Your survival guide to the carbon price apocalypse
|
Out they’ve come over the last two days, lured by the imminent announcement of the carbon price details — more corporate shills, more politicians, more unionists, more polluters, with their hands stuck out, making that distinctive bleating noise of the rentseeker in full cry. It’s like a zombie film, with a shuffling, clumsy but somehow inescapable horde of the undead — braindead, more correctly — roaming the streets, demanding “compensation”. Ralph Hillman rose at the Press Club a short while ago to repeat his long-discredited claims about the impact of a carbon price on the coal industry, a sector which faces only one real problem, how to count all the money that’s going to roll in from China in the next few years. Instead, Hillman wants handouts from taxpayers for an industry that is the chief dealer to the cheap energy and cheap steel junkies of the planet. Andrew Wilkie has joined in. Having declined to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, he’s now pulled the classic swing vote stunt of issuing demands right at the death. Wilkie has his own version of “think global, act local” by demanding special measures for his own electorate and its industry. Nicely played. This stuff will be incessant for the rest of the week and then really ramp up next week, when the rentseekers who missed out will lift the pitch and volume of their bleating. To cut through all the propaganda, self-interested analysis and political race-calling, it might be useful to keep in mind some basic principles in judging Sunday’s announcement. These are some criteria by which to judge a carbon price scheme. 1. Will it contribute to the possibility of an international agreement to curb emissions? Even a highly effective Australian scheme will make no difference to climate change — we’re a mendicant when it comes to preventing the impacts of climate change on our economy. So we need to maximise the possibility of an effective international agreement by appearing to take seriously the task of curbing our own emissions. Fortunately, this is an easy hurdle to get over. Even a relatively innocuous carbon pricing scheme can be sold internationally as effective action. There’s no international version of the Productivity Commission to point out that we’re not doing much — until the scheme runs for a few years and it becomes apparent our emissions aren’t falling. 2. Will it reduce emissions by at least 5% by 2020, and hopefully more? The problem with the Rudd government’s CPRS was that it so muffled the price signal from the ETS under compensation that industry had no incentive to shift from business as usual until well into the 2020s. If the industry compensation measures are limited, then even a relatively low starting price will be effective, as long as business knows the price will increase in coming years — they can then make investment decisions based on that. The only real problem with a low starting price — assuming it will increase — is that it probably makes necessary the retention of interventionist and inefficient renewable energy programs that politicians like, such as renewable energy funds or the Renewable Energy Target. Clearly, any CPRS-like scheme in which high levels of compensation continue up to 2020 will fail this test. Those are the two critical tests. A scheme that passes these deserves support. Everything after this is secondary in importance, but worth considering anyway: 3. How fair is the industry compensation? Handouts to big polluters aren’t fair. They’re a reward for whingeing and rentseeking, further encouraging Australian business to put their energy into demanding handouts from government rather than innovation and entrepreneurship. But fairness isn’t a threshold issue for the carbon price, as long as it works. That was the problem with the CPRS — the levels of compensation weren’t merely unfair, they thwarted the operation of the scheme. But it’s now accepted in Australia that the price of reform is slinging money at people even when it isn’t justified. If the carbon pricing scheme within which the compensation will be provided will actually reduce emissions, unjustified compensation is simply the cost of our dreadful generation of reform-averse and inept political leaders, and not a reason to reject the scheme. That said, there is more and less unfair. The steel industry is under the hammer from a high dollar and import competition. Its demands for compensation, while misplaced, have far more validity than those of the coal industry, which will grow significantly even with a high carbon price. There’s also an element of industry policy in all this — the only reason the steel industry is being taken seriously in its demand for compensation is because of the lingering conviction that the industry — on a long-term historical trend to shifting overseas — should continue to be propped up locally. And then there’s the matter of the companies in our electricity sector, either state governments or multinational corporations, who have purchased and operated emissions-intensive assets for over a decade knowing that a carbon price would eventually be required and that, as producers of the most emissions-intensive energy, they would be the ones facing the highest costs. Their claim to compensation or “adjustment measures” is even less than that of the coal industry. 4. How fair is household compensation? Many of the same arguments apply here. Given the impact of a carbon price on household budgets will be small — significantly less than that of the GST — the only case for compensation is for low-income earners and pensioners, who have far less capacity to absorb the cost and spend proportionately more on emissions-intensive activities that will see prices rise. Middle and high-income earners receiving compensation is, like any form of middle-class welfare, unjustified, but again not a basis for rejecting the scheme. It’s just the political cost of bad politicians. 5. How efficient is household compensation? Ideally, household compensation should be delivered in a way that minimises economic and administrative costs or even, as Ross Garnaut argued in recommending Henry Review-style tax reform measures, actually has benefits in areas like productivity. It should also be delivered in a way that has the lowest cost in terms of foregone abatement opportunities. Exempting petrol for everyone isn’t particularly efficient, because there may be some abatement opportunities foregone that cost less than others (and middle and higher-income earners can afford to pay higher petrol costs anyway). But reducing fuel tax concessions, by reducing the current pro-emissions bias in the tax system, will increase the effectiveness of a carbon price economy-wide. 6. Does it make any provision for adaptation both in Australia and overseas? The grim reality is that world emissions will continue to rise, and Australia will be an early casualty of the resulting rise in global temperatures. Efforts to curb emissions don’t have to exclude an acknowledgment that Australia faces a substantial economic cost from warming that will happen regardless of what the world decides to do in the short-term. The best form of adaptation is to give those who face its costs greater resources to do so, via a sovereign wealth fund or some other mechanism of inter-generational transfer. Australia also has a specific responsibility toward Pacific states which are already dealing with the problems of rising sea levels. This is a foreign aid problem that is not merely a moral responsibility for Australia, but a direct political responsibility whether we like it or not. All that remains is to see the actual package. Until then, everything else is speculation and self-interested rhetoric. |
|
|
|
105 Comments
I’d add a 7th criterion, ‘Does it result in obviously perverse outcomes?’
If the Hobart zinc smelter (not ‘zinc mine’ as it says in the Herald Sun), primarily powered as it is by low-carbon hydroelectricity, is truly disadvantaged by the carbon price legislation, then Wilkie has every right (indeed, a responsibility) to arc up. Tasmania and its industry deserves to reap a benefit from having had the good sense to invest in industrial-scale renewable electricity decades before everybody else.
If the zinc smelter in Hobart runs on low emissions hydroelectric power, then surely a price on carbon will barely affect it. If, then, our efforts contribute to international efforts to reduce emissions intensive power use, then that smelter will have an increasing competitive advantage against zinc smelters around the world.
Good on them!
I would expect that rent seekers would not make half as much progress this time around (other than Wilkie) as if the govt moves from the agreement it will lose the votes it needs from the independents and the greens.
The fact of the matter is the deal is done, no matter what it is vested interests and News Ltd will attack the govt so they have nothing to gain by appeasing rentseekers.
“It’s like a zombie film, with a shuffling, clumsy but somehow inescapable horde of the undead … roaming the streets, demanding “compensation”.”
True. But equally true of the renewable energy spivs, hoarsely demanding “subsidy”.
At least fossil fuellers produce baseload power at reasonable cost.
Let’s see if Keane can transcend his bias and analyse (say) Flannery’s Geothermal fantasy in the desert, Geodynamics, which has swallowed over $100m in public money so far, for no result. Or give us a run-down of Denmark’s wind turbine fiasco…or on the net job losses in UK and Spain caused by “renewables”…
(I wonder how long Keane would last at Crikey if he converted to AGW scepticism…would he make it past lunchtime? Frog-marched to the street by security, his coffee mug chucked after him? )
A generally good summary BK but …
This is really key but your claim that appearance and reality in the effectiveness of the scheme is dangerous, because it assists those that argue for a tiny carbon price and utterly piffling targets. There would be very strong demands in this setting for significantly more swingeing regulation and direct state investment in abatement.
A scheme that not only looks credible but is, remains the best counter to this both against the opponents of action and the more wide-eyed and credulous proponents of non-market driven systems.
One may add that this is the problem with substantial industry compensation and to some extent too, with household compensation. I’m less against household compensation because this does less harm to scheme effectiveness and get more support per dollar of handout than industry compo does. This is one reason why some opponents of action are slyly suggesting there should be no household compensation — it allows two arguments that contradict each other to stand side-by-side (compensation shows the scheme is just a money-go-round and won’t work & abolishing compo would be unfair). I’d prefer much of the compensation to households in the low income bracket to be only semi-liquid — stored value cards that could be used to purchase staple groceries, pay doctor & dental bills, public transport costs, clothes and household items etc …
I’d much prefer that those industries that thought they were being harmed by competition with those not subject to a carbon price be required to demonstrate that this was so, and the extent of any trading disadvantage bound up exclusively with carbon pricing. If they could then demonstrate that after best compliance, their position would be prejudiced by, say $10 tCO2, they could then get either a BTA to that value (for goods coming into Australia from those traders in the category they specified) OR permits to the value of that post-adjustment disadvantage for that part of their production going into that market.
An adjunct to the scheme in which “dirty energy” costs in business became progressively less deductibly by 2020 would increase the effective cost of carbon emissions without greatly affecting the operation of an ETS. It would largely catch those businesses outside the ETS. Again, funds raised by this could be channelled back into households and other public goods (such as new thermally efficient centrally located quality public housing stock).
I agree with the principle of a carbon tax. However, I think the government’s model is fundamentally flawed. Of course it’s too late now, the government is married to the model they’ve chosen - but the version advocated by Tim Colebatch in The Age a month or so ago makes much more sense. The key ingredient is that tax is paid according to how much carbon was emitted to produce the products or services you consume. If the product/service is sold in Australia, a carbon tax is payable. Crucially, such a carbon tax applies to imported goods as well. However, if a product made in Australia but is exported, no tax is paid - at least not in Australia - only if the country we are exporting to has a similar kind of tax is a carbon tax paid - in that country. This is the only kind of model which makes sense in the absence of a global agreement. Australian businesses still have an incentive to reduce emissions, but trade exposed industries are not subject to a tax which their international competitors do not pay. Consumers have a price incentive to switch to lower carbon goods, use green power etc. As with the government’s model, revenue collected should be redistributed to compensate households and reinvested in green energy. Such a scheme would actually reduce the amount carbon consumed by Australians and (by a very small amount) global emissions.
The problem with the government’s scheme is that the price incentive is to switch to imported goods which are not subjected to a carbon levy. Hence the total amount of carbon consumed does not necessarily go down, we just import emissions from another country. I fear that it will only serve to accelerate the extinction of the last remnants of Australia’s manufacturing industry.
Tim Colebatch’s article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/let-consumers-carry-the-can-on-carbon-20110523-1f0n8.html
MARK DUFFETT: “”Tasmania and its industry deserves to reap a benefit from having had the good sense to invest in industrial-scale renewable electricity decades before everybody else.”“
Wonderful stuff, I don’t bl^o/dy think! Thanks to the Tasmanian Hydro-Electricity Corporation huge swathes of pristine National wilderness were turned into water-sodden slums. Tasmania is in lockstep with QLD as being the two worst states in Oz for inhumane and wholesale destruction of our once-vaunted wildlife heritage.
Whilst you’re about it I hope you received the email from GetUp whose ad for the wholesale wiping out of Old Forest Oz forests prior to sending the timber to China to be made into “”Australian made furniture.”” Yes, Ha! “No Harvey Norman No.” Our gutless advertising industry wouldn’t put it to air. Now, which Hydro Electricity Organisation dam should Harvey Norman go throw themselves into?????
Where did you go to school anyway?
The leftists still can’t answer any of the hard questions.
1. How much Carbon Tax will there be on a birthday cake?
2. How much Carbon Tax on imported goods from China?
3. How much will this Carbon Tax reduce world temperatures in Degree’s Celsius.
“FORGIVE THEM LORD, FOR THEY KNOWETH NOT WHAT THEY DO”
The truth hurts - 2. How much Carbon Tax on imported goods from China? Have a look at the Productivity commission report released last month to see the effective carbon price for China.
3. How much will this Carbon Tax reduce world temperatures in Degree’s Celsius. - As I and many others have explained to you before the goal is to cap the increae in temperature not reduce it but if you actually read this article you would see point 1 addresses your question.
You also over look the question - how mcuh will having a carbon tax save our exporter’s in levies from countries who are taking action in the future?
“Degree’s celsius”.
Clearly the only kind of degree TTH will ever get.
Waiting for “carbon dioxide is plant food!” to complete my internet denialist bingo card.
TTH - “3. How much will this Carbon Tax reduce world temperatures in Degree’s Celsius.” Have you ever donated to disaster relief? How much impact did your $10 have on the millions or billions required?
@Venise, be that as it may (and if Tasmania has been turned into a wasteland by the Hydro, obviously there’s no point having any more conservation reserves here), then better we get some benefit from the destruction than none.
And since you ask, I did the majority of my schooling in South Australia, though this education is proving woefully inadequate in helping me work out what on earth your question has to do with anything.
1. How much Carbon Tax will there be on a birthday cake?
10
2. How much Carbon Tax on imported goods from China?
6.3
3. How much will this Carbon Tax reduce world temperatures in Degree’s Celsius.
two million
Don’t FEED the TROLLS .
Brilliant.
Asking how much Gillards Carbon Tax on every man, woman and child will reduce global temps(the claim from the tree huggers on why we need the tax) is now considered “trolling”.
The left can’t say… cos the left dun know!
Just follow along in a conga-line, holding hands cos Brown and Gillard told you too.
This is the “doesn’t do anything” tax, except cost Australian jobs, the Australian economy and the Australian taxpayer.
Much like Workchoices it will be rescinded to the dustbins of time when Labor are wholloped at the polls.
Ah, Venise, I yearn to visit Tassie’s water sodden slums, but no one can tell where to find them.
How much will the combined Gillard Carbon Tax have on reducing global temperatures?
If I made a $10 donation to a disaster relief fund, it is expected the ENTIRE fund will have some impact on disaster relief. If the fund is $10 Billion dollars, I expect results from that money.
We’ve been told the science is in on climate change, so wheres the science on Gillards tax?
How many degrees celcius will this tax reduce global temperatures by? Lets hear the scientists on this one.
It’s a non question TTH and you know it.
You know full well the intent is to slow and eventually stop temperature INCREASE.
You know full well the effect on global climate of Australia’s carbon tax, with a 5 % planned reduction in 1.4 % of the world’s emissions, will be 5/8 of F$%kall.
You know this but you persist in asking lowest common denominator, idiotic questions like “How much will it reduce global temperatures”. Yep, that’s trolling, all right.
And there we have it.
Why in hells name are we therefore going down this destructive path for our economy?
All Australia should do is bung a export tariff on our coal and make the Chinese pay the Carbon Tax, what the hell is Dillard doing destroying our economy… FOR *NOTHING*.
“the truthhurts” How about some facts to backup your false asersions?
Methinks you have been reading way too many News Corp rags!
I agree with the principle of a carbon tax. However, I think the government’s model is fundamentally flawed. Of course it’s too late now, the government is married to the model they’ve chosen - but the version advocated by Tim Colebatch in The Age a month or so ago makes much more sense. The key ingredient is that tax is paid according to how much carbon was emitted to produce the products or services you consume. If the product/service is sold in Australia, a carbon tax is payable. Crucially, such a carbon tax applies to imported goods as well. However, if a product made in Australia but is exported, no tax is paid - at least not in Australia - only if the country we are exporting to has a similar kind of tax is a carbon tax paid - in that country. This is the only kind of model which makes sense in the absence of a global agreement. Australian businesses still have an incentive to reduce emissions, but trade exposed industries are not subject to a tax which their international competitors do not pay. Consumers have a price incentive to switch to lower carbon goods, use green power etc. As with the government’s model, revenue collected should be redistributed to compensate households and reinvested in green energy. Such a scheme would actually reduce the amount carbon consumed by Australians and (by a very small amount) global emissions.
The problem with the government’s scheme is that the price incentive is to switch to imported goods which are not subjected to a carbon levy. Hence the total amount of carbon consumed does not necessarily go down, we just import emissions from another country. I fear that it will only serve to accelerate the extinction of the last remnants of Australia’s manufacturing industry.
Tim Colebatch’s article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/let-consumers-carry-the-can-on-carbon-20110523-1f0n8.html
Interesting that South Africa is now trying to roll-out a carbon tax: poorer, domestic and export coal addiction. And Gerard Henderson told us just last month they no intention of doing this.
Already their big power monopolnaut Eskom is ringing the fear bells but isn’t sticking their hand in the jar yet.
It would be nice to discuss the problem without the trolls spurting forth their simplistic, repetitive outbursts ad nauseam.
Having said that I do believe that whatever policy is announced it will be far too little, too late to really achieve anything at all but increased cynicism by all sides of politics. Labor, quite evidently does not really have their heart in it - never did, never will. The Greens, I’m afraid are caught in the middle. They can support a minimalistic effort by Labor that is as likely to be eroded over the years by the big industry vested interests whose funding support they desperately court as it is to progress to something worthwhile. Or they (the Greens that is) can withdraw their support and retain their principled stand on the issue and risk being demonized as a spoiler. In reality Labor could, should it summon the guts to do so, ignore the shrill pleas of the polluters and with the help of the Greens and independents push through something we could all take pride in - the trolls excluded.
Ian, the big problem Labor has recognised is that, if a Carbon Tax is not accepted by business and the electorate, then nothing will be achieved as there would be a good chance of them being thrown out of office at the next election, and for all to revert back to the current situation.
Remember that all additional costs incurred by business WILL be passed back to the electorate, and if the electorate is hurt badly, they will take it out on Labor.
The electorate effectively will decide if any scheme / carbon tax works, although it is generally acknowledged that even a tax will not reduce CO2 emissions to any great degree, possibly at the best just stabilise at today’s level. For starters we sell 800k - 900k new motor vehicles a year, and Australian will not buy EVs or hybrid vehicles.
Anyway interesting times are ahead, but if the electorate and business does not accept the proposed tax, the whole scheme is doomed.
@ CHESS C
Thanks for that.
I’ve always thought that should be the model as it is not just about even up the playing field but it is an incentive for both Australian consumers as well as overseas business to go green. I heard that Craig Emerson was against it saying that is going back to old protectionism but I have to disagree with him that is just old outdated economic text book; they really need to get with the reality of modern economics, the EU is imposing tariff on Qantas already.
You are the ones bringing in the great big breathing tax, it’s up to Labor, the Greens and their hackeries to prove that global temperatures will decrease with this tax on every man, woman and child.
The SCIENCE just isn’t in on that one, and if the science isn’t in… then this entire things a gigantic FRAUD on the Australian public.
People are starting to ask the hard questions… like gee… a TAX on everything to reduce global warming, how much will it reduce global warming by?
Or is it just a feel-good, do nothing tug-a-thon for the left?
Aussies are paying… they want to know some answers to these questions. They’ll be paying this tax EVERY DAY, it’s time they get some answers.
Hey truthy … Since you will only incur this great big new breathing tax if your breath escapes to the atmosphere, I suggest you seal yourself in an airtight container. Then you wont have to pay any of that evil lefty feel-good tax. Take some plants in there with you, since CO2 is plant food.
Truth Hurts says “All Australia should do is bung a export tariff on our coal and make the Chinese pay the Carbon Tax”.
Let’s look at his alternative plan a little closer. Frankly, I can’t think of anything more damaging to the Australian economy than an export tariff that would price our largest commodity out of global markets overnight. That is way beyond any suggestions even the greens have put up. Keep in mind, there’s a good reason we moved away from the tariff wars of a few decades ago…. but TTH seems to think that, in true Bob Katter style, he can bring back a strange version of protectionism where we make our exports MORE expensive in order to somehow protect our industries and make them more competitive. Hang on…what?!? Yes, of course we can protect jobs and maintain our exports by making our product more expensive than our competitors! Great idea mate, you’ve just fulfilled the Greens ultimate wet dream by shutting down the entire coal industry.
Of course, that would only be the beginning. China would likely retaliate (as tends to happen in tariff wars) by slapping a carbon tax on everything it exports. Suddenly everything that we buy that say “made in China” on it ends up costing us more. Oh no! So not only have we shut down our largest commodity export, but Australians now have to pay a carbon tax on everything it imports? And here I was thinking that TTH was trying to find a way to save the average Australian from financial pain.
But perhaps there is a silver lining in the alternative put forward by TTH. Once the tariff war kicks into overdrive and the disastrous cocktail of inflation mixed and slower growth from a massive drop in exports turns into malignant stagflation, at least the Australian dollar will take a serious hit and we’ll be able to sell our coal overseas again, completely destroying the purpose of the whole policy.
Now THERE’S a policy of economy destruction where it’s all economic pain and no environmental gain. Great work TTH. How does it feel when YOU’RE alternative policies to carbon pricing come under serious scrutiny for once? Truth hurts huh.
Thats wrong.
Demand for coal is at an all time high. The Chinese are burning it faster(they’d be those CO2 emissions the left keep telling us about) faster than we can dig it out of the ground.
Export tariffs on coal have the following impact:
1. Decreases local coal pricing(more supply, same demand), meaning cheaper electricity for Aussies
2. Allows the government to collect a large amount of tax(our biggest export is coal).
3. Should encourage the Chinese to start moving to more efficient electrical generation(China is the worlds largest CO2 emitter).
My plan may actually work. Gillards plan is to close down Australian manufacturing, jobs and our economy and export all the jobs to China where their factories will most likely emit even more CO2 than what we would have in Australia. You can’t price carbon on Aussie products and then let foreign competitors import their goods without 1 red cent of carbon tax because you WILL DESTROY our economy.
TheTruthHurts, Australia doesn’t have a monopoly on coal if you slap a tariff on it investment will switch to other countries who also have large coal reserves such as the USA and Indonesia. Also the high price of power is not from the high price of thermal coal but from the lack of investment in infrastructure.
“you WILL DESTROY our economy” - TTH
“Aussies are paying… they want to know some answers to these questions. They’ll be paying this tax EVERY DAY, it’s time they get some answers.” - TTH
I think the Productivity Commission has something to say about the Gillard Government’s carbon pricing scheme, and it’s much more relevant and water-tight than Alan Jones or any other frothing-at-the-mouth talkback radio host. You can read it here: http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/carbon-prices.
As for Australians paying… I’m with you on that, I’d like to see my tax-payer dollars going to worthwhile initiatives. Last time I checked, the fundamental theory of global warming/climate change was predicted back in the 50s, and understood and proved in the late 80s. That was thirty years ago, and we understand so much more about the changes that are already happening.
The short-term “cost of living” argument is incredibly short-sighted when you consider what changes are expected in the next decade, let alone the next 81 years. A 5% reduction target and weak carbon price is pitiful, but it begins a transformation. If you argue against that transformation, you’re arguing for exponentionally-harsher costs on all Australians. All living things for that matter. It’s incredibly serious and I don’t think relying on petty left/right generalisations is constructive.
TTH, look forward to your response. I don’t think you’re a troll, let’s have a proper discussion here.
TTH - “We’ve been told the science is in on climate change, so wheres the science on Gillards tax?”
Economics is considered a science, every credible economist backs a price on carbon (much to Tony’s annoyance) so therefore the “science” backs “Gillards Tax”!
“If I made a $10 donation to a disaster relief fund, it is expected the ENTIRE fund will have some impact on disaster relief. ” Exactly and Australia’s carbon price is it’s doantion to the fund, other countries are making their donation to the fund and while taken by themselves the individual donations to achieve much when they are combined into one “fund” they achieve the goal.
“Demand for coal is at an all time high. The Chinese are burning it faster(they’d be those CO2 emissions the left keep telling us about) faster than we can dig it out of the ground.” - This is actually correct (odd for one of your statements) and that is why the Coal industries claims of massive job losses are complete rubbish, along with your claims of the complete ruination of the manufacturing industry. Do you have any credible evidence to support this claim? If it is going to “destroy” our econmy why are all the economists supporting it? If it is going to lead to massive job losses why are the unions supporting it?
Seems to be a lot of opinion here on something that no-one knows any of the details about.
Gillard announced yesterday that “Coal has a fantastic future”.
Meanwhile, the carbon tax has disappeared up its own exemption…
But Crikey and the rest of the MSM will spend the next two years buried under a mass of taxy detail…what a waste of time. As if the real world didn’t exist. As if captialism wasn’t screwing the environment as usual, pleased that critics were engrossed in this surreal nonsense…
Venise, I received the GetUp! e-mail and I was incensed. Shame on Harvey Norman! To think that an Australian company can get away with marketing a locally sourced, renewable resource based on managing native ecosystems in perpetuity, when they could be sponsoring the destruction of Asian rainforests or perpetuating the sterilisation of rural Australia with expansive monocultures.
I think GetUp! does some great stuff, but seriously, they need to think a bit harder about some of the bullsh!t they invest their time in. Harvey Norman would do more good for the environment globally if they were to expand their trade in Australian native hardwood furniture.
TTH, says a few interesting thing.
1) “Demand for coal is at an all time high” - Correct, but there is more than enough supply capacity in our competitor nations to meet that demand. Australia currently does well but our current Terms Of Trade and high Australian Dollar are putting strain on our exporters and making our coal more expensive overseas. If we add the additional impost of a carbon tax on top of that then our coal is going to become even more expensive. You’re absolutely right that China will continue to buy the coal that it needs, it just won’t buy it from Australia. Same level emissions output but more job losses in Australia. Bad policy.
2) “Decreases local coal pricing(more supply, same demand), meaning cheaper electricity for Aussies” - This is pretty much an acknowledgement of the point above. The only reason there would be ‘more supply’ would be because we have to do something with the glut of excess coal that China now doesn’t want. Mind you, we export a lot more than we could possibly consume domestically, you’d still have massive plant closure, but hey, who cares about industry closures and job losses when bills are low right? Of course, the low price of electricity would then send a price signal that would drive up emissions and take away any incentives to improve energy efficiency. Hooray.
2. “Allows the government to collect a large amount of tax(our biggest export is coal)” - only if somebody buys our coal, which they won’t, they’ll simply buy more of Indonesia’s coal instead. We might be able to sell some of it in the short term as other countries race to fill the gap, but it’s likely that China will simply respond in kind by putting export tariffs on it’s exports to Australia. Australian consumers will have to pay more for imports in exchange for a temporary tax boost before a reduction of exports kick in and there is a massive drop in export earnings revenue. Coal represents about 23% of our export Goods and Services, so even if you were to reduce that by just a quarter, it would result in a massive write down in tax receipts. More likely it would be reduced further.
3. “Should encourage the Chinese to start moving to more efficient electrical generation(China is the worlds largest CO2 emitter)” - This should probably read “Should encourage the Chinese to stop buying Australian”. In reality, you’d only encourage the Chinese to start moving towards more efficient electrical generation if ALL of it’s coal imports suddenly contained a price on carbon. Mind you, it does beg the question, if a price on carbon would encourage Chinese generators to move towards more efficient electrical generation, then why wouldn’t a price on carbon in Australia do the same for Australian generators?
4. “Gillards plan is to close down Australian manufacturing, jobs and our economy and export all the jobs to China” - Your plan is to close down our coal and perhaps LNG export industries whilst exporting all the associated jobs to our competitor nations. Mind you, under your plan, these would be REAL job losses and mine closures, not like under the government’s plan where the impact will actually be a loss of jobs that could have otherwise been created, i.e. slower growth but growth all the same.
5. “You can’t price carbon on Aussie products and then let foreign competitors import their goods without 1 red cent of carbon tax because you WILL DESTROY our economy” - Yes, but you’re arguing for an EXPORT tariff not an import tariff. They’re completely different things.
TTH - if you’d said that you support a carbon tax on imports from the beginning, you’d probably find a number of keen supporters. It would certainly reduce the need for compensation to Trade Exposed Industries, saving the government revenue, raising taxes, and protecting jobs. Assuming of course there is no retaliatory imposition of subsidies or other tariffs by the exporting nation. However, that’s not what you’re arguing.
Frank Campbell - “Gillard announced yesterday that “Coal has a fantastic future”.” Even the coal industry isn’t denying 70% growth figures - wouldn’t that qualify as “Fantastic”
“Meanwhile, the carbon tax has disappeared up its own exemption…” So Because Fuel rebates being cut technically aren’t “a carbon tax” they don’t have the same impact?
Jimmy: you’re missing the point again- coal is supposed to be the demon, right? Sarah Hyphen wants it gone by 2020.
Gillard is of course right, coal will continue expanding in spite of a carbon tax. Some mines will close. Others will open.
The Greens will try to jack up the carbon tax (assuming an unlikely election win)- but they’ll fail.
Gillard is also a politically tone-deaf fool: cheering the cause of Armageddon while imposing a ludicrously tangled self-cancelling carbon tax…
Abbott doesn’t believe in AGW at all (he lies), while Gillard believes in it only a little bit (she lies too). The rest of the world (outside Europe) doesn’t believe in it either- or so tepidly they’ll do almost nothing.
If they all REALLY believed in catastrophic climate change like some (not all) Greens, you’d see real action.
What we have now is an elaborate mime…
coal miming…
Cheaper domestic coal will have little impact on the price of power to the consumer.
Real example:
870MW power station burns 10kT of coal a day @ $10/T
Current Nemmco price $22.45MW Avg summer price was about $45
You pay about 6 times as much in qld for your power as the generator makes.
A small reduction in the coal price will be absorbed by the on sellers. Energy in all forms never gets cheaper
Thanks for that NPP. Always pays to be informed I guess.
More Gillard Lies
She said today that the carbon tax is being paid by the 500 biggest polutters, not Australian Families.
This is a lie, if the family has a combined income over $100,000 there is no compensation, so they are paying. So she has lied again.
Liverpool Council says that the tax will hit them, for supplies, road base etc and rates will have to increase 10%.
Suzanne - Have you seen the final proposal have you? How do you know where the threshold is? As for the “lie” - if you want to play that game families might pay higher prices and higher income families might not get any compnesation but they aren’t paying the “carbon tax” so how could it be a lie?
Frank - If you had a point there I seem to have missed it. If you are trying to say that a carbon pricing scheme is useless unless it results in the immediate closure of all carbon emitting power stations and the complete removal of CO2 from the atmosphere than you are deluded.
It will be a gradual transition in which coal will still have an importrant role for quite some time but if we want to make the move to cleaner sourcess of energy you have to start somewhere.
“if we want to make the move to cleaner sources of energy you have to start somewhere.”
But I wouldn’t start from here Jimmy.
Just in case anyone is still thinking we are acting alone have a look at this link
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/trade+system/5061888/story.html
@ Jimmy
My Local Labor MP was talking on local radio today and slipped the 100k figure.
So only families where both parents earn under 100k combined, will get compensation.
So….
Gillard said today that the carbon tax is being paid by the 500 biggest polutters, not Australian Families.
This is a lie, if the family has a combined income over $100,000 there is no compensation, so they are paying. So she has lied again.
Suzanne - And does your Local MP know - backbenchers aren’t going to get the detail until Sunday? Who is you Local MP?
And as I said, families might pay the resulting higher prices of a carbon tax but not the tax itself. Who knows some businesses might absorb the cost of the carbon tax and not pass it on. Frankly Suzanne if all you going to worry about nit picking every minor detail in order to paint Gillard as a liar then you really have a sad existence.
GALEG,
You say “Ian, the big problem Labor has recognised is that, if a Carbon Tax is not accepted by business and the electorate, then nothing will be achieved as there would be a good chance of them being thrown out of office at the next election, and for all to revert back to the current situation.”
I think the problem is that Labor does not believe in anything anymore and will do practically anything to stay in power. As a consequence I don’t believe in it. Whatever pathetic scheme it now is forced to adopt because it had to court the Greens etc to retain power is, useless as it is likely to be, is just as susceptible to erosion through vested interest power play as it is to enhancement in the future.
And another thing, why do they have to kowtow to business interests? They are elected by the people, not the corporations. It hasn’t always been like this and many policies adopted by our governments in the past were adopted in spite of vigorous opposition by the big corporations.
Climate change is not just some trivial thing even if America continues to ignore the problem and we use that as an excuse to do so ourselves. Inaction or grossly inadequate action puts our civilization at risk not just of a percent or two reduction in GDP. Already with the warming so far glaciers and ice sheets are melting and they won’t stop while we ponder the effect of small drops (or even big drops) in our GDP.
I could go on but…
Jimmy,
Gillard is a liar, caught red handed, so is Swan. Local MP is member for Dobell.
I do have a sad existance. I am sad the way this Country is headed, very sad. very annoyed and never been outspoken as much as I am now about this government.
Almost 100% of what they touch is a disaster or failure.
Started with Grocery Watch and Fuel Watch, again lies by Rudd and Emerson, right through to the Live Cattle knee jerk stuff up.
Come on Jimmy, I know you are outspoken supported of Labor, jumping to their defence on this board in second, but even you must be worried.
Why don’t we wait until Sunday till we start throwing around accusations of lying, Suzanne.
In the meantime perhaps you could examine your definition of a lie.
Even if the example you have given is true it is not a lie.
Here is a list of statements:
Australian Families do not pay payroll tax, employers do.
Australian Families do not pay Fringe Benefits Tax, employers do.
Australian Families do not pay Company Tax, companies do.
Australian Companies do not pay the medicare levy, individual taxpayers do.
Australian Companies do not pay Income tax, employees do.
Australian Steelmakers do not pay the Mining tax, miners do.
Australian Families do not pay the Mining tax, miners do.
By your logic, Suzanne, these are ALL LIES because:-
Australian Families pay the payroll tax through higher prices on everything that company produces.
Australian Families pay FBT through higher prices on everything that company produces.
Australian Families pay company tax through higher prices on everything that company produces.
Australian Companies pay the medicare levy through higher price of labour needed so employees have enough money to pay the medicare levy.
Australian Companies pay income tax through higher price of labour needed so employees have enough money to pay income tax.
Australian Steelmakers pay the mining tax through higher prices from Iron Ore miners.
Australian Families pay the mining tax through higher prices for steel after the steelmakers jack up their prices because they also paid the mining tax because they had to pay higher prices to the miners who had to jack up their prices because they also paid the mining tax.
WOW!! Every single tax in Australia is paid by every single person and every company and every entity, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! LIAR! LIAR!!!
This smacks of a desperate attempt to characterise Julia Gillard as a “Liar” at every opportunity, regardless of the merits of the situation. Its the end that justifies the means, right? If the end is that you get to yell “Liar liar” with spittle flying out of your mouth and a few of the credulous masses believe it because you said it so often, then that justifies the means (yelling liar when it is not warranted).
Sad.
Mysogynist.
Outrageously partisan.
Completely lacking in objectivity or rational analysis.
Suzanne - You seem to have left Tony off that list of liar’s - I mean after all he admitted it himself.
“Almost 100% of what they touch is a disaster or failure.” According to who?
“even you must be worried” I have never been happier, I have been wanting a price on carbon for years, now bring on the MRRT!
@ Captain Planet
She did lie, no if’s about it. “There will be no carbon tax under a goverment I lead”
Then Swans lie.
Then weeks after the election, she has Treasury doing the costings of a carbon tax.
So in the space of around 4 - 6 weeks, she lied? what part of that cant you understand?
The rest of your gobby gook is spin and misinformation.
@ Jimmy
Yes Politicians do lie - and they need to be held to account. Gillard and Swan Lied. If Abbott and Howard lied, then they are liers as well.
I cannot recall any lies as blatent as the Gillard / Swan lie.
Suzanne,
What has you so annoyed about how this govt is running the country? I’m genuinely asking, I’m disappointed in Labor but no more than the Liberals. I can’t see how things like Grocery Watch, the live cattle ban etc are taking the country in a terrible direction - they’ve had adverse impacts that are of course regrettable but this cuts to the carbon price debate too: there are no free lunches.
Live cattle ban addressed animal welfare over temporart halt in income for some Australians who rear cattle for living. I don’t think they were ever going to solve it quickly so remain sceptical about lifting the ban but it sent a clear message - this means something.
A carbon price is about addressing a fundamental problem - we have been wrecking the planet and continue to do so at a quickening rate. That is scientifically incontrovertible. Does addressing that mean more costs? No sh*t. Does higher cost of living mean we shouldn’t do it? Can anyone argue against this and still consider themselves logical and sane? We are wrecking the planet, I’ll say it again. How can any of us posting on this article board right now settle for inaction? And guess what, the “best” action within the status quo is a carbon price - Tony Abbott’s direct action plan doesn’t have anyone to back it so that’s just out of the picture - can you suggest something better? Go for it. Remember, the brief is: no free lunch. Such a shame, but that’s the cards. And every week we delay bickering over the freaking bill makes the total cost rise.
Suzanne - you must have a short memory, why don’t we try any of Abbott’s previously held positions on climate change and a carbon tax. We could go with his “rolled gold” guarantee on the midcare safety net, his meeting with George Pell, his “no new taxes” parental care levy! None of these ring a bell!!
You really should try to look at the actual issues and not the petty “she lied” rubbish every now and then, you never know you might actually learn something.
@ Jimmy
Abbott is not PM and not leading Australia. Gillard is. If Abbott lied as PM and has the balance of power, he would be held to account as well. Not to say politicians should not lie regardless, but Gillard went to elect say NO CARBON TAX under government I lead.
That is straightforward and concise and direct.
Labor also said before the election no changes to Private Health Insurance Rebate, now they introduce a bill to wind it back. Another lie.
The actual issues is that the Carbon Tax will cost people/voters more and the partial compensation to SOME families wont cover it and Australia will become more uncompetitive and we will slide down the economic pole.
If you dont agree, take a walk into your local pub / RSL etc as ask around, you are in the minority and shrinking minority.
@ Xemplary
What has me so annoyed is the lies (as stated), huge waste with all major programs (Insulation etc), incompetence (Cattle, Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch etc), back stabbing (Rudd etc), spin (daily) and the “secret grab” for cash (eg Australia Post latest increases in parcel post, 22.5% increase in 2 years) to balance the budget.
Suzanne - “Labor also said before the election no changes to Private Health Insurance Rebate, now they introduce a bill to wind it back” They said that before the 2007 election they took it in as policy to this last election, just like howard said “never ever” about the GST.
Abbott was Health minister when he made his “rolled gold” medicare safety net claim immediately before the elcection and then removed it immediately after, how is this different to Gillard. As for having the “balance of power” that is exactly the point here Gillard doesn’t have the balance of power she has to negotiate everything past the independents and the Greens.
As for asking blokes in my pub about the effects of a cabon tax, I prefer to glean my knowledge from qualified people, economists, scientists etc when it comes to these things. If one doctor told me I had cancer but 100 blokes in the pub told me I didn’t I am not going to go with the weight of numbers.
“Huge waste with all major programs” you name one, where are the others and don’t list the BER as it hass been shown not to be wasteful.
Thank you Chess C for the link to a Tim Colebatch article which should have been mandatory reading on this subject. Crikey moderation hides all links until the discussion has left them far behind, so here is the address without the markup, you can copy this into your browser address bar:
theage.com.au/opinion/politics/let-consumers-carry-the-can-on-carbon-20110523-1f0n8.html
Another alternative would have been to recycle the carbon production tax revenue as a secular reduction of the corporate income tax rate. Contrary to popular belief, reducing the company tax rate does not make the rich richer. Rather, it enables more competition to enter markets, makes rich people more abundant instead of richer, makes life tougher not easier for monopolist rent-collectors, and — most importantly for energy reform — speeds up innovation because of competitive pressure. An increase in the overall tax burden on business may have the opposite effect of reducing competition and slowing innovation.
Despite all that, kudos to Julia Gillard for getting a carbon price model through where the petulant Kevin Rudd failed. She did the best she could in extremely difficult circumstances, using such expert advice as was given to her. Not her fault if the chief expert advisor, Ross Garnaut, saw fit to depart from academic integrity and contaminate his advice with political sweeteners.
And Jimmy, don’t bother with your nitpicking games today, I don’t have time for you.
@ Jimmy
Is that the same economists and scientists that Gillard pays to support her on carbon tax? Like Tim Flannery who said that any reductions in emissions wound impact world temperatures for around 1,000 years. Or Garnaut, who track record on the environment is shocking - look at what Lihir Gold did in Papua with him on the Board.
Nicola Roxon and Gillard said NO CHANGES to Private Health insurance before 2010 election, do your homework again.
Waste programs, Insulation, BER (yes Jimmy, huge waste. ie Non Goverment schools got better value than Public schools, duplication, the guy who ‘investigated it’ only investigated what people reported, no Principal will report his school for fear of sacking or career prospects etc etc, use your head), Green Loans, Cash Splahes 1 & 2 going to dead people and people who were overseas, there around 10 other programs as well and finally, Gillard’s increase to her department, 200 odd people to take it to just under 1,000. She did this in the last budget, what do they all do? Please enlighten us as you seem to be clued into the ALP.
No nit picking today Free just one serious question, if Garnaut hadn’t departed from “academic integrity and contaminate his advice with political sweeteners.” do you think Gillard would actually have got a carbon model through? Isn’t it just the price of living in the real world?
Suzanne - “Nicola Roxon and Gillard said NO CHANGES to Private Health insurance before 2010 election, do your homework again.” I will need you to provide some evidence of that, they tried to introduce the same bill they are now twice in the last term.
“Is that the same economists and scientists that Gillard pays to support her on carbon tax?” No it is every credible scientist and economist pretty much worldwide.
“Like Tim Flannery who said that any reductions in emissions wound impact world temperatures for around 1,000 years” Flannery actually said it “could” be 1000 years before a “reduction” in temperatures, remember the goal here is actually to cap the rise in temperature to 2 degrees..
Principals aren’t employed by the federal govt and anyone could make the complaint but I do love this argument “there were many more problems but I have no evidence because no one complained.” completely unprovable but completely irrefutable.
As for the other waste, Green Loans could of been done better, Cash Splashes were incredibly effective providing consumer confidence and supporting the retail sector and the meet the timely and temporary goals of the stimulus and the “waste” was minimal. Public Service increases, have a look at the blow outs in the public service under Howard before you complain, the other 10 programs well I can’t argue because I don’t know what they are and neither do you but even if they exist it is still a long way from “all”
I’m actually open to the idea of a consumption tax instead purely for the reason that it could give a politically palatable model for the US to follow. I think FC is wrong to have a go at Garnaut’s review for being filled with political sweeteners…i’m pretty sure that it wasn’t, although the final package presented will probably have more sweeteners in it than anything Garnaut put forward. To Garnaut’s credit, he has said previously that a consumption based tax would make a lot of sense, it’s just that the principle reason he chose for the current model is because it’s the model which most of the world seems to be moving towards, and as such, makes it easier for us to transition to a global trading system in the future.
Having said that, that’s really just a judgement call. I think if America were to all of a sudden put forward a carbon tax at consumption rather than production, i’d say that there’s a reasonably good chance the rest of the world will adopt to follow suit, especially if not following suit meant not getting America on board.
The campaign of fear revolving around the climate change debate(i use the term in the loosest possible sense) is ridiculous.
The sooner we can accept that certain industries are dead or dying - and that we are moving onto bigger and better things - the sooner we can positively discuss the changes required.
Until then, fear and apathy will rule.
The saddest thing of all is that some of us cannot see past ourselves - cannot see the forest for the trees to use an adage.
Jimmy - That’s a fair question. The answer is maybe, and maybe not. But that’s not an expert advisor’s problem. The expert advisor’s job is to give the best expert advice he or she can. It’s the politician’s job to convert this into something politically acceptable, if necessary by demanding the expert provide second-best and third-best alternatives. There has to be a separation of these roles. The expert can provide option A, option B, etc, while making the extent of the compromises perfectly clear. This Garnaut did not do. Instead in his eagerness to play politician he disguised plan C as plan A and pretended it was economically ideal.
Thus the Climate Change Committee had no impartial academic advice to work with, and was led astray by contaminated advice. That’s why I don’t entirely blame Gillard.
Actually if you read the Colebatch article, the consumption method doesn’t sound all that scary, in fact it sounds more benign while at the same time being more effective for setting a workable international example. Australia has been a standard-setter in economic reforms before; it could have done so again instead of just trying to look like Europe.
Anyway, it’s a fait accompli now, so the sooner we can move on and put pressure on the government for meaningful tax reform, the better. Those who continue to argue against the need for carbon reform are wasting everybody’s time and would do better to address other areas overdue for reform.
MARK DUFFETT: I apologise absolutely for the “Where did you go to school?” Crack. Unwarranted and unnecessary. Sorry.
SUZANNE BLAKE: “”If Abbott and Howard lied, then they are liers as well.”“
I am genuinely puzzled. When did either of them ever not lie?
FC - “But that’s not an expert advisor’s problem. The expert advisor’s job is to give the best expert advice he or she can. It’s the politician’s job to convert this into something politically acceptable” True but I think it’s a moot point, we probably would of ended up where we are anyway. Plus I also agree with Tim Harper Jones in that at some point in the future the goal would be to go to multi national “carbon markets” so uniformity plays a part.
The montreal gazette article I posted earlier mentions that Quebec, British Columbia and California are trying to establish a north American carbon market.
Venise Alstergren - I cant recall blatent lies from eith or them as blatent as Gillard and Swans days before election. I am sure they lied at some stage, all piliticiacs lie, but Gillard and Swan are at extreme end of scale.
Also FC - if Garnuat hadn’t of “politically contaminated” the report it might of caused irrepairable split in the committee, if it’s the price of getting a price on carbon I am happy to pay it.
Suzanne - “rolled gold gaurantee” of the medicare safety net, exactly the same as Gillard (except Abbott was rolled by his own party while Gillard was rolled by the independents). Please try ad listen to someone other than Bolt and Jones.
@ Jimmy
Gillard was not rolled. She could have said no. There is only one extreme Green in the House.
She can negotiate in the Senate with the Coalition like she did to get Senator Hogg appointed President and not the extreme Green option. That was the FIRST vote in the new Senate.
Suzanne - The independents wanted the committee and wanted an interim Carbon Tax to support her.
Getting a mutually agreed upon Senate president is a bit easier than negotiating an ETS (her pre election commitment ot a price on carbon) with Tony who threw the Rudd/Turnball ETS out the window.
I know someone who won’t be paying Dillards breathing tax.
Chinese manufacturers and importers.
This folks is how you kill Australia’s manufacturing industry. Even the most greenest, tree hugging, do-gooder, hippie business WILL PAY MORE carbon tax than dirty Chinese importers.
Thats a fact.
@ TheTruthHurts
Even Jimmy may pay more something in his accounting firm, probably power, stationery and bits and pieces. It will bite harder in the non service industries.
@ Jimmy
The voters in New England and Lyne dont want the Carbon Tax, just look at the polls on their local newspaper websites. The Tamworth one has one up now, and around 90% dont want the carbon tax, even with wads of compensation.
Oakeshott does not walk the streets in Port Macquarie anymore, he is disliked so much he need to hide.
@ Suzanne Blake,
I’m going to offer you a reasonableness test.
Julia Gillard promised (We’ve all heard the sound bite) “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”
Ask yourself… is the following possible?
She meant what she said. She intended to introduce a price on carbon in the form of an emissions trading scheme, and was completely up front about that. She truly intended that a carbon tax would not be implemented under a 2010- 2013 Labor Government.
Then the unexpected happened: Neither Labor nor the Liberal Party got a majority to govern in their own right.
(Actually, the Liberal Party hasn’t had the numbers to govern in their own right on very many occasions in the last hundred years - they continually rely on the support of the National Party, the Country Liberal Party in the N.T., the Liberal National Party from Queensland, and the Nationals W.A. and the Nationals S.A., which are seperate parties again. That’s right, the “Coalition” consists of 6 different parties, who struggle even when combined to amass more votes than the labor party gets as just one party. Funny how conservatives find this 6 - party “coalition” perfectly acceptable, but when the Labor party unites with the Greens this is somehow despicable and unfair. But I digress.)
So Julia Gillard, having in good faith but rather poor political judgement promised there will be a price on carbon, but no carbon tax, is faced with a changed set of circumstances. She is not leading a Labor government, she is leading a coalition government, and compromises must be made. She is faced with a choice: Introduce a carbon tax which will rapidly segue into the carbon trading scheme she promised all along, or risk the stability of the new government. Faced with this dilemma, Julia chooses to introduce a carbon tax, reasoning that it will transition to the ETS she promised fairly quickly and the end result will be the same.
Is it possible that this is what happened?
Don’t tell me what you THINK happened, is it possible?
Because if so, all this “Julia lied, Julia lied” chanting is looking extremely opportunistic and actually a lot like persecution.
On the other hand, do you really, really, believe, in your heart of hearts, that Julia Gillard sat there and said to the cameras, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead. A price on carbon, yes, but I can rule out a carbon tax” all the while thinking to herself, “I fully intend to introduce a carbon tax, sucked in everybody I just told you a barefaced lie and you believed it.”
Supposing for a minute that is how it was. Do you think Julia Gillard is stupid enough not to have realised the political fallout that would arise when she DID introduce a carbon tax? Given that you insist she cares only about clinging on to power, do you think she is so idiotic as to intentionally do that much damage to her reputation, and Labor’s reputation, as to intentionally tell a lie which would be so quickly exposed?
Have a serious think about it. Is it possible that our PM told the truth, but then had to change her position, and wear the consequences?
Consider this. Failing to live up to a promise is NOT the same thing as lying.
But I guess Alan Jones would struggle to make “Promise Breaker” fit into a cruel and moronic parody of our prime minister’s name quite so easily.
C’est la vie.
@ thetruthhurts
1. How much Carbon Tax will there be on a birthday cake?
None, 5 cents, probably less than 20cents ie. who cares? It’s a trival, superficial question. I’ll work it out for when you can tell me the exact source of every supplier of every ingredient (another silly question with a pointless answer)
2. How much Carbon Tax on imported goods from China?
None, they don’t have one - yet. Again, forcing China to address its pollution TODAY, RIGHT NOW is not the point of having a carbon tax.
3. How much will this Carbon Tax reduce world temperatures in Degree’s Celsius.
None. We all acknowledge we’re small-fry on the world scale.
The reasons FOR having a carbon tax already well established : namely to engender a longer-term move to a global reduction in CO2 levels. No-ones ever claimed it’s trying to address your need for cheap cake, a short-term reduction in CO2 levels, or getting China to improve it’s emissions. Sorry, but you and your ilk have completely missed the point of putting a carbon tax in.
@ PeteBoy
Thank you, you have just encapsulated the stupidity of the carbon tax.
“The reasons FOR having a carbon tax already well established : namely to engender a longer-term move to a global reduction in CO2 levels”
We will make no difference, the rest of the world will watch our industry and standard of living decline, the Chinese are laughing at us.
I was in a meeting in Beijing with a group at one of those dinner banquets. They were from a wholly owned government enterprise. The ones that spoke good English, were politely inquisitive as to why Australia would be doing this. They know we are shooting ourselves in the foot. They expect those types of (foot shooting) decisions from a Communist Government, but not a democratic government.
You have obviously not been to China and seen the inner workings of government and non government businesses. They are on a mission to modernise, grow and increase standards of living. If labor is too expensive on the east coast, they will get more from western rural areas. They may do token carbon dioxide reductions, but nothing that will impede growth.
We cant make them, they are the powerhouse for manufacturing. We have no option. If they dont get their iron ore etc from us, they will go to Brazil, where there is NO carbon tax.
Look at the way China has thumbed its nose with revaluing the Yuan.
Wake up please, Jimmy and the rest of you have blinkers on.
Suzanne - “The voters in New England and Lyne dont want the Carbon Tax, just look at the polls on their local newspaper websites.” That may well be the case but that doesn’t change the fact that the members for Lyne and New England forced Gillard to change positions, if you can’t see this then you are completely lacking in rationality and logic.
Do try to consider Captain Planets proposition before just reposting whatever Alan Jones tells you to think.
“Even Jimmy may pay more something in his accounting firm, probably power, stationery and bits and pieces. ” - Yes I will “pay more” but I will also pay less income tax and get more FTB.
TTH - Reposting the same ill informed staement over and over just show you limited capacity for independent thought.
@ Jimmy
I dont even get Alan Jones or Bolt where I live!!
I am holding out hope that the member for Lyne has a change of heart on a whole range of issues in the next 5 weeks. He has given signs already
@ Captain Planet
Gillard has a history of lying and saying what comes into her head suddenly to avoid a perception / voter / media issue.
Look at cash for clunkers, the Climate Change Committee of whatever she called it, The East Timor solution, it goes on and on.
Are you saying she cant say NO to the Greens or others. Nothing happens without ALP and all the independants.
“Supposing for a minute that is how it was. Do you think Julia Gillard is stupid enough not to have realised the political fallout that would arise when she DID introduce a carbon tax? Given that you insist she cares only about clinging on to power, do you think she is so idiotic as to intentionally do that much damage to her reputation, and Labor’s reputation, as to intentionally tell a lie which would be so quickly exposed?”
The fallout has been extreme, she could have backed away like she did with the laughter / outcry over the Climate Committee / Cash for Clunkers etc.
She is doomed whever happens on Sunday. She will get a bounce in the polls, as she is throwing cash again, but its will be small and she will bubble back down again.
She will be replaced within 12 months, its odds on.
Suzanne - “Nothing happens without ALP and all the independants.” Like wise the ALP can’t do anything without the Greens and the independents, Cashfo Clunkers and the climate change committee were both jettisoned by the independents, The East Timor Solution should of been handled differently in the media but again it wasn’t Gillard who “lied” or did a backflip, the East Timorese didn’t play ball.
I am not saying any of these were good policy but the reason they weren’t implemented wasn’t because they were lies.
“Gillard has a history of lying and saying what comes into her head suddenly to avoid a perception / voter / media issue.” Again you seem to be holding Gillard up to one standard while letting Abbott do exactly the same thing, is there a position on climate change and carbon pricing he hasn’t held?
“I dont even get Alan Jones or Bolt where I live!!” And yet you obviuosly have the internet, if you have a “no roght wing nut” filter that I don’t know about could you let me know.
No, it’s a VERY VERY good question, leftists just never think things through.
If this tax…. as the lefties claim, is about reducing CO2 emissions, than it is common bloody sense that consumers can see how much Carbon Tax they are paying on a birthday cake, a car, a fridge, a can of bake beans or anything else for that matter. That way the punters can make a purchase decision based on CO2 emissions.
The GST you can see on every invoice you pay, so why the hell can’t the punters see how much Carbon Tax they are paying?
So local manufacturers… no matter how clean, green and tree hugging will be paying a carbon tax, but dirty, smoggy Chinese factories importing goods won’t have to pay 1 red cent in carbon tax.
How will our manufacturers compete?
Lets scrap the plan then and not destroy the Australian economy.
BTW the real environmental issue is population growth, global warming is just a distraction.
@ The Truth Hurts
“BTW the real environmental issue is population growth, global warming is just a distraction.”
Absolutely correct, and WE need to position ourselves as a major food source. This means making marginal and arids lands vaiable.
The ONLY way to do this is to pipe lots of created water inland, the scale of which we have never seen.
The Greenies wont like it, but their vege patches wont feed the world, nor baskets big enough to take the food that will be needed to market.
the other solution of course is drastic population controls or we find more livable planets
Thats because Dillard didn’t bother ringing them before announcing the policy.
What a stupid stupid little woman.
This is the 3 step way Labor does policy making:
1. Announce new Policy without discussing with anyone affected/involved (Mining Tax, East Timor Solution, Cattle Ban, etc etc etc)
2. Watch the fireworks as those involved don’t just take Labors policy lying down and vocally attack the policy
3. Backflip and blame it all on Kevin
Yes we should be putting our efforts into population control in places like India.
India will soon outgrow China as the worlds most populous nation. The difference between China and India? China has a sustainable 1 child policy, India does not.
Places like Japan have already engaged in population controls(strict immigration laws) and has a flat line population. Thats the sort of effort 1st world countries like Australia could look at.
If we can slow or stop population growth, we will be reducing CO2 emissions. If the population keeps growing, CO2 emissions will continue to grow. This is unstoppable.
Everyone should remember that it in 1960’s the world population was 3 Billion and it is now 6.8 Billion. If we had 1960’s population we probably wouldn’t have a problem.
“This is the 3 step way Labor does policy making:
1. Announce new Policy without discussing with anyone affected/involved (Mining Tax, East Timor Solution, Cattle Ban, etc etc etc)
2. Watch the fireworks as those involved don’t just take Labors policy lying down and vocally attack the policy
3. Backflip and blame it all on Kevin”
And yet by the end of the year we will have a Carbon tax legislated and a MRRT legislated.
Back on the impact our carbon price will have let me ask what impact Quebec’s will have by itself, or California’s, or France’s, or New Zealands, or South Africa’s or any of the many many coiuntries that have one? Individually not much, collectively substantial, as I said earlier it is like you donating $10 to a billion dollar disaster relief fund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#France
Have a look at this link to see just what other countries are doing
@ Suzanne Blake,
since you are starting to exhibit the inability to address questions asked of you (a characteristic apparently endemic to our right wing peanut gallery here at crikey, with a few notable and respectable exceptions) I will put the question to you again.
Do you believe Julia Gillard was intentionally lying when she promised “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” or do you allow the possibility that she meant what she said, then had to reconsider her position after the election, to take the changed circumstances into consideration?
Captain - I’m giving clearly TTH and Suzanne don’t want logic or fact to cloud their “right” view of the world, best of luck.
@ Captain Planet
“Do you believe Julia Gillard was intentionally lying when she promised “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” or do you allow the possibility that she meant what she said, then had to reconsider her position after the election, to take the changed circumstances into consideration?”
Yes she intentionally lied. She knew it was toxic and the election was close, she was put on the spot and she took the lie option. Simple as that.
When she announced the Carbox Tax in February, she did not explain her lie for several days, when the revolt happened and the old tapes were played. So this alone shoots down your spinning theory.
Then her MP a week later start talking price on carbon, dropping carbon tax wording.
The opposition deserves a share of the blame for this. Unlike NBN where Turnbull did not let his objection to this particular broadband model stop him from pacing NBN every step of the way and trying to exert damage control, Abbott and Hunt refused to take any part in carbon pricing negotiations. They could have said, “We still object to all forms of carbon pricing but if you must do it, do it properly.” Instead they bloody-mindedly abandoned the whole design to the Greens, Labor, and Rob Oakeshott (I don’t count Windsor).
People who still have an almost religious objection to carbon pricing may be impressed by this; I’m not. Even if the whole emission-climate relationship is a hoax, there are still worse things to tax than carbon consumption. For example, our whole tax system is overweighted to taxing investment savings, FFS, and this is one of the reasons why Australia’s total factor productivity has been in decline for ten years. Why could not the Coalition have argued for replacing a lot of this with the no more harmful — probably far more economically benign — taxation of carbon consumption?
@Suzanne
“The Greenies wont like it, but their vege patches wont feed the world, nor baskets big enough to take the food that will be needed to market.”
Vegetables, fruit, grains, nuts managed properly and grown with sustainable practices can easily feed the world. I certainly do not want Soylent Green processed crap which is the way we are heading by destroying our fertile land.
“Absolutely correct, and WE need to position ourselves as a major food source. This means making marginal and arids lands viable.”
Correct. However meat, dairy and unsustainable farming have/are destroying our viable lands.
“The ONLY way to do this is to pipe lots of created water inland, the scale of which we have never seen.”
Your electorate first? (sorry couldn’t resist)
“the other solution of course is drastic population controls or we find more livable planets”
Agreed. Population control should be on the table. Along with space/ocean exploration.
The main point as I see it is that our forebears have, through ignorance or greed, not done the best by us. We trust in them(and pay them quite well) to do so, but in certain aspects they have failed us and failed us greatly. Now we have a choice and a chance to correct some if these errors.
@ TTH - I just cannot believe any sane person would vote Abbott(A-butt - appropriate really considering the $hit that spews forth from him and his team). How childish to state that we are in opposition so we oppose.
Remember Whaling was once our major source of income. I’m certainly glad that we had foresight enough that I and my children and their children can experience this magical natural wonder. I can only pray that
@ Baggers
“Absolutely correct, and WE need to position ourselves as a major food source. This means making marginal and arids lands viable.”
Correct. However meat, dairy and unsustainable farming have/are destroying our viable lands.
I disagree, over generalisation. Unsustainable farming, yes, not the other two.
“The ONLY way to do this is to pipe lots of created water inland, the scale of which we have never seen.”
Your electorate first? (sorry couldn’t resist)
No problem. We can pipe underground. There is so much coastline that could be used away from houses etc.
“the other solution of course is drastic population controls or we find more livable planets”
Agreed. Population control should be on the table. Along with space/ocean exploration.
@ Jimmy & Captain Planet
The ALP have a solution
“AN influential Labor strategist has called for the major parties to starve the Greens of preferences in a One Nation-style pincer movement designed to kill the party.
Former Victorian ALP secretary Stephen Newnham predicted the ALP and the Coalition would soon swap preferences to isolate the Greens federally and at a state level.
Mr Newnham said the Greens had reached a tipping point in politics and the party should continue to be heavily scrutinised.
“I think it’s only a matter of time before the Greens are given the One Nation treatment,” he told The Australian”.
Dear @ Jimmy,
Oh dear Jimmy who said …”dont mentioned the BER as waste” on this topic thread yesterday.
read and weap, Sir. Just released and headline news.
Now you can apologise, or will you blame someone else or have a new spin on it?
— — —
“MORE than $1.5 billion has been wasted in the eastern states under the federal Government’s Building the Education Revolution schools stimulus program, with the nation’s two biggest states failing to provide value for money under the program.
The third and final report into the BER, conducted by former investment banker Brad Orgill, has found Victorian and NSW, have not delivered value for money for public schools under the program with public schools charged an average of up to 60 per cent more for school buildings, despite no differences in quality.
NSW public schools were charged on average $3448 per square metre for all classrooms, halls and libraries delivered, compared to $2707sqm for NSW Catholic schools - a 27 per cent premium.
Buildings delivered to NSW public schools cost on average, 60 per cent more than buildings delivered to NSW independent schools, which cost $2156sqm.
Victorian public schools were charged $3075sqm for buildings compared to $2406 for Victorian Catholic schools and $1975 for Victorian independent schools - 56 per cent more than public schools.
Comparing the rates charged to public schools in the eastern states which each delivered the program using expensive project managers to the rates paid by Catholic schools shows $1.53 billion has been wasted in NSW, Victoria and Queensland under the program.
When compared to independent school the figure balloons further.
“The NSW and Victorian governments were responsible for delivering 37 per cent of the program,” the taskforce said.
”We believe their poorer performance on both cost and observed quality has been influenced by the hollowing out of public works capacity over the last 20 years, which has limited the ability to effectively manage an outsourced delivery model.
“Their school communities were also disenfranchised. It was a mistake not to embrace school communities more effectively in decision making.
“A proportion of schools could have worked directly with a managing architect to self-manage their projects. Quality would likely have been higher and complaints lower.”
She could have told the Greenies to shove their Carbon Tax and set her own agenda.
Would have won admiration from the Australian public for being a strong leader, even if we had to go back to the polls.
Instead she took the gutless wonder approach and caved into the Greenies. Once again…. no consideration, discussions or negotiation with those involved(the Aussie Tax payer) and announces the decision anyway.
Gillard just isn’t leadership material. All she is worried about is keeping her arse in the lodge and she’ll destroy Australia and it’s economy if that is what is required to do so.
@ TheTruthHurts
Absolutely right.
What we need is a leader change with the coalition and an olive branch to Windsor and Oakeshott. That is the quickest fix
Suzanne - “Now you can apologise, or will you blame someone else or have a new spin on it?” I’ll wait to read the actual reprt rather than a report from a newspaper that has conducted a systematic campaign against the BER before I make a judgement.
I will however say that the first Orgill report that there was waste, however they found that the waste was within acceptable parameters considering the speed required to ensure the “timliness” goal of the stimulus package ie there was a price to be paid for getting money quickly into the economy and preventing a recession. At $1.5b (about 8% of the total cost) I would expect that this would be found to be within the acceptable limits but as I said I will wait to see the full report.
TTH - “She could have told the Greenies to shove their Carbon Tax and set her own agenda.” Her per election agenda was to get a price on carbon via an ETS, do you really think not taking a 2 year “carbon tax” to achieve her long term goal was a reasonable compromise, do you want your leader to sacrifice long term goals to keep a promise.?And can you tell me how an “carbon tax” effects the average voter differently from an “ETS”?
Has it occurred to you that Windsor and Oakeshott both chose to negotiate with the government instead of the 6 - party coalition opposition, because:-
a) They both agree with the need for a price on carbon
b) They both realise that with 9 greens senators, any legislation to go before the senate for the next 6 years will require the support of the greens unless labor and the coalition vote on it together.
There is little likelihood of the Greens supporting any prospective coalition legislation which labor opposes, thus the coalition would be rendered unable to govern unless their legislation meets the requirements of either the greens or labor.
Hardly a “quick fix” eh?
“The Taskforce has continued to build its program cost data on BER and remains of the view that
the premium paid to deliver BER relative to pre-BER costs was, as a national average, 5-6 per cent.”
This is from the actual report, so the “waste” would be less than$1.5b nationally and within acceptable limits given the BER’s stimulus objectives.
THE TRUTH: Australian manufacturing died a long, long time ago. In Victoria it started to die when the so called Liberal premier, Henry Bolte, killed everything in order to snuggle up to the giant car companies. He, as a good Liberal premier always used to do. Even gave himself a knighthood for killing off the train system-in order to build more and more highways for people to drive themselves nowhere.
I don’t know which of you, Suzanne or you, has the more weak-witted outlook on Oz politics. You are both congenital liars. Thus do you both represent the coalition-who lie for a living. Not unlike the Murdoch press. But hell, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
Agricultural industry is to be excluded from carbon pricing due to the Carbon Farming Initiative offsets scheme being established by the Australian Government to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and landholders to help the environment by reducing carbon pollution where land use and water issues are important.
Great. So it appears that the livestock owners who trash these lands, send carbon emissions soaring and hog 15 tonnes of precious water to produce just one kilogram of beef so they can dump 2.5 million animals (30-40 thousand critters each year) into our oceans are to be rewarded?
Who the feck’s running this show?
SUZANNE BLAKE:
“”Venise Alstergren - I cant recall blatent lies from eith or them as blatent as Gillard and Swans days before election. I am sure they lied at some stage, all piliticiacs lie, but Gillard and Swan are at extreme end of scale.”“
You must have a personal assistant who normally does your typing.