of switching to new enerrgy sources?

your proposal is to restrict industry growth to the energy they can afford.

No it isn't. My proposal is to encourage industry to restrict emissions without direct government interference. Forcing a specific solution will harm industry growth more than an equivalent tax system would. I am not promoting an energy tax. I am proposing a carbon tax. Renewable sources would be exempt and would be taken up if necessary. The only difference is that industry would not be restricted to that option, which is actually rather expensive.

Increased costs would eventually mean increased prices to the consumer.

On the whole costs would not necessarily increase. Some costs would go down. Any price rises would be far less than the price rises caused by forcing a switch to alternative energy sources.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Green Shift Tax
Reply #7 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 3:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2007 at 2:47pm:
There is no need for a new tax, just a new energy source.

But the tax is the best way to achieve that new energy source, if it is even necessary to do so. What if we could reduce consumption by 90% for less than the cost of switching to new enerrgy sources?

Where do you get 90% from? I was being liberal with my estimate in surmising 12%


your proposal is to restrict industry growth to the energy they can afford.

No it isn't. My proposal is to encourage industry to restrict emissions without direct government interference. Forcing a specific solution will harm industry growth more than an equivalent tax system would.

Industry is about making money, restricting emmisions will ruin small to medium level business's. Yes a specific solution would harm industry growth in the coal sector, gas sector and oil sector but these are negative growth areas for us.


I am not promoting an energy tax. I am proposing a carbon tax. Renewable sources would be exempt and would be taken up if necessary. The only difference is that industry would not be restricted to that option, which is actually rather expensive.

Carbon Tax is Energy Tax however you want to disguise it. Hot Rocks Energy is not expensive


Increased costs would eventually mean increased prices to the consumer.

On the whole costs would not necessarily increase. Some costs would go down. Any price rises would be far less than the price rises caused by forcing a switch to alternative energy sources.


Once you install a new tax it then becomes an object for manipulation by future governments as a revenue maker not as a deterent.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #8 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 4:05pm
 
Where do you get 90% from? I was being liberal with my estimate in surmising 12%

It all depends on how much tax you put on it. You could reduce emissions by 100% if the tax was high enough. It is a very flexible approach.

restricting emmisions will ruin small to medium level business's

You'd be surprised at how creative people can get when their bottom line is at risk. Furthermore, I am not proposing that we restrict emissions. I am proposing that we tax them - and reduce other taxes so as not to do that kind of harm.

Yes a specific solution would harm industry growth in the coal sector, gas sector and oil sector

It would harm the same people who would have to pay the carbon tax. The price of electricity would go up. Either that, or the government would have to start subsidising energy consumption, which would be even worse.

Carbon Tax is Energy Tax

No it isn't. Carbon and energy are very different things. The tax you pay on a given unit of energy would vary wildly depending on how it was produced. A carbon tax is also a tax on other non-energy products.

Once you install a new tax it then becomes an object for manipulation by future governments as a revenue maker not as a deterent

So? As least they would be raising revenue from an activity you want to restrict. Would you be complaining if emissions were reduced by 80% instead of 40% due to revenue raising? Without this tax, society is actually subsidising carbon emissions.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #9 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 4:17pm
 
For the same reduction in emissions, a carbon tax would increase the marginal cost of electricity by less than government enforced solutions like wind, solar, geothermal etc.

If you mandate say 10% renewable energy (it is now less than 1% in Australia), it won't stop energy consumption going up. They will keep building coal fired plants as well as the odd wind farm.

Also, please check the FAQ I put up: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html

I think that explains it better.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 6th, 2007 at 4:41pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #10 - Jan 7th, 2007 at 9:55am
 
What your saying is that Green Shift Tax is only there as an alternative to Carbon Trading hence your arguments support a tax on emissions.

I say NO to Carbon Trading and No to new taxes.

Energy is consumed. This Consumption Tax, Energy Tax or Green Shift Tax focuses on reducing consumption by penalising with a new tax. By penalising I mean, "hurt them in the old hip pocket". As previously stated solving the problem is by creating NO greenhouse emissions in the first place. By changing the power source allows this to happen. We still need energy and the more we have dictates our growth.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #11 - Jan 7th, 2007 at 12:37pm
 
What your saying is that Green Shift Tax is only there as an alternative to Carbon Trading.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is better than carbon trading, but certainly not that it is 'only' an alternative to that option.

This Consumption Tax, Energy Tax or Green Shift Tax focuses on reducing consumption by penalising with a new tax.

Only to the extent that reducing consumption is the best way to reduce emissions.

As previously stated solving the problem is by creating NO greenhouse emissions in the first place.

However quickly you want to reduce emissions, and however far you want to go, a green tax shift is the best way to achieve that. Unless you want to suddenly ban emissions completely - anything short of that and a green tax shift is the best way to go.

By changing the power source allows this to happen.

And a green tax shift is the best way to achieve that.

We still need energy and the more we have dictates our growth.

Energy does not dictate our growth any more.

You keep assuming that a green tax shift will give you only one type of solution and that we really need other solutions. Neither of these assumptions are correct.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #12 - Jan 7th, 2007 at 4:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2007 at 12:37pm:
What your saying is that Green Shift Tax is only there as an alternative to Carbon Trading.

This Consumption Tax, Energy Tax or Green Shift Tax focuses on reducing consumption by penalising with a new tax.

Only to the extent that reducing consumption is the best way to reduce emissions.

You keep assuming that a green tax shift will give you only one type of solution and that we really need other solutions. Neither of these assumptions are correct.



I agree that Green Shift Tax is a viable option for two reasons;

one, being that it can force industry to look at alternative power sources.

Two, Industry will look at ways to run economically by being more aware of power consumption.

Yes these things will reduce gas emissions. The argument I present is Zero gas emissions and no restraint on consumption which is called freedom.

Instead of pushing a tax we should be pushing an alternative energy in competition to nuclear. You may get your tax but we'll get nuclear to run with it.
Cool

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #13 - Jan 10th, 2007 at 9:18pm
 
This is an interesting idea - tracking vehicles and charging them for distace travelled. It is being discussed in Britain. It has the advantage that you can charge people more during peak hour and so use it to reduce the amount of infrastructure required. The drawbacks are that the government tracks your every move, and it is a less direct measure of carbon emissions and wear. It would be suitable as an additional tax only for those who use the roads when they are most congested, thus adding to infrastructure costs, but petrol taxes should cover wear and tear and greenhouse emissions, and should be implimented first given that the economic systems are already in place to tax petrol.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-road-pricing-petition-wins-backers/2007/01/10/1168105051101.html

A petition which calls for plans to introduce road pricing to be scrapped has attracted more than 165,000 signatures since it was launched on Prime Minister Tony Blair's Downing Street web site.

Initial estimates suggest it could cost drivers up to STG1.34 ($A3.30) a mile to drive in the busiest areas at rush hour.

Transport chiefs argue that unless radical action is taken there will be gridlock on some of Britain's roads in 20-30 years.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #14 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 1:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2007 at 9:18pm:
The drawbacks are that the government tracks your every move, and it is a less direct measure of carbon emissions and wear.


Obviously the Brits don't put as much value on freedom as what Australia does. This concept has been around for years, it won't happen in Australia.

Stck to your Green Tax Shift as atleast it has merit over Carbon Trading and can provide a window of opportunity for businesses to actually start to look at alternative energy sources.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Natural Capitalism
Reply #15 - Jan 19th, 2007 at 9:56am
 
Has anyone read this book? (Natural Capitalism)

http://www.natcap.org/
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid5.php

It goes through the ways that industry can save money by conserving resources and reducing emissions and pollution.

Some interesting bits:

p159-169 Green Tax Shift - broadens the concept to include all forms of waste, extraction of non-renewables and destruction of ecological services. Not sure how far you can extend this rpactically, but many European nations are. It acknowledges how European taxation has undermined jobs and describes how they are changing the system (p14 also).

p197 - GM crops undermining organic crops by increasing insect resistance to natural insecticides.

p191 - compares US agricultural subsidies etc to the soviet economy

p192-196 - reduced crop output due to topsoil loss - this is starting to reverse the 'green revolution' in many places, reducing agricultural output. This threat is alrger than I had realised.

p153 - ecosystem services - scientific statement on the value, their destruction and our inability to replace them, gives some examples and an economic value

p60 - waste is counted as GDP, and many important services people do are not, the destruction of many assets is ignored, thus GDP can (and does) hide negative growth in our societies

p53, index of social health is going down while GDP going up

p19 - In 1998 there was more destruction from extreme weather than all of the 80's, compounded by deforestation and climate change. Water, arable land and fish availability declining since 80's

p194 - risk due to lack of diversity on crops that provide most of our food. Diversity and adaptability are the key to overcoming climate change, as well as pests etc [there is no market mechanism to encourage diversity before it is too late - should we tax the most common crops?

p200 - 15% of global food already grown in cities

p201 - example of transport subsidies - strawberry yoghurt in Europe - 13000 miles of transport, despite 'local' origins

p202 - pig farming innovation, reducing emissions, producing mulch, friendler to the animals

p204 - agriculture produces 25% of greenhouse gasses. This can be reversed so they start absorbing a significant quantitiy of greenhouse gasses.

From p 261:

For all their power and vitality, markets are only tools. They make a good servant but a bad master and a worse religion. They can be used to accomplish many important tasks, but they can't do everything, and it's a dangerous delusion to begin to believe that they can - especially when they begin to replace ethics or politics. America may now be discovering this, and has begun it's retreat from the recent flirtation with economic fundamentalism. That theology treats living things as dead, nature as a nuisance, several billlion years' design experience as casually discardable, and the future as worthless. (At a 10 percent real discount rate, nothing is worth much for long, and nobody should have children.)

The 1980's extolled a selfish attitude that counted only what was countable, not what really counted.

Economic efficiency is an admirable means only so long as one remembers it is not an end in itself. Markets are meant to be efficient, not sufficient; aggresive and competitive, not fair. Markets were never meant to achieve community or integrity, beauty or justice, sustainability or sacredness - and, by themselves, they don't. To fulfill the wider perpose of being human, civilisations have invented politics, ethics, and religion. Only they can reveal worthy goals for the tools of the economic process.

Some market theologians promote a fashionable conceit that governments should have no responsibility for overseeing markets - for setting the basic rules by which market actors play. Their attitude is, let's cut budgets for meat inspection and get governments off the backs of abattoirs, and everyone who loses loved ones to toxic foos can simply sue the offenders.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Natural Capitalsim
Reply #16 - Jan 19th, 2007 at 9:58am
 
My main criticism of the book is it's failure to put things into perspective. This is probably the cause of the 'mixed messages' some people get from it about the need for government intervention and regulation. Most of the book is devoted to detailed case studies about how companies have profited by reducing emissions and waste, and it is easy to get the impression from the vast volume of this sort of content that the author is arguing that no intervention is necessary. That is why I copied the above quotes. He does say these important things, but they would tend to get lost in the detail and he certainly doesn't place enough emphasis on them, nor explain why companies acting on their own will not solve the bulk of the problems until it is too late. I think he describes the green tax shift stuff as if it were another good idea, but doesn't explain the fundamental economic forces that make it vital. Rather than having an intro, body and conclusions, where you use the intro to put things into perspective and conclusion to draw out the core messages, he mixes these things in with the content and they come across as an 'aside'. It's as if the book is targetted at Engineers and managers from large corporations and it frames most of the claims in terms of benefit to the company alone. For the vast majority of people who are not in that kind of powerful position it misses the mark a bit. Perhaps that is what Bill Clinton was getting at when he described it as being a very important book, because it fills that niche and does so in a powerful way.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Business-told-to-save-by-going-green/2007/01/19/1169095946612.html

According to the Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (DEC), businesses that adopt sustainable energy practices will be able to reduce energy consumption and costs by 15 to 20 per cent.

"Apart from saving money, our clients find the additional benefit of healthy staff pays dividends to the company."
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Greens attack Bluescope carbon tax deal
Reply #17 - Feb 2nd, 2007 at 6:59pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Greens-attack-Bluescope-carbon-tax-deal/2007/02/02/1169919526615.html

The NSW government has come under attack over a deal exempting one of the state's biggest greenhouse gas producers from paying any future carbon tax for the next 25 years.

NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has attacked the deal, which was signed last November.

Ms Rhiannon said carbon taxes did not yet exist in Australia despite such a system being one of the best ways to drive down greenhouse gases.

Bluescope's Port Kembla plant produces 10.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is about seven per cent of the greenhouse gases emitted in NSW, Ms Rhiannon said in a statement.

"Premier [Morris] Iemma has no right to undermine a future carbon tax system. His action locks NSW out of the development of sensible economic mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions," she said.

Mr Iemma said the 25-year agreement, which helped secure 6,000 jobs, was binding only if Bluescope built the electricity plant.

"The outcome is this. We get a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We get Bluescope working on technology to further reduce emissions from that plant.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Howard's backflip has arrived
Reply #18 - Feb 5th, 2007 at 10:35am
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-softening-carbon-emissions-stance/2007/02/05/1170523988733.html

Prime Minister John Howard appears to be softening his opposition to putting a price on carbon emissions, saying market mechanisms, including carbon pricing, will be integral to any long-term response to climate change.

"Market mechanisms, including carbon pricing will be integral to any long term response to climate change," he said in his weekly radio address.

"(It will outline) a set of issues regarding the development and implementation of a workable global emissions trading scheme and the role Australia can play."



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21171168-601,00.html

A CARBON tax of up to $25 a tonne is being considered by the West Australian Government in a move that would cost the resource-rich state's alumina industry more than $200million a year.

The tax -- which would be the most significant response by any state government to the threat of climate change -- is among a raft of measures flagged in a report released today by a special taskforce set up to examine ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by West Australian electricity generators.

The report is understood to recommend an emissions trading scheme and the adoption of a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd announced yesterday his own national summit on climate change, to be held late next month or early April. The summit would provide ideas to be considered at the ALP national policy conference to be held in Sydney from April 27-29.

The Blair Government in Britain is hoping to speed up the US response to climate change by bypassing President George W. Bush and urging US states to join directly with Europe's own carbon trading scheme.

While the EU emissions trading scheme has struggled to operate effectively since its launch in 2005, the British Government hopes that nine northeastern states and California can eventually join as the first step towards making it a global scheme.



I didn't know the government could use official .gov.au websites for such transparent aprtisan attacks:

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/env/2006/mr16aug706.html

A plan for a national emissions trading scheme released by the Labor states and endorsed by Kim Beazley’s Federal Labor Party today will see home electricity prices soar in Western Australia.

In a table contained deep within the 228 page emissions trading paper, it is revealed that if Labor has its way and introduces such a tax, residents in Western Australia can expect to pay up to $160 more each year.

The Labor emissions trading scheme admits that within 20 years there would be a 28% reduction in coal use in Australia at a cost to the WA economy of tens of millions of dollars.

The emissions trading scheme effectively taxes traditional power sources such as coal-fired power stations and presumes (rightly) that the cost will be immediately passed onto consumers.

The Labor emissions trading plan is designed to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Oops Howard has lost it again
Reply #19 - Feb 5th, 2007 at 8:25pm
 
This really shows that Howard is putting the pockets of his business mates before the rest of Australia. A carbon tax will not harm business any more than carbon trading. The only difference is that carbon trading would give his mates a one-off windfall, and be a lot harder to work with later on.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-considers-workable-carbon-trading/2007/02/05/1170524021015.html

Carbon trading in Australia is a step closer to becoming a reality, with Prime Minister John Howard backing an approach which protects businesses.

Despite acknowledging the need for a trading market to help reduce greenhouse emissions, Mr Howard voiced his strong opposition to a carbon tax.

But West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter is considering a carbon tax after a WA's Greenhouse and Energy Taskforce report recommended a $25 a tonne tax.

He did not commit to implementing the recommendation but said such a tax would enable WA to meet the report's aim of reducing WA's greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

Greenpeace was more cautious in welcoming the government's moves.

"Prime Minister Howard's comments that (emissions trading) would not affect Australia's resource industry is a warning sign that, if sweetheart deals are struck, the trading system would essentially be ineffectual," energy campaigner Ben Pearson said.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Howard lies on carbon taxes
Reply #20 - Feb 6th, 2007 at 10:49am
 
I cannot believe that this is an honest mistake from Howard. A carbon tax pays just as much regard to market forces as a trading scheme, if not more so.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21179208-2,00.html

"The imposition of a tax is a very crude, inefficient and potentially damaging way of dealing with it because it pays no proper regard to market forces," Mr Howard said. "It's important that we develop an approach to carbon pricing that is acceptable to and sympathetic to... Australian industry because Australian industry employs millions of people."
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Greenhouse gas ocean burial approved
Reply #21 - Feb 10th, 2007 at 3:12pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Greenhouse-gas-ocean-burial-approved/2007/02/10/1170524331910.html

International rules allowing burial of greenhouse gases beneath the seabed are in force in what will be a step toward fighting global warming, if storage costs are cut and leaks can be averted.

A 2005 UN report, however, warned that such storage would be widely applied only if the penalty for emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere was $US25-$US30 a tonne - far above current prices in a European Union market.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Pratt-calls-for-doubling-in-water-price/2007/02/15/1171405365603.html

Leading philanthropist and cardboard king Richard Pratt has called for a doubling in the price of water and says desalination is the only major source of unlimited new water.

Mr Pratt, who is chairman of packaging and recycling company Visy Group, said a doubling of the water price would make people more conscious about their consumption.

"If they (government) doubled the price of water it would make people more conscious in regards to their water usage," he told about 500 people at an Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch in Perth.

Mr Pratt called on the government to allow private interests to become involved in water management but was sceptical whether it would happen.

"I really believe private enterprise should get mixed up in water," he said.

"A partnership between governments and private enterprise, where the government decides what price they're to charge and the private enterprise decides how it's to be managed.

"(But) they (the government) can make an income out of the water they are charging ... they don't want to lose their profits."

Mr Pratt said Australia should adopt a national carbon trading scheme rather than waiting for a global initiative to be implemented.

"We do need to factor in the costs of pollution into the costs of production.

"We've got to start with Australia, we can't tell the Chinese government what to do or the Indian government what to do. It is a global issue but we have to do what we can do."



http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Groups-plans-global-warming-fight/2007/02/21/1171733799041.html

More than 100 corporate heads, international organisations and experts set out a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, calling on governments to act urgently against global warming.

The group, which includes executives from a range of industries including air transport, energy, and technology, called on governments to set targets for greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The agreement urged governments to place a price on the carbon emissions released by power plants, factories and other sectors to discourage emissions.

The largest carbon-emitting sector is power generation, responsible for more than 40 per cent of global energy-related emissions.

Industry accounts for more than 18 per cent of emissions, transport contributes another 20 per cent, and the residential and services sector roughly 13 per cent.

The group estimates that technology to head off mounting carbon dioxide concentrations would cost about one per cent of global gross domestic product. Costs would fall as technologies become more established, it predicted.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/EU-agrees-to-20-cut-in-CO2-by-2020/2007/02/21/1171733801533.html

EU environment ministers said that they would cut overall carbon dioxide emissions 20 per cent by 2020 and were ready to go to 30 per cent if other industrialised nations would match European efforts to curb global warming.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2007 at 10:34am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Ireland raises green tax on plastic bags
Reply #22 - Feb 22nd, 2007 at 1:52pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ikea-to-charge-for-plastic-bags/2007/02/22/1171733884033.html

Sweden's IKEA will charge US customers five cents for disposable plastic shopping bags in what the international furniture giant said was a first step to ending their use altogether.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ireland-raises-green-tax-on-plastic-bags/2007/02/22/1171733884028.html

Ireland is to increase a tax on plastic shopping bags that has cut their use by more than 90 per cent since its launch five years ago, the government said.

Before the tax, the sight of plastic bags flapping from trees and hedgerows across Ireland was so prevalent that some said they were fast becoming the Emerald Isle's "national flag".

The levy - which will rise to 22 euro cents ($A0.37) from 15 euro cents per bag from July 1 - cut the amount of plastic bag litter by 95 per cent after people switched to reusable bags, said Environment Minister Dick Roche.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-flags-climate-change-fund-in-budget/2007/02/23/1171733979501.html

Prime Minister John Howard has hinted this year's federal budget may include a multi-billion dollar investment in climate change measures.

"I do think that there will be some costs that need to be borne by government," Mr Howard said.

"But, like water, you need some price signals as well. There tends to be a mixture."



Power sector wants emissions trading

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Power-sector-wants-emissions-trading/2007/02/26/1172338537135.html

The federal government has again been accused of dragging its heels on climate policy.

Australia's biggest electricity and natural gas companies are stepping up pressure for the country to adopt a national emissions trading scheme.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) called for a new national policy approach including a greenhouse gas emissions price signal.

Greens senator Christine Milne said the electricity generation sector's views represented a change of heart after a decade of opposition to putting a price on carbon.



Aviation industry urged to cut emissions

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aviation-industry-urged-to-cut-emissions/2007/02/26/1172338526740.html

Airline departure times must be better managed to reduce holding patterns and greenhouse gas emissions, Transport Minister Mark Vaile said.

Mr Vaile said planes forced to hold at low altitude burned four to five as much fuel as a planes en route; and much more than a plane holding while on the ground.

Australia had already introduced flex tracks, a way for international carriers to identify routes that took advantage of weather conditions and wind velocity to reduce flying time and emissions, Mr Vaile said.

A recent flight from Melbourne to Dubai saved 10 minutes and burned 2.7 tonnes less fuel by identifying a better route to travel, which ultimately prevented an extra 8.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions being spewed into the atmosphere, Mr Vaile said.

"A failure by air navigation service providers to accept the urgency of the need for action on greenhouse emissions will ... lead to punitive action by governments," the Australian Newspaper reported he told the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation conference in the Netherlands earlier this month.

And an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated a 12 per cent inefficiency exists in air-traffic management globally, producing an extra 73 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and costing $US13.5 billion ($17.28 billion), the Australian reported.

The EU has already moved to tackle aviation emissions by proposing including airlines in its carbon trading scheme, forcing them to pay if they exceed their current level of emissions.



Water audit shows up differences

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/water-audit-shows-up-differences/2007/02/27/1172338619784.html

The first comprehensive stocktake of state and territory water pricing has highlighted a long list of differences in the way water is priced across Australia.

The stocktake is designed to provide a basis for assessing differences in approaches to water charging and cost recovery in delivery of both urban and rural water supplies.

Major differences between the urban and rural sectors were detected in three areas: recovery of capital expenditure, urban water tariff structures and the two sectors' approaches to recovering the costs of water planning and management.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 28th, 2007 at 11:13am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Cabinet weighs emissions cuts
Reply #23 - Mar 3rd, 2007 at 11:27am
 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21316167-601,00.html

THE Howard Government is exploring how it can get Australia back under its Kyoto target by guaranteeing immediate greenhouse gas cuts of about six million tonnes a year.

John Howard has already signalled that this year's election budget will contain a number of greenhouse initiatives, while the Government is understood to be considering an environment or energy levy that could help fund a pre-election suite of clean energy and efficiency reforms.

Modelling conducted in 2002 for the electricity supply industry found that a $10 per tonne charge on electricity could deliver the required greenhouse gas cuts and raise about $2 billion a year, but would increase retail bills by 7per cent - $100 to $300 a year - per household.

The cuts would be achieved by a slight fall in demand from the higher price as well as a slight change in the dispatch pattern in power stations feeding into the national grid, triggering marginally more gas-fired power at the expense of black and brown coal.

Power stations represent about half of Australia's emissions profile and accelerated funding to fast-track power station efficiency upgrades may also help get Australia back on the Kyoto track, although a voluntary national efficiency program by the Australian Greenhouse Office has been addressing this since 2000.

The Prime Minister signalled this week that COAG should set a timetable to establish a fully national electricity market and transmission grid, while reiterating the Government's support for a national rollout of smart meters to help curb electricity demand.

The Government also has to announce two more solar cities and complete the rollout of its $500 million low-emissions technology fund, with the announcement of the latest project, believed to be in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, postponed this week.



Rates rise to fund water plan

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21355794-2702,00.html

WATER bills will more than double and wasteful householders face heavy fines and rationing following the introduction of level-five water restrictions in southeast Queensland.
And within six months, level-six restrictions are likely to result in public swimming pools not being topped up and all outdoor watering banned.

The Queensland Water Commission yesterday revealed the Beattie Government's $7 billion plans to improve water infrastructure will be funded through water bills.

The bill for the average home will rise $71 next year. The average annual householder's water bill will increase from $355 to $876 by 2012.

Mr Newman described the rises as outrageous and warned that the region's mayors would not be used to do the state's "dirty work" to fund infrastructure it should have provided long ago. "This is a ruthless cash grab on the ratepayers of southeast Queensland," Mr Newman said.

Under level-five restrictions, newly built swimming pools cannot be filled from the town supply. Owners will pay between $2500 and $4000 to fill them from tankers.

About 120,000 households using more than 800 litres a day will be asked to complete audit forms to explain why they are using so much water.

Ms Nosworthy defended the water price hikes. "I don't think people have much to whinge about. We've been charged too little in the past," she said.



Greater action on renewable energy urged

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Greater-action-on-renewable-energy-urged/2007/04/23/1177180491655.html

Household electricity bills would rise by just $1.23 a week if a quarter of Australia's energy came from renewable sources, a report has found.

The report by three green groups says setting a renewable energy target of 25 per cent by the year 2020 would deliver more than 16,000 new jobs, slash greenhouse gas emissions by 69 million tonnes and generate $33 billion in investment.

Although the average power bill would rise by $64 a year, continuing to rely on current power sources would cause prices to jump by $234 a year.

The study, A Bright Future, was released Monday by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Action Network.

It warns Australia is missing out on the economic benefits of renewable energy that are flowing to California and European nations which have boosted their renewable energy targets.

"Provided we put Australia on track for sustained renewable energy development, costs should fall to below the cost of fossil fuels over the next 15 years."
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 23rd, 2007 at 10:09am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Climate change the 'No.1 issue in Qld'
Reply #24 - Apr 26th, 2007 at 10:00am
 
Fancy that - a group funded by coal and energy companies telling the PM he needs to do more about climate change:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Climate-change-the-No1-issue-in-Qld/2007/04/26/1177459826253.html

Ninety per cent of Queenslanders think climate change is the most important issue facing Australia, according to new research.

Queensland's Centre for Low Emission Technology surveyed 1,800 people throughout the state and found most thought tackling global warming was vital to the nation's future.

Earlier this week Prime Minister John Howard said global warming was not the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australia, and argued that economic growth should take precedence over emissions cuts.

Mr Mickel said the study was the most comprehensive into the issue in Australia and the findings suggest there had been a major shift in public thinking about global warming.

The Centre for Low Emission Technology is a collaborative partnership between the Queensland government, CSIRO, the University of Queensland and a number of coal and energy companies.



Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs

Canada has switched on to Australia's plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, with Ottawa announcing its own timetable to ban the sale of the inefficient bulbs by 2012.



Climate Institute report incomplete: PM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Climate-Institute-report-incomplete-PM/2007/04/27/1177459939187.html

Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed as "wrong" a report by the Climate Institute saying Australia is set to exceed Kyoto Protocol emissions targets.



PM hints at raising solar panels rebate

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-hints-at-raising-solar-panels-rebate/2007/04/27/1177459936671.html

Prime Minister John Howard has hinted the federal budget may include an increase in the rebate given to Australians who install solar power panels on their properties.

The rebate, designed to offset the $10,000 to $15,000 cost of installation, was introduced six years ago.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2007 at 11:55am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Scaly
Ex Member


Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #25 - Apr 26th, 2007 at 5:57pm
 
Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs

Canada has switched on to Australia's plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, with Ottawa announcing its own timetable to ban the sale of the inefficient bulbs by 2012.


Meh...CFL's have problems all of their own such as mercury content among other things, plus we don't have the recycling facilities in Australia. All CFL's are supposed to be shipped overseas for recycling but they aren't. Guess where that mercury is going to end up?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Labor to spend big on emissions
Reply #26 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 9:20am
 
Labor outlines $300m green program

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-outlines-300m-green-program/2007/04/29/1177787949901.html

Households will be able to borrow up to $10,000 to fit their homes with solar panels, rainwater tanks and other green products under a $300 million Labor scheme which could slash greenhouse gas emissions by 15 million tonnes.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd outlined the green renovation scheme on the last day of Labor's national conference, predicting the initiative would be equivalent to planting 15 million trees or taking four million cars off the road for a year.



Rudd vows to detail emissions trading

Labor leader Kevin Rudd has promised his party will outline an emissions trading scheme before the federal election.

The Opposition Leader said his party would start work on an Australian version of Britain's Stern review of climate change so that a new Labor government could, in its first term, act to set specific targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Fairfax newspapers report.

Mr Rudd's comments come as Prime Minister John Howard moves towards adopting his own emissions target by insisting he accepts the reality of climate change and has never opposed a target.

The states are expected to announce their own greenhouse review.

Both federal leaders have spent the weekend trying to outplay each other over the greenhouse issue, with Labor removing its longstanding ban on new uranium mines and Mr Howard attempting to overshadow the ALP's national conference by announcing plans for a nuclear power industry.



UN climate meet to discuss emission cuts

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UN-climate-meet-to-discuss-emission-cuts/2007/04/29/1177787966783.html

The costs of cutting greenhouse gases and who will pay for doing it are likely to be the key issues at a major UN-backed climate change meeting of scientists and diplomats in the Thai capital this week, participants said.

Some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters like the US and Australia per capita and top oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia will try to water down language in a draft report, obtained by The Associated Press earlier this month, that suggests reducing emissions could cost less than three per cent of annual global economic activity, environmental activists said.



Power firms heavily subsidised: report

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Power-firms-heavily-subsidised-report/2007/05/08/1178390249752.html

Some Australian electricity generation companies get more money from government subsidies than the profits they make, a new report says.

Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, Fairfax reports.

The report, commissioned by Greenpeace, was done by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.

It says subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution.

The report identified energy and transport subsidies in Australia during 2005-06 of between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion. More than 96 per cent of that money flowed to fossil fuel production and consumption, with the remainder going to renewable energy and energy efficiency.



Households to pay more for water: Ripper

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/households-to-pay-more-for-water-ripper/2007/05/07/1178390215899.html

West Australian households are set to pay more for water as the cost of providing the scarce resource increases, the state government says.

WA Treasurer Eric Ripper says the state budget on Thursday includes an increase in water charges for the average household of 52 cents a week or 8.07 per cent.

Mr Ripper said the $28-a-year hike was recommended in a Economic Regulation Authority review and would encourage people to use water wisely.



Aussie producing oil from coconuts

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/aussie-producing-oil-from-coconuts/2007/05/07/1178390212839.html

An Australian entrepreneur based in the Solomons Islands is producing fuel and profits from coconuts.



Climate change farmers 'need GM crops'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-farmers-need-gm-crops/2007/05/07/1178390211738.html

Australians will have to accept genetically modified food if the agriculture industry is to continue in an era of climate change, an Adelaide expert says.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 8th, 2007 at 11:06am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Solar panel initiative an insult: Greens
Reply #27 - May 8th, 2007 at 3:04pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Solar-panel-initiative-an-insult-Greens/2007/05/08/1178390273474.html

The government's solar panel rebate, to be announced in Tuesday's budget, is an insult to the environment, the Australian Greens say.

In its efforts to address climate change, the government will deliver a cash handout of $8,000 to households that install solar energy systems.

The initiative, expected to cost $30 million in the first year, will cost a total of $150 million over five years.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said "a veneer of green is not going to fool the Australian electorate".

"The fossil fuel industry subsidises to the tune of 10 thousand million dollars each year," Senator Brown told reporters in Canberra.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40772
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #28 - May 8th, 2007 at 6:08pm
 
Unfortunately I would beleive that about the coal industry . They are very powerful and very political.
Sort of on a par with the farmers here and the gun lobby in  usa.

Bob Browns comments seem a bit far fetched.
I think they should always have to publish the facts of how they get to such a figure.
Looks like a fugure plucked from thin air, but it may not be, until I am given the calculations, I don't know.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #29 - May 8th, 2007 at 6:12pm
 
From one of the articles in the post before that:

Power firms heavily subsidised: report

The report, commissioned by Greenpeace, was done by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.

It says subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40772
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #30 - May 8th, 2007 at 6:14pm
 
One of my mates made this site. It is pretty slow to load, but targets environmental changes

http://www.zerocoal.com/
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #31 - May 9th, 2007 at 9:26am
 
Thanks. I'll try to sort out some links with him.

Emissions trading scheme key: Howard

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Emissions-trading-scheme-key-Howard/2007/05/09/1178390351547.html

The centrepiece of the federal government's plan to tackle global warming will be an economy-friendly emissions trading scheme, Prime Minister John Howard says.

He said he was awaiting a report on May 31 from the task group he assembled to propose an emissions trading scheme.

"This is the key to a long-term strategy to address climate change," he told the Seven Network on Wednesday.

"Everybody agrees that you have to have some price on carbon to effectively deal with the emissions problem.

"And the best way of delivering a price on carbon is through a market mechanism, namely an emissions trading system.



Qld power price hike not needed: Vaile

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-power-price-hike-not-needed-Vaile/2007/05/09/1178390373800.html

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile has weighed into the debate over a 10 per cent rise in electricity costs for Queenslanders, saying it is not justified.

Queensland Energy Minister Geoff Wilson on Tuesday announced the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) had recommended a 10 per cent increase in the electricity tariff from July 1.



Tax changes to boost forest plantations

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Tax-changes-to-boost-forest-plantations/2007/05/10/1178390434782.html

Tax changes should encourage more forestry plantations in Australia, the government says.

Under the new arrangements, investors will receive 100 per cent tax deductions for both initial and ongoing investments in managed forestry schemes.

However new rules require that the trees must be planted in Australia within 18 months.

Under the old system, concessions were available for investment in overseas plantations.



Look to Australia for energy efficiency

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Look-to-Australia-for-energy-efficiency/2007/05/14/1178995051214.html

Businesses are being urged to look across the Tasman for a lesson in energy conservation and environmental initiatives.

A survey published in the Grant Thornton International Business Report ranked New Zealand 25th out of 32 economies in terms of action taken to prepare for ever-increasing energy prices globally and the need to conserve energy.

Grant Thornton New Zealand spokesman Peter Sherwin said a clear message from the survey was that unless environmental factors such as energy costs became issues that significantly affected a company's profitability, there was no incentive for a company to take action and reduce its impact on the environment.

One country bucking the trend was Australia, where businesses were undertaking more energy and environmental initiatives than New Zealand, Mr Sherwin said.

That was despite Australia having the lowest ranking of all 32 countries in terms of expectations that energy costs would have a major effect on cost pressures during the next 12 months.

New Zealand could take a leaf out of the Australian book and benefit, he said.



Plastic bag levies 'an unjustified tax'

Levies on plastic supermarket bags are an unjustified tax, the Australian National Retailers Association says.

A survey commissioned by the association found only three per cent of people threw away plastic supermarket bags.

Some 93 per cent of survey respondents reused or recycled the plastic bags - more than half of those as garbage bin liners.



Aviation body urges climate surcharge

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aviation-body-urges-climate-surcharge/2007/05/23/1179601441256.html

A $30 greenhouse gas levy should be imposed on all domestic flights and aviation should be included in any emissions trading scheme if Australia is to rein in its climate change pollution, a report says.

The report by think tank the Australia Institute said airlines were a threat to climate because of the increasing amounts of greenhouse gas pollution generated by a growing travel market, Fairfax newspapers reported.

The industry is growing so quickly it could account for half Australia's total emissions by 2050, said the report's authors, Andrew Macintosh and Christian Dowie.

But because non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases generated by international travel are not included in the greenhouse gas inventory, airline pollution could wipe out the effects of cuts in emissions in other sectors, they said.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 23rd, 2007 at 10:04am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Virgin chief slams call for climate levy
Reply #32 - May 24th, 2007 at 10:58am
 
This sort of 'double speak' is common from people who are trying to knock a good idea. Notice how he claims it is a bad idea because it would stop some people flying, then claims it is a bad idea because it won't stop people flying. What does he suggest we do, stop business people flying so that those who can barely afford it can still fly? Communism style rationing of flight permits? It's hard to fathom how someone who runs a business can have so much trouble understanding this.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Virgin-chief-slams-call-for-climate-levy/2007/05/23/1179601481071.html

Virgin Blue Holdings Ltd boss Brett Godfrey has launched a scathing attack on calls for a $30 climate change flight levy, saying it was not well thought out and would affect low income travellers instead of regular flyers.

"Quite frankly, if you levied $30, $50 or $100 on air tickets in this country, all you are going to do is dissuade and carve out all those people who can't afford to travel very much today anyway," he said.

Mr Godfrey also questioned the levy cost, saying at $30 he didn't think it would have a big impact on people's travel habits.

"I just don't fathom what they are on about."



Carbon trading inevitable: Beattie

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/carbon-trading-inevitable-beattie/2007/05/23/1179601474494.html

A national carbon trading scheme will be introduced soon because the federal government has no choice, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.

Mr Beattie told a climate change conference in Brisbane on Wednesday that while the federal government had so far refused to announce a carbon trading program, it was only a matter of time as the public demanded it.

He cited a report by CSIRO's Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies which showed 90 per cent of Queenslanders considered climate change the most important issue facing Australia.



Flannery upbeat on climate change prices

Higher power and transport charges to combat climate change would not be the end of the world for average consumers, Australian of the Year Tim Flannery says.

The government is set to receive a report from a task force into emissions trading next week.

The carbon price would be a tax on industry once they reached a certain level of emissions.

In an issues paper released in February, the emissions task force said a carbon tax was not an efficient way of reducing emissions.

Prof Flannery said a $50 a tonne charge would see a doubling of the wholesale price of electricity, which worked out to about a 30 per cent increase in the retail price.

"(It) sounds like a lot but if you can't make 30 per cent efficiency gains in your house, there's something wrong, we all waste a lot of electricity," he said.



Petrol prices causing train overcrowding

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Petrol-prices-causing-train-overcrowding/2007/05/28/1180205126684.html

Rising petrol prices and more reliable train services have led to higher passenger numbers and congestion on Sydney's CityRail network during peak periods, the state government says.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 28th, 2007 at 2:51pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Time to tax carbon
Reply #33 - May 30th, 2007 at 6:55pm
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-carbontax28may28,1,502798.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change.

In 1995, the federal government launched a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain. The goal was to reduce emissions to half their 1980 levels by 2010, and the program is expected to reach it or fall just short. It has become a model worldwide, leading signatories to the Kyoto Protocol to pursue an international cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.

And yet for all its benefits, cap-and-trade still isn't the most effective or efficient approach. That distinction goes to Method No. 3: a carbon tax. While cap-and-trade creates opportunities for cheating, leads to unpredictable fluctuations in energy prices and does nothing to offset high power costs for consumers, carbon taxes can be structured to sidestep all those problems while providing a more reliable market incentive to produce clean-energy technology.

To understand the drawbacks of cap-and-trade, one has to look not only at the successful U.S. acid rain program but the failed European Emissions Trading Scheme, the first phase of which started in January 2005. European Union members each developed emissions goals, then passed out credits to polluters. Yet for a variety of reasons, the initial cap was set so high that the polluters fell under it without making any reductions at all. The Europeans are working to improve the scheme in the next phase, but their chances of success aren't good.

One reason is the power of lobbyists. In Europe, as in the U.S., special interests have a way of warping the political process so that, for example, a corporation generous with its campaign contributions might win an excessive number of credits. It's also very easy in many European countries to cheat; because there aren't strong agencies to monitor and verify emissions, companies or utilities can pretend they're cleaner than they are.

Cap-and-trade would also have a nasty effect on consumers' power bills. Say there's a very hot summer week in California. Utilities would have to shovel more coal to produce more juice, causing their emissions to rise sharply. To offset the carbon, they would have to buy more credits, and the heavy demand would cause credit prices to skyrocket. The utilities would then pass those costs on to their customers, meaning that power bills might vary sharply from one month to the next.

That kind of price volatility, which has been endemic to both the American and European cap-and-trade systems, doesn't just hurt consumers. It actually discourages innovation, because in times when power demand is low, power costs are low, and there is little incentive to come up with cleaner technologies. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists prefer stable prices so they can calculate whether they can make enough money by building a solar-powered mousetrap to make up for the cost of producing it.

Carbon taxes avoid all that. A carbon tax simply imposes a tax for polluting based on the amount emitted, thus encouraging polluters to clean up and entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives. The tax is constant and predictable. It doesn't require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It's straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits.

And it could be structured to be far less harmful to power consumers. While all the added costs under cap-and-trade go to companies, utilities and traders, the added costs under a carbon tax would go to the government — which could use the revenues to offset other taxes. So while consumers would pay more for energy, they might pay less income tax, or some other tax. That could greatly cushion the overall economic effect.

There is a growing consensus among economists around the world that a carbon tax is the best way to combat global warming, and there are prominent backers across the political spectrum, from N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Bush administration's Council on Economic Advisors, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to former Vice President Al Gore and Sierra Club head Carl Pope. Yet the political consensus is going in a very different direction. European leaders are pushing hard for the United States and other countries to join their failed carbon-trading scheme, and there are no fewer than five bills before Congress that would impose a federal cap-and-trade system. On the other side, there is just one lonely bill in the House, from Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), to impose a carbon tax, and it's not expected to go far.

The obvious reason is that, for voters, taxes are radioactive, while carbon trading sounds like something that just affects utilities and big corporations. The many green politicians stumping for cap-and-trade seldom point out that such a system would result in higher and less predictable power bills. Ironically, even though a carbon tax could cost voters less, cap-and-trade is being sold as the more consumer-friendly approach.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #34 - May 30th, 2007 at 6:55pm
 
A well-designed, well-monitored carbon-trading scheme could deeply reduce greenhouse gases with less economic damage than pure regulation. But it's not the best way, and it is so complex that it would probably take many years to iron out all the wrinkles. Voters might well embrace carbon taxes if political leaders were more honest about the comparative costs.

The world is under a deadline. Some scientists believe that once atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have doubled from the pre-industrial level, which may happen by mid-century if no action is taken, the damage may be irreversible.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AusNat
Ex Member
*****



Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #35 - May 30th, 2007 at 6:57pm
 
Did you see the documentary/propaganda program  ''crude'' the other week?
Back to top
 
Total anti-marxist and anti-left wing. The Right is Right.&&&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #36 - May 30th, 2007 at 6:59pm
 
No I missed it. Anything interesting?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AusNat
Ex Member
*****



Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #37 - May 30th, 2007 at 7:05pm
 
they were talking about what will happen to the seas if the earth gets too warm. apparently the earth has suffered extreme global warming before, caused by volcanoes.
algae builds up in the seas, stagnates and most sea life dies. From this oil is created.
Back to top
 
Total anti-marxist and anti-left wing. The Right is Right.&&&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #38 - May 31st, 2007 at 10:49am
 
There are already a few stagnant areas, like in the Gulf of Mexico where the Missisippi? dumps all the silt and ag fertiliser and chemicals.



Business 'interested in climate report'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Business-interested-in-climate-report/2007/05/31/1180205390841.html

One of Australia's biggest businesses, Visy Industries, is hoping a government task force report on climate change will provide some certainty for corporate Australia.

The much-anticipated report will be handed to Prime Minister John Howard on Thursday, but it is not known when he will make it public.

"Certainty is the fundamental thing that Visy is looking for," he told ABC radio.

Mr Harford said the company would support a carbon tax if it was recommended.

"Certainly, Visy supports a carbon price signal of some form.

"We also support the setting of targets both short and long term to enable that certainty for industry investment."



Greens welcome Rudd's hybrid alternative

The Australian Greens have welcomed Labor leader Kevin Rudd's decision to purchase a hybrid car.

"We welcome Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's plan to charge higher registration fees for gas guzzlers, a move the Greens have advocated for a decade."

Senator Brown said it was important to look at ways in which the government can help poorer people change to more environment-friendly vehicles and boost public transport.



Labor to probe PM's emissions action

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Labor-to-probe-PMs-emissions-action/2007/05/31/1180205370274.html

Any climate change action proposed by Prime Minister John Howard will be closely examined and will have to pass five key tests, says opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett.

"A national emissions trading scheme has to be effective, it has to deliver greenhouse reductions urgently, it has to be something that is consistent with international schemes and be able to work with them, it has to be economically effective, it has to be fair.

"They (the federal government) have always played the card of saying that they are doing something and not doing it.



Howard prepares to set emissions target

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Howard-prepares-to-set-emissions-target/2007/05/30/1180205344220.html

A much-anticipated report on climate change will be delivered to John Howard on Thursday, with the prime minister poised to announce a long-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

And as Mr Howard readies himself to receive the task force report, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has increased the pressure after outlining Labor's own plans for a trading scheme and a climate change framework.

Environmental economists from The Australian National University warned against allocating free carbon permits to the influential fossil fuel industries.

Dr Jack Pezzey and Dr Frank Jotzo said the move would deliver windfall profits to those industries at consumers and taxpayers' expense.

"For emissions trading to achieve the lowest cost emission reductions for Australia, all carbon dioxide emissions must be treated equally," Dr Pezzey said.



Protests disrupt Sydney climate meeting

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Protests-disrupt-Sydney-climate-meeting/2007/06/01/1180205473995.html

A gathering of energy companies, climate change experts and scientists has been disrupted by anti-global warming protestors outside the Oz Carbon Trading Conference in Sydney.

As representatives of AGL Energy Ltd, Renewable Energy Generators of Australia and Hydro Tasmania debated the issue of carbon trading versus a carbon tax, a group of protestors supporting nuclear power used megaphones to yell slogans and distribute pamphlets outside the building.

"The objectives: is there investor certainty, is there cost certainty, is there equity flexibility and ultimately a transition to a lower emission intensity economy."



Carbon scheme urgent - PM's task force

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Carbon-scheme-urgent--PMs-task-force/2007/06/01/1180205473140.html

Australia should start work at once to establish a "cap and trade" emissions trading system, a government climate change task group has recommended.

Dr Peter Shergold, chair of the prime minister's task group on emissions trading, said it would take three and a half years to establish such a system in Australia.

Carbon trading could begin in 2012, he told reporters in Sydney.

Agriculture and waste industries will be exempt from emissions regulation.

The task group has concluded that there is not likely to be a comprehensive global climate change agreement in the near-term.

Dr Shergold said what was likely to emerge over the next decade was a messy global patchwork of inter-country agreements on carbon reductions.

He said the task group members were not scientists, but business and economics experts who had applied the risk analysis of climate change to arrive at the recommendations.

Australia contributes 1.5 per cent of world emissions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 1st, 2007 at 1:49pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #39 - Jun 1st, 2007 at 3:14pm
 
This is interesting. The Australian put the exact opposite spin on the new climate report to the SMH article just above, claiming it backs Howard's 'cautious' approach. Also, the report recommends a tax of $20 per tonne on CO2 as an interim measure, to help businesses 'prepare' for a trading scheme. This is odd given Howards insistance that taxes are bad for the economy, and that he set up and choreographed the whole report. The article, on the front page of today's Australian, is titled "Climate panel back's PM's caution". It can be found via google, but the link goes to another article. I couldn't see it on the Australian's website any more.

On the front page of 'features,' note the identification of this issue as an election winner:

Howard warming to task

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21829885-601,00.html

The Government's response to climate change could prove an antidote to poisonous polls

JOHN Howard took out some climate change insurance last December after the public mood on global warming shifted on the back of a series of natural and man-made events.

It was complete political theatre. Chaired by Peter Shergold, the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the task group was ordered to report on the nature and design of a workable global emissions trading system which Australia would join.

The cuteness of this review process has meant the Government has been working on its policy response to the report in virtual parallel to its preparation. In the current bleak political climate for the Government, climate change is assuming monumental political importance.

Howard is also likely to distinguish himself from Labor by sharing the burden of a future emissions trading scheme as widely as possible across the economy, including power stations, industrial processes, waste, transport and even possibly agriculture.

Power stations produce about half Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It is relatively easy to measure the scale of their greenhouse emissions and therefore include them in a trading scheme. It's much harder to do this for emissions from other key sectors such as agriculture and land use changes that make up almost a quarter of national greenhouse emissions. It's also tricky to accurately measure emissions from transport, industrial processes and waste.

Where there is less scope for policy distinction is in the complex detail of how a scheme will operate. The task group and Labor states are likely to follow a similar line, to auction half the number of emission permits while the other half will be allocated across key sectors of the economy, particularly trade-exposed, emission-intense sectors such as aluminium, steel and cement.



Brisbane City Council unveils budget

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Brisbane-City-Council-unveils-budget/2007/06/13/1181414349786.html

Australia's largest local government authority, Brisbane City Council, has handed down a record $2.33 billion budget designed to tackle the drought, public transport, chronic traffic congestion and climate change.

Average rate bills for owner-occupiers are poised to jump about $40 a year from July, primarily due to increased water charges as the region grapples with a looming water crisis.

Water charges have increased about 24 per cent on average, but Mr Newman said that under the new scale if each resident stuck to the 140 litre a day water consumption target their water charges would not balloon.

"The prices we have set in this budget are intended to send a message to the hip pocket of people who waste water, while ensuring those who do the right thing are not unduly burdened."

Mr Newman pledged to help drought-proof the city through pouring $240 million into water and wastewater projects, including finding new water sources, fixing leaking mains and providing subsidies for water tanks and pool blankets.



Warning on power bill subsidies

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21906868-462,00.html

ANY compensation for the higher price of energy caused by emissions trading must not take the form of subsidies on power bills, the nation's most senior bureaucrat warned yesterday.

The secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Peter Shergold, chair of the Task Group on Emissions Trading, said subsidising power bills would defeat the purpose of changing consumers' behaviour.



Polluters to face higher emissions fees

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/polluters-to-face-higher-emissions-fees/2007/06/27/1182623918072.html

Sydney's biggest air polluters will face tougher fines from December, when the NSW government will double the annual fees that apply for toxic emissions.

Assisting Climate Change Minister Verity Firth says at least 60 companies produce volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and nitrous oxide (NOx) which add to the city's layer of harmful smog.

"The government's decision to double the annual fee on NOx and VOCs emissions will provide a new, significant economic incentive to improve industry's environmental performances," News Limited newspapers quoted Ms Firth as saying.

Polluting companies can avoid the fee increase if they enter into binding commitments to reduce their emission outputs within four years.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2007 at 7:39pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Carbon trading delay is good: Turnbull
Reply #40 - Jul 6th, 2007 at 2:38pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/carbon-trading-delay-is-good-turnbull/2007/07/05/1183351362396.html

Australia has benefited from delaying a carbon emissions trading scheme because it won't repeat the mistakes of others, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.

Mr Turnbull was referring to the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, in which the price of carbon credits has slumped from about 30 euros to less than one euro since the scheme began in January, 2005.



BlueScope boss sounds red tape warning

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/BlueScope-boss-sounds-red-tape-warning/2007/07/09/1183833421529.html

If a carbon emissions tax is imposed by the federal government, it may be an excessive burden on some Australian companies and even make them uncompetitive, BlueScope Steel Ltd warns.

Although Mr Kraehe conceded that steelmaking plants were significant emitters of greenhouse gases, he said there was no technology to reduce or sequester those emissions.

"We would not be able to pass on a carbon price to our customers, faced with Chinese competition."

He also warned that one scenario could be that steel production shifted to other countries and emissions did not come down.



'Fat tax' could save 3,200 lives: study

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Fat-tax-could-save-3200-lives-study/2007/07/12/1183833690363.html

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives in Britain each year, according to a study published.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 per cent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.



admitting some of the difficulties in 'selling' a tax to voters, even if it only targets gas guzzlers:

UK to hit gas guzzlers with tax

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-to-hit-gas-guzzlers-with-tax/2007/09/16/1189881317504.html

Britain's Treasury chief plans to introduce a "purchase tax" of up to STG2,000 ($A4,840) on the most polluting vehicles, The Sunday Times reported.

The paper said a Treasury paper leaked ahead of Alistair Darling's forthcoming Pre-Budget Report also includes a proposal to make fuel-efficient cars eligible for a 2,000 pound ($A4,840) rebate.

Officials apparently acknowledge in the leaked document that the measures would be "presentationally difficult" but argue that they would also "strengthen the environmental signal" of the government.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 16th, 2007 at 5:31pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Resources for the Future
Reply #41 - Aug 28th, 2007 at 5:53pm
 
From the US government, via rff.org (Resources for the Future):

http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-IB-02-33.pdf
http://www.rff.org/ -> Core Knowledge -> Energy, electricity and climate change -> Market based policy -> Issues briefs -> Are Tradable Emissions Permits a Good Idea?

But recent research suggests there can be a strong case on both economic and distributional grounds for using emissions taxes or auctioned emissions permits rather than programs in which permits are given out free or grandfathered to firms. One issue has to do with how environmental policies can exacerbate distortions in labor markets created by the broader tax system. A recent study by Parry et al. (1999) suggests the economic costs to the United States of meeting it's carbon emissions target under the original Kyoto Protocol would more than double when the costs of reduced employment were taken into account. In contrast, much of the extra social cost could be offset by emissions taxes and auctioned permits if revenue from these policies were used to reduce taxes.

Furthermore, a study by the Congressional Budget Office (2000) suggests that if grandfathered permits were used to reduce carbon emissions, low-income households might be worse-off by several hundred dollars per year while wealthy households could be better-off by around $1,500 per year. Grandfathered permits create windfall gains for shareholders, who are concentrated in high-income groups, because such policies hand out a valuable asset (sellable permits) to firms for free. There is no windfall gain to wealthy households under auctioned permits or emissions taxes; instead, the government obtains revenues that can be recycled in tax reductions that benefit everyone or disproportionately favor the poor.

Policymakers are currently debating proposals to implement nationwide tradable permit programs for nitrogen oxide and mercury, and to strengthen the existing allowance trading program for sulfur dioxide. Indeed, because of its prominence in proposals that deal with climate change, the tradable permits approach pioneered by the United States is now receiving a great deal of attention throughout the world as a possible tool for managing greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of this article discusses in more detail why policymakers should think twice before agreeing to give away allowances for free rather than selling them.

Tradable permits also raise firms’ production costs and reduce economic activity. If a polluting firm increases production, it must either buy permits to cover the extra emissions or forgo sales of its own permits to other firms; either way, there is a financial penalty for producing polluting output. Consequently, grandfathered permits have adverse effects on employment in the same way that emissions taxes do, but permits forgo the potential benefit from revenue recycling. This has two important policy implications.

First, in terms of economic efficiency, society is better-off under emissions taxes or auctioned permits than under freely allocated permits, so long as revenues are recycled in other tax reductions. Tax economists have estimated that for each dollar of revenue used to reduce income taxes, there will be a gain in economic efficiency of approximately $.20 to $.50. Lower income taxes increase employment and also reduce distortions in the pattern of expenditure between ordinary spending and tax-favored spending, such as owner-occupied housing and employer-provided medical insurance. In the carbon example above, the United States might be better-off to the tune of $20 billion to $45 billion per year if a carbon tax or auctioned permits were used rather than grandfathered permits.

Second, the economic costs of grandfathered permits can be substantially higher than previously thought. According to Parry et al. (1999), the cost to the United States of meeting the initial Kyoto target by a system of grandfathered permits imposed on fossil fuel producers rises from roughly $25 billion per year to approximately $55 billion (in current dollars) when the permits’ effect on compounding tax distortions is included.

In fact, taking account of fiscal interactions might compromise the ability of grandfathered permits to generate overall net benefits for society.

for a shorter version see:
Issues in Science and Technology, 2002
http://issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.eg.17.110192.001505

values:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/assets/pdf/charter/charter_eng.pdf



Another carbon trading failure - it fizzled out as soon as the easy targets were achieved:

It's not easy being green, workers learn

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Its-not-easy-being-green-workers-learn/2007/09/13/1189276876354.html

Workers from a carbon trading company are appealing to the NSW government to save them from unemployment caused by the state's failed carbon trading scheme.

The Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) is on the verge of collapse, with up to 1,000 workers in the carbon trading industry soon to be unemployed.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma admitted on Wednesday that GGAS was untenable, with credits for carbon emission reductions trading at only half the average price since GGAS started in 2001.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 13th, 2007 at 7:11pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
please take survey
Reply #42 - Nov 1st, 2007 at 10:30pm
 
Please take a few moments to fill out this survey. It is run by a new party - cnservatives for climate and environment:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=8DxFU51ealvnvcT0YQiC_2fA_3d_3d

3. Would you be happy to pay a carbon price penalty for fossil fuel energy sources ?
E.g. $50/tonne CO2 price would see petrol up 12c/litre and coal fired electricity up around 5c/kWh.
(The Nobel Prize winning IPCC's report shows around 45% global mitigation potential by 2030 at $50USD/tonne CO2)


4. Even a tax or trading scheme at $50/tonne would collect almost as much revenue as the GST. How would you like to see it spent ?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 2nd, 2007 at 10:42am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40772
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #43 - Nov 1st, 2007 at 10:33pm
 
No, not that i would mind paying a tax. But i am confidant it would not be beneficial at all.

Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1618
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #44 - Nov 1st, 2007 at 11:36pm
 
Why don't they call themselves 'The bandwagoneers'  Roll Eyes

Wishy washy policies does not a conservative make and ratifying Kyoto is a decidedly unconservative move.

They are a leftist wolf in sheeps clothing without any understanding of economics, world politics or the environment. Cheap politics

Back to top
 

Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults.
 
IP Logged
 
LowTideJettyJumper
New Member
*
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 36
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #45 - Nov 2nd, 2007 at 4:13pm
 
IQSRLOW wrote on Nov 1st, 2007 at 11:36pm:
Why don't they call themselves 'The bandwagoneers'  Roll Eyes

Wishy washy policies does not a conservative make and ratifying Kyoto is a decidedly unconservative move.

They are a leftist wolf in sheeps clothing without any understanding of economics, world politics or the environment. Cheap politics




Maybe they don't call themselves the 'bandwagoneers' because thats the name of my gangsta group!! yeah?

Check it. Keep it real. Respect.
Back to top
 

I went jetty jumping at low tide and broke both of my ankles.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #46 - Nov 7th, 2007 at 9:21am
 
A comparison of carbon taxes vs trading schemes. Taxes are clearly the better option:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1191728697

http://www.carbontax.org/

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Carbon_Emissions%2C_Cap-and-trade_versus_Carbon_Tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:The_consensus_among_economists_is_that_a_carbon_tax_is_the_better_approach

The consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the better approach

A 2/07 Wall Street Journal Survey found that 54 percent of economists favor a carbon tax over all other approaches.

In A July 2006 survey, research firm GlobeScan put the question: 'What is the best tool to reduce emissions?' to its Climate Forum, consisting of sustainability experts and climate change solution providers. The top answer? A carbon tax.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2007 at 11:20am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
DILLIGAF
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1259
The greens are red
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #47 - Nov 10th, 2007 at 3:56am
 
Everything you say Farkin Dickead means nothing.
Back to top
 

Total anti-marxist and anti-left wing. The Right is Right.&&&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Kyoto targets flouted
Reply #48 - Nov 21st, 2007 at 12:42pm
 
See just how little has been achieved, after an entire decade, by going down the carbon trading path:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22795654-30417,00.html

GREENHOUSE gas emissions from the world's industrialised countries are again on the rise and closing in on record levels, despite most having signed the Kyoto Protocol.

UN figures released last night - just weeks ahead of a key meeting to start brokering a new global deal to cut emissions - show greenhouse gases from Kyoto's 41 industrialised and transition countries approaching "an all-time high".

Emissions fell between 1990 and 2000 but they rose 2.6 per cent between 2000 and 2005, for when the latest figures are available.

The figures show Australia's greenhouse emissions in 2005 were about 25.6 per cent above 1990 levels, although the figure falls to a rise of 4.5 per cent when the effect of bans on land-clearing is included.

Fast-growth countries such as Turkey, Spain and Portugal have ratified Kyoto but still reported increases of about 50 per cent or more since 1990, while emissions from fellow signatory New Zealand have increased by 23 per cent, Canada by 54 per cent and Austria by 14 per cent. Emissions from the US, which, like Australia, has not ratified the protocol, are up 16.3 per cent since 1990.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40772
Gender: male
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #49 - Nov 21st, 2007 at 1:09pm
 
So those that did not ratify kyoto have been better on the environment than those that have ?

Disregarding the emmission that kyoto have made within itself ?
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Green Tax Shift
Reply #50 - Nov 21st, 2007 at 1:16pm
 
No. The Kyoto bloc overall is doing better than the US or Australia and far better than China, but I doubt many who see global warming as a threat would be happy with the progress they have made.



From Conservatives for Climate and Environment:

On another subject - Carbon Tax, we are very pleased that over the last fortnight the following have come out in favour of a carbon tax:
>  Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin
>  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
>  French President Nicolas Sarkozy

A good sign !

Best Regards

Richard McNeall
President / Secretary
Conservatives for Climate and Environment Inc.
www.cfce.org.au
secretary@cfce.org.au
0421 059 377
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 22nd, 2007 at 11:25am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
EU to include planes in emissions trade
Reply #51 - Dec 21st, 2007 at 10:35am
 
I have added the following table which summarises the differences between taxes and trading schemes:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html#taxes-vs-trading



This is good news:

EU to include planes in emissions trade

http://news.smh.com.au/eu-to-include-planes-in-emissions-trade/20071221-1iel.html

European Union environment ministers agreed on Thursday to include airlines in the bloc's emissions trading scheme from 2012 as part of its fight against climate change.

The EU's 27 governments will now negotiate the final deal with the European Parliament, which has voted for airlines to join the system in 2011.

The plan has irked the United States, which has threatened litigation at international arbitration bodies, and has drawn criticism from airlines and top officials of the International Air Transport Association (IATA).



Energy use to slow down: ABARE

http://news.smh.com.au/energy-use-to-slow-down-abare/20071221-1igl.html

The pace of energy usage between now and 2030 is expected to slow as the Australian economy becomes more services-oriented, the nation's commodity forecaster says.

Under a scenario of "no new policies", energy consumption will grow by 1.6 per cent a year continuing a declining trend from the 1960s when annual growth topped 5.0 per cent.

ABARE projects that natural gas consumption will rise by 2.6 per cent a year over the outlook period, accounting for 24 per cent of total primary energy consumption by 2029-30.

Mr Glyde says renewable-energy consumption is also projected to increase, albeit from a smaller base.

"With the support of only currently established policy measures renewable energy would increase by an average annual rate of 2.4 per cent out to 2029-30."

The transport sector is the country's largest consumer of energy, but ABARE expects its share of total final energy consumption will fall from 39 per cent in 2005-06 to 36 per cent in 2029-30.

The mining sector, with a large number of projects expected to be commissioned, will increase its share energy consumption from 7.0 per cent to 12.0 per cent.

Production of coal and gas is projected to continue to grow strongly and be major export earners for Australia."

"Several new oil projects are expected to increase Australia's crude oil production over the next few years," Mr Glyde said.

However, in the longer term, the ratio of oil production to consumption is expected to fall with Australia becoming more reliant on oil imports in the period to 2030.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 21st, 2007 at 3:57pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #52 - May 9th, 2007 at 10:12pm
 
Rainwater is more expensive than town water.

This thread was split off from another discussion:

Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 11th, 2007 at 6:29pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW(Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #53 - May 9th, 2007 at 10:29pm
 
Rainwater tanks mean people have free water, a source of free water which they are personally responsible for This means they can afford for water to be more expensive, as it should be. Rainwater tanks will not be sufficient for industry, not nearly, but if dam water is expensive to use then business will find recycling is a more economic option, you shouldn't need much government interaction to get a meaningful amount of recycling happening in the private sector.

I agree with rainwater tanks in principle but as I said, It won't make a measurable difference in regards to sustaining water supplies in large cities in the medium to long term. They are a stop gap/feel good measure in a drying climate and inducing economic restraints to the general public does nothing but fill govt coffers while offering no solution...except the tax payer will end up paying for the next desal plant to be erected.

Industry already gets a pretty good free ride when it comes to water resources.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #54 - May 10th, 2007 at 8:39am
 
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2007 at 10:12pm:
Rainwater is more expensive than town water.

Bull, rainwater is free. The storage of it is not, but that is different, I an arguing the case for a full government subsidy on tanks. If this were the case, to the consumer it would be free and so his requirements of tap water is lessened, and government can safely increase the cost of tap water without damage to the hip pocket. I thought you agreed with the whole: 'show business the right price signals and the rest will follow' philosophy.

Having lived off of rainwater with the option of purchasing town water when the tank runs dry... I can tell you town water is more expensive. Remember to cost it out over the life of the tank, which should be extremely long if you look after it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #55 - May 10th, 2007 at 8:45am
 
Bull, rainwater is free.

This applies just as easily to town water as it does to tank water. They both come from rain.

The storage of it is not, but that is different

Don't forget delivery. Storage and delivery for tank water is far more than for town water.

I an arguing the case for a full government subsidy on tanks

That what many cities have already.

government can safely increase the cost of tap water without damage to the hip pocket

Except via the taxes that pay for the tanks

I thought you agreed with the whole: 'show business the right price signals and the rest will follow' philosophy.

Yes, make people pay for water what it really costs. If tanks are free people will not consider whether they are an economical solution. Subsidies send the wrong price signal.

Having lived off of rainwater with the option of purchasing town water when the tank runs dry... I can tell you town water is more expensive.

That's ignoring the infrastructure cost.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #56 - May 10th, 2007 at 8:49am
 
Quote:
I agree with rainwater tanks in principle but as I said, It won't make a measurable difference in regards to sustaining water supplies in large cities in the medium to long term. They are a stop gap/feel good measure in a drying climate and inducing economic restraints to the general public does nothing but fill govt coffers while offering no solution...except the tax payer will end up paying for the next desal plant to be erected.

Industry already gets a pretty good free ride when it comes to water resources.

Read carefully... I never once said rainwater tanks could supply industry, they can provide relief for households that will allow room for big price hikes in water - the only economic way to make business do the right thing and conserve/recycle.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #57 - May 10th, 2007 at 9:03am
 
The way to make room for big price hikes in water is to lower other taxes, not waste taxpayer's money on subsidies. Let the residents decide on an individual basis whether a water tank is justified. You don't have to set it up so people go on consuming the same amount of water, just from different sources.

Why subsidies are a bad idea:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 10th, 2007 at 10:21am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #58 - May 10th, 2007 at 4:27pm
 
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2007 at 8:45am:
Yes, make people pay for water what it really costs. If tanks are free people will not consider whether they are an economical solution. Subsidies send the wrong price signal.

Having lived off of rainwater with the option of purchasing town water when the tank runs dry... I can tell you town water is more expensive.

That's ignoring the infrastructure cost.

You see business is the major user (and waster) of water in this country (besides agriculture but that is a different source) so there needs to be more of a measure to reflect who is using what, after all business will transfer the extra costs of any tax onto the consumer. I know you don't believe this happens but it does, it is an economic reality. Now, I take it you have never lived off of a rainwater tank to make such bold statements as this? Let me tell you, when you have to be aware of how much water you have left then you change your habits real quick, regardless of any consideration to what the tank cost. There is something psychological about knowing how little water you have left that is hard to explain without actually being forced into the situation. If you raise the cost of water, people still get the correct price signals, what providing tanks will achieve is an alternative for the consumer so they can choose to manage water well if they want to avoid the large price of mains water. Business will have no choice, and so they will have to find ways around the extra costs like recycling, or even massive water storage, whatever works: they can figure it out. Some of the extra cost of water will be moved onto the consumer through price of goods, but if you place an excise onto water then there is a limit to how much of this tax can be transfered to the consumer since water is a rather demand inelastic commodity (once waste is reduced of course).

So what you do is fund the tank subsidy from an excise on water, by putting business in the position to carry this burden you are able to increase the price of this scarce commodity, reduce the impact of price hikes on the average consumer, and make business wear the cost which will drive innovation to conserve. Consumers will naturally conserve too since they will feel the price hike, but by giving them a personal management solution you aren't unnecessarily hurting those on the bottom of the trash heap, and you reward people for conserving water in the household.

The problem with simply hiking price is that those households already suffering will just fall further below the poverty line and end up relying more heavily on welfare. It makes more sense to me to give them some water infrastructure rather than weekly cash handouts. But I gather you haven't experienced what it's like on the absolute bottom really have you freediver? At least it seems many of your ideas tend to ignore those at the low end o the income scale.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #59 - May 10th, 2007 at 4:48pm
 
Zoso have you lost your login details? See the help button at the top if you are having problems.

after all business will transfer the extra costs of any tax onto the consumer. I know you don't believe this happens but it does, it is an economic reality.

WTF? What makes you think I don't believe that?

Now, I take it you have never lived off of a rainwater tank to make such bold statements as this?

I'm not sure what your point is with this.

Let me tell you, when you have to be aware of how much water you have left then you change your habits real quick, regardless of any consideration to what the tank cost.

Giving away tanks for free doesn't stop people wasting water. It jsut gives them more expensive water to waste.

If you raise the cost of water, people still get the correct price signals, what providing tanks will achieve is an alternative for the consumer so they can choose to manage water well if they want to avoid the large price of mains water.

Mains water is dirt cheap compared to tanks for most people. Consumers already have that choice. Not giving them a handout does not remove the choice.

So what you do is fund the tank subsidy from an excise on water, by putting business in the position to carry this burden you are able to increase the price of this scarce commodity, reduce the impact of price hikes on the average consumer, and make business wear the cost which will drive innovation to conserve.

You are combining one good idea (the consumption tax) with na bad idea (the subsidy). There is no need to do this. By using the tax to fund subsidies you are forgoing the opportunity to reduce other taxes. There is a strong tendency among some people to want to link taxation directly to spending this way, but it is based on a fallacy. Once the government has the money in their coffers, how they spend it is a whole new decision. Raising those funds a certain way does not justify failing to consider the wisest way to spend it.

How does it reduce the impacts of price hikes on the end consumer?

Consumers will naturally conserve too since they will feel the price hike, but by giving them a personal management solution you aren't unnecessarily hurting those on the bottom of the trash heap, and you reward people for conserving water in the household. 

Just because someone is at the bottom of the trash heap does not mean they prefer for the government to take their money and spend it for them. You just have to target the tax breaks used to offset the new taxes at them.

The problem with simply hiking price

I am not suggesting a simple price hike! I am suggesting a hike in price of some goods and a decrease in the price of others. THere are three words: Green Tax Shift. You seem to be blind to the last one. It is not just an increase in taxes with the money diappearing into thin air.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #60 - May 10th, 2007 at 8:45pm
 
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2007 at 4:48pm:
Zoso have you lost your login details? See the help button at the top if you are having problems.

No no, I just didn't log in on my other computer because it wasn't cached.

Quote:
WTF? What makes you think I don't believe that?

Oh well sorry, I swear I saw you say that somewhere in some argument we had Wink

Quote:
Now, I take it you have never lived off of a rainwater tank to make such bold statements as this?

I'm not sure what your point is with this.

Let me tell you, when you have to be aware of how much water you have left then you change your habits real quick, regardless of any consideration to what the tank cost.

Giving away tanks for free doesn't stop people wasting water. It jsut gives them more expensive water to waste.

Being dependant on tank water makes you stop wasting water, that is my point.

The point is that tanks may be expensive, but they are the most effective means of storing water we have.

Quote:
Mains water is dirt cheap compared to tanks for most people. Consumers already have that choice. Not giving them a handout does not remove the choice.

Which is why you roll out tanks, then hike the price.

Quote:
You are combining one good idea (the consumption tax) with na bad idea (the subsidy). There is no need to do this. By using the tax to fund subsidies you are forgoing the opportunity to reduce other taxes. There is a strong tendency among some people to want to link taxation directly to spending this way, but it is based on a fallacy. Once the government has the money in their coffers, how they spend it is a whole new decision. Raising those funds a certain way does not justify failing to consider the wisest way to spend it.

How does it reduce the impacts of price hikes on the end consumer?

That is difficult to say, and always is I guess, but the LPG grant hasn't seemed to have pushed the price of LPG systems up around here. I guess you rely on the free market and competition as you always do.

Quote:
Just because someone is at the bottom of the trash heap does not mean they prefer for the government to take their money and spend it for them. You just have to target the tax breaks used to offset the new taxes at them.

The government has taken their money, it should at least be spent well.

Quote:
I am not suggesting a simple price hike! I am suggesting a hike in price of some goods and a decrease in the price of others. THere are three words: Green Tax Shift. You seem to be blind to the last one. It is not just an increase in taxes with the money diappearing into thin air.

I know what you are advocating, good fundamental idea, but I think policy needs more subtlety, the idiot masses have required leadership from experts since day dot, this country is built on the decisions of military men, engineers and so on spending government money. The government is always to some extent a service provider, and will always be taking tax and assisting the community in certain ways through grants and so on. This is a good thing, really, a lot of great things come directly out of government grant money, things that a majority do like say for instance the arts. The money is there, a decentralised system of water tanks is a superior solution to large dams and mains water supply. Water tanks may be expensive infrastructure, but once a lot of people have them the maintenance is their own responsibility and so the onus is on the individual and the free market on that tiny local scale to find the solutions to their local water problem.

The reason I brought up the point about living off your own supply is because when that is all you have you realise how precious water is, and you learn to be more efficient than most people you meet from the city would imagine is comfortable. And then you realise what this whole country country is going through. Dams are inefficient, we don't need to build hundreds of dams, the rivers just stop flowing when we do that, we need a far more efficient way of collecting water and storing it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #61 - May 11th, 2007 at 10:46am
 
Being dependant on tank water makes you stop wasting water, that is my point.

Giving away free tanks won't make people dependent on tank water.

The point is that tanks may be expensive, but they are the most effective means of storing water we have.

Effective how? I would measure the effectiveness by cost. By that measure dams are far more effective.

The government has taken their money, it should at least be spent well.

What are you implying? That taxation is already done and can't be helped now?

This is a good thing, really, a lot of great things come directly out of government grant money, things that a majority do like say for instance the arts.

Things that for various reasons, the free market cannot provide to the extent the public are willing to pay for. Tanks are not one of them.

The money is there, a decentralised system of water tanks is a superior solution to large dams and mains water supply.

In what way? Decentralisation is not inherently 'good'.

The reason I brought up the point about living off your own supply is because when that is all you have you realise how precious water is

That is not the case for the tanks that are given away for free. If people were in that situation they would have already paid for a tank. In fact, the free tanks are ONLY available to people that are already hooked up to the mains water supply. The subsidies are specifically excluded for people who actually need the tanks as their only water supply.

Dams are inefficient, we don't need to build hundreds of dams, the rivers just stop flowing when we do that, we need a far more efficient way of collecting water and storing it.

Reducing water consumption makes far more sense. This is the point that the people who promote subsidies always miss. They have this assumption that we need to go on consuming at the same rate no matter how little water there is and how much it costs to supply it. They would skew the market in favour of excessive consumption rather than conservation.

Why subsidies are a bad idea:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #62 - May 11th, 2007 at 1:30pm
 
freediver wrote on May 11th, 2007 at 10:46am:
Giving away free tanks won't make people dependent on tank water.

No it won't, but an excise on mains water will make them *more* dependent on tank water.

Quote:
Effective how? I would measure the effectiveness by cost. By that measure dams are far more effective.

Effective in terms of capture and storage. Dams are terrible because they have an inefficient porous capture method and the lose millions of tons of water to evaporation. Mains supply is inefficient in that ridiculous amounts of water simply leaks out of extremely difficult to find holes in the network and burst mains. The argument for tanks is about greater benefit, not cost, remember, in economics you are interested with net benefits rather than simply bottom line cost. Dams won't help much if it doesn't start raining now will they? And how is the Murray going with all of it's dams by the way?

A partially decentralised network puts the onus on the individual to manage leakage and dramatically shortens the length and complexity of piping necessary in the first place.

Quote:
What are you implying? That taxation is already done and can't be helped now?

I am implying nothing, I am saying that the government coffers are currently full of taxpayers money that should be spent effectively.

Quote:
Things that for various reasons, the free market cannot provide to the extent the public are willing to pay for. Tanks are not one of them.

That depends on how much penetration you are seeking into housholds. Tanks can be provided at a certain cost (as with the arts) but that cost is not conducive to the level of penetration we need (as with the arts).

Quote:
In what way? Decentralisation is not inherently 'good'.

Reduced waste, reduced maintenance cost on the government, increased personal responsibility for water infrastructure, increased reliance on the free market and private money on a micro scale to serve our water needs.

Quote:
That is not the case for the tanks that are given away for free. If people were in that situation they would have already paid for a tank. In fact, the free tanks are ONLY available to people that are already hooked up to the mains water supply. The subsidies are specifically excluded for people who actually need the tanks as their only water supply.

Which is why you excise water once tanks have achieved a large market penetration. I have rented houses with tanks and never had to pay the cost of infrastructure, the cost of purchasing water meant that I was always very cautious about how much water was wasted, to a degree that few people who live in the city can even comprehend.

Quote:
Reducing water consumption makes far more sense. This is the point that the people who promote subsidies always miss. They have this assumption that we need to go on consuming at the same rate no matter how little water there is and how much it costs to supply it. They would skew the market in favour of excessive consumption rather than conservation.

Excising water will reduce consumption, the inevitable reliance on tank water as a result will also reduce consumption. The bonus of tank water is that the individual can make the choice as to whether he is in a position to waste or not, again, the free market at work.

A vast majority of the wasted water in this country comes from our ineffective and leaky centralised infrastructure, personal consumption is only half the story.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso (Guest)
Guest


Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #63 - May 11th, 2007 at 1:54pm
 
freediver wrote on May 11th, 2007 at 10:46am:
Why subsidies are a bad idea:

Your green tax shift only addresses half the problem, if that.

Firstly, you propose to not raise tax but shift it, ultimately you want net tax reduced correct? You should understand that individual and market demand is only relevant to a fixed volume of capital at the disposal of the individual or market. You are basically proposing to increase that capital by cutting some taxes and then increase taxes on wasteful activities. You may be giving a price signal to consumers through hiking water and fuel costs, but you are also hiking up their demand by handing them more cash, the net result will be far less response in demand than you are seeking since higher prices mean less if people have more money at their disposal to meet those prices.

Secondly, you are talking about altering the demand of demand-inelastic commodities through principles that apply to elastic demand. You can hike the price of water, oil and coal by massive quantities and demand will not shift in any meaningful way, because these are commodities with inelastic demand. I will concede that there is some room in water to reduce waste but only to a point, from which demand cannot be altered and price signals do not work.

Finally, you neglect any means by which to address the causes of this inelastic demand ,and this is where government intervention comes into it. In the case of work generating power sources (oil and coal) this is a technology issue, people can't walk away from these things because there are no current alternatives, price signals do not change this fact. In the case of water there is some degree of flexibility in terms of reduced waste, but again this is a technology issue for a part at least as I have outlined above, our means of collecting, storing and distributing water is wasteful in the extreme. In any case you always consider technology as fixed and unchangeable in the short term but what we really need is to change technology regardless of this. What this means is that by imposing government regulation that will encourage the adoption of new technology, in the short term the economy takes a hit, even if it is beneficial in the long term, businesses and people will be loathe to make such a sacrifice in the short term. This is where the subsidy is effective, it can be used to cause a relatively painless transition to a superior technology before any policy is enacted that will cause the ultimate reductions in waste.

Just think, why do new cars have air bags? Initially of course it was a luxury item, but now it is required in all new cars, there is no cost benefit for cheap Asian imports to have airbags, but they are superior technology and the government requires it. Think of water tanks as the air bags of water supply, they secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #64 - May 11th, 2007 at 2:24pm
 
Dams won't help much if it doesn't start raining now will they?

They will help a lot more than tanks if it doesn't rain for a while.

The argument for tanks is about greater benefit, not cost, remember, in economics you are interested with net benefits rather than simply bottom line cost.

How do you measure net benefit then? I don't really care if water evaporates and leaks from the pipes. What matters is how much I pay per litre at the tap. This is far less for town water.

I am implying nothing, I am saying that the government coffers are currently full of taxpayers money that should be spent effectively.

Or, it could be put in the bank so that tax rates can be lowered.

That depends on how much penetration you are seeking into housholds. Tanks can be provided at a certain cost (as with the arts) but that cost is not conducive to the level of penetration we need (as with the arts).

I've got no idea what you are try to say here. What do you mean by penetration, and why is there a goal involved? I am certainly not seeking penetration into other people's households.

Reduced waste, reduced maintenance cost on the government, increased personal responsibility for water infrastructure, increased reliance on the free market and private money on a micro scale to serve our water needs.

Decentralisation does not necessarily reduce waste or maintenace cost, or increase reliance on the free market. Tanks and the associated systems attached to them have a far higher maintenance cost and a far higher infrastructure cost.

I have rented houses with tanks and never had to pay the cost of infrastructure

Wrong. What do you think you are paying the rent for? It's not just for the land. It's for the house and all the attached infrastructure. Just because you don't get a separate $1 per week bill for the tanks doesn't mean you aren't paying for it.

Which is why you excise water once tanks have achieved a large market penetration.

When you say excise, do you mean tax? There is no need to wait for people to have tanks. You are approaching this as if the only way to reduce people's consumption of town water is to supply them with an alternative water source.

Excising water will reduce consumption, the inevitable reliance on tank water as a result will also reduce consumption.

Reliance on tank water is not an inevitable result of taxing water, if that is what you mean by excise. This is far from the case. Reduced consumption will happen first because they water price has to go up a long way to make tanks economical.

The bonus of tank water is that the individual can make the choice as to whether he is in a position to waste or not, again, the free market at work.

This makes sense if the tanks are not subsidised. If they are, it is not the free market at work and it does not result in reduced waste. It increases the waste.

A vast majority of the wasted water in this country comes from our ineffective and leaky centralised infrastructure

That infrastructure will continue to leak after you give away free tanks. If you are worried about leaky pipes you fix the leaks. Town water is still far cheaper despite the leaks.

You may be giving a price signal to consumers through hiking water and fuel costs, but you are also hiking up their demand by handing them more cash, the net result will be far less response in demand than you are seeking since higher prices mean less if people have more money at their disposal to meet those prices.

You are suggesting we should take people's money away from them so they stop buying things? You are completely wrong in this analysis. If water or fuel was the only thing people could spend their money on you would be right, but that is not the case. They will buy other things instead. If you got an extra hundred dollars a week and you're fuel bill went up by $100 per week, would you continue using the same amount of fuel? Of course not. Over time you would make more and more adjustments to reduce the fraction of your income you spend on fuel.

Secondly, you are talking about altering the demand of demand-inelastic commodities through principles that apply to elastic demand.

You can hike the price of water, oil and coal by massive quantities and demand will not shift in any meaningful way, because these are commodities with inelastic demand.

Wrong. Demand is highly elastic. You could reduce consumption of brown coal by close to 100% over a period of a decade or two by doubling or trippling the cost. Demand is only inelastic in a very short term sense, but it is still relative. If water rates were doubled people's consumption would go down overnight.

Also, even if the demand is inelastic, as it no doubt is for some industry sectors, the green tax shift is not a bad thing. It would strengthen the economy. It's a no lose situation.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #65 - May 11th, 2007 at 2:28pm
 
I will concede that there is some room in water to reduce waste but only to a point, from which demand cannot be altered and price signals do not work.

There is massive room. Australians use more water per capita than any other country. This is because it is so cheap. We do not have a water shortage problem. We have a water wastage problem. And I am not talking about leaky pipes. I am talking about giving away a scarce resource as if we had an infinite supply of it.

In the case of work generating power sources (oil and coal) this is a technology issue, people can't walk away from these things because there are no current alternatives, price signals do not change this fact.

First of all, you are focussing on alternative sources again and ignoring the option of a reduction in consumption. There is massive scope for improving the efficiency with which water and power is used. Second, there are plenty of alternative power sources, like wind, solar, nuclear etc. Both the alternative sources and the efficiency changes come down to cost, not lack of availability.

What this means is that by imposing government regulation that will encourage the adoption of new technology, in the short term the economy takes a hit, even if it is beneficial in the long term, businesses and people will be loathe to make such a sacrifice in the short term.

You do not need direct government intervention. You just need to adjust the price signals. Direct government intervetion is the wrong way to go about it, because it always presupposes one solution for all. Some companies may want to just pay the extra price and pass it onto consumers and suffer whatever reduction in sales the incur. Some may have several ways to improve efficiency that become economical when the price goes up. Some may have alternative sources that because of local conditions they are more favourable. Government has no business making these decisions for them. The rpice signal should be attached to what matters - carbon emissions or consuming town water. You then let everyone figure out the most economical way of dealing with it. It will be different solutions for different people.

This is where the subsidy is effective, it can be used to cause a relatively painless transition to a superior technology before any policy is enacted that will cause the ultimate reductions in waste.

The subsidy is not painless. A tank still costs society the same amount whether it is subsidised or not. Paying for it through taxation increases the pain for society rather than decreasing it because as well as actually paying for the tank, the taxes slow the economy. Also, it means they will be used where it doesn't make economic sense and never will.

Initially of course it was a luxury item, but now it is required in all new cars

Wrong. They are not mandatory in Australia.

Think of water tanks as the air bags of water supply, they secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of.

There is no meaningful parallel there. Tanks are not a new technology. They are an old technology that needs to be judged on their cost just like any other solution. Furthermore they do not secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of. It's quite the opposite. Dams secure our water in ways that tanks are simply not capable of, at a far lower cost.



Bligh considers tax changes in budget

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Bligh-considers-tax-changes-in-budget/2007/05/11/1178390529844.html

Queensland Treasurer Anna Bligh says further incentives to save water will top the agenda as she finalises next month's state budget.

The acting premier also said on Friday the government would provide tax relief if possible, but declined to provide any details.

Ms Bligh said major new water projects and extra rebates for water-saving devices, such as tanks, were "obviously top of the agenda".

She attended the opening of a desalination plant installed as a drought-proofing measure by a Brisbane business which will save enough drinking water for 7,000 people a day.

The $1 million plant was installed by fertiliser manufacturer Incitec Pivot at its Murrarie plant, in Brisbane's east.

The plant will operate until the company starts taking supplies from the western corridor recycled water pipeline, which is due to be completed in December next year.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 11th, 2007 at 4:21pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
price inelasticity and subsidies
Reply #66 - May 11th, 2007 at 2:41pm
 
It makes absolutely no sense to use price inelaticity to argue for subsidies, because whatever option you want subsidised already provides the elasticity.

Take tanks for example. If you increase the price of water enough, tanks will make financial sense to a householder even without a subsidiy., But that is a long way off. In reality, if you increase the price, people will reduce their consumption rather than getting a tank. Why? Because tanks do not make eocnomic sense. The cost per litre for the water is far higher than for town water. The government is harming society with taxes to pay for the wrong solution to the water crisis. A free market approach would see reduced consumption competing on an even palying field with tanks. The subsidies have skewed this palying field in favour of tanks.

Tanks can only be justified after people have made whatever reductions in consumption they are willing to make at the price for water which make tanks economical. Until then you can guarantee that tanks are the more epensive way to solve the water shortage problem. Not only are you giving away water for far less than what it is worth, you are encouraging people to install more water infrastructure at a cost to them which is far less than what it is actually worth. We end up with a huge oversupply of infrastructure, both tanks and dams.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #67 - May 11th, 2007 at 4:31pm
 
freediver wrote on May 11th, 2007 at 2:28pm:
There is no meaningful parallel there. Tanks are not a new technology. They are an old technology that needs to be judged on their cost just like any other solution. Furthermore they do not secure our water in ways that dams are not capable of. It's quite the opposite. Dams secure our water in ways that tanks are simply not capable of, at a far lower cost.

Weather patterns have changed, right now water is falling on cities and not in catchment areas, dams will do nothing to change this. Tanks are old tech, but efficient and long lasting tanks made of polymers are recent, and far far superior to dams. We need tanks now to catch the water where it is falling, tanks can then store this water in a more efficient way. A report was recently handed to the government demonstrating through cost-benefit analysis that water tanks are superior to dams for water catchment and storage.

What I am saying is that the government should roll out some infrastructure by subsidising tanks, then when you have large market penetration you can excise mains water. I never said anything about not fixing the leaks, I believe it should be done, but how do you propose to stop the evaporation from dams? How do you propose to stop the damage caused to rivers by dams?

What use is a dam if it dries up the river it is located on? What use is a dam if it never fills to begin with? What use is the water in the dam if half of it evaporates into the atmosphere and the other half leaches into the ground? What good is the cheap dirty alternative that destroys the environment when we need to be preserving the environment and paying more for water to begin with?  You might as well change a few words in your argument and say we should keep using coal power but conserve it. The argument does not address the issue! And this is one reason I am getting sick of climate change, there are far more pressing environmental issues out there, such as those caused by damming rivers.

Your arguments just reflect the stupid ignorant attitude that got us where we are in the first place. The water wastage and water storage problems are inextricably linked.

Quote:
Wrong. Demand is highly elastic. You could reduce consumption of brown coal by close to 100% over a period of a decade or two by doubling or trippling the cost. Demand is only inelastic in a very short term sense, but it is still relative. If water rates were doubled people's consumption would go down overnight. 

Oh dear god you twit, this is exactly what I said! Demand is inelastic in the short term in these industries because it is tied to technology, you cannot just change your technology in the short term. You may be able to force elasticity into the energy market by pushing stupidly high tax hikes but it will only come as a result in a shift in technology. If you push a shift in technology by simply hiking the price of a commodity then over the short term the economy takes a dive, something that businesses and consumers (read: voters) will not tolerate. What I am proposing is that the government assist a change in technology before hiking prices, therefore not doing stupid dangerous things to the economy  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: price inelasticity and subsidies
Reply #68 - May 11th, 2007 at 4:34pm
 
freediver wrote on May 11th, 2007 at 2:41pm:
Tanks can only be justified after people have made whatever reductions in consumption they are willing to make at the price for water which make tanks economical. Until then you can guarantee that tanks are the more epensive way to solve the water shortage problem. Not only are you giving away water for far less than what it is worth, you are encouraging people to install more water infrastructure at a cost to them which is far less than what it is actually worth. We end up with a huge oversupply of infrastructure, both tanks and dams.

And right now need to cut a line in the sand between potable and non potable water infrastructure. Many are currently arguing this case, and it has merit. We use potable water for everything from toilets to industry in this country, this is stupid. But installing a second set of mains infrastructure isalso stupid, which is why tanks are again superior for the purpose of a non-potable water source, and an alternative decentralised water source that individuals have the responsibility to manage.

Also with the way weather patterns have been playing us for fools, what we need most is massive supply of infrastructure! Infrastructure that is capable of storing water in the long term without losing it, something dams are not capable of doing.

If tanks are such a waste, tell me exactly why you are installing one freediver?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #69 - May 11th, 2007 at 4:46pm
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #70 - May 11th, 2007 at 5:03pm
 
We need tanks now to catch the water where it is falling, tanks can then store this water in a more efficient way.

Efficient in what way? I don't care about the amount delivered vs the amount 'wasted.' I care about the cost per unit delivered. By this measure, dams are far more 'efficient.'

A report was recently handed to the government demonstrating through cost-benefit analysis that water tanks are superior to dams for water catchment and storage.

Did it also do a cost benefit analysis of subsidies and water taxes?

What I am saying is that the government should roll out some infrastructure by subsidising tanks, then when you have large market penetration you can excise mains water.

Again, by excise, do you mean tax?

There is no need to wait for tank rollouts.

What use is a dam if it dries up the river it is located on?

I am not necessarily arguing in favour of more dams. I am arguing against subsidies and for tanks.

You might as well change a few words in your argument and say we should keep using coal power but conserve it.

Sure, a 50% reduction in the use of coal power is just as good as switching to generating 50% of our capacity from renewables. It is even better if it is a lot cheaper. The argument can be applied very broadly.

The argument does not address the issue!

Yes it does. The real issue is not where we get our electricity from. It is how much CO2 we emit. It doesn't matter to the environment whether we achieve a reduction through efficiency and reduced consumption or the more expensive schemes our government seems to favour. It's the same with water. It doesn't matter whether we reduce water consumption by using less or swtiching to tanks, except from an economic perspective, and the economics is strongly against subsidies.

Your arguments just reflect the stupid ignorant attitude that got us where we are in the first place. The water wastage and water storage problems are inextricably linked.

I am arguing against wastage. You are arguing in favour of it. Subsidies are a form of waste. Spending a fortune on tanks when reduced consumption and improved efficency is far cheaper is a form of waste.

If you push a shift in technology by simply hiking the price of a commodity then over the short term the economy takes a dive, something that businesses and consumers (read: voters) will not tolerate.

No it doesn't. This is the least costly option in terms of our economy. Pushing the change via subsidies is far worse for the economy. People don't prefer it politically because of the economic implications, they prefer it because they like handouts and don't make the mental connection with the other hand in their back pocket.

Oh dear god you twit, this is exactly what I said! Demand is inelastic in the short term

It's all relative. I would say it is elastic in the short term, and extremely elastic in the long term. Even for a short term change, taxes are a better option than subsidies.

But installing a second set of mains infrastructure isalso stupid, which is why tanks are again superior for the purpose of a non-potable water source, and an alternative decentralised water source that individuals have the responsibility to manage.

I am not arguing against any given technology. I am arguing against using the wrong economic incentives to get it implemented. The only thing you can guarantee with the wrong incentives is the wrong outcome.

If tanks are such a waste, tell me exactly why you are installing one freediver?

Santa claus is giving it to me. I looked into them a while back and the cost didn't make sense for the savings I would make from using less town water. But if I get it for free why not? This is the same thought process everyone makes and it is why the wrong price signals may achieve your 'vague' goals, but at a far higher cost to the economy than the right price signals.

Those economists you link to do not agree with you. This is not an argument about tanks vs desal vs dams. It is an argument about taxes vs subsidies and about tanks vs improved efficiency and reduced consumption.

Subsidising tanks will not return flows to dry rivers. Water taxes will.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #71 - May 11th, 2007 at 5:29pm
 
freediver wrote on May 11th, 2007 at 5:03pm:
Efficient in what way? I don't care about the amount delivered vs the amount 'wasted.' I care about the cost per unit delivered. By this measure, dams are far more 'efficient.'

Read the report, tanks can be competitive with dams on a per unit basis, in the right situation.

I'd also note that when it doesnt rain, efficiency has a lot to do with the amount wasted.

And ahh... aren't you telling me that you are the one advocating less waste? And yet here you are saying you don't care how much dams waste? Make up your mind!

Quote:
Again, by excise, do you mean tax?

What do you think... look it up if you have to.

Quote:
Sure, a 50% reduction in the use of coal power is just as good as switching to generating 50% of our capacity from renewables. It is even better if it is a lot cheaper. The argument can be applied very broadly.

But that doesn't address the issue of sustainability now does it?

Quote:
Yes it does. The real issue is not where we get our electricity from. It is how much CO2 we emit.

The issue absolutely is about where we get electricity from, non renewable resources are not sustainable.

Quote:
I am arguing against wastage. You are arguing in favour of it. Subsidies are a form of waste. Spending a fortune on tanks when reduced consumption and improved efficency is far cheaper is a form of waste.

If you think I am arguing for wastage then you have not been reading what I have written. Please take the time to read everything again if you missed this point... By advocating dams over water tanks, you are advocating waste, I am advocating conservation in every sense of the word.

Quote:
No it doesn't. This is the least costly option in terms of our economy. Pushing the change via subsidies is far worse for the economy.

Exactly what difference does it make?

If a subsidy means families on low incomes will adopt tank water then it is not waste. Again you seem to be massively out of touch with people on low income.

Quote:
It's all relative. I would say it is elastic in the short term, and extremely elastic in the long term. Even for a short term change, taxes are a better option than subsidies.

Water use (wastage not considered) transport, food and energy are inelastic commodities. This does not mean they do not respond to price signals, it means demand will respond in a negligible way. Everything is elastic, elasticity is relative... way to state the obvious. When you say something is 'inelastic' you simply say that consumption is not effected dramatically by price, ie people have to eat, drink water, drive to work and turn on the lights. Price fluctuations don't change this, they just hurt people when they go up.

Quote:
I am not arguing against any given technology. I am arguing against using the wrong economic incentives to get it implemented. The only thing you can guarantee with the wrong incentives is the wrong outcome.

So you propose to hike prices and let the market suffer the consequences until new technology is adopted? You can only conserve so much water freediver, I can really see that you have not lived off of tanks before...

Quote:
Those economists you link to do not agree with you. This is not an argument about tanks vs desal vs dams. It is an argument about taxes vs subsidies and about tanks vs improved efficiency and reduced consumption.

Subsidising tanks will not return flows to dry rivers. Water taxes will.

The economists argue the case for increased subsidies!

I am advocating taxes!! I am trying to offer a solution that forces business to carry the weight of the tax, by giving households an alternative.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 11th, 2007 at 5:41pm by zoso »  
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #72 - May 11th, 2007 at 5:32pm
 
Quote:
You are suggesting we should take people's money away from them so they stop buying things? You are completely wrong in this analysis. If water or fuel was the only thing people could spend their money on you would be right, but that is not the case. They will buy other things instead. If you got an extra hundred dollars a week and you're fuel bill went up by $100 per week, would you continue using the same amount of fuel? Of course not. Over time you would make more and more adjustments to reduce the fraction of your income you spend on fuel.

I would just like to add... you are way off here. If you increase peoples available capital, they will still pay the bills before they go out and buy new toys. This means if water and fuel are more costly, those bills are paid first, by increasing their available capital while increasing the price of these things by the same amount at the same time you will get no net change in demand.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #73 - May 11th, 2007 at 6:15pm
 
Read the report, tanks can be competitive with dams on a per unit basis, in the right situation.

Sure in the right situation, but not the current situation. New tanks are not competitive with existing dams. New tanks are not competitive with reduced consumtion and improved efficiency.

What do you think... look it up if you have to.

I want to know what you mean, not what a dictionary says. I am not asking because I don't know what the word means. I am asking in case it is why you aren't making sense.

But that doesn't address the issue of sustainability now does it?

Yes it does. Improved efficiency and reduced consumption adresses sustainability directly. What you promote involves ever increasing consumption in response to scarcity.

The issue absolutely is about where we get electricity from, non renewable resources are not sustainable.

No. See this is where you are wrong. You are wrong because you start by stating the problem incorrectly. If you state that the problem is where we get our electricity from, you only solution will be other sources. If you recognise the real problem (emissions) you will open up far more economical solutions that are just as good (probably better) from an environmental perspective. We need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels before they run out, not because they are running out. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect, we could safely burn them all then switch to renewables as they get scarcer.

If you think I am arguing for wastage then you have not been reading what I have written.

Yes I have. You are arguing for economic wastage for a questionable environmental gain. Do you think the free tank the government is spending a fortune to give me will reduce my water consumption? It won't. It is just more free water. They are lowering the cost of water when they should be icnreasing it. The price signal they send says 'there is nothing wrong with how much water you consume so use as much as you want, the only problem is finding more ways to give you free water.'

By advocating dams over water tanks, you are advocating waste,

No I'm not. The dams are already there. And as I said I am not necessarily arguing in favour of dams. It's not that I don't understand your argument, it's that you don't yet realise the implicit waste behind it.

I am advocating conservation in every sense of the word

Giving away free water in a drought is not conservation.

Exactly what difference does it make?

There are two big differences:

1) It leads to an increase in water consumption when it should be decreasing. It is based on the 'ever more consumption' mentality

2) Even if it does reduce consumption of town water, it does so in a very expensive and roundabout way. It skews the market in favour of one of the options when other options are better in many circumstances. It prevents people from making a decision that is economically rational from societies perspective.

Water use (wastage not considered) transport, food and energy are inelastic commodities.

Wrong. Water use is extremly elastic. So is transport and energy. Food is fairly inelastic on a kJ basis, but is also fairly elastic on a cost basis.

When you say something is 'inelastic' you simply say that consumption is not effected dramatically by price, ie people have to eat, drink water, drive to work and turn on the lights.

People don't need to drive to work. Turing on the lights is not the same as greenhouse emissions. I don't want to tax light switches, or even electricity consumption. I want to tax emissions. There are many ways to achieve the same outcome (light) without the same greenhouse emissions. Water for drinking makes up only a tiny amount of domestic consumption. Look into it. There is massive waste - because water is so cheap.

Price fluctuations don't change this, they just hurt people when they go up.

Here you are ignoring the third word again. Shift.

So you propose to hike prices and let the market suffer the consequences until new technology is adopted?

No. Adopting new technologies is only one of many ways to respond. It tends to be favoured politically because governments are seen to be taking action, but it ignores the reality of the situation.

You can only conserve so much water freediver, I can really see that you have not lived off of tanks before...

You are contradicting yourself. Look into how much water people on tanks (only) vs town water use. You seem to know about this, yet you fail to recognise the huge elasticity it so clearly demonstrates.

The economists argue the case for increased subsidies!

Compared to worse options. They do not argue for them in an absolute sense, only in a relative sense. If you look into it more deeply, you will see that economists strongly favour a green tax shift over subsidies. The economic consensus is strongly on my side on this.

I am advocating taxes!!

You are advocating taxes and bad subsidies. I am advocating taxes and tax cuts. Got it?

I am trying to offer a solution that forces business to carry the weight of the tax, by giving households an alternative.

Look into the economics of this too. The concept is flawed.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis---"pray for rain"-
Reply #74 - May 11th, 2007 at 6:18pm
 
If you increase peoples available capital

A green tax shift will not increase people's available capital.

This means if water and fuel are more costly, those bills are paid first, by increasing their available capital while increasing the price of these things by the same amount at the same time you will get no net change in demand.

Wrong. If the bills are already in the mail they will get payed. But people will not focus on buying things if the price increases. They will focus on finding better ways to spend their money. People don't see a price hike and the petrol bowser and think to themselves "'what a shame, I better make sure I use the same amount of petrol this week as a I did last week, and I better make sure my next car is also a gas guzzler and my next house is just as far from work."

Can I recommend a book? It's called natural capitalism. It goes into a lot of the engineering ideas behind the price elastity and shows why this idea of inelasticity is so flawed. Just as economists can clearly demonstrate the elasticity of water and greenhouse emissions and a large scale, this book demonstrates how so many companies and people have achieved massive reductions in what were previously assumed to be 'necessary' levels of consumption.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #75 - May 11th, 2007 at 7:36pm
 
Freediver you are a dolt! Consumers are not the problem! Business is the problem!

I haven't said once that simply having a tank will make you use less, I said being dependant on a tank will make you use less.You can drop the condescending bullsh1t (as always with you) I have lived on tank water, I know what makes you use less water. I have intimate personal experience with tight water consumption, and here you are telling us all how you're going to take your free tank and waste more... My whole point is that a PRICE HIKE is necessary to make EVERYONE use less water, however, since this will be damaging to families who ARE NOT THE PROBLEM they should be given some form of subsidy, a tank is a perfect solution, much better than a two tiered billing system or a tax break for example, because tanks are the superior technology for water storage.

Its a real simple equation... give people tanks, make mains really expensive, everyone saves water, less political fallout from stupid policies that get your ass voted out of office. Like all you idealistic quacks who want to create endless new minor parties, you fail to understand the subtlety (read: corruption, selfishness, inherent evil and stupidity if you will, either way it is a correct analysis) of the real world.

As for your woefully ignorant assessment of petrol prices... hello! business again! Consumers may be able to choose to walk to work, but how do you fix trucking? I have made this point to you before and it soared over your head and still seems to. Industry you dolt! Industry is the bulk consumer, and cannot in the short term simply switch technology in response to tax hike without massive economic damage.... Get with the program! If it were that easy we would have solved this problem by now!
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 11th, 2007 at 7:54pm by zoso »  
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #76 - May 11th, 2007 at 7:38pm
 
Quote:
No. See this is where you are wrong. You are wrong because you start by stating the problem incorrectly. If you state that the problem is where we get our electricity from, you only solution will be other sources. If you recognise the real problem (emissions) you will open up far more economical solutions that are just as good (probably better) from an environmental perspective. We need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels before they run out, not because they are running out. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect, we could safely burn them all then switch to renewables as they get scarcer.


Again, catch up with the real world! reducing CO2 output does nothing to change the fact that coal and oil are NON RENEWABLE RESOURCES. Once they are burned, they are gone, that is not sustainability.

Get off your bloody global warming high horse and realise that the world faces many more pressing environmental issues than simply CO2 output.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #77 - May 11th, 2007 at 8:22pm
 
Freediver you are a dolt! Consumers are not the problem! Business is the problem!

Wrong again. Carbon emissions and excessive consumption of surface and underground water is the problem. To restrict yourself to business ignores two major parts of both the problem and solution:

1) A lot of the energy and water is consumed directly by retail consumers.

2) Business provides goods for consumers. In the end consumers pay anyway. If you tax business, any costs they can't avoid through efficency is passed on to consumers. Reduced consumption by consumers of high water or energy cost products is a major part of the solution.

I haven't said once that simply having a tank will make you use less, I said being dependant on a tank will make you use less.

That is not going to happen. The government is never going to cut people's connections off if they are already connected. And to the extent we need to make people rely more on tank water, taxing town water is the best way to achieve that.

I have intimate personal experience with tight water consumption, and here you are telling us all how you're going to take your free tank and waste more...

Hey, I'm a realist. More realism is needed by politicians. Not wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money for comparitively little real benefit.

My whole point is that a PRICE HIKE is necessary to make EVERYONE use less water, however, since this will be damaging to families who ARE NOT THE PROBLEM they should be given some form of subsidy

You were right up until you said subsidy. If you put up a tax, there are a number of things you can do with the money. You can reduce other taxes. You can hand the money out. You can subsidise thing. Reducing other taxes is the best option. Subsidies is the worst. handouts are in between. Don't you think that those struggling families would rather have the money and decide for themselves whether to buy a tank, pay the extra cost of water, or consume less water? This decision is even more critical for poor people as they will be ahrdest hit if you screw with the economy.

You keep arguing for subsidies, but you are not arguing on the basis of whether they are better than those other two options. You are completely missing the point. You argue for subsidies on the grounds that tanks are good, but you so far have failed to engage in the real debate - whether subsidies are better than tax breaks (or handouts for that matter).

much better than a two tiered billing system or a tax break for example, because tanks are the superior technology for water storage.

I'm not sure how many times I will have to say this. The problem is not how to keep our water use up while reducing the drain of rivers. The problem is to reduce the drain of rivers. Subsidising tanks is not the perfect solution because it skews the economy away from a far cheaper option - reducing consumption. It also costs a fortune. While you continue to see the wrong problem, you will continue to see the wrong solution. Tanks are not the only solution and a price signal that pretends they are will harm the economy far more than a price signal based on the real problem.

Its a real simple equation... give people tanks, make mains really expensive, everyone saves water, less political fallout from stupid policies that get your ass voted out of office.

Yes it is simple, but it isn't good. Here's a better option: Tax water, give low income earners an income tax break, let them decide whether to buy a tank or reduce consumption. The government should not make the decisions for them. That is communism. Communism has failed. Get over it.

Like all you idealistic quacks who want to create endless new minor parties, you fail to understand the subtlety (read: corruption, selfishness, inherent evil and stupidity if you will, either way it is a correct analysis) of the real world.

Actually, that is you. You fail to understand that people will take the free tank, at a huge cost to taxpayers, then just consume even more water.

As for your woefully ignorant assessment of petrol prices... hello! business again! Consumers may be able to choose to walk to work, but how do you fix trucking? I have made this point to you before and it soared over your head and still seems to.

Every time you fail to understand my response you put it down to me not understanding the problem. It is you who doesn't understand. Trucking will have a number of responses to a green tax shift, such as:

1) Switching to alternative transport methods such as rail and water
2) Going broke
3) Passing the price onto consumers, resulting in a decrease in the trades most reliant on trucking.
4) Reorganising so that transport networks are more fuel efficient. Currently other factors such as labor and infrastructure costs are weighted far more heavily than emissions. An emissions tax will change this.

Got it?

Industry is the bulk consumer, and cannot in the short term simply switch technology in response to tax hike without massive economic damage....

Why not? It can switch in the short term in response to a green tax shift far better than worse options such as subsidies. We cannot afford to cling to industries that are no longer needed just for the sake of keeping industries going.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #78 - May 11th, 2007 at 8:25pm
 
Get with the program! If it were that easy we would have solved this problem by now!

But it is that easy, or that difficult, depending on your understanding of the political context. The difficulty is getting people like you to understand the economics.

Again, catch up with the real world! reducing CO2 output does nothing to change the fact that coal and oil are NON RENEWABLE RESOURCES.

Oh dear. You do not even get what the real problem is. Running out of coal and oil is not the problem. Our economy will adjust to that far better without government subsidies than with subsidies. It is global warming that the economy fails to take into consideration. The free market is great at dealing with shortages but bad at dealing with negative externalities.

Once they are burned, they are gone, that is not sustainability.

In a very narrow sense it is unsustainable, but not in a way that actually harms society. If something runs out and we have to switch to alternatives, that is just how it is. No amount of subsidies is going to put more oil or coal back in the ground. However, as well as reducing emissions, a green tax shift is also the best way to make sure some is left there in case future generations need it.

Get off your bloody global warming high horse and realise that the world faces many more pressing environmental issues than simply CO2 output.

Running out of oil and coal is not one of them. The sooner the better. Do you realise we need to stop using oil and coal before it actually runs out?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #79 - May 11th, 2007 at 8:40pm
 
I think we have had this discussion before and I recommended you ask an actual economist, say a professor at your nearest university. But you quit the discussion instead. Can I make that suggestion again? You obviously don't have a firm grasp of the economic implications and do not trust my knowledge of the issue. But I'm pretty sure that when someone you do trust tells you the exact same thing you might think a bit more about it.

Just make sure you ask the right question. Don't ask whether tanks subsidies are better than dams. Ask whether subsidies are a better approach than a consumption tax coupled with a tax break targetted at low income earners.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #80 - May 12th, 2007 at 10:31am
 
How are free tanks going to help poor people anyway? You can't eat a tank, they aren't very comfortable to sleep in and you can't take them with you every time you move house. It's the wealthy landowners who will benefit. Tenants do not even pay the water bill. This idea that taxing poor people and giving free stuff to wealthy lanowners will somehow help the poor is completely absurd.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #81 - May 12th, 2007 at 1:31pm
 
freediver wrote on May 12th, 2007 at 10:31am:
How are free tanks going to help poor people anyway? You can't eat a tank, they aren't very comfortable to sleep in and you can't take them with you every time you move house. It's the wealthy landowners who will benefit. Tenants do not even pay the water bill. This idea that taxing poor people and giving free stuff to wealthy lanowners will somehow help the poor is completely absurd.

Poor families are often land owners too. And funny... I get a water bill in the mail every quarter and I rent.

You are entirely missing my argument, again and again in your responses. You are breaking down what I am saying into bits and attacking the little bits one by one without realising that what I am proposing doesn't make sense in little pieces. Perhaps this is why you think I'm not making sense, but it is you who is jumbling up my argument.

I'll make it simple. I agree with you an excise (consumption tax) on water is what we need to reduce consumption, but it is not fair on households to bear the financial burden of this when industry uses 80% of water. So you give households the option to avoid some of this tax burden by offering them a reward if they use less water. Not only that but at the same time you are introducing the superior technology into the infrastructure, by taking the load off the dams you will make it so we can continue to grow without building more of them. Note this will only work through also conserving water.

There is nothing that will make a person use less water than having one of two options: rely on a tank or rely on an expensive source of mains water. If you just make mains expensive, there will be political fallout. If you make mains expensive but give people the option to be self-reliant, they will learn to be self-reliant and self-regulating. Less political fallout. In a democracy, you have to work with the idiot masses.

The public always needs some way to be pushed to use the superior technology, tank subsidies provide this. You fundamentally fail to grasp human nature, give people a mains supply and they will expect it to be cheap, there will be no political will to otherwise. You may think you can simply convince people otherwise but you don't seem to behaving much luck so far with this little website... try expanding that out to the entire voting population. You get the economics but you don't get the psychology. I get the economics, I agree with you on the economics, but I also get the psychology. A subsidy may not be the best economic principle, but this is a country not just an economy.

And don't tell me you are the god of economics and I know nothing. Our country is run along economic principles, there are many schools of thought, you have only one. I have shown you through economic principles why a tax shift can only be partof the solution, it is not in itself a whole solution. You tried to tell me you are not increasing the available capital to households by reducing income tax? Come off it! Reduce income tax = increased demand, excising inelastic commodities = small amount of reduction in demand, net result, nothing much. Regulation is needed as well, and carrots like subsidies the market always fails somewhere and this is what regulation is for. You advocate all stick, no carrot, whipping people doesn't achieve much.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 12th, 2007 at 1:38pm by zoso »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #82 - May 12th, 2007 at 2:01pm
 
You are breaking down what I am saying into bits and attacking the little bits one by one without realising that what I am proposing doesn't make sense in little pieces.

But if the individual pieces don't make sense then putting them together won't make any more sense. The idea of combining taxes and subsidies has some aesthetic appeal, but it is purely aesthetic. Both the tax and the subsidy must be justified on their own merits.

I agree with you an excise (consumption tax) on water is what we need to reduce consumption, but it is not fair on households to bear the financial burden of this when industry uses 80% of water.

If industry uses 80% of water they will bear 80% of the burden. The burden must fall wherever the consumption occurs.

So you give households the option to avoid some of this tax burden by offering them a reward if they use less water.

This is achieved by the tax itself. No subsidies are necessary.

only that but at the same time you are introducing the superior technology into the infrastructure

If it is superior it won't need subsidies. The fact that it must be subsidised demonstrates inferiority.

If you make mains expensive but give people the option to be self-reliant, they will learn to be self-reliant and self-regulating.

They will have that option without subsidies. People would be better off without the taxes so they can afford to buy the tanks from their own pockets.

In a democracy, you have to work with the idiot masses.

This is true, but you make it sound like it's a good idea. Just because you are in a democracy doesn't mean you should tell the idiot masses they are right when they are wrong. You have a vote too. You shouldn't ask for something you know to be wrong just because you think it will make the politicians job easier. Force the politicians to choose between the idiot masses and sensible policy, don't push them towards bad policy. Stand up and be heard. You'd be surprised how many of those 'idiot masses' understand that the government is taking with one hand and giving with the other. They don't like it any more than I do.

The public always needs some way to be pushed to use the superior technology, tank subsidies provide this.

Taxes achieve far more for any given cost to society.

You fundamentally fail to grasp human nature, give people a mains supply and they will expect it to be cheap, there will be no political will to otherwise.

Not true. They will expect it to be cheap if it is cheap. If you make it expensive they will complain, then ten years later they will all wonder to themselves what they were complaining about.

You may think you can simply convince people otherwise

There are plenty of people who don't need convincing. They like the idea up front.

Our country is run along economic principles, there are many schools of thought, you have only one.

It is run on political principles. There is no economic principle that supports subsidies over a green tax shift.

You tried to tell me you are not increasing the available capital to households by reducing income tax? Come off it! Reduce income tax = increased demand

Remember the third word? Shift. You reduce one tax. You increase another. No increase in the available 'capital'.

excising inelastic commodities = small amount of reduction in demand, net result, nothing much

Except a stronger economy and a small reduction in a negative externality. Water, electricity and petrol are all highly eleastic.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #83 - May 12th, 2007 at 2:51pm
 
freediver wrote on May 12th, 2007 at 2:01pm:
But if the individual pieces don't make sense then putting them together won't make any more sense. The idea of combining taxes and subsidies has some aesthetic appeal, but it is purely aesthetic. Both the tax and the subsidy must be justified on their own merits.

Utter tripe, one piece of your tax shift is increasing taxes, is that alone a good idea? Your tax shift only works if all the pieces work together.

Quote:
If it is superior it won't need subsidies. The fact that it must be subsidised demonstrates inferiority.

Again, the same stupid ignorant attitude that has gotten us where we are today. Cheapest doesn't mean best, just because environmental costs are not recognised does not make it inferior, it just means your measure of quality if flawed. Read the report I linked to, when environmental and social costs are factored into it, cost-benefit analysis demonstrated tanks are superior. A subsidy is just a leg up for new technology, the same policy that has always been used.

Quote:
They will have that option without subsidies. People would be better off without the taxes so they can afford to buy the tanks from their own pockets.

...in a perfect world. We live in the real world...

Quote:
This is true, but you make it sound like it's a good idea. Just because you are in a democracy doesn't mean you should tell the idiot masses they are right when they are wrong. You have a vote too. You shouldn't ask for something you know to be wrong just because you think it will make the politicians job easier. Force the politicians to choose between the idiot masses and sensible policy, don't push them towards bad policy. Stand up and be heard. You'd be surprised how many of those 'idiot masses' understand that the government is taking with one hand and giving with the other. They don't like it any more than I do.

More perfect world idealism. Get with the program.

Quote:
Not true. They will expect it to be cheap if it is cheap. If you make it expensive they will complain, then ten years later they will all wonder to themselves what they were complaining about.

If you get to the ten year mark without a change of government and more populist policy... real world mate!

Quote:
Remember the third word? Shift. You reduce one tax. You increase another. No increase in the available 'capital'.

You see? You utterly fail to grasp the complex subtleties of the topic. You shift tax from income onto consumption, this means lowered income tax, that means increased household capital, this means people can happily continue to purchase the same quantity of commodity at an increased price. Not that an increase in price can even have a significant effect on inelastic commodities such as petrol and water in the first place.

I have outlined the economics, you just ignore them. Get your head out of the household and think of business. Demand for water, petrol and electricity is inelastic in the short term because technology requires that amount of input for current levels of economic activity. You cannot change this overnight with a price signal. In the short term, while technology catches up, the economy takes a dive, nobody will accept that this is necessary. Government can ease this transition through incentives like subsidies.

Quote:
Except a stronger economy and a small reduction in a negative externality. Water, electricity and petrol are all highly eleastic.

Then why do economists disagree with you? These are all regarded as inelastic commodities when viewed in the short term. You think you can change this in the long term and it is true, you can, but not without a complete change in the technology used. Before technology can be changed (only happens long term) you will still be sitting on high prices with inelastic demand while the technology catches up, at a cost. Net result is that in the short term, the economy will take a dive.

Alternately if you shift tax enough so that net cost increase is offset with a reduction in income tax, you won't change demand because business can still afford to run at current levels of output! Why would they change their technology when they can afford to continue with the status quo?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #84 - May 12th, 2007 at 3:22pm
 
Utter tripe, one piece of your tax shift is increasing taxes, is that alone a good idea?

Yes. Increasing taxes to correct a market failure by internalising an externality is a good idea. It internalises the externality and raises extra revenue at the same time. The extra revenue gives the government options for other changes. Up to this point it is a good idea by itself. Reducing other taxes is the second part and represents the best option for what to do with that extra revenue.

Cheapest doesn't mean best, just because environmental costs are not recognised does not make it inferior, it just means your measure of quality if flawed.

No, I am talking about the same environmental outcome. The only difference is the economic cost.

Read the report I linked to, when environmental and social costs are factored into it, cost-benefit analysis demonstrated tanks are superior.

This is a disagreement over subsidies, not tanks. The article you linked to was abut tanks vs dams and desal.

You shift tax from income onto consumption, this means lowered income tax, that means increased household capital, this means people can happily continue to purchase the same quantity of commodity at an increased price.

They can, but they don't because the relative costs have all changed.

Not that an increase in price can even have a significant effect on inelastic commodities such as petrol and water in the first place.

You keep saying they are inelastic, but you haven't demonstrated it. They are highly elastic. Who care's if it doesn't change overnight? The economy won't suffer because of it. In fact it is by allowing the economy to respond at it's own pace that a green tax shift avoids a lot of the cost to the economy which is inherent in subsidies. Subsidies don't change things overnight either you realise? If you try to change things quickly with a subsidy, you just push up prices and there isn't any more of whatever you are subsidising produced. The subsidy has no effect except increased profits to those who are already making the item. Whatever rate of change you can achieve with a subsidy, you could achieve it faster and at less cost to the economy with a green tax shift.

Demand for water, petrol and electricity is inelastic in the short term because technology requires that amount of input for current levels of economic activity. You cannot change this overnight with a price signal. In the short term, while technology catches up, the economy takes a dive, nobody will accept that this is necessary.

It doesn't have to change overnight. Business won't take a dive. Remember your analysis above? People can go on spending money on the same things. This includes the cost of taxes that businesses pass on to end consumers. If everyone continued doing exactly the same thing after the tax shift, no-one would go out of business. They would buy the same products, just at different relative prices.

Government can ease this transition through incentives like subsidies.

That doesn't ease the transition. That makes it harder.

Then why do economists disagree with you?

They don't. You disagree with me. You took some statements from economists about a different question and pretended that it was a response to this issue. The economists are strongly on my side on the subsidy vs green tax shift debate.

You think you can change this in the long term and it is true, you can, but not without a complete change in the technology used.

Wrong. Most of the change will happen as a result of changes in patterns of consumption. I'm not sure why it keeps coming back to this, but changes in technology are only part of the solution. Changes to consumption patterns are jsut as important.

Before technology can be changed (only happens long term) you will still be sitting on high prices with inelastic demand while the technology catches up, at a cost. Net result is that in the short term, the economy will take a dive.

This is a completely botched analysis. It has no basis in economics at all.

Alternately if you shift tax enough so that net cost increase is offset with a reduction in income tax, you won't change demand because business can still afford to run at current levels of output!

You have said this a number of times. I have corrected you a number of times. Demand will change because the relative price fo goods will change.

Why would they change their technology when they can afford to continue with the status quo?

To make more money. Because demand changes due to the change in relative cost of goods.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #85 - May 13th, 2007 at 12:50pm
 
freediver wrote on May 12th, 2007 at 3:22pm:
No, I am talking about the same environmental outcome. The only difference is the economic cost.

Again, read the report, environmental outcome is better when using tanks. Or is this another 'why should I read your supporting evidence when it doesn't back up my argument' classic weak freediver position Roll Eyes

Quote:
This is a disagreement over subsidies, not tanks. The article you linked to was abut tanks vs dams and desal.

This is why you don't get it, this is not a disagreement over subsidies, the government will continue to subsidise, you are an idealistic quack if you think otherwise, this is an argument about where the government's money should be spent. Either way, your idea requires that government build on current infrastructure spending tax dollars, my idea involves government spending tax dollars to put the infrastructure in private hands. No difference if it's a subsidy or a public works project.

You seem to think however that reduced consumption alone will save us. Poor analysis of the situation freediver.

Quote:
They can, but they don't because the relative costs have all changed.

But that is irrelevant! When you have more money at your disposal, relatively higher costs are meaningless.

Quote:
You keep saying they are inelastic, but you haven't demonstrated it. They are highly elastic. Who care's if it doesn't change overnight? The economy won't suffer because of it. In fact it is by allowing the economy to respond at it's own pace that a green tax shift avoids a lot of the cost to the economy which is inherent in subsidies. Subsidies don't change things overnight either you realise? If you try to change things quickly with a subsidy, you just push up prices and there isn't any more of whatever you are subsidising produced. The subsidy has no effect except increased profits to those who are already making the item. Whatever rate of change you can achieve with a subsidy, you could achieve it faster and at less cost to the economy with a green tax shift.

Demand for water is inelastic because people need to drink a certain amount, wash their clothes and use the toilet. Without changing the technology used to do these things you won't change the quantity that is used by a great deal. Demand for water by industry is inelastic because technology used in production and other outputs requires certain amounts of water, this wont change without changing the technology used. Demand for fuel is inelastic because people have to drive the same k's every week to get to work and pick up the kids from school, businesses need to truck goods around the country, again this is the technology of the automobile and the system of distribution networks we have, you won't change demand without changing the technology. Demand for power is again inelastic because people use a certain amount of power to get household tasks done, businesses use a certain amount of power to get their jobs done. Without a change in technology this cannot change by any meaningful amount. Technology does not change in the short term, so in the short term if you raise costs, the economy slows down while businesses re-tool and households catch up, that is if technology even exists to make the necessary savings.

A subsidy does not change things overnight, but it changes things at reduced cost to business and in the case that I am putting forth, households.

Quote:
It doesn't have to change overnight. Business won't take a dive. Remember your analysis above? People can go on spending money on the same things. This includes the cost of taxes that businesses pass on to end consumers. If everyone continued doing exactly the same thing after the tax shift, no-one would go out of business. They would buy the same products, just at different relative prices.

Exactly my point, a tax shift results in nothing. A price hike alone which will achieve something will hurt the economy.

Quote:
That doesn't ease the transition. That makes it harder.

The introduction of most new important service providing technologies has been subsidised by government throughout our entire history... because it HELPS the transition.

Quote:
They don't. You disagree with me. You took some statements from economists about a different question and pretended that it was a response to this issue. The economists are strongly on my side on the subsidy vs green tax shift debate.

It is a response to the issue, tanks are superior technology for the environment, government is in a position where it is forced to invest in water, savings or no, they must invest, tanks are a better way to spend funds than dams. I gave you a link to a study by a group of economists that is pushing the case for increased tanks subsidies... exactly how does that support your position?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
zoso
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 512
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #86 - May 13th, 2007 at 1:01pm
 
Quote:
Wrong. Most of the change will happen as a result of changes in patterns of consumption. I'm not sure why it keeps coming back to this, but changes in technology are only part of the solution. Changes to consumption patterns are jsut as important.

You seem to neglect that changes to consumption cannot occur without a change in technology, they are more or less the exact same thing. Unless of course you want to convince a nation of spoiled children who have come to expect a certain standard of living provided by their government that they must now sacrifice that standard... good luck... again, you are an idealist, your head is in the clouds.

Quote:
This is a completely botched analysis. It has no basis in economics at all.

Oh? You are going to tell me that industrial and domestic technology can just be changed with the snap of the fingers? In economic terms technology is always considered fixed in the short term, you should know this if you really know as much about economics as you claim.

Again I say, you won't change anything by shifting tax in such a way as to allow people the same level of money left over after the bills are paid. You keep telling me you won't be increasing the amount of money available to families, but this is only after the bills are paid, before the bills are paid households will have more money, thus they can afford higher bills. If the net shift in tax results in no net change at the end of the day you get no net change in demand.

Quote:
You have said this a number of times. I have corrected you a number of times. Demand will change because the relative price fo goods will change.

Why? Why would it matter when people have more money at their disposal? So petrol will cost more but income will be taxed lower, you won't change consumption by much when you do this. I'm not saying its a bad idea, I believe in taxes on consumption rather than income, but you are massively exaggerating the outcomes of your tax shift. You have a fairly vague grounding in economics if you cannot see this.

Quote:
To make more money. Because demand changes due to the change in relative cost of goods.

It won't matter, so long as people can afford to pay the bills and buy toys with what is left over, it doesn't matter what the relative costs are. Relative costs vary quite widely from one western nation to another, but this doesn't change consumption habits. It is a cultural/technological situation that causes current consumption. There is an economic explanation but that is only that current consumption occurs because people can afford it, you won't change this unless you make everything more expensive relative to their available capital, by making things more expensive but also making more money available to people nothing will change.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #87 - May 13th, 2007 at 7:54pm
 
Again, read the report, environmental outcome is better when using tanks. Or is this another 'why should I read your supporting evidence when it doesn't back up my argument' classic weak freediver position

No, the outcome is not necessarily better for the environment when you use tanks. Taxes, subsidies etc can be increased to achieve whatever change, or whatever rate of change you want. The outcome depends on the extent to which you impliment them. For the same environmental outcome, a green tax shift has a far lower economic cost than subsidies.

This is why you don't get it, this is not a disagreement over subsidies, the government will continue to subsidise, you are an idealistic quack if you think otherwise, this is an argument about where the government's money should be spent.

This is an argument about whether the government should spend the money, not where they should spend it. I am not arguing that we should subsidise something else instead of tanks. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using subsidies. Under a taxation system, money would still end up getting spent on tanks, just less of it because other options would also be used.

Either way, your idea requires that government build on current infrastructure spending tax dollars

No it doesn't. I have no idea why you are assuming this. It makes no sense at all. I am saying the government should not subsidise anything. They should simply shift the tax base to water (and greenouse emissions etc).

You seem to think however that reduced consumption alone will save us.

No, I am saying that both options should be judged on their own merits. Subsidies prevent this from happening. They skew the market towards one option at a huge cost to society.

But that is irrelevant! When you have more money at your disposal, relatively higher costs are meaningless.

No it isn't. YOu are dead wrong on this. I'll explain again. Suppose the cost of however much petrol you currently purchase went up $100 per week and you recieved $100 a week extra in after tax income. Would you spend all that money on extra petrol? No. Everyone would purchase less fuel and more of other items. IT is the change in relative costs that drives the reductions in emissions under a green tax shift. It's the same thing with carbon trading. That's what all the talk about 'price signals' is based on. Yu really should ask an economist about it if you don't believe me. When I say relative costs, I don't mean relative to what items used to cost, I mean relative to everything else you purchase.

Demand for water is inelastic because people need to drink a certain amount, wash their clothes and use the toilet.

But that only represents a small fraction of our water consumption. Remember when you were going on about living off rainwater tanks? Look into how much more people on town water use. They use that much because it is almost free. If you give something away people will waste it. It's basic economics. You don't need a degree to understand that. Giving people free tanks won't make a huge dent in their consumption because you are not forcing them to rely on it.

Without changing the technology used to do these things you won't change the quantity that is used by a great deal.

I am not arguing that we shouldn't change the technology. I am arguing that we should achieve that change far more efficiently in economic terms, by not forcing the market to rely solely on technology as the solution.

Demand for water by industry is inelastic because technology used in production and other outputs requires certain amounts of water, this wont change without changing the technology used.

No, it does not rely on 'certain amounts' of water. How much water an industrial process uses depends on the price of water. The more it costs for new water from the town supply, the less they will use. There are plenty of ways in which industry can significantly reduce their consumption, some of which can be implimented in a very short time frame. It all comes down to the economics of the situation.

Demand for fuel is inelastic because people have to drive the same k's every week to get to work and pick up the kids from school, businesses need to truck goods around the country, again this is the technology of the automobile and the system of distribution networks we have, you won't change demand without changing the technology.

Yes you will. Living closer to work, driving a small car etc are not new technologies. New technologies will only play a small role. I know you are going to say that these changes take time, but there is no subsidiy option that could achieve the same rate of change at less cost to the economy.

Demand for power is again inelastic because people use a certain amount of power to get household tasks done, businesses use a certain amount of power to get their jobs done.

Wrong again. Demand is elastic. I've got know idea where you get these strange notions from, but they are simply wrong.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #88 - May 13th, 2007 at 8:02pm
 
Without a change in technology this cannot change by any meaningful amount.

You are missing the point. A green tax shift does not mean no change in technology. It means the same change at lower cost to society. Or at least similar changes, combined with 'non-technology' changes that achieve the same thing at far lower cost.

Technology does not change in the short term, so in the short term if you raise costs, the economy slows down while businesses re-tool and households catch up

A green tax shift does not raise costs, it shifts them. The economy does not slow down. Some parts slow down. Others speed up.

A subsidy does not change things overnight, but it changes things at reduced cost to business and in the case that I am putting forth, households.

No, it chages things at a far higher cost. You are missing the simple point that a subsidy is a tax. You just fail to make the connection. You seem to think the money for a subsidy comes out of thin air.

Exactly my point, a tax shift results in nothing. A price hike alone which will achieve something will hurt the economy.

No, this was not your point. You missed the point. I'll simplify it for you: For whatever rate of change and whatever end result you want, a green tax shift will achieve it at less cost to society.

It is a response to the issue, tanks are superior technology for the environment, government is in a position where it is forced to invest in water, savings or no, they must invest, tanks are a better way to spend funds than dams.

I'll repeat myself. This is not an argument over technologies. It is an argument over economics. It is an argument over how we get the technology adopted.

I gave you a link to a study by a group of economists that is pushing the case for increased tanks subsidies... exactly how does that support your position?

They were claiming it was better from an economic perspective than something that is worse. They did not say it was better than a green tax shift. If you don't understand what the economists are actually saying, you shouldn't try to use it to back up your argument.

You seem to neglect that changes to consumption cannot occur without a change in technology, they are more or less the exact same thing.

Wrong. Changes in consumption can occur as a result of price signals alone without any change in technology.

Unless of course you want to convince a nation of spoiled children who have come to expect a certain standard of living provided by their government that they must now sacrifice that standard... good luck... again, you are an idealist, your head is in the clouds.

A green tax shift does not lower people's standard of living. It makes some things more expensive and others cheaper.

Again I say, you won't change anything by shifting tax in such a way as to allow people the same level of money left over after the bills are paid.

Again, you are wrong.

If the net shift in tax results in no net change at the end of the day you get no net change in demand.

It achieves a change in the relative cost of different products. People buy more of some things and less of others as a result of price changes alone, even before there are changes in technology.

Why? Why would it matter when people have more money at their disposal?

Because the relative price of goods changes. Refer to my petrol example I have given a few times.

You have a fairly vague grounding in economics if you cannot see this.

No, you are the one with a vague grounding in economics. I have studied economics at one of the most prestigious economics schools in the US. A green tax shift has a sound basis in economics. The argument for a green tax shift over subsidies is grounded firmly in economics.

It won't matter, so long as people can afford to pay the bills and buy toys with what is left over, it doesn't matter what the relative costs are.

Yes it does matter what the relative costs are. It's basic economics. Very basic economics. You really can't get any more basic than this. Again, refer to the petrol example.

Relative costs vary quite widely from one western nation to another, but this doesn't change consumption habits.

Yes it does.

Subsidies are a worse option because they require a higher tax burden on society than a green tax shift, for the same outcome. They require either an increase in the total tax burden, or a lost opportunity to decrease taxes or spend the money on more useful programs.

Please go and speak to an economist about this. You are repeating wrong claims again and again. Even a first year economics student would be able to explain why you are wrong about the relative price of goods not affecting consumption. I have explained it many times. It should be common sense.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Water Crisis--- subsidies vs green tax shift
Reply #89 - May 14th, 2007 at 10:24am
 
I have updated the FAQ on this. Hopefully it explains it a bit better now:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Vic steel factory to save drinking water
Reply #90 - May 15th, 2007 at 1:46pm
 
This works out to $1 for every 33 litres of water per year. We currently pay about $1 for every 1000 litres from the tap, which would put the payback period at 30 years (note: that's assuming zero interest - in reality it would never pay for itself in a commercial sense). Maybe they pay a lot more in Melbourne, maybe not, but I'm sure someone isn't paying their way. There are probably farmers using the same water for far less than $1/1000L.

Vic steel factory to save drinking water

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Vic-steel-factory-to-save-drinking-water/2007/05/15/1178995124812.html

More than $21 million is to be spent on providing recycled water for a major Victorian manufacturing plant, which will save 660 million litres of drinking water every year.

BlueScope Steel is injecting $8 million into the project and utility South East Water will contribute $9.4 million to upgrade its treatment plant to produce "Class A" recycled water.

A 13km pipeline will also be built to pump the recycled water from the Somers treatment plant to BlueScope's factory at Hastings on the Mornington Peninsula.

Victoria's acting Premier John Thwaites announced that the government would provide a further $4.1 million.



This one comes out to $1 for every 45L/year ($1billion/45GL pa)

WA to build new desalination plant

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/WA-to-build-new-desalination-plant/2007/05/15/1178995141102.html

Western Australia has shelved controversial plans to tap a south-west aquifer to supply Perth's water in favour of building a second seawater desalination plant.

Premier Alan Carpenter said the state's wind-powered desalination plant at Kwinana had shown that large quantities of water from an unlimited ocean supply could be provided using a clean and green process.

The new plant will cost $640 million and is expected to provide at least 45 gigalitres of water a year into the integrated water supply system by the end of 2011, with potential to increase to 100 gigalitres.

It will cost an additional $315 million to integrate it into the water supply system.



Wealthier suburbs using the most water

http://news.smh.com.au/wealthier-suburbs-using-the-most-water/20080110-1l86.html

Wealthier suburbs use more water than those less well-heeled areas of greater Sydney, according to the latest figures from Sydney Water.

The annual report card on local government water savings, released by Water Utilities Minister Nathan Rees, showed that on average, households across Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains have cut their annual water use by an average of 75,000 litres since 2002-03.

Residents of Kiama used the least water in 2006-07 with an average consumption of just 162,000 litres per household, followed by Leichhardt (165,000 litres) and the Blue Mountains (171,000 litres).

The biggest water users were in the more well-to-do Sydney suburbs.

The highest water using area was Woollahra (306,000 litres) followed by Mosman (283,000 litres) and Hunters Hill (282,000 litres).



Tax breaks fuel car use, cause pollution

http://news.smh.com.au/tax-breaks-fuel-car-use-cause-pollution/20080130-1ozh.html

Tax benefits on company cars is encouraging environmentally-damaging car use, an environmental group says.

Treasury tax expenditure figures have projected that by 2009-10 more than $2 billion per year will be spent subsidising the use of company cars.

This is nearly twice as much as was previously predicted, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) said.

Tax concessions for the private use of company cars actually increased the kilometres drivers clocked up and contributed to increased greenhouse-gas pollution and urban traffic congestion, the ACF said.

And it's not just cars owners who are benefiting from tax breaks.

For the 2008-09 year, the estimated value of tax incentives for use of aviation fuel has gone up from $830 million to $900 million and the value of tax incentives for the production of condensate by petroleum and gas companies has gone from $250 million to $320 million.

"These tax breaks are economically senseless, reward environmentally destructive behaviour and increase taxes that the rest of us have to pay," ACF strategies director Charles Berger said.

"There are much better uses for $2 billion than to hand it out to affluent corporate executives as an incentive to buy cars and drive them as much as possible to get the maximum tax benefit."

He says the new Rudd government should dismantle this "fiscally irresponsibly, environmentally destructive" fringe benefits tax break for company cars in its first budget.



Support for user-pays water trading

http://news.smh.com.au/support-for-userpays-water-trading/20080305-1x0e.html

A leading water expert has backed a high-level call for all Australians to pay market rates for water.

Professor Peter Cullen, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, said such a move would mean water restrictions would be used only as a last resort.

"We don't ... ration petrol," Prof Cullen told ABC Radio.

Prof Cullen's comments came after Treasury Secretary Ken Henry proposed a national user-pays water trading system, in which water use would be controlled by price instead of restrictions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 5th, 2008 at 11:45am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Government won't scrap petrol tax: Swan
Reply #91 - Mar 12th, 2008 at 11:12am
 
Government won't scrap petrol tax: Swan

http://news.smh.com.au/government-wont-scrap-petrol-tax-swan/20080312-1yvf.html

The federal government will not scrap tax on petrol just to ease the pricing pain on consumers, Treasurer Wayne Swan says.

Just weeks out from delivering his first federal Budget, Mr Swan said it made more sense to provide income tax relief for Australian workers struggling with soaring costs of living, despite petrol being tipped to top $1.50 a litre.



Water too cheap in Australia: OECD

http://news.smh.com.au/water-too-cheap-in-australia-oecd/20080319-20fx.html

Australians must pay more for water to conserve the scarce resource and encourage investment in alternative supplies, an OECD environmental report says.

The Environmental Performance Review of Australia says the nation should achieve full-cost recovery of delivering water for urban and agricultural use.

The recommendation is one of 45 made by the OECD's Environment Directorate in the first such report about Australia in a decade.

"Water prices for urban consumers remain low and thus do not encourage conservation or investment in new sources of supply," it says.

Mr Lorentsen said the national water plan introduced last year could go further in terms of pricing mechanisms.

He said Nordic countries and Britain were the best managers of water resources among OECD nations.

The report also calls for stronger enforcement of environmental laws and responses to the degradation of natural resources.



Tax hike for alcopops applauded

http://news.smh.com.au/tax-hike-for-alcopops-applauded/20080427-28s9.html

Health groups have applauded the federal government's lightning move to virtually double taxes on alcopops in the battle on binge drinking.

The excise on pre-mixed alcoholic beverages was lifted at midnight from $39 a litre to $67, putting them on an equal footing with bottled spirits.

The move is aimed at young drinkers, with the sugary, cheaper drinks blamed for a rise in teenage binge drinking.

pre-mixed drinks will now cost between 30 cents and $1.30 more per bottle, reversing an eight-year-old excise cut which made alcopops cheaper than straight spirits.



http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2008/04/increased-tax-on-alcopops.html

The Australian Government's decision to increase the excise on so-called alcopops by 70% is excellent news. These sweet flavoured alcoholic concoctions are intended to create another generation of heavy drinkers in the face of a steady state decline in the demand for booze.

The industry is targeting kids who will suffer permanent brain damage from excessive alcohol use. This tax - which will add about $1 to the price of this rubbish - will help combat this.

The liquor industry ranks with the tobacco vendors as one of the most immoral in our society. Anything that damages their profitability and long-term prospects advances the social welfare. It is also useful that shareholders in these nasty businesses wake up to the long-term difficulties that these firms seeking to create alcohol dependencies will experience. You were warned!



Call for end to company car tax break

http://news.smh.com.au/call-for-end-to-company-car-tax-break/20080429-295e.html

Tourism and transport operators have joined environmentalists in calling for the axing of tax breaks for company cars.

The Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF) and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) have written to Treasurer Wayne Swan urging him to instead invest the money in public transport.

The TTF is the peak industry group for the tourism, transport and infrastructure sectors.

The letter sent on Monday from TTF managing director Christopher Brown and ACF executive director Don Henry says $1.2 billion was spent in 2006-07 on the tax breaks for salary-packaged cars.

"The current Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) arrangements are not exactly climate friendly," Mr Brown and Mr Henry say.

"They provide a financial incentive for employees to drive to work, rather than catch public transport, ride or car pool.

"It is estimated 50 per cent of Sydney's peak hour traffic is FBT-subsidised."

The groups called the benefit an "absurd tax bias towards private vehicles".



The McKinsey report on the cost of reducing Australia's greenhouse emissions.

http://www.greenfleet.com.au/uploads/pdfs/McKinsey%20Report%20-%20greenhouse%20-%2015Feb08.pdf

There are plenty of options that would actually make money, but for various reasons are not being implimented. See page 14.



Income from petrol excise vs transport spending for the 2006/07 financial year.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/30A3BB70B09DBAB7CA25742B001A6293/$File/55120_2006-07.pdf

Federal and state:
Spending:
Road transport 11,031 ($11 billion)
Fuel and energy 5,828 ($5.8 billion)
Local:
Transport and communications 4,752 ($4.8 billion)
Total 21,611 ($21.6 billion)

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst5-04.htm

Excise duty:
Petrol 7,128
Diesel 6,197
Other fuel products 803
Total 14,128 ($14.1 billion)



Petrol tax by country:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903316
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008 at 6:46pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #92 - Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:33pm
 
From what I can tell, the Kyoto protocal only governs trade in emissions permits between governments, so it would be easier for us to impliment a local emissions tax rather than a local ETS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

It was adopted on 11 December 1997 by the 3rd Conference of the Parties, which was meeting in Kyoto, and it entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of May 2008, 182 parties have ratified the protocol.[1] Of these, 36 developed cg countries (plus the EU as a party in its own right) are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels specified for each of them in the treaty (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries),[1][2] with three more countries intending to participate.[

Any Annex I country that fails to meet its Kyoto obligation will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e., 2008-2012).
As of January 2008, and running through 2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected greenhouse gas emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from an 8% average reduction across the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations,[5] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below #Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990). [2] Reduction limitations expire in 2013.
Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges, from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), from other Annex 1 countries under the JI, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects ("CDM Projects") in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called "Joint Implementation" or "JI" applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).



The fixed-price annual emissions permits are effectively an emissions tax.

Brendan Nelson shifts on emissions

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24001992-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

BRENDAN Nelson is considering major changes to the Coalition's stance on emissions trading, paving the way for a showdown with his leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull later this month and a sharpened attack on the Rudd Government.

In an article in The Australian today, the Opposition Leader reveals that the Coalition may abandon its support for a "cap and trade" emissions trading system, saying there are "multiple models out there that should be debated".

It is understood that Dr Nelson is considering the hybrid emissions trading system advocated by Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin, which combines the sale of fixed-price annual emissions permits with long-term permits that can be traded.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
liko
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #93 - Aug 1st, 2008 at 3:40pm
 
I think it suitable,A make believe solution for a make believe problem.In years to come when your grand chidren are little carbon cops(now introduced in the UK)walking around in little uniforms and M16's, www.climatecops.com  ,busting people for what ever make believe eco threat they can think of,  http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/earth-day.htm   Please check these links out.   And read "the club of romes-the first global revoulution where the rich say "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..."[1] The First Global Revolution, Club of Rome, an elite think-tank (David Rockefeller, Gorbachev, etc.) working with the UN.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #94 - Aug 1st, 2008 at 4:58pm
 
Thanks liko, I'll be sure to table that at the next strawman convention.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #95 - Jun 15th, 2009 at 8:23pm
 
...
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Tax carbon rather than trade in it
Reply #96 - Oct 17th, 2009 at 1:51pm
 
GREEN TAX SHIFT

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26219911-5014047,00.html

WHEN the world was edging towards its first, imperfect treaty on climate change in the mid-1990s, the US put a proposal on the table that has set the framework for the debate on carbon reduction. Uncomfortable about taxing carbon dioxide emissions, the Clinton administration suggested letting market forces do the work through a scheme of tradeable permits now known as cap and trade.

Ironically, the US has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, but its successor, which will be negotiated in Copenhagen in December, while not mandating cap and trade, will be highly skewed in its favour.

This is because the 37 developed countries that have set targets under the Kyoto Protocol for the quantity of greenhouse gases they can emit are already committed to trading in emissions permits. Companies within those countries have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo.

Yet among economists and business leaders there is unease about cap and trade, a system that has already created a derivatives markets of the kind that brought the global financial system close to collapse. A scheme that looked like a stroke of genius in the 90s is falling out of fashion.

"We'll have a financial crisis in emissions at some point," Kenneth Rogoff tells Focus. "There'll be derivatives and all these unemployed investment bankers will then go work on carbon trading and come up with ... products which will lead to a crisis."

The professor of public policy and economics at Harvard and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund claims he isn't alone in this view. "You'll find few economists who disagree," Rogoff says.

Indeed, the economists who addressed a global editors forum in Copenhagen last weekend were unanimous in their view that a cap and trade system was unlikely to reduce emissions, would be open to rent-seeking and, in many countries, corruption.

Nobel laureate and Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz told the forum the global financial crisis had reshaped the concerns of economists.

"We've seen the corruption and crony capitalism that has been evident in the advanced industrialised countries ... It makes you very worried," he said. "What we realised now is the allocation of emissions permits is a market that is a couple of trillion dollars a year. So we're giving away, allocating that amount of money, and that just attracts the worst kind of behaviour that you can imagine."

Former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, who is professor of international economics at Yale University and director of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, told the forum trading in permits in developing countries would lead not just to businesses lobbying to get free permits, which amounted to receiving a lot of money, but to outright corruption.

Stiglitz also said emissions trading would not do the one thing that was needed to drive change towards a low-carbon economy: set a stable price for carbon that would make it viable for companies to invest in low-carbon power plants and infrastructure. So, despite all the money spent trading in permits, which would add to the cost of everything from petrol to beer, there would still not be the certainty business needed to drive investment.

"Once you have emissions trading, permits will become an asset class and can go from anywhere between 30 and 200 (dollars); they'll be very unstable. Then ... we'll demand a stable price so that we'll be back in this never-never land we've been in."

Economists at the forum favoured a carbon tax which, as Stiglitz said, had the virtue of being easy to implement.

The main difference between a carbon tax and emissions trading is that a tax gives certainty about the price of carbon whereas emissions trading gives certainty about the quantity of carbon dioxide being emitted.

Economists argue that while fluctuations in carbon emissions don't matter greatly to the environment as long as they decrease in the long term, fluctuations in the carbon price can cause economic disruption and make it more difficult to undertake the investment required to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Business representatives told the forum they would prefer a carbon tax because it would be less volatile than a price set by emissions trading with its possible speculation activity.

Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas Energy, the world's leading supplier of wind power with a 20 per cent market share, said business wanted government "to tell us what the price is for carbon and then leave us alone to get on with it and not keep changing the price because this is very capital-intensive investment".

Jeremy Bentham, vice-president for Shell global business environment, agreed. "Companies like ours want to be unleashed to be able to apply technology growth to improve the quality of life of our customers and earn a reasonable return." Zedillo said there were many businesses that claimed to prefer cap and trade - if they didn't have to pay for permits.

So if a carbon tax is so much better, why are governments pressing ahead with emissions trading at Copenhagen?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: Tax carbon rather than trade in it
Reply #97 - Oct 17th, 2009 at 1:52pm
 
Rogoff tells Focus: "The reason that we're going to get (emissions) quotas rather than a tax is that it allows the government to quietly give away all the rights to the polluters. And the industries are powerful lobbyists. With the quota system (governments) can give (polluters) trillions of dollars under the table that with a (carbon) tax system would be difficult to do."

Rogoff says he has spoken to Barack Obama and politicians across the spectrum. "It's clear they've made a decision. They say, 'If there is one piece of advice you had to give us, what would it be?' And I say we should have a carbon tax and ... their faces just pale when I say the word tax."

But Zedillo points out that introducing a carbon tax doesn't mean you have to raise taxes overall: "If we have a carbon tax you can cut other taxes."

What's more, Zedillo believes trying to negotiate an emissions trading scheme could doom the Copenhagen talks to failure. "There is a reason the world has been unable to reach an agreement ... to reduce emissions and the reason is we took the wrong track," he said. "Either it will be a useless system because we will have a huge number of permits for everybody to make everybody happy or we will not be able to negotiate it."

But Zedillo says setting a price on carbon rather than negotiating on emissions quotas could be a circuit-breaker. "If you recognise we are very close to failure, I think we should have a plan B and in my view plan B would be an agreement, an understanding that opens the possibility ... to negotiate a harmonised carbon price."

Rebecca Weisser, The Australian's opinion editor, attended the Copenhagen forum.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #98 - Jul 7th, 2010 at 11:40pm
 
I agree that taxes, by whatever name, are part of the tools that are available to influence & change various aspects of the economy.

That said, taxes are only part of the equation and there are other factors which can & should be used, as are appropriate. For example, both the carrot & the stick have their rightfull applications, depending on the situation.

However, taxes are not be able to "fix everything"!

In the instance of Energy, a rising population (at least for some time yet), makes a Global reduction in demand extraordinarily difficult.

Whilst a very likely decline in Supply of the major Energy source (Oil), will put stresses into the Global economy, I do not believe that any amount of stick (additional taxes) or carrot (tax concessions) will be able to solve this dilemma of rising demand & falling Supply.

However, REAL GLOBAL & LOCAL POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, may be able to convince the Public & Business of the necessity for change!

Problem is, I don't see any Politician/s capable or willing to try real leadership?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 8th, 2010 at 10:24pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #99 - Jul 10th, 2010 at 10:23am
 
Our consumption of oil is going to go down no matter what. Another major energy source is coal. In terms of GHG emissions, this is a far bigger problem, as you get much more emissions per unit of energy.

Coal use is sensitive to taxes. There are many ways in which a higher price will reduce emissions. First up, people will use less electricty and factories will improve efficiency. People will switch to products with less embodied energy. On the supply side, electricity producers will switch to gas, which is already starting to happen. As the price goes up more, they will switch to wind where possible. If the price goes up even more, they will take the necessary steps (eg pumped storage facilities) to use wind and other renewables for baseload power. So you can get anything from a small reduction in GHG emissions to the complete elimitation of GHG emissions with a tax. It does not have to be a huge increase either.

It is not demand for energy that is the problem and that we have to reduce - that would indeed be a big problem. It is GHG emissions. A tax allows you to achieve this as cheaply as possible, while also raising revenue.

The only way in which a tax doesn't 'solve everything' is sequestration. This would either have to be subsidised or directly controlled by the government. The key issue here is that it only makes economic sense to do this if the cost of sequestering a given quantity of GHG's is less than the tax on the same level of emissions. The reason for this is that the tax forces people and the economy to use the cheap options to reduce emissions before the more expensive options, whether they be sequestration, alternative sources etc.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #100 - Jul 10th, 2010 at 8:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2010 at 10:23am:
Our consumption of oil is going to go down no matter what.


I can not believe you dismiss the impact of Oil, in such a manner!

As already demonstrated, by the following chart, Oil provides nearly 40% of our Energy needs, but most importantly, it provides a large % of our mobile capacity, it literally is the motor that moves the Global Economy, along with Population growth.

I did write about these issues, at length.

...

We have already had one run in with the perception that Oil was Peaking, when the price of Oil then raced from $20 P/barrel, to nearly $150 P/B, in the space of 6 years and that plus a few other factors, tipped the world into recession.

If Oil has indeed Peaked, as I suspect it has and that becomes apparent in the near future, then I guarantee everyone, including you, will sit up and take notice of the knock on effects.

Quote:
freediver
It is not demand for energy that is the problem and that we have to reduce - that would indeed be a big problem.


What do you think is going to happen, as the Global Population continues to expand for another 20-30 years, increasing that thing called Demand, when at the same time our largest Energy source (Oil - 40%), starts to decline at around 4-8% each year?

Try this, as Demand outstrips supply, the same thing will happen, with Oil racing thru the roof and the Global Economy collapsing again!

Those other Energy sources that would be tried, as a replacement for Oil would take 10-30 years to be implimented, IF those in power wanted a transition, but I am not convinced that they do!

Quote:
freediver
Coal use is sensitive to taxes. There are many ways in which a higher price will reduce emissions.


Whilst I agree that taxes may be a useful tool to some extent, in some countries, the problem is on a Global level it is difficult to see any impact on Global GHG's, due to the massive increase in GHG's by other countries, such as China & India.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #101 - Jul 10th, 2010 at 8:53pm
 
Taxes can be effective in any country to whatever extent you want them to be. They would be more effective in poorer countries like India.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #102 - Jul 10th, 2010 at 10:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2010 at 8:53pm:
Taxes can be effective in any country to whatever extent you want them to be. They would be more effective in poorer countries like India.


Not everyone looks at things in the same manner!

I suggest that neither China or India, in particular, are interested in taxing GHG's into submission, they are interested in obtaining what we, the USA and others already have, which could partly explain why China is building a Coal fired power station each week.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #103 - Jul 11th, 2010 at 9:54am
 
China is also building wind turbines, hydro and other renewable power sources far faster than we are. Australia is also building new coal fired power stations, which for our stage of development and small population is absurdly greedy.

It is easy to get confused and scared by the statistics because China is so big, but you cannot possibly judge their intent while ignoring so much of what is happening over there. These people are much poorer than us, yet are making a far bigger effort to use renewables. We should be ashamed about that, but instead we are dmeanding that they carry more of the burden and make a bigger sacrifice.

Also, you are creating a false dichotomy by implying that seeking our standard of living and reducing GHG emissions are incompatible goals.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #104 - Jul 11th, 2010 at 2:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2010 at 9:54am:
China is also building wind turbines, hydro and other renewable power sources far faster than we are. Australia is also building new coal fired power stations, which for our stage of development and small population is absurdly greedy.

It is easy to get confused and scared by the statistics because China is so big, but you cannot possibly judge their intent while ignoring so much of what is happening over there. These people are much poorer than us, yet are making a far bigger effort to use renewables. We should be ashamed about that, but instead we are dmeanding that they carry more of the burden and make a bigger sacrifice.

Also, you are creating a false dichotomy by implying that seeking our standard of living and reducing GHG emissions are incompatible goals.


Yes, I am aware that both China & India are also seeking some other alternatives, but the sheer scope of the Coal power stations & industrialisation in the case of China, means that GHG's are very likely to continue to rise, thus invoking further climate tipping points.

Saving a shift equivalent to a 9.9 quake, in human nature, the Chinese, Indians & others (some 4 Billion) will press for what OZ, the USA & Europe already have and hang the consequences.

And, whilst we can not blame them for that desire, you know what will happen to essential resources and regrettably in the push for more, we will all finish with less, much less!

So, are living standards equivalent to OZ & the USA, possible for another 4 Billion people & reducing GHG's possible, the answer is firmly NO!

Not because I don't want a Hollywood ending and perhaps not even that it may be possible, but because 200,000 years of human nature, says it just won't happen, because too many of us wanting it all for ourselves!!!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #105 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 6:42pm
 
Quote:
So, are living standards equivalent to OZ & the USA, possible for another 4 Billion people & reducing GHG's possible, the answer is firmly NO!


Given time, we could achieve that fairly easily, though not with beef.

Quote:
but because 200,000 years of human nature, says it just won't happen, because too many of us wanting it all for ourselves!!!


100 years of history should tell you how dramatically things can change.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #106 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 6:45pm
 


Indeed, and the changes in next 100 will probably be mind-blowing...amongst other things...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #107 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 6:50pm
 


I, for one, wish I could confidently predict that my kids (and any grandkids) will live in free, peaceful and safe times - and not want for the basic necessities...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #108 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 7:34pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
but because 200,000 years of human nature, says it just won't happen, because too many of us wanting it all for ourselves!!!


Quote:
freediver
100 years of history should tell you how dramatically things can change.


Our technology may well have changed dramatically, but I was referring to "our "human nature" and there, we have hardly changed.

Greed, Envy, wanting what others have, not wanting others to have what we have, not trusting those that are different to us in some way, shape or form and a few of the other old niceties, all those human frailties really haven't moved that much!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #109 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 7:37pm
 
We've stopped having sex with our siblings and cousins.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #110 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 7:52pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
So, are living standards equivalent to OZ & the USA, possible for another 4 Billion people & reducing GHG's possible, the answer is firmly NO!


Quote:
freediver
Given time, we could achieve that fairly easily, though not with beef.


My best guess, we have maybe 5-10 years (tops), to put a Global plan into action, to save essential global resources from permanent destruction, to stop Irreversible Climate tipping points converting into later catastrophe's and to put Global agriculture onto a sustainable path!

What do you think are the chances, of a Global agreement of Politicians, Economists, Business Leaders, Unionists & the Global Public, to impliment a "Manhattan sytle Project", to take the actions necessary?

Let me suggest an answer -
I HAVE MORE CHANCE OF WINNING LOTTO!

The reality is that, even we would find it difficult to come to an action plan & we do seem to AGREE on quite a few things!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #111 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 8:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2010 at 7:37pm:
We've stopped having sex with our siblings and cousins.


Well, that's a good start!

Although, perhaps not entirely?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #112 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 8:50pm
 
Quote:
My best guess


Fortunately we don't have ot rely on strangers guessing.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #113 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 9:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2010 at 8:50pm:
Quote:
My best guess


Fortunately we don't have ot rely on strangers guessing.


As I said, there is very little chance on us agreeing, although we do actually have a number of areas, where we apparently do agree.

In terms of relying on strangers guessing, that is in fact exactly what we actually do!

There are any number of Politicians, Economists and all manner of planners, who we really DO NOT KNOW, nor do we KNOW THEIR MOTIVATIONS and yet, we cocnsistently rely on them KNOWING THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND "TRUSTING" THEM TO ACTUALLY DO THOSE RIGHT THINGS, CORRECTLY!

The old adage is correct, "we really are a weird mob"!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #114 - Jul 12th, 2010 at 9:31pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2010 at 8:50pm:
Quote:
My best guess


Fortunately we don't have ot rely on strangers guessing.


Oh, and btw, in my opnion, we still only have 5-10 years to address & put into action Global plans and as can be seen by your comment, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #115 - Jul 13th, 2010 at 4:04pm
 
There was a very good interview of Michael Mann on 'Late Night Live' the other day.

He talked about a carbon tax in Alaska that everybody supported. The tax was on the carbon producers (Oil Companies) and some of that money was given back to the population in the form of a 'green cheque'.

It's innovative, but we need something like that before we're going to make progress.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #116 - Jul 14th, 2010 at 8:01pm
 
Sounds like Labor's new tax.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #117 - Jul 15th, 2010 at 9:17pm
 
The stupidity of the carbon tax is due to the fact that energy is not French lipstick - its a necessity. taxing it is typically shortsighted. If yiou want an alternatife to9 crbon based energy, make it more attractive. Punishing the old lady for turning on her heater in winter is stupid. Taxing, only taxing, as control is the Stalinist touch. To Greens all non-Greens are kulaks fit for the gulags (hey! that has a certain rap rhythm!)

But then most (or possibly not all) Greens ideas are stupid because their main interest in life is finding an outlet for their resentment. Don't trust people animated by resentment. They are buggered and will bugger you. Listening to any of the Greens senators I have the sense that these are damaged,. abused people who are working through personal issues and are using the public policy forum on the 'environment' to stage their fights with their personal demons. I have never seen or heard a Green person who wasn't shrill. These people are doing a great disservice to some good ideas by inserting themselves into the discussion.








Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #118 - Jul 16th, 2010 at 9:33pm
 
Quote:
The stupidity of the carbon tax is due to the fact that energy is not French lipstick - its a necessity.


How is it stupid Soren? You seem confused about whether it is a tax on energy or carbon. Also, no-one needs energy, at least not in the form usually associated with carbon emissions. What we need (or at least want) are the things that that energy can give us. There are many layers of separation between carbon emissions and those final end products, all of which represent an opportunity to reduce emissions with minimal impact on quality of life, and all of which are effectively targetted by a tax.

Quote:
taxing it is typically shortsighted. If yiou want an alternatife to9 crbon based energy, make it more attractive.


Actually, that is the short sighted approach, and the one that would harm the economy the most. We do not want alternative energy sources. What we want is to reduce emissions. There are lots of ways to do this. A carbon tax targets all the cheap ones, rather than the short sighted knee-jerk ones.

Quote:
Taxing, only taxing, as control is the Stalinist touch.


Taxing harnesses market forces. It is you who proposes the stalinits approach, with direct government interference in how we reduce emissions, and your suggestions would be about as effective from an economic perspective as Stalinism.

Quote:
But then most (or possibly not all) Greens ideas are stupid because their main interest in life is finding an outlet for their resentment.


This is not a Greens idea. It is from conservative economists. There has been a consensus among economists on the issue for a very long time. Which is impressive given economist's preference for disagreeing with each other.

Quote:
But then most (or possibly not all) Greens ideas are stupid because their main interest in life is finding an outlet for their resentment. Don't trust people animated by resentment. They are buggered and will bugger you. Listening to any of the Greens senators I have the sense that these are damaged,. abused people who are working through personal issues and are using the public policy forum on the 'environment' to stage their fights with their personal demons. I have never seen or heard a Green person who wasn't shrill. These people are doing a great disservice to some good ideas by inserting themselves into the discussion.


Argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you would like to stick to the merits of the tax rather than the motives of who you see behind the scenes pulling the strings.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #119 - Jul 17th, 2010 at 8:39pm
 
I think that a carbon tax is essential to create a differential between energy sources associated with higher emissions and energy associated with zero emissions. If we can use that to make say solar and geothermal energy cheaper, then the increased usage will eventually bring the costs down.

Completely off topic, but I sit uncomfortably with the politics of the Australian Greens too.  As long as they don't actually gain government but have some influence (which is a possibility with a close election result) then we might see some influence in some things that matter.  I much prefer the German Greens, who support Nuclear Power, or the Canadian Green Party who have a good fiscal policy. Our Greens have too many miscreant socialists.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #120 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 10:52am
 
Whilst Taxes have their place, to direct certain activities, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to achieve the required outcomes, in both Cliamte &/or Energy.

I would suggest a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax) and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #121 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 11:01am
 
Quote:
Whilst Taxes have their place, to direct certain activities, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to achieve the required outcomes,


Why do you say that? Do you dispute our ability to reduce emissions anywhere between 0% and 100% with a tax? There are precedents of only small taxes being used to completely eliminate some activities.

Quote:
in both Cliamte &/or Energy.


What exactly are the required outcomes for energy?

Quote:
I would suggest a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax)


I think we should use the revenue raised to lower other taxes, but it does not make sense from an economic perspective to use the revenue to target tax breaks at greenhouse neutral technologies. Our goal is not to subsidise energy and get people using even more of it. Our goal is to reduce GHG emissions. Nothing more. We should try to do this in a way that skews the market as little as possible.

Quote:
and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!


You can combine specific absolute targets with taxation as the mechanism quite easily.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #122 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 11:15am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2010 at 11:01am:
Quote:
Whilst Taxes have their place, to direct certain activities, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to achieve the required outcomes,


Why do you say that? Do you dispute our ability to reduce emissions anywhere between 0% and 100% with a tax? There are precedents of only small taxes being used to completely eliminate some activities.




You can kill anything with 100% tax. The question is - is it a good idea?

Energy is a neccessity, not a luxury. To barge in like a Green and aim to reduce energy consumption because it is carbon based energy is just the usual Green stupidity.
If you want to switch, come up with an alternative. Reducing energy use via taxation is a comissar's solution.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #123 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 12:00pm
 
Quote:
Energy is a neccessity, not a luxury. To barge in like a Green and aim to reduce energy consumption because it is carbon based energy is just the usual Green stupidity.


You keep forgetting what this is about Soren. It is about GHG emissions.

Quote:
If you want to switch, come up with an alternative.


There are already plenty of alternatives available.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #124 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 7:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2010 at 12:00pm:
Quote:
Energy is a neccessity, not a luxury. To barge in like a Green and aim to reduce energy consumption because it is carbon based energy is just the usual Green stupidity.


You keep forgetting what this is about Soren. It is about GHG emissions.

Quote:
If you want to switch, come up with an alternative.


There are already plenty of alternatives available.



No, it is about energy. That's why nobody is doing anything much about GHG emissions only.

Well, if there are so many alternatives, why are we still using oil and coal? Because we want to max out on emissions as long as poss?



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #125 - Jul 18th, 2010 at 7:53pm
 
Quote:
That's why nobody is doing anything much about GHG emissions only.


Duh, that is exactly what everyone is doing. We are not negotiating an energy trading scheme, but a carbon trading scheme. Don;t you see the difference?

Quote:
Well, if there are so many alternatives, why are we still using oil and coal? Because we want to max out on emissions as long as poss?


Because they currently have the lowest price.

There are plenty of alternatives Soren. It's not just about energy. It's also about livestock, cement, landclearing, peat bogs etc. Even for the energy side there are massive differences, even within the fossil fuel sector in terms of GHG emissions. On top of that there is how we use the energy, how we use the products we derive from energy, which products we use, how much we use etc.

Pretending it is only about energy ignores many of the easy options for reducing GHG emissions.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #126 - Jul 19th, 2010 at 7:56pm
 
Quote:
Soren
That's why nobody is doing anything much about GHG emissions only.


Quote:
Freediver
Duh, that is exactly what everyone is doing. We are not negotiating an energy trading scheme, but a carbon trading scheme. Don;t you see the difference?


I am comming to the conclusion that Soren may well be correct!

No matter what YOU may think FD, it is NOT all about GHG Emissions and that is NOT what everyone is doing!

In fact, the whole Climate Change issue was downgraded at Copenhagen and is currently struggling, particularly on the international stage with some of the leading players, such as China, India & the USA.

And, above all, the REAL ISSUE is NOT a Carbon Trading scheme, THE CORE ISSUE is Energy Availability & Price, in the context of the Global Economy and how that may affect the future Climate Change of the Planet! And rooted firmly in the road, is a little thing, called Population Growth!

I am not religious, but for gods sake, get with it, this is not about you personal "economics class", what is at stake is the future of our species and we need to get the "BALANCE RIGHT"!!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #127 - Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:40pm
 
Quote:
And, above all, the REAL ISSUE is NOT a Carbon Trading scheme, THE CORE ISSUE is Energy Availability & Price, in the context of the Global Economy and how that may affect the future Climate Change of the Planet! And rooted firmly in the road, is a little thing, called Population Growth!


This thread is about a greent ax shift as a mechanism to reduce GHG emissions. Soren's complaint was that energy needs was a barrier to this, not that 'peak energy' is a more important issue. You might as well tell us that saving the whales or bringing workld peace is the 'real issue' because that's about how sensible you sound right now.

I did not say a green tax shift is the issue. It is the solution.

Whatever mehcanism you choose to reduce GHG emissions is going to cost us. A carbon tax will impose the least cost on us. It's that simple. Ignore the economics at your peril, because there is no way around it.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:50pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #128 - Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:59pm
 
Even though you are a member or supported of the Greens, FD, I am still surprised a little that you think the best way of making people use  less of something - carbon-based energy - is by making it more expensive.

I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.

To insist that this is akin to wanting world peace IS, however, predictable Green nonsense.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #129 - Jul 20th, 2010 at 9:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:40pm:
Quote:
perceptions_now
And, above all, the REAL ISSUE is NOT a Carbon Trading scheme, THE CORE ISSUE is Energy Availability & Price, in the context of the Global Economy and how that may affect the future Climate Change of the Planet! And rooted firmly in the road, is a little thing, called Population Growth!


This thread is about a greent ax shift as a mechanism to reduce GHG emissions. Soren's complaint was that energy needs was a barrier to this, not that 'peak energy' is a more important issue. You might as well tell us that saving the whales or bringing workld peace is the 'real issue' because that's about how sensible you sound right now.

I did not say a green tax shift is the issue. It is the solution.

Whatever mehcanism you choose to reduce GHG emissions is going to cost us. A carbon tax will impose the least cost on us. It's that simple. Ignore the economics at your peril, because there is no way around it.


There are no silver bullets and GHG emissions (in particular), Climate Change (in general), Energy & Population issues are all inter-related.

To claim that you have a simple solution, even if only to the GHG emissions, is too simple and ignores the complex nature & interactions of the various issues involved, including be limited to the economy.

As previously stated, I believe a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax) and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!

Btw, I think I shall leave saving the whales & world peace, for another day, unless you get to them first.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #130 - Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm
 
Soren:

Quote:
Even though you are a member or supported of the Greens, FD, I am still surprised a little that you think the best way of making people use  less of something - carbon-based energy - is by making it more expensive.


It has nothing to do with the greens. Most economists think the same. There is even a statement of economic consensus on the issue. From an economic perspective, it is the best way. Of course, if you don;t care what harm you do to our economy, there are plenty of other options.

Quote:
I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.


This would involve massive subsidies to the energy sector and would be harmful to our economy. It would make enourmous waste inevitable.

On what grounds do you think it is better? Do you just like the idea of the government giving you something for 'nothing'?

Quote:
To insist that this is akin to wanting world peace IS, however, predictable Green nonsense.


Not sure why you keep linking this to the Greens, or why you think trivialising world peace is a 'green' response.

PN:

Quote:
There are no silver bullets and GHG emissions (in particular), Climate Change (in general), Energy & Population issues are all inter-related.


I did not claim there are silver bullets. What I claim is that carbon taxes are the best solution.

Quote:
To claim that you have a simple solution, even if only to the GHG emissions, is too simple and ignores the complex nature & interactions of the various issues involved, including be limited to the economy.


It is not just me. It is the vast majority of economists. And it is that simple PN. Not sure why you keep trying to make it more complicated.

Quote:
As previously stated, I believe a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax) and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!


And this is based on ... nothing? An uneducated guess? A gut feeling? The road to poverty is paved with gut feelings.

I agreed with you partially in the sense thatthe taxes should be used to lower other arbitrary taxes, but not if you mean subsidies or tax breaks targetted at the energy sector. Is that what you mean?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #131 - Jul 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
There are no silver bullets and GHG emissions (in particular), Climate Change (in general), Energy & Population issues are all inter-related.


Quote:
freediver
I did not claim there are silver bullets. What I claim is that carbon taxes are the best solution.


Did I say, you had claimed there was a silver bullet? No!

I simply said, "there are NO SILVER BULLETS" and that "GHG emissions (in particular), Climate Change (in general), Energy & Population issues are all inter-related" and I should have added, the general Global Economy is also inter-related to all of that, as well!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #132 - Jul 21st, 2010 at 8:30pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
To claim that you have a simple solution, even if only to the GHG emissions, is too simple and ignores the complex nature & interactions of the various issues involved, including be limited to the economy.


Quote:
freediver
1) It is not just me. It is the vast majority of economists. And it is that simple PN.
2) Not sure why you keep trying to make it more complicated.


1) Well, at this point, the vast majority of Economists, did not predict any GFC, let alone one which is 2nd only (so far) to the Great Depression, so I will stay with my views of what is happening, why & when! And, NO, it is not simple!

2) Because it is, complicated!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #133 - Jul 21st, 2010 at 8:31pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
As previously stated, I believe a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax) and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!


Quote:
freediver
1) And this is based on ... nothing? An uneducated guess? A gut feeling? The road to poverty is paved with gut feelings.

2) I agreed with you partially in the sense thatthe taxes should be used to lower other arbitrary taxes, but not if you mean subsidies or tax breaks targetted at the energy sector. Is that what you mean?


1) 40 years in the Financial sector, a lot of research & some logical assessments! How about you?

2) My preferred model would be to -
a) Set lower levels of Emmissions & Usage, accross all industries, say 5-10% per year.
b) Use the Tax Carrot, to reward the achievement of those lower levels, by providing tax credits.
c) Use the Tax Stick, to penalise those who do not achieve the target levels, by hitting them with a Carbon Tax Excise, for want of a better term.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #134 - Jul 21st, 2010 at 8:33pm
 
Btw, my apologies, it seems I also put the last three posts onto the Future/s thread, in error!

Must have been the 2nd RED?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #135 - Jul 22nd, 2010 at 7:52pm
 
Quote:
Well, at this point, the vast majority of Economists, did not predict any GFC, let alone one which is 2nd only (so far) to the Great Depression, so I will stay with my views of what is happening, why & when! And, NO, it is not simple!


So your argument is that because economists can't predict the future (BTW, they did predict the GFC, years out, you just don't understand enough about economics to realise what was going on), we should ignore everything they say and go with whatever you make up?

Quote:
40 years in the Financial sector, a lot of research & some logical assessments!


That's funny. I have not seen a single logical assessment from you. Perhaps now would be a good time to roll it out.

Your experience in the financial sector, did it involve applying an understanding of economics, or filling out forms?

Quote:
How about you?


This is pretty basic economics, which is why there is such a strong consensus on it. Here is the explanation in my own words:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

Here is a specific criticism of the idea of subsidising energy:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

Quote:
2) My preferred model would be to -


Yes, you have said so numerous times. What you keep leaving out is an explanation of why you think it is a good idea to start subsidising electricity consumption.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 22nd, 2010 at 8:05pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #136 - Jul 22nd, 2010 at 9:29pm
 
Quote:
How about you?


Quote:
This is pretty basic economics, which is why there is such a strong consensus on it. Here is the explanation in my own words:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

Here is a specific criticism of the idea of subsidising energy:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5


What I said was, "1) 40 years in the Financial sector, a lot of research & some logical assessments! How about you?"

I was asking what your background is, like I gave mine, not what you have written.

Btw, I have read quite a bit of what you have written, some I agree with & some I don't!

That said, you have as much right to you opinions, as anyone else, including me, I & myself.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #137 - Jul 22nd, 2010 at 9:44pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
Well, at this point, the vast majority of Economists, did not predict any GFC, let alone one which is 2nd only (so far) to the Great Depression, so I will stay with my views of what is happening, why & when! And, NO, it is not simple!


Quote:
freediver
1) BTW, they did predict the GFC, years out, you just don't understand enough about economics to realise what was going on

2) So your argument is that because economists can't predict the future we should ignore everything they say and go with whatever you make up?


1) Really? Then, if they predicted the GFC, why didn't they (including Politicians & Central Bankers) take action to prevent it? Btw, there is lots that I do not know, although this is not in that category, but unlike you, I am happy to say so.

2) Yes, I will continue with my own conclusions! Since I pulled out of the stock market in late 2006, I am quite happy with my results, compared to most Super Annuation funds, the general stock market & many would be in a lot worse position, given some of the standard reccommendations of market analysts.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #138 - Jul 22nd, 2010 at 10:28pm
 
Quote:
perceptions-now
2) My preferred model would be to -


Quote:
freediver
Yes, you have said so numerous times. What you keep leaving out is an explanation of why you think it is a good idea to start subsidising electricity consumption.


My full quote was, in fact -
2) My preferred model would be to -
a) Set lower levels of Emmissions & Usage, accross all industries, say 5-10% per year.
b) Use the Tax Carrot, to reward the achievement of those lower levels, by providing tax credits.
c) Use the Tax Stick, to penalise those who do not achieve the target levels, by hitting them with a Carbon Tax Excise, for want of a better term.


And, I am happy to go with that.

If any industry, including Coal Electricity generation, can reduce their GHG's and get some tax concessions, that's ok! If they don't make their target of 5-10 GHG reduction each year, then they will pay more.

And the same goes for car makers, if they can reduce their vehilce GHG's & fuel consumption figures, then they should get a concession otherwise a tax slug.

Given that transport is one of the big Consummers & emitters, they are just as vital as the power generators & heavy industry!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #139 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 8:15am
 
Soren wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:59pm:
I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.




That is of course true. One of the main factors is  the ecomony of scale. Some of the large thermo-solar thermal power stations in the US have got down to $US150 per MWHr, but they currently average around $250.

There are hidden costs associated with coal fired power generation, just as there are with Oil derived energy. There was a massive release of outrage about the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but that pales into insignificance financially and environmentally compared to the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels.  A Carbon tax would tend to recover some of that cost and use it to subsidise cleaner technologies such as solar.

Geothermal stands out as being one of the most cost effective solutions. We have enormous geothermal reserves in Australia.  That should be the top priority - not rooftop Solar PV panels.
Back to top
 

CR_10518_a.jpg (113 KB | 195 )
CR_10518_a.jpg

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #140 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 9:51pm
 
Quote:
I was asking what your background is, like I gave mine, not what you have written.


I have studied economics at an American and an Australian university. I have discussed this very issue with many people over many years.

I also have a statement of economic consensus to back me up. And a logical explanation.

Quote:
That said, you have as much right to you opinions, as anyone else, including me, I & myself.


Is this the extent of your 'logical explanation'? Every time you are pressed, you resort to 'I am entitled to my opinion'. I thought you said you had an explanation, not just an opinion?

Quote:
Really? Then, if they predicted the GFC, why didn't they (including Politicians & Central Bankers) take action to prevent it?


Duh. They did. On a very large scale. So large in fact that it frequently made headlines.

Quote:
Btw, there is lots that I do not know, although this is not in that category, but unlike you, I am happy to say so.


So you know what I am talking about? Sometimes it is hard to tell.

Quote:
My full quote was, in fact -


Is there anything about my question that is answered by this? I can't see it. So here it is again. Why do you think it is a good idea to start subsidising electricity consumption. The fact that you want to do other things as well doesn't really explain why you think the subsidies are a good idea.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #141 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm:
Soren:

Quote:
Even though you are a member or supported of the Greens, FD, I am still surprised a little that you think the best way of making people use  less of something - carbon-based energy - is by making it more expensive.


It has nothing to do with the greens. Most economists think the same. There is even a statement of economic consensus on the issue. 


You are bluffing, as you often do.

Economics may be the dismal science but economists are not actually as stupid as to assrt that this issue (or any other) has only one side and therefore one solution - tax.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #142 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm:
Quote:
I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.


This would involve massive subsidies to the energy sector and would be harmful to our economy. It would make enourmous waste inevitable.

On what grounds do you think it is better? Do you just like the idea of the government giving you something for 'nothing'?




This is a crap argument, FD.


Taxing energy is harmful to the economy because energy is not French liptick.  The 'economy' is what people do. It is not a friggin' conspiracy against Mother Nature or the 'woykeys'.
Most of all, it is not something the government has a special claim to.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #143 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:45pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm:
Quote:
To insist that this is akin to wanting world peace IS, however, predictable Green nonsense.


Not sure why you keep linking this to the Greens, or why you think trivialising world peace is a 'green' response.




You are a Green, you are pushing it, it's nonsense, so I link it to the Greens.

You came up with the world peace sooky nonsense - I'm just passing it back at you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #144 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:45pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:37pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm:
Soren:

Quote:
Even though you are a member or supported of the Greens, FD, I am still surprised a little that you think the best way of making people use  less of something - carbon-based energy - is by making it more expensive.


It has nothing to do with the greens. Most economists think the same. There is even a statement of economic consensus on the issue.  


You are bluffing, as you often do.

Economics may be the dismal science but economists are not actually as stupid as to assrt that this issue (or any other) has only one side and therefore one solution - tax.





What other sides are there Soren? The ignorant side? The 'I want another handout' side? The 'I have a perpetual motion machine for sale' side?

Here is a copy of the statement of economic consensus for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

Every economist I have spoken to about the issue agrees that pricing mechanisms are the way to go.

Quote:
You are a Green, you are pushing it, it's nonsense, so I link it to the Greens.


Love your logic there Soren.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #145 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:48pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:42pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 6:01pm:
Quote:
I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.


This would involve massive subsidies to the energy sector and would be harmful to our economy. It would make enourmous waste inevitable.

On what grounds do you think it is better? Do you just like the idea of the government giving you something for 'nothing'?




This is a crap argument, FD.


Taxing energy is harmful to the economy because energy is not French liptick.  The 'economy' is what people do. It is not a friggin' conspiracy against Mother Nature or the 'woykeys'.
Most of all, it is not something the government has a special claim to.




I believe I already responded to this point Soren. It is a tax on CO2 emissions, not energy.

Also, nothing in my argument for carbon taxes is based on accusations of a conspiracy theory. Negative externalities are not conspiracies. They are just an unfortunate fact of life.

Perhaps if you quit the drama queen act and discussed the actual topic instead this wouldn't be so repetitive.

No-one is claiming a free lunch here. All I am saying is that, for a given reduction in GHG emissions, carbon taxes are better for the economy than the alternatives you have suggested.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #146 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:45pm:
What other sides are there Soren? The ignorant side? The 'I want another handout' side? The 'I have a perpetual motion machine for sale' side?

Here is a copy of the statement of economic consensus for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

Every economist I have spoken to about the issue agrees that pricing mechanisms are the way to go.



FD, your 'I don't know what is everyone is talking about' schtick is wearing thin.

The other side of taxation (a mechanism of interfereing with price) is to make the price of another things lower (another interference with price).

Don't tell me you still haven't grasped that there are always two ways to interfere with prices: making one thing dearer OR making another thing cheap.

Look back - Muso even highligheted the pertinent bit in yellow. That ought to have helped.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #147 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:54pm
 
Quote:
FD, your 'I don't know what is everyone is talking about' schtick is wearing thin.


Just you Soren. I lost my drama queen to english translator.

Quote:
The other side of taxation (a mechanism of interfereing with price) is to make the price of another things lower (another interference with price).


Oh that. I have already responded to that also. Here is a recap for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

In case you couldn't tell, the economic consensus is in favour of increasing the price of GHG emissions, not making competing technologies cheaper.

Quote:
Don't tell me you still haven't grasped that there are always two ways to interfere with prices: making one thing dearer OR making another thing cheap.


Oh there are plenty of ways to do it Soren.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #148 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:48pm:
I believe I already responded to this point Soren. It is a tax on CO2 emissions, not energy.

Also, nothing in my argument for carbon taxes is based on accusations of a conspiracy theory. Negative externalities are not conspiracies. They are just an unfortunate fact of life.

Perhaps if you quit the drama queen act and discussed the actual topic instead this wouldn't be so repetitive.

No-one is claiming a free lunch here. All I am saying is that, for a given reduction in GHG emissions, carbon taxes are better for the economy than the alternatives you have suggested.



Utter crap, FD. You cannot talk about GHG emissions without talking about energy. You are not proposing a tax on very exhalation and fart (methane) by every cow and sheep and human and his dog.
You are proposing a tax on burning coal and oil.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #149 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:54pm:
Oh that. I have already responded to that also. Here is a recap for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

In case you couldn't tell, the economic consensus is in favour of increasing the price of GHG emissions, not making competing technologies cheaper.


I like that - quoting yourself as an authority in support of your argument. Your own discovery?

No, I could't tell that the economic consensus was for taxation. Was that the consensus of economists employed by Al Gore and the People's Front of Green Browns? (or is it Brown Greens? I forget)



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #150 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:11pm
 
Quote:
Utter crap, FD. You cannot talk about GHG emissions without talking about energy. You are not proposing a tax on very exhalation and fart (methane) by every cow and sheep and human and his dog.


Think again.

Quote:
You are proposing a tax on burning coal and oil.


There is much more too it than that. I have even given you some examples right here in this thread.

Quote:
I like that - quoting yourself as an authority in support of your argument. Your own discovery?


I did not do that Soren. Again, please drop the drama queen act.

Quote:
No, I could't tell that the economic consensus was for taxation.


It is for putting a price on GHG emissions. There is nothing in it about energy subsidies. There is a very sound economic reason for that.

Quote:
Was that the consensus of economists employed by Al Gore and the People's Front of Green Browns? (or is it Brown Greens? I forget)


It has been signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. That was a long time ago.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #151 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:45pm:
What other sides are there Soren? The ignorant side? The 'I want another handout' side? The 'I have a perpetual motion machine for sale' side?



Haha, so amusing,  thank you. So witty in the usual green way - its' the green way of thinking or the ignorant way! That is so - traditional Brown.

What are you going to do with the tax, Galbraith? You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you?? 

But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.







Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #152 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:16pm
 
Quote:
You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you??


No, of course not.

Quote:
But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.


Even the statement of economic consensus makes suggestions on what to do with the money. Have you read it? If you did, you would know what it says.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #153 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:16pm:
Quote:
You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you??


No, of course not.

Quote:
But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.


Even the statement of economic consensus makes suggestions on what to do with the money. Have you read it? If you did, you would know what it says.



I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion to know that the only thing governemnt can do with the money it collects in tax is to spend it - that is, hand it out.
SO please dont get all scary quotey about "oh, you want govenment handouts" because all government spending of tax revenue is handouts. The government, unlike actual people and businesses, does not have economic needs.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #154 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:40am
 
Quote:
I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion


It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.

Quote:
know that the only thing governemnt can do with the money it collects in tax is to spend it - that is, hand it out.


Well you are wrong. There are plenty of good options, like paying off debt (Howard did this when he had more tax revenue than he needed) or reducing other taxes.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #155 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:40am
 
Quote:
Soren,
I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion


Quote:
freediver,
It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.


Which report?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #156 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:22am
 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

The actual text of the statement is the bit in italics.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #157 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:13pm
 
Quote:
freediver,
It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.


Quote:
perceptions_now
Which report?



Quote:
freediver
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

The actual text of the statement is the bit in italics.

==================
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 BRATTLE SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02238-9105

No sooner was it announced that the US would pursue legally binding commitments to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions at the international climate change talks last July, than the Administration's position was attacked by industry and science skeptics who benefit from the status quo. One of the critics' main arguments is that taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is too costly -- our economy will be seriously harmed, they argue; the American standard of living will be lowered; and untold numbers of people will be thrown out of work.

In the face of this unrelenting mantra of a ruined economy, several prominent US economists -- including Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University and Robert M. Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- developed a mechanism to counter these negative -- and unfounded -- assertions. Thus, they crafted and circulated the "Economists' Statement on Climate Change" to rally professional economists in support of the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusions and to publicly assert the economic viability of climate change mitigation strategies. The recruitment letter soliciting signers explains: "As the climate debate unfolds, it is imperative that public policy be guided by sound economics rather than misleading claims put forward by special interest groups."

The "Economists' Statement on Climate Change" will be released at a press conference this Thursday, February 13, 1997. 2000 economists have signed on to the statement, including six Nobel Laureates. The statement (text below) champions the conclusions of the IPCC report, asserts the economic feasibility of greenhouse gas reductions without harming the American economy, and recommends market-based policies:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE" -- Feb. 13, 1997
We the undersigned agree that:

I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II. Economics studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.

III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes."

*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***

-- The six Nobel Laureates are: Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; Gerard Debreu, University of California at Berkeley; John C. Harsanyi, University of California at Berkeley; Lawrence R. Klein, Pennsylvania State University; Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and James Tobin, Yale University. The project's five organizers are: Arrow and Solow, plus Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University; Paul R. Krugman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William D. Nordhaus, Yale University.

-- The organizational impetus behind the economists' effort comes from Redefining Progress, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy organization based in San Francisco. For information about "Redefining Progress" or how to sign onto the statement, contact: "Redefining Progress" at 1 Kearny Street, 4th floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 (415)781-1191.
=======================
I assume you are referring to the above?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #158 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:23pm
 
yes
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #159 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:23pm:
yes

==========
I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II.
Economics studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs.
For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.


III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required --
such as an international emissions trading agreement.
The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits.
The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes."

=================
Unsurprisingly, I agree with much of what is said, see black bold highlight.

Also unsurprisingly, there are some areas where I disagree,
see red print


Finally, the
Pink print
, is a complex area, which is not straight forward.

Sorry, gotta go, back soon!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:37pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #160 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:36pm
 
Let’s see if we can get some balance, if not agreement, into these discussions?

To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!

That said, in any discussion there may be some issues on which people will agree (at least is part) and other issues where people may disagree, either on specifics or on overall ideas.

Whilst there were some who agreed with the words in "ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE" (Feb. 13, 1997), there were/are no doubt many who disagreed, either by degree or in entirety.

As I have said previously, I happen to agree fully with some of what you say and agree partially on other things, whilst disagreeing on other issues!

In respect of this relevant 1997 Economists Statement, I agree that
1) There are looming Climate Change problems.
2) We (humans) have had a discernible impact on what is happening.
3) There are significant Risks involved & it is necessary measures to mitigate those risks are required & justified.
4) There are a number potential approaches & policies, to reduce GHG emissions.
5) The benefits of taking mitigating action, will outweigh the costs, particularly if those actions are taken earlier rather than later.
6) In order to achieve Global Climate objectives, a co-operative approach amongst nations is needed.

I disagree that
1) There are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards.
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, that will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, would entail substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.

Notwithstanding my disagreement with the suggestion that measures can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, without seriously impacting local & Global economies, if they proceed, I never-the-less agree that the best collection of measures must proceed, to reduce GHG emissions, which also means reducing our reliance on Fossil fuels in general & Oil & Coal in particular.

In terms of the Consensus of this agreement, regrettably, it has failed, either in the broadest aspects of its aims &/or in the detail of how to achieve those aims!  

In fact, since this agreement some 13 years ago, the Nero’s of this world have continued to fiddle, whilst allowing “the Hordes of Chaos” to continue to destroy the entire eco system & pillage the lives of current generations and those yet to be born!  

Why did this Agreement flounder?


There are no doubt many reasons, but primary amongst those would be self-interest! Both from a national perspective, in counties such as China & India & those interests of major players, such as those in the Energy industry, particularly Oil, Coal & Gas.

So, will this Economists Statement &/or the IPCC recommendations or something similar, finally get converted into action?


Regrettably, I doubt it, for reasons similar to those that have seen the possible solutions delayed this long and WHEN things finally do start to move, which they will, it will be far too late, given the timelines involved!

Finally, it must be clearly understood that GHG emissions are not the only consideration involved here.

The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some.  

There are a number of issues already impacting the system or about to
1) Debt (Global) - Now
2) Energy Decline (Global) - Now
3) Aging Population (Global) - Now
4) Population Decline (Global) – starting in around 20-30 years
5) Climate Change (definitely Global) – already started, but nastier impacts late this century or next.

I am sorry, but I can not see a Hollywood ending here, I just can’t!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:51pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #161 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:45pm
 
Quote:
To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!


I said it was a consensus of economists, not hippies. The fact that there is a consensus should indicate to you how fundamental this issue is in economics.

Quote:
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, particularly without substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.


That doesn't make sense. If there is a limited number of emissions permits available, then high disposable income won't make more available. It will just push up the price.

Quote:
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.


Not true. This is fundamental to how the tax works, fundamental to economics, fundamental to capitalism. If it is used to lower other taxes, it may make little difference to overall buying power, but it will make a huge difference to the relative cost of items. Those that use a lot fo GHG emissions will go up in price. Those that use little will go down. People will buy more of the items that become relatively cheaper and less of those that become relatively more expensive. GHG emissions will go down.

Quote:
The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some. 


Isn't this more of a reason to ge the economics right, not less?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #162 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:56pm
 
Quote:
perceptions-now
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, particularly without substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.


Quote:
FD
That doesn't make sense. If there is a limited number of emissions permits available, then high disposable income won't make more available. It will just push up the price.


You are correct, I have change it, to what I had intended!
"2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, that will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, would entail substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #163 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:06pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!


Quote:
FD
I said it was a consensus of economists, not hippies. The fact that there is a consensus should indicate to you how fundamental this issue is in economics


You really are blind to everything outside your own headspace!

The reason that this Statement hasn't got up and running, has nothing to do with hippies and there is apparently an enormous amount of people who fundamentally disagree with this statement or your assertions, in terms of Economics, Climate &/or Energy!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #164 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:18pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.


Quote:
FD
Not true. This is fundamental to how the tax works, fundamental to economics, fundamental to capitalism. If it is used to lower other taxes, it may make little difference to overall buying power, but it will make a huge difference to the relative cost of items. Those that use a lot fo GHG emissions will go up in price. Those that use little will go down. People will buy more of the items that become relatively cheaper and less of those that become relatively more expensive. GHG emissions will go down.


You say Neither, I say Niether.

We will not know what impact any of this will have, unless it is enacted in Australian or elsewhere and even then, unless something similar is enacted by the up & comers, such as China & India, none of it will be effective!

That said, if the majority of an ETS tax goes back to consumers, there will not be net loss to them and they will continue with what they want to do.

Given items such as Home Energy requirements & Transport are largely regarded as Essentials, most people will stay with them and go without elsewhere, to balance a small gap.

Only if the Gap was large & really hurt consumers, will you find it will change their habits, enough to make A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #165 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:21pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some.  


Quote:
FD
Isn't this more of a reason to ge the economics right, not less?


I agree with you!

Which, I have noticed, is something that you don't do much of, even when I agree with quite a bit of where you apparently want to get to???
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Goodbye ETS - Hello Carbon Tax
Reply #166 - Sep 19th, 2010 at 1:44pm
 
http://newmatilda.com/2010/05/05/goodbye-ets-hello-carbon-tax

The delay of the Government's carbon trading scheme gives us a chance to choose the policy we should have been working on all along, write Donna Green and Liz Minchin

Despite the Rudd Government’s decision not to take its ETS to the next election, all big businesses have known that the move into a carbon-constrained world isn’t an "if", it’s a "when". Paradoxically, right now it’s not having to pay for the cost of their carbon pollution which is causing many businesses the most problem. That’s because it’s the lack of certainty about what policy is going to come in, and when, which is creating havoc for their long-term investment strategies.

As Declan Kuch argues elsewhere on newmatilda.com today, now is the time to have another really close look at the policy options. But while Kuch proposes a range of ways to improve the ETS framework, there is serious doubt over whether the ETS was ever the right policy in the first place.

We need to take this opportunity to develop a much simpler, more transparent carbon pollution reduction policy, one that would provide a dependable income stream to invest in retraining people for jobs in new lower-emissions industries, and for carefully targeted rebates to low-income households. That policy is a carbon tax.

How would a carbon tax work? Like emissions trading, a carbon tax is all about introducing a price on carbon pollution. It works by adding a tax on the price of coal, gas and oil, set at a rate based on the carbon intensity of the fuel. For instance, the carbon tax on electricity generated from burning natural gas would be only half as much as from burning black coal, because burning gas produces only half the emissions. The added cost of using fossil fuels would inevitably be passed on, meaning price rises for things including petrol, electricity and groceries.

For consumers, the prospect of even the smallest price rise is never welcome. But the fact is that, unless you believe that climate change isn’t a problem at all, it’s inevitable that we will eventually have to address these hidden costs. That means the real question is how to make that economic change fair and effective. A key advantage of a carbon tax is that it’s a more transparent solution than emissions trading because it’s easier to see exactly what tax everyone is paying.

As well, because a carbon tax would apply right across the economy, it would also drive change in critical areas such as energy efficiency and better buildings, which we know can deliver the biggest, quickest, most cost-effective reductions in our emissions now. Doing that would begin the transition away from outdated, unnecessarily energy-intensive ways of doing things. It’s the catalyst we’ve been waiting for to get Australia moving towards being a low-carbon economy.

For business, a tax offers more certainty and control over their costs, enabling them to plan ahead instead of not knowing whether the price of permits to pollute under an emissions trading scheme might spike up or down, as has happened in the EU. As staff from the International Monetary Fund wrote in late 2009, that kind of unstable carbon price is still slowing down investment in renewable energy. And that’s exactly what we’ve recently seen in Australia with several high profile renewable energy projects being cancelled or put on hold.

There’s nothing new or radical about the idea of carbon taxes. Over the past 20 years, around half a dozen European countries, including Denmark, Finland, Britain and Ireland, have brought in various types of levies or carbon taxes. More recently, other countries that have either given in-principle backing to a carbon tax, or else are in the process of bringing one in, include China, Japan and Indonesia. One of the first to act was Sweden, which introduced a carbon tax in 1991 that has since been gradually increased. That economic reform started a shift in how Swedes did business and heated their homes, helping them achieve something that many said was impossible: shrinking the nation’s carbon footprint without shrinking the economy.

In stark contrast with most other countries, Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by more than 7 per cent below 1990 levels, while its Gross Domestic Product has grown by more than 40 per cent. Continuing to push for further improvements, in 2007 the Swedish parliament decided to modify the tax to reduce emissions by another 4 per cent, at the same time as integrating with the EU trading scheme. The Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren, has highlighted just how successful the tax has been, noting that, without it, the country’s emissions would have been 20 per cent higher today.

But few policies are completely problem-free, and it’s fair to ask what the potential problems of a carbon tax might be. A carbon tax is certainly not foolproof. Like emissions trading, a tax can be badly undermined in all sorts of ways. For example, if the tax is set too low, or the industry and household compensation for its introduction is too high, there would similarly be little incentive for anyone to change. Another common concern is that a carbon tax could hurt business and affect jobs.

A note on polls about global warming:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284867601
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #167 - Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:48am
 
There is one major problem with a straightforward carbon tax, but I'm not saying that it's insurmountable.  

Let's say that your industry has a reactor that produces more greenhouse gas than it should. You could invest in a new reactor, and the carbon credits under an ETS would provide financial encouragement to do that.

Where is the incentive under a carbon tax? It becomes all stick and no carrot.

This is not as hypothetical as you might think. I know a number of industries which were holding off on new technology in anticipation of emissions trading.

Carbon Tax is not the best name for it. Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:53am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #168 - Sep 26th, 2010 at 5:03pm
 
Quote:
Where is the incentive under a carbon tax?


Paying less tax is an incentive.

Quote:
It becomes all stick and no carrot.


A dollar less stick means exactly the same as a dollar more carrot to a rational businessman.

Quote:
Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.


You are welcome to call it an emissions tax if it clear up any confusion.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pansy
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #169 - Sep 30th, 2010 at 3:13pm
 
Already there is more waste water generated and dispersed today than at any other time in the history of our planet: more than one out of six people lack access to safe drinking water, namely 1.1 billion people, and more than two out of six lack adequate sanitation, namely 2.6 billion people. 3900 children die every day from water borne diseases


http://sp@m/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Climate action will benefit us: BHP boss
Reply #170 - Nov 28th, 2010 at 6:30pm
 
Marius Kloppers (CEO of BHP) supports my position on carbon taxes:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-action-will-benefit-us-bhp-boss/story-e6frg6xf-1225954629611

BHP Billiton chairman Jac Nasser has called on the federal government to act immediately on climate change, telling his shareholders the world's biggest mining company stands to benefit from the inevitable shift to a low-emissions global economy.

Echoing BHP chief executive officer Marius Kloppers's recent call for Australia to act on a carbon tax before the rest of the world, Mr Nasser said Australia's emissions-intensive sectors would maintain or improve their competitiveness if the country moved quickly to slash its carbon footprint.

"Economies that defer action are likely to face higher long-term costs as global investment is redirected to early movers," Mr Nasser said.

"As one of the most carbon-intensive economies, if Australia acts strongly to reduce its carbon footprint, its emissions-intensive sectors are likely to maintain or improve their competitiveness in a low-emissions world."

Mr Nasser was speaking at BHP's annual general meeting in Perth, the first time he has addressed the company's shareholders in Australia since taking over from Don Argus as chairman in March.

The meeting was dominated by shareholders grilling Mr Nasser and Mr Kloppers about BHP's plans to mine uranium at Yeelirrie in Western Australia, its record in dealing with traditional owners, and its poor safety record on mine sites.

Mr Nasser admitted that BHP's progress had been slow in lowering carbon dioxide emissions from coal through the use of carbon capture and storage technology.

But he said the company, which has both uranium and natural gas assets, stood to benefit as new solutions were found.

Mr Nasser stopped short of calling for a nuclear power industry to be developed in Australia, saying it was a matter for the federal government.

"Where governments support nuclear power we will sell into those markets," he said.

Mr Kloppers repeated his recent call for a revenue-neutral carbon tax to reduce emissions.

Outside the meeting, Mr Nasser said Mr Kloppers's recent speech on climate change had been endorsed by the BHP board.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #171 - Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:05pm
 
muso wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:48am:
There is one major problem with a straightforward carbon tax, but I'm not saying that it's insurmountable.  

Let's say that your industry has a reactor that produces more greenhouse gas than it should. You could invest in a new reactor, and the carbon credits under an ETS would provide financial encouragement to do that.

Where is the incentive under a carbon tax? It becomes all stick and no carrot.

This is not as hypothetical as you might think. I know a number of industries which were holding off on new technology in anticipation of emissions trading.

Carbon Tax is not the best name for it. Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.


An ETS is not the answer!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #172 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:00pm
 
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #173 - Jul 7th, 2018 at 7:54am
 
The Green Tax Shift Concept and the Economics of Climate Change

Just put this on the home page:

The links below are to a powerpoint presentation, and two word documents containing a transcript and brief notes, for a presentation on the economics of climate change. Feel free to use them, but please cite OzPolitic as the source.

The Green Tax Shift Concept and the Economics of Climate Change

Presentation transcript

Key points
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49415
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #174 - May 15th, 2022 at 7:17pm
 
bump
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 49626
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #175 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 8:08pm
 
Ecological footprint is for those who can afford not to pollute and all the other crimes against the environment.
80% of the world's population cannot achieve that.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print