text:
ARCHIVED Blog Pages
What is Science
The Evidence (AGW is disproved)
Evidence (definition)
The evidence that AGW fans need to provide
All posts connected to AGW disproved
All posts tagged "evidence"
Logic and Reason
ClimateGate: 30 year timeline
ClimateGate: Thirty Years in the Making (Edition 1.1)
Hockey Stick Graph
The hot spot graphs
The Models are wrong
All hot spot related pages
Sea-levels – last 200 years
Australian Sea-levels
Oceans – missing heat
Roman Warm Period
Holocene Period
Vostok Ice Core Graphs
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
Last 65 million years (graphs)
Surface Stations (problems with)
Australian Temperature data
Surface Records
Homogenisation
Micro-siting problems
Thermometer selection (mystery loss of data)
Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)
Australian Research Council Grants
Big-Green
Big-Bankers
Big-Government
Australian Elected Representatives – Emails and phones
Western Australian State Government email list
Donations for the Thompson children
Posts tagged "Thompsons"
Odour reduction practices at Narrogin Beef Producers
Photos of The Thompsons
The Wong Fielding Meeting on Global Warming — Documents
Media Related
Key Links in the Global Warming Debate
Debunking
Direct Debit or Cheque
Skeptics Handbook
Skeptics Handbook Art
Serious Science Party Tricks
Books delivered in Australia
Books Delivered Overseas
Other information on Jo
Rules & Legal
Hands-on science
Bubble-mix-science
Bubbles and Clouds in Ice
Diver in a bottle
Suck a water balloon into a bottle
The air-powered water rocket
Corporate Cornflour
Get Laughs, Get Attention, Get Your Message Across
My 300th Birthday
Expert Predictions
Feedback from schools
'Y?' – The childrens TV science show
A perfectly good civilization is going to waste…
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
The worst drought in history viewed through carbo-phobic glasses: ABC misses the obvious
Apollo 11: The inside story of the glorious technical mastery, the risks, the leap
Former Greens leader Bob Brown campaigns against wind farm
Weekend Unthreaded
Vegans save a cow, kill 1,000 mice. Eat less red meat, get anemia.
Climate scare machine — happy to use people with a mental illness as a promotional tool:
Midweek Unthreaded
Antarctica was warmer one thousand years ago — and life was OK
Falling sea levels bleaches corals — hear from Jen Marohasy in Maroochydore, Sunday
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
Think it has been debunked? See here.
Australian Politics (155)
Satire & Parody (126)
Climate Money (78)
Australian temperatures (77)
JoNova's Favourites (68)
Evans (David) (68)
Wind Power (56)
Monckton (Christopher) (52)
Electricity Cost (47)
Climate Models (46)
Electricity Grids (45)
Carbon Tax (42)
Lewandowsky (Stephan) (40)
SA (South Australia) (40)
IPCC (39)
Big-Government (39)
Sea Level (39)
US Politics (39)
Solar Power (38)
ClimateGate (34)
Global Temperatures (33)
Missing Hot Spot (30)
Adjustments to data (28)
Cooling & cold snaps (28)
United Nations (UN) (27)
Climate Research 2015 (27)
- Guide for Commenting
AGW socio-political
Geostrategic
Logic & Reason
Media-matters
Monetary History
Science of Money
Student Resouce
The Skeptics Handbook
Lewandowsky – Shows "skeptics" are nutters by asking alarmists to fill out survey »
« Wind farms — are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do
So much for certainty? Just two months later, Australia starts changing the carbon tax.
The Australian Government,via Greg Combet, announced this week that Labor's version of certainty is the kind that is un-certain. For two years they've been emphatically declaring that "Australia needs certainty" or it's variant, "Business needs certainty" . (Right before that, they were emphatically declaring that "There will be no carbon tax", so later, when they did exactly what they said they wouldn't do, we found out what certainty means to the Australian Labor Party. It isn't the kind of certainty that helps business and voters "establish beyond doubt" what a vote for a Labor Government means.)
While people are saying we have now linked Australia's carbon "price" (from 2015 onwards) to the EU market. In effect it was linked before, as I mentioned here. Now that link is rearranged. Previously Australian companies could buy ultra cheap EU options but had to top them up to the floor price, but now they won't have to pay extra to lift it to $15/ton.
Mr Combet said the government was not considering any other changes to the scheme. [Source: The Australian]
Yes, and we believe him don't we?
Things are slightly more sane than they were last week, but the difference is negligible, and may not come into effect if the Coalition wins the next election a year from now. We are discussing changes to a scheme that may never occur in order to solve a problem that never was.
BlueScope Steel chairman Graham Kraehe said that the government's move to dump the controversial $15-a-tonne floor price was a "tiny step in the right direction".
"However it completely fails to address the major issue," Mr Kraehe said. "For three years until July 2015, Australian businesses already struggling to compete due to a high Australian dollar, high costs and excessive regulation will also be subject to the world's highest carbon price." [The Australian]
I explained previously that while Europeans can buy credits for $4 per ton (and Australians will pay $23 — or at least $15) This new move would change that from 2015.
Scott the energy trader puts the changes into perspective with some details
When I spoke to Scott on the phone, the word he used about these changes was "panic". He said he could not explain the details of this madness easily to the man on the street, but the number of changes, the backflips and the unexpected and random nature of them suggested bureaucrats were in a state of panic.
It was …"A development we didn't expect until about a week ago regarding which scheme Australia could link to for our certificates. Previously we could only have purchased CERs – which are down at $3.50 Aussie for 2012 CERs. Now with the proposed formal linkage to the European scheme we will be tied to their scheme pricing, ie EUAs which for the comparable period of 2012 are currently trading at ~ $9.80 Aussie. Still only a limit of 50% can be used here in Aus until 2018. Included in that 50% limit is a sub limit of 12.5 % for how many Kyoto compliant, ie CERs, (and some other acronyms, ERUs etc..) can be used. It is a significant change. One of the many questions will be how Australian businesses will be saddled with the same price when many Euro businesses are getting free permits (notwithstanding out own Export Assistance aspect to the legislation)…it's still not apples with apples.
According to the energy trade market, experts don't think carbon credits will be worth much in 2015, nothing close to the value the Australian Treasury models put on them.
Another interesting aspect which is surely going to end with egg on Combet's face is the fact that he came out and reaffirmed the 2 year old Treasury forecast of a carbon price of $29 for 2015/16. The market here today smacked down the back end – though in thin volume – because no one really believes it is going to be anywhere near that. Eg NSW calendar 15 carbon inclusive are trading this week at $53 while the carbon exclusive is around $47, ie the market says $6 for carbon in 2015. Given the first part of 2015 will still be fixed price of ~$25.35 and the second half will be floating somewhere around $12 implied by 2012 EUA prices giving approximately $18.50 expected for the full 2015 year….the market is saying it is highly probable that Abbott wins and throws the whole thing out….and certainly no implied $29 there to support Treasury.
The $25 billion revenue hole
Henry Ergas predicts that if the carbon tax falls to only $10 or so (instead of $29), the governments forecast revenue is now missing about $25 billion from 2015-2020.
Labor has lots of revenue holes at the moment.
"Future governments may need to raise $120 billion – or almost $20,000 for the average four-person family – by the end of the decade to pay for Labor's spending commitments." [Financial Review via Bolt]
Why hog-tie us to a collapsing EU economy?
The price of carbon after 2015 will depend heavily on what European bureaucrats do. They can, at a flick, wipe out many paper credits, pushing up the price, and Australians will have to pay more for their energy, but we'll get no say at all in those decisions. The EU is not a mining economy, and doesn't export a lot of coal either, so they certainly won't be taking those industries into account when they"fix" the price in this very unfree market. Henry Ergas unpicks it all so well:
Not that anyone would want to say unkind words about the EU's economic policy skills – it is a sin to speak ill of the dead. But even assuming the EU manages to pull off the second resurrection in recorded history, it is hard to imagine economies less like Australia's.
And with the EU accounting for less than 5 per cent of world emissions, it is hardly as if we are linking to carbon markets that are particularly representative, deep or resilient. On the contrary, those markets' most striking feature has been persistent instability.
Then again, maybe that is why the Greens can live with this change: because it means the Australian carbon price will ultimately be set by countries without any base in natural resources, much less in mining.
No need for the Europeans to worry about what carbon prices, if any, are being charged by Australia's resource competitors – and worry about them the EU certainly won't.
Yet we should. The EU exempts virtually all its export industries from its emissions trading scheme; we don't exempt ours. So it is the EU that will decide, but our living standards that will suffer. With the Nobel prize in economics only weeks away, whoever devised this scheme won't be wasting any money in sending the monkey costume off to the dry cleaners.
But then since we didn't get a say in the carbon tax in the first place, I suppose you could say not much has changed.
UPDATE: Don't forget to vote in Climate Prat of The Year at Pointmans blog. It's a tough choice.
Rating: 9.4/10 (61 votes cast)
So much for certainty? Just two months later, Australia starts changing the carbon tax., 9.4 out of 10 based on 61 ratings
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9ckjp4w
August 31st, 2012 | Tags: Australian Politics, Carbon Tax | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | Email This Post |
135 comments to So much for certainty? Just two months later, Australia starts changing the carbon tax.
ExWarmist
Hush now – the central planners have it all in hand – they know what they are doing…
/sarc
Oliver K. Manuel
You are right. Central planners believe that they control the whole world !
Why? "Nuclear fires" that consumed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 and Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945 scared world leaders into following the consensus opinion of guilt-ridden nuclear scientists like C. F. von Weisäcker:
"What should we do? We played with fire like children and it flared up before we expected it."
[Robert Jungk, Brighter than a Thousand Suns (Mariner Books, Oct 1970, 384 pp) p. 335] http://www.amazon.com/Brighter-than-Thousand-Suns-Scientists/dp/0156141507
World leaders established the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 to
a.) Unite the world's diverse governments into a single one-world government
b.) Reduce racism, nationalism, and the threat of a nuclear apocalypse:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/26/258252/nuke-powers-push-globe-to-apocalypse/
The dissenting opinion of another nuclear scientist in Aug 1945 was overlooked:
"The beginning of the world may have been just like this."
[(Paul) Kazuo Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer Publishing, Dec 1982, 165 pp) p.2] http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3540116796
Standing in the ashes of Hiroshima one day in Aug 1945, Kuroda saw Hope for utilizing the enormous energy of "nuclear fires" that originally gave birth to the world !
Society received many benefits from the decision to form the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 before Climategate exposed in Nov 2009 the unanticipated consequence of changing experimental science into the more lucrative practice of consensus science in 1946.
Subsequent efforts to resolve the global climate scandal failed because of another unanticipated consequence of 1945 actions:
Constitutional limits on government are required
To restore research integrity to government science.
See: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/ . . .
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
See also : http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-234608
It was all worked out by Conroy and Gillard on a napkin while the VIP jet was in the air somewhere, she chose him for advice because he worked out NBN Co and didn't need a cost benefit analysis.
I remember people arguing that "pollution was not costed, and hence people polluted", so now we have a price on carbon, supposedly because it is "pollution". I can guess that when the market prices CO2 "pollution" at $0, then the very same people will scream that the market must be fixed to put a "true" price on pollution…
And we will go around the circle again…
AndyG55
If there was a "true" price on "true" pollution
…….. the energy companies would get a rebate for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Baa Humbug
…….Christine Milne would have to pay a fine every time she opened her mouth.
You're not wrong. Every time she opens her cakehole, the IQ in the room drops 15 points on the Baufort scale.
Difference between Christine Milne and Bob Brown? Christine doesn't wear lipstick.
Christine Milne, May 4:
ESTABLISHING a floor price is critical to certainty, as is sticking by an agreement once it has been delivered.
Milne, May 8:
GETTING rid of it would not only be a blow to business certainty but would also potentially blow a hole in the budget.
Milne, Radio National Breakfast, July 4:
IF you allow the volatility that has occurred in Europe, you get kind of chaos in the system.
Milne, Aug 28:
Christine Milne backed the change, saying Europe had such a stake in the success of its scheme that it would manipulate the market to drive up the carbon price.'
Why would any business set any benchmark based on anything that Christine Milne says?
$0 is way too high! Carbon dioxide release should attract generous payments.
The only certainty I perceive is that all of these carbon taxes and trading schemes are there to funnel money from Australians to an unelected undemocratic United Nations bureaucracy to further their anti-human agenda.
Can you think of anything good the UN has done? Me either.
KinkyKeith
It's rare these days that I tread in dog shit and have it all over my shoe.
If I do I scuff it off on the grass and soap and water when I get home.
Which reminds me.
It's time we got rid of, or at least got out of, the United Useless Nasty Nations Organisation.
It smells a lot worse!
inedible hyperbowl
Speedy, the UN is evil. Start counting the slaughters that have occurred whilst the UN "discusses" the matter.
Agree. I was talking to a friend at work and she was discussing her experience of the UN in Africa. One day, she was on this ferry and all the top deck (first class) seats were full, when this UN delegation shows up.
This fat Greek guy holds up a big blue certificate and says "UN – UN. We have first class seat, please give us a seat." My friend says – "We've all got first class seats – you've missed out on yours." (She was smart enough to know the ferries always oversold their first class seats.)
He says (seeing she was white and blonde "Where do you come from?". She says "I come from Australia and I work for a mining company." And then the spittle did fly…
He was obviously cheesed not to have his ample buttocks parked on a chair (maybe two), but he justified his rage via the injustices being perpetrated by the mining industry on Africa and Africans in particular. My friend is quite petite so it was very brave of him to embark on this diatribe, but he nonetheless went on and on about corruption, theft of resources, discrimination etc. by the mining industry.
Until this even more petite old lady walked up to him, reached up, and tapped him on the shoulder. She was not white or blonde or young. And she said. "Excuse me, sir. I also work for this mining company. If I did not have this job, my 3 children would not have had an education, they would not have had adequate health care, in fact, they would not even be alive. As it is, my family has prospered by contributing to this company, and I would regard it as a very successful partnership.
Now, please sir. Can you tell me what the UN has done for me?
The fat controller and his cronies decamped to second class.
Speedy.
Hey! Lay off the UN. It's declared lots of … World something Day's. And sent lots of Africans wearing blue helmets to … err … stand around in conflict zones. And is working on eradicating malaria … or is that Bill Gates? Anyway, I'm sure that valuable tall building by the New York waterside is being put to good use, so … just lay off. Sorry, what was the question again?
That was brilliant speedy.
As always, a real life example can say so much.
My utter disgust in the UN peace keeping arena was illustrated by the experience of Dutch UN Peace Keepers during the Serbian, Bosnia Croatian conflict. They were forced, by PC -UN Ethics considerations to turn over men in their compound to the enemy.
Many of those soldiers required psychiatric treatment (the PC fix for mental damage)because they could hear these men being murdered not long after they were removed.
The UN is a waste of human resources and needs to be shut down or exposed as the fraud it is.
What a way to start Saturday.
Time for something more cheerful.
Don't look away from the spotlight on this issue for "something cheerful", KK
That is exactly what the UN want us to do, focus on anything else other than directly upon their performance, their plans and the enormous amounts of money siphoned off to them when more effective measures could have been done by people accountable for their actions. This is what we should be talking about, the anti human bastardisation known as the UN doesn't want the glare of that spotlight upon it because then we would realise that it is entirely superfluous to human need and is the greatest obstructive force to world advancement, poverty abatement and peace.
Compare what an individual like Oprah Winfrey has done in Africa and you get a sense of how useless and ineffective it really is, and at a premium to boot.
Bullust
Best I can tell the UN is a retirement home for aged politicians. Notice how chummy Ban Ki Moon and Ruddy were. Obviously the latter was being groomed for the UN.
Bulldust
Don't forget Tony Blair and Helen Clark, and soon-to-be Julia
But they are all too busy working out how to control the world via their world government to bother with distractions.
Fred Furkenburger
In some ways it really is a pity that "all the big polluters" didn't just turn round and say "we can't operate under this new regime (carbon tax) so we will all just turn off our plant" (read power generators amongst other things} and go "home":. Of course they should, to be fair, tell the government that when their services were needed again they might consider coming back and turning them on again. Now that would send the right message to all the right people (including the greenies!).
Personally that might be a problem for me because I wouldn't be able to catch up with Jo's daily post!!
The next week of parliament, and only the company that supplies parliament house. and especially the Lodge.
Its still pretty cold down in Canberra at this time of year
Oh, and find out where Swan, Combet and the Greens stay, and give them a good dose of the reality of NO electricity.
Australian fairy dust is worth the 4 x premium of it its EU cousin. If you look closely there is simply a better look and feel to a ton of Australian carbon fairies. You simply just don't get that with the EU version.
Tony Abbott needs to make it CATEGORICALLY CLEAR that he will remove BOTh the CO2 tax AND the ETS !! (and preferably the Renewable Energy Target as well, AND dump the Lib's Direct Action Plan.)
I have emailed the Libs several times asking for this clarification, AND HAVE GOT NO REPLY !!!!
If the Libs remove the Carbon Tax and THEN go to an ETS, they will be being just as deceitful as Gillard and Swan.
Juliar
If they do, the electorate will abandon them in droves. I would not vote for them if they did that. I think they would be smart enough to realise that. Only a leadership challenge with Turnbull or potentially ockey winning would result in that outcome.
memoryvault
If they do . . .
It's in the Liberal Party's written Environment Policy – an ETS with a floor price of $15.00.
Why oh why do people go on deluding themselves that that Liberals intend doing anything else?
I suspect that is why they will NOT answer me.
This issue MUST be clearly resolved by the Liberals VERY SOON !!
Anyone with any contacts within or to the Liberal Party MUST press them on this issue.
Make them STATE CATEGORICALLY they they will remove both CO2 tax and any future possibility of an ETS !!
I have asked you many times, where is this ETS policy that you speak of?
MV says its the policy.. I haven't looked.
I just want to hear TA say that the ETS will also be dropped completely (or get an email from the Lib).. SOMETHING !!!
I sent off another 5 emails to different Liberals today. I wonder if I will get a response..
If not, then why not. ???????????
I really want EVERYONE HERE to press the Libs for and answer to…..
"What will happen to the ETS under a Liberal government?"
because I'm not getting an answer, and its starting to really PI88 me off. !!!!
AndyG55, Abbott received the leadership based on his opposition to an ETS over Turnbull. I highly doubt he will introduce an ETS.
Andrew McRae
Juliar,
Where where you at 11pm AEST on the night of 20 August 2012? Do you have an alibi? Because that is the time at which MV directly answered your question about where the Liberal document supporting the ETS resides.
I recall clicking it and reading it and having that growing sense of unease that Libs really are the Hugo Boss branded version of the Labor party – including a commitment to carbon emissions reduction and a Green Army that includes local (shudder) "Climate Action Groups".
The document begins the key promises section quite innocuously:
In February 2010, the Coalition announced its Direct Action Plan on the Environment and Climate Change. It showed that instead of an Emissions Trading Scheme – which is a great big new tax on electricity and groceries – there are practical, affordable and effective ways of improving our environment and reducing our carbon emissions without harming the economy.
INSTEAD? Well that does sound hopeful. Unfortunately "reducing carbon emissions" is still held to be valuable, and unless the pointlessness of that position is recognised by the Libs they are still going to try to "take action". Thankfully their Direct Action shenanigans cost a lot less than an ETS, assuming they cancel the ETS, BUT THEY HAVE NEVER SAID THEY WILL.
The kicker, as MV pointed out to you, is page 7, promise #3 "National Energy Efficiency Partnership" wherein they state:
The Coalition will work with a range of industry groups including the Clean Energy Council, the Energy Efficiency Council, the Green Buildings Council and the Property Council to develop complementary energy efficiency measures.
According to the Clean Energy Council, a combination of clean energy measures and a CO2 abatement price of $15 per tonne could yield an annual CO2 emissions reduction of 20-30 million tonnes by 2020.
Who is the Clean Energy Council? The CEC proudly tells us that in the last 12 months:
The CEC publicly explained the importance and benefits of a carbon price in Australia throughout 2011 and worked with politicians to ensure the final carbon price package maximised outcomes for clean energy.
The CEC led a delegation to COP17 in Durban to ensure the clean energy industry had a strong voice in the negotiations.
A memorandum of understanding was signed with the International Emissions Trading Association to enable our two organisations to work closer together.
In light of the uncertainty the [RET] review will create for the industry, the CEC has worked to tighten up its terms of reference through the Clean Energy Future package. As a result, the RET review will now only consider refinements to the scheme i.e. it can't result in the RET being removed.
A series of meetings have been convened with network companies to better understand the issues arising from the rapid deployment and expansion of household PV.
The CEC is now in the process of forming a Smart Grid Working Group. Having participated in the Standards Australia consultation process for its Smart Grid Standards Roadmap, the CEC and its members are in the process of setting the working group's agenda for 2012.
Right, so the CEC has inked deals with international bankster-backed carbon traders, is mad keen on controlling your home appliances via smart grids, is busy astroturfing for the ambient energy businesses, those businesses are expecting a $15/t C price to keep their sales up, and it seems the CEC even lobbied its own favoured language into the text of the Clean Energy Future legislation that became law, and that's who Libs are taking advice from and "will work with". The CEC board is chaired by a "Fellow of the Taxation Institute of Australia" and is packed with experienced managers who look like they wouldn't sit around on a sinking ship for very long.
The argument, circumstantial though it may be, is that the CEC is not going anywhere so neither is the ETS under the Liberals.
I'd really like to love the Liberals, but you know, Mr Rabbit, if you're listening, I just need to hear those three little special words from you. I need to hear you say them, Tony. Just those three little words. "Liberals cancel ETS".
Blind we are if creation of this Green Army we could not see.
The key word is "could". May I also add that what is said there is not an adoption of the Clean Energy Council's recommendations. For some reason I can never access the Liberal party's webpage so I can't take a look at the whole document in order to understand the context of what is being stated.
It is my understanding that the Coalition has clearly and in public stated that in government they would abandon the CO2 tax. They do agree that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is worth pursuing but the way to achieve it is what the Howard government was doing. They signed the Kyoto Protocol but declined from ratifying it because they were not prepared to face hefty penalties if the targets for reduction were not achieved. They established in 1998 a Greenhouse Office and from there many projects were developed and as a result, last time I saw the information, Australia was on track to do better than the Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions reduction and most signatory countries were well exceeding their targets.
Howard at one stage favoured an emissions trading scheme but was only prepared to start one if and when the developed world agreed to this. As we know most have not and Copenhagen conference was a flop and Kevin07′s government abandoned plans for an ETS. The carbon tax con and the latest ill considered plan to join the EU scheme is Green Union Labor's latest debacle.
Considering all of the stupid decisions and actions of the deceitful incompetent federal government, dysfunctional and chaotic (and disunited) as it is who in their right mind would consider voting them back for another term? Tony Abbott has made it very clear that CO2 tax will be dumped. And a similar outlook to the Howard government.
If they are really targeting real pollution why has the Environmental Pollution Acts and enforcement not been mentioned? The fact is that 30-40 years ago developed nation governments started to attack all polluters with fines and auditing requirements and as a result in Australia all of the old dirty coal fired power stations were taken off line and replaced. Many other pollution sources have been cleaned up. Doctor David Suzuki who warned that life as we knew it in the 1970s would not exist by 2000 returned here in the 1990s and remarked on the significant improvements in the environment.
Carbon tax is the imperfect solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist, climate changes and always has done. Pollution of the environment is a different question.
Tony Abbott has repeatedly said that he will rescind the ETS. He has laid out a timetable for it. It is a promise "written in blood" he says. If you missed all that a few weeks ago you live under a rock.
Their policy still contains an MRET and various expenditures for renewables including solar.
The main advantage of their policy is expenditure remains under government control.
How Labor can say with a straight face that a varying market based price on carbon dioxide provides certainty for investors beats me. Strange that the MSM don't ask about that. I guess it joins the " what difference will it make?" question regarding tax and temperature in the list of great escapes.
Incidentally, Tony, if this comes to your attention, your "Direct Action Plan" on your web site is an unprofessional mess. Leave sledging Labor to a separate comments or comparisons section, at least. Preferably leave it out of a policy completely.
The price doesn't matter – it's still too much to pay for nothing…
Pointman
Given the promise made by Gillard about no carbon tax before she was elected, you can't believe any assurances given by the Oz government. Incidentally, she's one of two Australians, who're finalists in the Climate Prat of the Year.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/time-to-cull-the-prat-nominations/
The Black Adder
Good Lord! Pointman…
Such a tough choice.
I wanted to vote for MattB, John Brookes and Catamon as well!
As an Australian I also wanted to vote for Tim Flim Flannery, but thought he would not accept the award because he is too busy sandbagging his house on the Hawkesbury river due to the upcoming unprecedented sea level rises of 6+ metres.
I also wanted to vote for PM Juliar Gillard, but thought she is too busy to accept the award as she will be undergoing rhinoplasty!
I wanted to vote for Oreskes as well, she is the high priestess after all, but she is booked into the same surgeon after Julia…
Therefore, I must, I repeat must vote for the only one who truly deserves this inaugral momentus peer-reviewed award…
…the one and only Mr Peter Gleick!
Well done Pointman.
What a brilliant innovation.
PS. If you need help deciding between giving them a ceramic or stainless steel toilet bowl as the award, I strongly recommend the ceramic one! It will still float when we are inundated by those sea level rises
G'Day M'lud Edmund. I think we'll be going down the supermarket discount coupons route …
Heheheheee…
I should have known!
Hi Pointman.
Precious! In my mind's eye (it's a small picture) I can already see the award ceremony. You (in Penguin Suit) being passed the winning envelope by the lovely Mrs. Pointman. A drum roll and a hush descends over the crowd…
You discuss at length the strength of the field, the expectation that the losing entries will be spurred on to bigger and better in the future, the congratulations to all contestents on the quality of their entries and the agonising process the Judges underwent in their deliberations.
Then give it Julia.
I found it an easy choice to make. Only one of the contenders has a "-Gate" scandal named after them.
After voting I found my horse to be in the lead, how exciting!
I heard one Dr D.Karoly was very keen to be nominated but he missed out because his most prattish moment was committed in 2009 and does not qualify for this year's comp.
As the wheels fall off the CAGW bandwagon we will no doubt see a scrap for last place.
Rereke Whakaaro
And we welcome our TV viewers to ringside, where we are looking forward to the contest of the year between two intellectual light-weight contenders for the much coveted Pratt of the Year title fight.
This fight is destined to go down in history as the Scrap for Pratt contest if the interregnum. In the Cerise Corner, we have ….
Whoah! Straight out of the gate like a batty out of hell!
He's unstoppable!
There really ought to be one for each region. I hate the thought of Flannery missing out just because he has to compete on the world stage with the likes of Hansen.
Sublime versus ridiculous – now there would be a contest …
This comment was prepared for another thread which seems to have gone but as speedy has made a similar assessment of this Carbon Tax I'll post here.
The green-left would say that "Big Oil", "Big Coal" and that other favourite, The "Big End Of Town" are all that stands between us
and a Perfect Climate. A complete Nonsense.
Unbeknownst to them, the other bigs have been busy establishing their Greenness in a cunning ploy to enable Governments everywhere to
funnel huge amounts of money into their accounts under the guise of Saving the Planet.
Big Renewables, Big Green and Big Climate Change Incorporated are not clean-skins that they want us to believe.
They are selling us a solution to a problem that does not exist.
That activity could be defined as FRAUD.
Carbon abatement cannot prevent man made "Climate Change" because there is no such mechanism or process.
The sooner the financial attachments of the new "Green Bigs" is established and debated widely in the media the better off we will
all be.
Carbon Trading is just another Big Banking scam along with the slow drip from your Superannuation funds allowed by our Federal
Government's cave in on High Frequency Share Trading.
Kinky Keith.
Yep. Got it in one.
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Extreme Weather / Insert Scare Tactic Here/
are all a common solution looking (desperately) for the problem to justify their existence. The solution is simple and appears to involve passing large wads of money in politically sanctioned directions.
The only problem being that they can't seem to prove that the actual problem (GW, CC, CD etc) physically exists. Though, of course, they assure us that it does…
http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2012/06/australia23/
You Australians should be looking at the activities of a certain compatriot of yours.
Aussie David Hone is not only SHELL OIL'S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he's succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL'S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.
As Jo has pointed out, this 'market' was worth $176,000,000,000 but has now collapsed.
This 'move' may just have saved somebody's bacon and Australians will be paying for it !
I suggest it has dawned on the bureaucrats that attempting to keep a floor price in the face of overseas markets moving in the opposite direction could end in costly disaster. A bit like the floor price in wool in the 1980′s.
At least wool had some ongoing value, I'd say carbon credits will soon be found in dunnies world over.
The price of carbon after 2015 will depend heavily on what European bureaucrats do. They can, at a flick, wipe out many paper credits, pushing up the price, and Australians will have to pay more for their energy, but we'll get no say at all in those decisions. The EU is not a mining economy, and doesn't export a lot of coal either, so they certainly won't be taking those industries into account when they"fix" the price in this very unfree market.
This could change if Germany comes back into mining its coal in a big way:
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/
By Kelvin Kemm
It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.
In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany's new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe's – and Germany's – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.
He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.
Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can't afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.
And from:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/end-of-an-industrial-era-germany-to-close-its-coal-mines-a-463172.html
"The country was the world's fifth-largest coal importer in 2005 according to figures from the World Coal Institute. China is the world's main coal producer, followed by the USA, India and Australia."
Germany began moves to close down its mines in 2007, this new build of coal-fired plants would surely mean reversing that decision,
What do the Germans know that the rest of us don't? They could still be phasing out the subsidies which means the company can go on the stock market, but would Germany penalise them with heavy carbon taxes if it is moving back to coal for electricity generation? It's Germany's industrial might which could be behind this move, it doesn't want to lose these industries which have begun to move out:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
I love it when governments talk of the need for "certainty" of a tax on a business or the entire economy. It's like the hangman talking of the certainty of a rope to the condemned.
Bolt will interview Bjorn Lomborg on the Bolt report at 10am on Sunday. Channel 10 normally repeated at 4.30pm.
He will discuss the latest change to our carbon pricing etc.
Geoff Sherrington
Linking to Germany and the EU is simply loony tunes.
Maybe some bureaucrats believed the warlike threat in these world from the German Environment dept late last year:
Building wind turbines, implementing cogeneration of heat and electricity, insulating houses, modernizing
the power grid, etc., all require substantial investment. If this green investment simply
displaced investment in other sectors – tool-making, health, education, etc. – growth would
not speed up and employment would only be re-allocated between sectors, without reducing
the number of unemployed. However, in the coming years green investment can be part of
a broader surge of investment. After the global crisis of 1929, such a surge of investment in
Europe as elsewhere was initiated by the perspective of military armament. Nowadays, this
is obviously not an option. However, after the financial crisis of 2007–08, the perspective
of sustainable development can mobilize investment in a similar way for a worthier purpose.
What worthier purpose than WWII culd Germany be imagining?
Twodogs
Is that a trick question? They have de-industrialised all their competition neighbours. Just sayin'…
As an Australian with German heritage…
all I can say is `I know Nuthink!`
Because the European project is utopia. It is perfect, but stupid reality keeps getting in the way.
The only question is – are they panicking and created a hasty plan B, or was this plan A all along?
Got to say it again, Topher is very good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuzrHwMkMU&feature=g-vrec
I know it's o/t but freedom of speech makes a lot of sense.
Henry Ergas says: "With the Nobel prize in economics only weeks away, whoever devised this scheme won't be wasting any money in sending the monkey costume off to the dry cleaners."
I laughed almost uncontrollably when I read this – nothing better than an astute educated person WITH a sense of humour!
Don't think Swannie would understand it though – WAY above his intellect capability (as is grade 5 maths with him) unfortunately.
Senex Bibax
To paraphrase a wise Texan I once worked with, "They pulled the numbers (i.e. carbon price) out of their ass, and sooner or later they will have to smell their fingers".
Ouch! Thats got to get the nostril hairs curling!
Followed by #20 about the "budget black hole", my mind is boggling and I really have to call it a night.
That's not a problem for them. Those people think their shit smells of roses.
Alice Thermopolis
Henry Ergas on "Combet's Cut-Price Carbon Caper Blows $25 Billion Budget Black Hole" is a must-read piece (August 29, page 12, The Australian).
Two extracts:
"Such was the confidence of the (Treasury) oracles at Langton Crescent (Canberra) that they have no scenarios – not a single, solitary one – in which prices start high and then collapse."
"But if aligning our carbon price on the EU's is such a good thing, WHY MAKE US WAIT? Since carbon prices are going to be allowed to fall in 2015, what useful purpose is served by keeping them at gravity-defying levels, all the more so as the study by the Centre for International Economics shows having a higher carbon price than Europe's will cost our economy $1.6bn to $3.4bn in 2012-13 alone?"
Why, indeed?
Garry Stotel
Sorry to be off topic but:
BREAKING NEWS – Richard Black is leaving BBC to work on "ocean conservation issues"
Bernd Felsche
Does that mean he stands on the shoreline and goes wee when the sea levels fall?
Ian Mott
Ahh, guys, speculation about what the carbon price might be in 2015 is just a tad fatuous given the fact that the price will drop to 2 cents on the morning after the next election. And the only upside after that will be for curiosity value. Like Cuban Bonds and Weimar million Deutschmark notes, carbon credits will be the framed conversation piece of all but the climatically challenged.
Sceptical Sam
That was the toughest decision I've had to make all week. They're all Prats.
I hate forced choice questions. But I made a choice. I'd hate it if Hansen got the wooden spoon.
Regarding this rejigging of the carbon price plan, I merely recycle my earlier analysis.
stosur has just won in straight sets. time to post a few bits i collected before the match:
from yesterday re "Carbon Conscious":
Origin Energy has quit $133 million worth of options for forestry projects in Australia amid fears that the price of carbon will plunge, according to The Australian Financial Review…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Origin-drops-forestry-deal-amid-carbon-worries-pd20120829-XMQX7?opendocument&src=rss
whilst the $133m figure is either not mentioned or is lower in coverage today, try to reconcile CC's remarks in the following two pieces:
31 Aug: SMH: AAP: Carbon Conscious alert to ETS future
On Tuesday, Origin Energy announced it would not proceed with its 2013 planting options, placing further uncertainty on the cost effectiveness of carbon forestry as opposed to carbon unit trading.
But Carbon Conscious director of business development Daniel Stevens said Origin's announcement was made before the government's, and was not linked to it.
"It was just a coincidence that we came out with the announcement out in the morning and then (Climate Change Minister) Greg Combet…with his later on during the day," Mr Stevens told AAP.
"Origin had let us know about that for a day or two before that, nobody knew that the government was to come out with the announcement – the two are just not linked."…
"When a company is look at investing into long-term hedging solutions, they need to understand or have comfort around what the future carbon price will be.
"By locking into a long term stream of carbon known prices, they've mitigated that risk."…
Profits rose to $4.19 million for the year to June 30, from $854,762.
But despite losing its biggest client, the firm is upbeat on this year.
It said it had locked in contract revenues of $45 million in the next 15 years, and was in talks with several new clients from the mining, electricity generation and coal industries on potential contracts.
It is also in search for a new chief executive, after the board decided not to renew Peter Balsarini to the position on Tuesday
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/carbon-conscious-alert-to-ets-future-20120831-2558k.html
1 Sept: Australian: Sue Neals: Changes challenge carbon farmers
Peak pig farming organisation Pork Australia said yesterday that despite being in meetings with the government this week about advancing carbon farming, it had received no warning of major changes to the carbon trading system, drastically affecting potential economic returns to farmers.
Australian Farm Institute director Mick Keogh said the government could not keep changing the rules affecting the financial viability of carbon farming without irreparably eroding investor confidence in the new industry and heightening concerns about unacceptable sovereign risk.
Australia's largest commercial carbon farming business, listed West Australian tree-planting company Carbon Conscious, warned — after it lost a $70 million carbon contract with Origin Energy because of the government's changes — that politics was playing havoc with the fledgling carbon farming industry…
Australia is relying on farmers and rural land managers, such as Carbon Conscious, to generate most of the carbon credits to be purchased by big local polluters.
"The reason (Origin pulled out) is because this introduces even more political uncertainty than we had before," Mr Lowe said.
"I believe it will be a real struggle to write business in the next six to 12 months because it is not clear what will happen to the carbon price in Europe or what modifications would be made to the carbon tax and trading scheme if the opposition is elected (next year)."…
At least half of the tradable carbon must be generated in Australia, with the government's $1.6 billion Carbon Farming Initiative designed to encourage farmers and land managers to generate carbon credits by either storing carbon or reducing its emission through growing trees, capturing methane in dairies and piggeries, boosting carbon in soils and restoring native vegetation.
But the pig industry, the first in Australia to be granted a recognised way to accrue carbon credits by capturing methane gases from pig manure, said the announcement this week on the carbon floor price, had "changed the rules of the ballgame overnight".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/changes-challenge-carbon-farmers/story-fn59niix-1226462771033
Bloomberg and Sacbee were the only media invitees for the cap'n'tax simulation in calif. no surprise B'berg is more gung ho and less informative:
31 Aug: Bloomberg: Lynn Doan: California's Simulated Carbon Auction Seen as 'Slam Dunk'
Those who participated in the practice auction described it as a "slam dunk," Jeff King, managing director of environmental markets at Scotiabank in Toronto, said by telephone from Sacramento. "It was easy."
The successful trial may signal that California is on track to creating the world's second-largest carbon market, behind the European Union's emissions-trading system. Carbon futures linked to the state's program have dropped from this year's high on speculation that the first auction, twice delayed, would be put off again.
Futures for December 2013 slipped 35 cents to $16.30 a metric ton, down 20 percent from this year's peak of $20.25 on July 24, data compiled by CME Group Inc.'s Green Exchange show. Forward contracts had sold for $16.25 and $16.30 a metric ton as of 5:50 p.m. New York time, down from a 2012 peak of $20.10, according to ICE…
The board selected two reporters, from the Sacramento Bee and Bloomberg BNA, to participate in the trial and report to a larger pool.
Trial participants logged into an electronic bidding system that required them enter a bid price with a minimum bid of $10 an allowance; the number of "lots" desired, each representing 1,000 allowances; and a "vintage" year, corresponding to the compliance phase that the allowances would be used for, according to a pool report.
"It's about as exciting as paying your bills online," Dave Clegern, a spokesman for the air board in Sacramento, said by telephone Aug. 22. "There will be no settlement price posted. There will be no final number of participants."…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-30/california-s-simulated-carbon-auction-seen-as-slam-dunk-.html
31 Aug: SacramentoBee: Dale Kasler: California gives carbon auction a trial run
The state ran a test of its controversial greenhouse-gas market Thursday, even as it wrestles with ongoing complaints that the price of carbon could prove too costly for businesses.
A three-hour practice auction, in which tons of fake greenhouse gases were sold online, was declared a success by the California Air Resources Board…
California will give away 90 percent of the allowances but will auction the rest…
They note the state's auction is expected to raise $1 billion in the first year alone, increasing the cost of doing business in California.
In response, the Air Resources Board said earlier this month it's studying whether to give more of the allowances away for free.
Major colleges and universities that have to participate in the market, including UC Davis, might also get a break. Last week the ARB said it's looking into ways to help them after the University of California system said it would have to spend millions to comply with the law.
"We're looking at how we can get them some form of mitigation assistance," Clegern said…
But the ARB still believes auctioning some of the credits is an essential piece of the program. "Putting a price on carbon is critical," Clegern said.
The practice auction drew bids from around 150 participants, he said.
Some bids were "completely screwy," he said, including those made by participants testing the boundaries of the market. For instance, some bids exceeded the "holding limits" designed to prevent someone from cornering the market on credits.
The ARB didn't release information on market prices or sales volumes. "They're such fictional numbers, we're not going to put them out there," Clegern said.
The absence of data was frustrating to some.
"There's nothing actually to watch," said Jon Costantino, executive director of the Association of Carbon Market Participants…
(FIRST COMMENT) And people thought Ponzi ran a scam. He was a piker compared to CARB.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/31/4774395/california-gives-carbon-auction.html
making it up as they go along, as always:
29 Aug: KQED News: Nate Seltenrich: California Air Board Relents on College Carbon Credits
Universities could be getting some last-minute relief from cap-and-trade
For months, cap-and-trade-eligible emitters including private businesses, military bases, universities, and waste-to-energy power-plant operators have been crying for exemptions under AB 32, arguing that they would suffer undue financial hardships.
The message is getting through in some cases, given the Board's plan to soften the blow on state universities running combined heat-and-power (also called CHP or cogeneration) facilities, which simultaneously generate electricity and heat…
"The universities are somebody we want to make sure they can handle what we're sending them," ARB spokesman David Clegern said in an interview.
Flighty businesses, too. On August 13, The Sacramento Bee reported that the Air Board was considering easing the burden imposed by cap-and-trade on companies deemed to be at risk of fleeing the state: what's known as the "leakage" effect.
"Obviously we don't want industry to leave the state, but we want them to meet the emissions requirements," Clegern told the Bee. One potential solution he offered is for the Air Board to hand a finite number of free carbon credits to high-flight risks, potentially saving some companies millions of dollars a year — and presumably preventing a move to Nevada. But to critics who already consider the system ripe for manipulation, that could sound a bit too easy to game.
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/08/29/california-air-board-relents-on-college-carbon-credits/
economists LOOOOVE it to death, so much business heading their way:
30 Aug: TheEnergyCollective: Kristin Eberhard: Economists Voice Support for California Cap-and-Trade Auction
This week, nearly 60 renowned economists and other experts around the country sent a letter to Governor Jerry Brown emphatically voicing their strong support for the design of California's groundbreaking cap-and-trade program, a key element of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)…
"Auctioning allowances generates proceeds for government to redistribute to households, reduce other taxes, or achieve further environmental and equity goals that otherwise may not be achieved if allowances are given for free," the economists noted in the letter…
The economists noted "the most important aspect of a cap-and-trade system is the actual cap" to reduce pollution and therefore, in theory, the program's environmental integrity doesn't change whether the allowances are auctioned or given away.
"In reality though, once real-world conditions are introduced, the difference matters," they added. "These conditions include transactional costs, unfair market power, uncertainty, allowance allocation formulas that may be based on output or other changeable conditions (even with the expressed intent to reduce leakage), and other industry market behaviors that can introduce inefficiencies into perfectly functioning markets."…
The signees included leading climate economist Dallas Burtraw, who earlier this year testified that California's program is the best designed cap-and-trade program anywhere in the world…
http://theenergycollective.com/kristineberhard/107826/economists-voice-support-california-cap-and-trade-auction
handjive
Curtain rises on California's planned carbon market
The floor price for California's November auction is actually $10 per ton.
lol.. you KNOW that the writer is a climate evangelist as soon as you see the little picture..
STEAM from cooling towers.
Despite being told many many times, they still display their IGNORANCE !!!! Amazing.
31 Aug: Ninemsn: Croc farmer decries carbon tax impost
Mr Burns, who manages Darwin Crocodile Farms, said with 65,000 to 70,000 crocodiles at his farm, the carbon tax would cost him about $300,000 annually.
"They are big eaters and obviously with the price increases that we have endured through transport costs and associated costs related to the carbon tax it means a substantial increase in my food bill," Mr Burns said…
"Tourism is doing it pretty tough in the territory," Mr Burns said.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8525522
For the croc farmer in Darwin.
Lateral thinking time. Give pollies free tourism tickets to the farm, then feed them to the crocs. This increases tourism turnover and reduces food costs by conversion of non-essential inputs into disposable outputs. You could call your plan "a croc of shit".
u.k.(us)
I said it before, I'll say it again.
It is not a market, it is a racket.
(price fixing has been written into the rules).
As a scientist, not an economist, please explain to me how an economic system that is based on technical lies, subterfuge and deception is such a good thing?
Answering my own question, the carbon market (in AU) is run by organized crime (gangsters). Do not vote for the organized crime party at the next election!
Markus Fitzhenry
It has been a collective madness given that the science says; The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
For the "Co2 is evil" group, this is a tough one to argue with.
The fact that your idiotic government has insisted on a floor price for carbon credits shows you, among other things, that they have no faith in carbon credits keeping any value. They know they're peddling a worthless commodity and want the price to stay high for the sake of the money it pulls in.
You need to throw this government out of office as soon as possible. They're simply screwing you. But then you knew that already.
So my point really is, don't depend on compulsory voting to do the job. Poorly informed voters make poor decisions. I can't imagine that Australians are any different from Americans in this regard and the percentage of poorly informed American voters is huge. You need to be educating everyone you can reach about what's really going on. It won't be easy but you've got to do it.
When we started on this moronic idea that everyone eligible to vote should be registered and, if necessary driven to the polls by volunteers, everything started downhill. Such voters are very likely to vote as someone, some party or group tells them. That amounts to nothing more than the same person voting multiple times. And that is simply anathema to representative government. Fight that with every breath you draw.
yep,
very sad but true Bite Back.
Everyone should have the right to vote….but compulsory voting has completely screwed up due political process.
That's why the best thing the opposition can do is stay away from microphones and not advertise any solid polcy.
That is not a comforting thought.
All we know for sure is that they would be hard pressed to do WORSE than the current mob.
You know Australia better than I do. But I wonder sometimes how different things could be if there were no secrets, no hidden agendas and no unrevealed opinions before the election. It's truly sad that we must find out what was really afoot after someone is in office.
Our little girl politician (one of 2) Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of The House of Representatives no less, made the classic comment on the subject of secrecy when she said of Obama-care,
We have to pass this bill so you all can, umm, find out what is in it.
She let this get recorded and broadcast far and wide. How can anyone fail to see the hidden agenda here? They were afraid to let the public know what they were doing before it could become law.
The battle has been joined here. Please don't neglect it in Australia.
As we should understand by now the mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con. But part of that equation is the adoption of useless solar and wind that saves virtually zero emissions and costs heaps of our now borrowed money.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/towering_stupidity/#commentsmore
There is no excuse for this waste of money for a zero return and purchasing dubious carbon credits from the disastrous EU wastland.
Simple kindy maths proves this fraud is the most easily understood con of the last one hundred years and yet our stupid pollies will keep flushing billions down the toilet for decades into the future.
And zero change to the temp or climate ever. Just ask Tim Flannery.
TonyfromOz
Thanks for this Neville,
While seemingly unrelated to this Post from Joanne, it does in fact link in closely with what is said, especially with respect to the revenue that will be raised from the imposition of this cost on those CO2 emissions, especially from those largest emitters, the electrical power generating sector, and in particular those coal fired power plants.
This article from Andrew Bolt links into the main article at this link, which provides a very interesting read.
What it explains is that what is hyped from the Wind Generation Industry, and also from Federal Labor Government Departments does not actually match up with what is happening.
All along, I have been attempting to explain how no matter how many of these renewable power plants are constructed, especially the most common of them, Wind Plants, it will have no effect on the way that those coal fired power plants operate. I understand that this is just a case of my saying that, and some people would associate that with a particular agenda that they perceive that I may have, so I would say that, wouldn't I?
Those coal fired plants just hum along all day every day, because that is exactly how they operate the best. They supply what I have said is that absolute Base Load Power requirement, and no amount of any type of renewable power plant would alter that.
This article actually confirms this, and here it's not just my saying it, but from an Independent source, a mechanical engineer, Hamish Cumming, basing what he says on actual data.
He says here:
His analysis shows that despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from green energy schemes driven by the renewable energy target, Victoria's wind-farm developments have saved virtually zero carbon dioxide emissions in the state.
The article then goes on to say:
Cumming's findings have been confirmed by Victoria's coal-fired electricity producers and by independent energy analysts who say it is more efficient to keep a brown-coal power-station running than turn it down and then back up.
The results showed fossil fuel generators, in the same periods when wind turbines had been operating, fluctuated their output to match demand but did not reduce their rate of coal consumption.
They varied ever so slightly the power output, but the generator stayed running at its maximum, which it must do, that 3000RPM, hence the turbine kept driving at the same speed, pushed around by the same amount of steam, heated by the huge furnaces which did not change their burn rate, hence the same amount of coal was being fed into that furnace, hence the same amount of CO2 emissions from the unit at that plant.
One operator replied to a question from Cumming:
"Given that the power stations mentioned are all 'baseload', their generation output is relatively constant 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, other than due to minor fluctuations depending on market demand and/or shutdown of generation units for maintenance or repairs."
The article goes on to say this:
In a letter to Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark, Cumming said the owners of Yallourn, Hazelwood and Loy Yang power stations had confirmed in writing that the power stations combined consume about 7762 tonnes of coal an hour. (Tony adds here, read that again, because that equates to more than 2 Tonnes of crushed coal every second, all year round)
"They have confirmed that the power stations do not change the coal feed intake 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The coal consumed by these three power stations alone makes base-load power available at a rate of 6650 megawatts," Cumming wrote. "Victoria also burns coal powering an additional emergency standby of 630 megawatts, according to Sustainable Victoria documents that were presented in your Mortlake Planning Panel.
You can have all the Wind Towers you like but even when they are actually generating power, those coal fired plants do not even blink in the way that they operate.
So, and relating back here to Joanne's Post, you can see that this CO2 cost and then the ETS only serves one purpose, that of raising immense amounts of money, because it most definitely does not abate any of those CO2 emissions.
Now, fast forward to the introduction of the ETS, where the main part of that scheme is to cap emissions at the start of year one, and then each year after that, lower that cap.
It is now painfully obvious what will happen. The only way to actually lower those emissions is to turn the unit off, that's one maybe two units at each plant for the time that equates to the amount of emissions equal to the amount deducted from the cap.
Now, what that means is that for that period of time, there will be no power from that unit at that plant. It's not an overall total for the State, but an overall total for each plant, so each plant will be generating less electricity.
It's obvious that those Wind plants are not making that scale of power, and they cannot legislate for the wind to blow when those units are offline, so you tell me what will happen.
If Victoria, and by extrapolation the whole of Australia has vast chunks of power removed from the grid because of a lowered Cap, then that can only lead to the inevitable, rolling blackouts.
Gradually, ever so gradually, word is actually beginning to spread.
This is encouraging for me, not just the independent confirmation of what I have been saying all along, but that the word is slowly getting out there.
Tony.
POST SCRIPT: The article I linked to is at The Australia, and you need to Login to read it all. However, copy the tile and paste that into the search engine of your choice, and when the list comes up, it it the topmost article there.
31 Aug: Guardian: CommentIsFree: Jay Griffiths: Don't give climate change heretics an easy ride
Climate change heretics rarely have a science background, but editors are still happy to air their views
PHOTO CAPTION: A polar bear on pack ice in Svalbard archipelago, Norway.
No one would want a novelist to perform brain surgery with her biro. No one would want a man with a PhD in political science to then write textbooks claiming that those misadventures are best medical practice.
Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media accepts the idea of specialisations and accords greater respect to those with greater expertise. With one exception: climate science…
I would propose a system of certification for media articles in which there is a clear issue of social responsibility – a kitemark of quality assurance. It would be awarded by teams of academics, and be given to the article, not the journalist, recognising the facts, not the sometimes spurious credibility of being a "personality". It would be awarded when the article is accurate, using reliable sources and peer reviewed studies. There already exists the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which answers journalists' questions to help them achieve accuracy. The formality of certification is necessary, though, for the reader to know whether to trust an article. Accuracy must not only be achieved, but be seen to have been achieved.
The certification should be voluntary. I'm not against entertainment: if someone wants to read nonsense-mongers, let them, but I resent the appearance of parity between two articles on an issue as serious as climate change when one article is actually gibberish masked in pseudoscience and the other is well informed and accurate…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/climate-change-heretics-media-easy-ride
about the author, whose article would not be "certifiable", according to her own criteria:
jaygriffiths.com: Jay Griffiths was born in Manchester and studied English Literature at Oxford University.
The following writers have given endorsements to her work: David Abram, John Berger, Fritjof Capra, Marie Darrieussecq, Gretel Ehrlich, Niall Griffiths, Tom Hodgkinson, Joan London, Barry Lopez, Richard Mabey, Robert Macfarlane, Bill McKibben, Adrian Mitchell, George Monbiot, Philip Pullman, David Rothenberg, Vandana Shiva, and Gary Snyder.
http://www.jaygriffiths.com/
Time after time after time the government and fanatics were warned over and over about the foolishness of a carbon tax. But would they listen? Nah! The critics were deniers, ignorant, heretics, blockers of 'progress', and so on. Brown praised Milne's acumen in devising a $15 floor price. She still can't stomach the idea it is too high. Now there is an economic mess that will take an age to clean up.
Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).
Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
And still weeks left before the end of the melt season.
All the missing ice means next northern spring: even more one year ice that melts easily.
Houston we have a problem! The WORLD has a problem!
Joanne Nova
How is that Antarctic sea ice doing Max? It's part of the WORLD too, right?
Ross James
Jo – Antarctica is being impacted as well with global warming – now back to reality.
In case you missed it – Steve Goddard apologised for misreading graphs about the Arctic sea Ice extents.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/08/26/how-to-admit-youre-wrong/
Now I'm waiting…..after you read the latest on Antarctica Ice Volume being affected and nibbled away by warmer seas. Perhaps Steve Goddard could enlighten all of us as well.
We all know less volume of Ice leads eventually to declines. Why slower: It's a CONTINENT under all that ice! Gosh that CO2 could well be culprit of climate FORCING after all in the era of a "quiet" sun.
And after reading all those papers and data on Antarctica lets get it right for once shall we?
Ross J.
REPLY: Oh right then. If Ross James (is that your real name) says the sea ice around Antarctica is OK, I'm convinced. Your priority though in linking to an apology for something else, rather than a paper on the Antarctic speaks volumes. – Jo
If Ross James (is that your real name) says the sea ice around Antarctica is OK, I'm convinced. Your priority though in linking to an apology for something else, rather than a paper on the Antarctic speaks volumes. – Jo
You well know by now that I am not in short supply with information regarding the loss of Antarctica ice mass loss in the last decade but you are indeed in short supply of the required sea ice gains to deem global warming is slowed or saturated. Indeed I can observe a simple experiment on a very hot day. Place ice cubs in a glass and watch them melt. Dependent on humidity you'll find the top of the glass can freeze over as a fast transference of energy takes place. In cases by the addition of salt the icing at the top can freeze a cap of ice over the glass. Eventually slowly the higher energy state will melt all the ice cubes and the water will equalise to the ambient temperature of the surroundings. So increasing sea ice (which is minuscule in Antarctica BTW means nothing if thinning is in the process howbeit on a much slower scale on the ice mass.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Joe V.
I don't see it. How your party trick applies to the Antarctic.
Unless the refreezing in the Antarctic were being caused by proximity of adjacent ice, at a humid surface , rather than by ambient cold.
Party tricks can be fascinating distractions.
It would be so much better if we lived on a orb without axial tilt of about 23.4° and uniform ocean currents without terrestrial anomalies. Geez, then it would be far easier to convince the simple minded, like me, that there is correlation to climatic circumstances between the poles.
No one bothers to mention there was a major 4 day storm that broke up the ice floats and flung them around the Arctic Sea. Arctic Sea Ice Speed & Drift – 30 Day Animation
No one bothers to mention that the measurements for sea ice are for 15% ice and up so if the ice is redistributed over a larger area the counting method will DISAPPEAR any ice scattered over a larger area.
No one bothers to mention that the air temperature is BELOW FREEZING and has been since around day 225 or August 12-13 Mean Temperature above 80°N
No one bothers to mention that the sea temperature is at freezing when ice is mixed with it.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature
No one bothers to mention the Atlantic Ocean is in the WARM MODE of the Oscillation (and has been since the 1970′s – My gosh I just found the cause of Global warming!) graph
No one bothers to mention to mention the ice melts from warm water melting the ice from the BOTTOM as the warm water from the Atlantic moves into the Arctic. NAVY: Arctic Sea Surface Temperature – 365 Day Animation –
Note in the animation above how the cool water spreads in the last days of August thanks to the storm spreading out the ice.
Note how the graph below shows the Sea Ice extent has already bottomed out and started to turn the corner towards freeze-up.
satellite data sea ice images Arctic Sea Ice Extent 15% or Greater
And as Jo mentioned no one bothers to mention the north – south seasaw as ice builds at the south pole and the total ice remains fairly constant.
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly shows southern ice growing since 1979
Hi Gai
The main feature I thought was this : "No one bothers to mention that the air temperature is BELOW FREEZING"
That statement carries so much weight.
The ice is not melting, so how is it ending up in the sea.
The answer is a purely mechanical one and not related to temperature.
Ice at the edge of the ice mass will just sit there; unless it is pushed out.
And that is exactly what is happening.
The precipitation on the ice field adds an enormous load to be carried by existing ice and so the ice field deforms.
The ice is plastic and flows under pressure from the overburden which pushes ice below it down and out.
This slowly moving mass is supported by solid land until it reaches the land edge.
At this point water takes over the support role but can only offer flotation.
Ice cannot get much more than 10% of its mass supported by water and so a mechanical event takes place.
The unsupported ice is loaded in tension at the surface and tears apart.
A block is feed to float off. This is not evidence of Global Warming: "No one bothers to mention" this.
It is evidence of ice, snow and sleet and rain being dumped on top of the ice field.
How sad — some ice is melting.
How sad – you've zero evidence that carbon dioxide is causing it.
How sad – the panic button isn't working anymore.
The world has many problems, real ones. And all you can do is not just joust at windmills but build them all over the landscape.
Maxine, the quote is incorrect and the man who said it puts you to shame. Come back and quote him when you have his accomplishments under your belt.
Go home Maxine and Ross. Do whatever it is you think you need to do to survive the coming catastrophe and leave the rest of us alone.
And how do we account for the many occasions the Arctic ice receded so much in past recorded history that a NW and NE passage was easily navigated? These 'events' occurred regularly and much hoop-la was made about them each time. But later, the ice would return to 'normal' limits. Why? No one knows. But CO2 had nothing, nil. nix, nada, zero to do with the phenomena.
And how do we account for the many occasions the Arctic ice receded so much in past recorded history that a NW and NE passage was easily navigated?
Well, of course, we don't. It is part of nature, and not answerable to us. Sometimes it is useful to look at a question from other than Western eyes.
I have just finished writing a paper about the Chinese Delegation who are currently visiting Helsinki to discuss permanent arrangements to use the Northwest Passage during the six months of the Northern summer.
The Russians have a fleet of Nuclear Icebreakers that keep the passage open for about four months of the year. They also expect that period to be extended to six months as the world moves into a warm phase of the climate cycle. The Chinese have also offered to build and man a Nuclear icebreaker of their own, with design assistance from the Russians.
Why are the Chinese taking such an interest in the Arctic? Two reasons, one, they can ship goods to Northern and Western Europe faster via that route, than via Suez or Panama. But the more important reason is that Greenland (part of Denmark) holds considerable deposits of rare earths, and in particular about 10% of the known Lithium deposits.
Actually Bolivia in South America holds the world's largest deposit of Lithiium. It is just cms below the vast Alto Plano. The government has made it clear THEY will decide how it will be sold to the world and will not just be a an almost free source for this valuable mineral.
In short, it is going to be like an OPEC nation. Bolivia knows the world needs Bolivia more than Bolivia needs the world. All the electric cars and other battery sourced items will need more and more Lithium.
Jo, your country has become a (cruel) joke. It makes all the banana republics look like they are well run. By the way, when can we expect charges to be filed against your PM?
your country has become a (cruel) joke
Coming to a place near you soon!
I thought there was a place in the Hague that dealt with crimes against humanity?
A joke Sean? Our economy is one of sharpest on the globe and our "hockey stick" economy is still climbing. How is yours doing?
"our "hockey stick" economy is still climbing"
Thank you Gina, Twiggy, Clive et alia. And spicing it up is Campbell wielding his axe in the environmental, coastal and planning departments throughout Wayne Swans home state.
You are delusional and will soon be very surprised.
Yep.. teetering on the edge of a knife.
Our "patchwork economy" has many more rough patches than smooth patches and if the now coming to an end mining boom resources sector contributions are put to one side the rest of the Australian economy is struggling. Comparisons with the real world where many economies are in worse shape than here is hardly a debating point, back when they were not in deep trouble we had one economy not patchwork. And we had zero debt, budgets for years in surplus, 4% unemployment etc.
Since 2007 under the Green Union Labor mob federal debt ceiling last year was $250 billion which was raised for the current financial year to $300 billion which does not include the hidden NBN Co debt. There has been a budget deficit every year that exceeds $160 billion cumulative total and the forecast current year paltry creatively accounted budget surplus of $1.4 billion has already been wiped out and current account plunging into another big deficit.
This deceitful government is right now promising to spend even more, but cunningly indicating the start of spending into the future and well after the next (unless called early) election next year. Pork barrel politics but using an empty barrel with the lid on tight so that that the gullible can't see how empty it is.
How deceitful it is to base a surplus forecast on paying current year expenses last financial year and deferring other current year expenses until 2013/14 financial year after the next election. And how stupid is it to do this and still end up with a great big deficit again.
Envy of the world may well soon be laughing stock. The debt outlined here does not include state, state owned businesses or local government debt. The taxpayers are liable for the total public debt and not only federal borowings. Australia's public debt is enormous compared to the size of our economy which is about 2% of the global economy.
Hi Ross, perhaps you will believe it if you read it in the AGE
Skitzo
I too have asked the Libs to clarify whether they will remove ets,direct action and renewable energy targets. No response either. I have also told Abbott to grow a set and stop being trampled by that red headed vile creature. Start by announcing that the AGW propaganda is just that – an absolute crock ! I get emailed on a regular basis of how the Libs are gonna do this and gonna do that but nothing so far that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Yep, its very worrying having THREE "left" oriented parties !!
All of whom have fallen for the AGW fraud.
ps.. The lack of any response from the Libs on the ETS issue is very "Labor-Like" and worrying.
are we just going to swap one Spinning Liar for another ?
Yes! Like the statement "we'll heal your families" [Romney] instead of "we'll heal the world" [Obama]. Both in reality are one and the SAME.
No Ross they are not. One is a practical need, the other is a theoretical want.
Theoretical scam?
Roy Hogue
Good retort, Marcus! Unfortunately it may be lost on Ross.
Markus,
If the planet is under stress, a nation may starve. It goes without saying then the family starves also.
This Romney is a one go nothing guy at the White House.
Yes – we'll fix your rich families backyard, kill off any narrowing of the APPALLING gap of POVERTY and EQUALITY in the US, and restore the American dream that money growth is the god in which we trust.
Why I can foresee the enclosed enclaves* if this do nothing about climate Change gets his way.
*Many science fiction writers and futurists present a time of economic decay if the wealthy attempt to hold on status and ignore the ramification of a thing called EQUALITY applied to family and individual. This equality could exist if we did away with non-productive international money flow by the global money cartels. These future enclaves would exist in abundance of food and luxury for select wealthy elite whilst outside those enclaves abject poverty and starvation would exist.
The Science fiction writers and futurists are missing the point. It's the societies with freedom of speech who live long and prosper. All the citizens are wealthier in free nations. The appalling gap of the worst kind is in countries where a wealthy corrupt class keep the rest in bone-grinding poverty of the starvation kind and where they burn their houses down for speaking out, or jail them. The poorest 20% in the US do not go wanting for their daily bread.
Not only that, the Science fiction writers and futurists tinker around the edges by assumptions that a lot of things available today, to the elite and the parole alike, will remain available to to the elite even when the economy has totally tanked.
There is a thing called "the egg index". It is an unofficial measure of society, which came from war time Britain.
The government rationed eggs, with a consequence that the egg producers progressively stopped producing eggs, as the utility of the whole supply chain collapsed. Eventually it mattered not how much you were willing to pay, or many Egg coupons (entitlements) you had, you just couldn't get eggs.
We need the society we have, in order to support the society we have got.
Now that society supports a lot of rent seekers and talking heads, but if you tinker too much with society then the egg index will start to fall, and the rent seekers and talking heads, will be seen as the unproductive paroles that they are, and they will find that they are the last group to get an egg.
If they try to force the issue and mandate that they should be first on the list to get eggs, then the egg index falls lower still, because a black market kicks in, and a lot of eggs that were previously counted are no longer counted.
This is the brave new world that the current batch of elite are building for us. Unfortunately, they underestimate the complexity of the modern world. That is why simple measures are the best.
The egg index in most of what was communist Europe is still only around 0.5, today. In the Soviet era it was around 0.3.
Again with the totally MORONIC off-topic answer.
WTF.. Grow up , IDIOT !!!
Ross,
I try not to embarrass myself by making such comments about individual Australian politicians. Why are you so anxious to embarrass yourself by spouting off about things you have no firsthand information about whatsoever?
Think yourself lucky he can't vote in your elections
Indeed yes!
What bothers me is that he can vote in any election anywhere.
The Coalition will dump the CO2 tax and have no intention of proceeding with an ETS
You have proof? Or is that just your hope?
RW is correct.
There is no guarantee that the LNP will not continue the ETS.
In fact – the default position is to continue the ETS, unless they take actions to fully repeal all aspects of the Carbon Tax legislation, and other other enabling legislation.
read all and weep…
1 Sept: Australian: Paul Kelly: Carbon wars go global
Interviewed by Inquirer, the architect of the changes, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, says: "This is what business wants — a fully flexible market price.
"In effect, this is John Howard's planned scheme. We are now part of the international action. We are not on our own, not operating solo. We are linked to Europe and a carbon price that covers 530 million people."
Normally a government making such a retreat would feel embarrassed. Not the Gillard government. Retreat on its negatives and projection of its positives is its core business…
One possible scenario is bizarre — that after a three-year fixed period our carbon price suddenly falls in a hole. This would border on farce. Market apprehension of the price falling in 2015 can ruin any prospect of investment certainty into cleaner energy along with compounding Labor's fiscal legacy, where two themes are apparent: weaker revenues and higher spending.
Combet made clear that Labor would seek to strengthen and stabilise the carbon price by reducing industry's ability to meet its obligations by sourcing abatement from the UN Clean Development Mechanism where prices are currently as low as $3.50…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-wars-go-global/story-e6frg74x-1226462749490
Howard did not plan to join the EU and the Coalition were at that time not aware of the climategate revelations or the failure to move forward that took place at Copenhagen. These deceivers keep cherry picking from the Howard past to suit themselves.
Wait, there are still businesses in Australia? I thought the alarmists were telling us a carbon tax would send us back to the stone age and end life as we know it. Reducing CO2 pollution isn't the end of civilization? Those screaming the end of world if a carbon tax was instituted were wrong?
CO2 tax started 1 July 2012 and it is now 2 September 2012 and, according to financial media reports, many businesses are still struggling to understand their liability as many suppliers are or will pass the extra cost on, added to costings plus profit margins. We already see a government leaflet mailed with electricity bills admitting that in every $100 carbon tax is $9 or 9% and then for consumers 15% GST is added to the carbon tax.
For businesses there will be carbon tax plus profit from most suppliers and over time the full impact will be felt. How many decide to go out of business is too early to know but we do know that carbon tax has been a factor in a number of decisions not to continue production in Australia (Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter and Kandos Cement NSW just two examples) or not to expand (Olympic Dam mining SA one example).
The larger the investment and infrastructure the longer a decision to move offshore becomes, could take years to plan, retrench employees, pack up and leave and to find a suitable new location overseas. What I have been told by one manufacturer that moved overseas in anticipation of carbon tax and electricity prices continuing to rise is that the added benefits of moving included lower wages and on costs, lower generally business costs, fewer areas of government regulation. In other words the bottom line profit increases for stakeholders, a real incentive to leave Australia.
Please don't kid yourself that long term prosperity here is not going to decline. Carbon tax is one factor, the return to 1980s industrial relations is another, socialism in Australia is ruining our nation.
I saw a leaflet a few weeks ago extolling the virtues of setting up business in Laos.
Laos has always been the poor child of South East Asia because it is landlocked. But new treaty agreements look set to change that by giving access to Vietnamese ports.
Laos has some of the cheapest labour costs of anywhere in Asia and, like Vietnam, most young Laotians speak and write English.
All that has to happen is that the aggravation from these stupid carbon schemes plus the opportunities to be found in SE Asia, has be sufficient to overcome the inertia of knowing how business is done in Asia. And in reality, there is little difference.
My company is seriously looking to open an office in Hong Kong because it puts us closer to our sources.
Are you trying to be provocative, or are you just naturally puerile?
Still I hear the "direct link" propaganda and artificial market manipulations towards predetermined end (sound familiar?)…see my bolded bit..
"ABC 612 Brisbane: Host Steve Austin interviews Dr Greg Picker, Associate Director of Sustainability and Climate Change, AECOM. Austin says that Australia is linking its carbon trading scheme to the European Union. The Australian PM changed the rules on carbon trading prices last week to do so. Picker has spent several years negotiating in the United Nations and other international bodies for the Australian Government. Picker says that there is a fixed price which will not change between now and 2015. From then until 2018 Australia will go to an emissions trading system where companies will buy and sell permits to meet their emission obligations. The Federal Government has said they will pull out the floor price so the price could theoretically drop to a very low price. Picker says that is very unlikely to happen as the Government also said they would limit how many cheap credits companies can buy from overseas and credits bought outside of Australia to meet their obligations must come from Europe. Austin says coal is Australia's second largest export which has a major impact. Coal competitors will apparently pay the European carbon price while European producers will not, according to Senator Mathias Cormann. Picker says that Europe is not fundamentally a coal exporter so it is hardly a competitor to Australia. Austin says the EU carbon market collapsed at one time as it was over-subscribed. Picker says that prices in Europe fell dramatically and they are trying to raise the price. He says that many companies in Australia which have high emissions that are trade exposed get significant money back from the Government. Aluminium producers get 94.5% of their costs returned. Austin says that the whole thing is a long term strategy to reduce carbon emissions to save the world from global warming. Picker says it is also an interesting political strategy as it establishes a situation where it is harder to contain the argument that Australia is going alone as it is part of 31 other countries in the system. Austin says the Government wants Australian companies to try and avoid paying the carbon tax as they will then find alternative energy methods and that will reduce emissions. Picker says that linking with Europe will help countries see that they can reduce emissions in operations in one region and use the benefits to meet their obligations elsewhere. Austin says that someone, possibly the Greens, argued that when Australia exports coal under this system it is exporting pollution. Picker says it is an interesting argument. He says there is a question about access to energy and who decides how to reduce emissions. Austin asks what he thinks of nuclear power. Picker says he has had a short look at it, but it will be very expensive to implement and all of the energy involved in implementing it may mean it is not worth it. Picker says Australia will now look at where it can link next. Picker says that it will mean those in Australia pay more or less, and could spur incentives for Australian farmers to plant trees and develop more environmentally friendly systems.
"Scott said he could not explain the details of this madness easily to the man on the street"
Here, I will have a go.
Was that hard?
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
Find Things
Guide for commenting
Register for emails
... has moved. Check the top of the left column.
Zane on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
James in Melbourne on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
Hanrahan on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
OriginalSteve on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
Dennis on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
Kinky Keith on 50% of Americans don't want to spend *even one more dollar* on renewables
Ode to the Welfare State (89 votes)
Dump Paris says former BHP Chief Jerry Ellis (87 votes)
UK withdraws life support for Solar Industry and 94% of orders disappear (71 votes)
Trump winds back anti coal legislation, while New York ramps it up (71 votes)
The worst drought in history viewed through carbo-phobic glasses: ABC misses the obvious (75 votes)
Blogs Tenth Birthday and 50 comments to go til we reach 500,000 (117 votes)
ABC fantasies: Climate change has started to influence our language (80 votes)
SA and Vic at high risk of blackouts this summer (77 votes)
Blockbuster rolls on: FBI finds 650,000 emails. Polls turn. Australian taxpayers fund Clinton slush fund. (97 votes)
Hidden Costs: how wind generation makes gas power $30/MWh more expensive (75 votes)
ABCnewswatch
AEMO
Andrew Bolt
Aneroid Energy
Australian Climate Madness
Australian Environment Foundation
Australian Politicians Email list
Bishop Hill
Bob Tisdale
Carbon Sense Coalition
Cheifio
Climate Conversation Group
Climate Scepticism
Climate-Resistance
Climate4You
ClimateChangeDispatch
ClimateChangePredictions
David Archibald
Delingpole (James)
Don Aitkin
Donna La Framboise
Ed Berry
EnthusiasmScepticismScience
Eyes on Browne
Fenbeagle
Freemarket America
Galileo Movement
Global Warming Skeptics Forum
I Love CO2
Jennifer Marohasy
Judith Curry
Kens Kingdom
Lavoisier Group
McLean on AGW
Menzies House
NEM Watch
Nick Cater – Lucky Culture
Nigel Calder
Nir Shaviv (ScienceBits)
No Consensus
Notalotofpeopleknowthat
NZ Climate Science Coalition
Polar Bear Science
Real Climatologists
RealClimateGate
RealScience
Roger Pielke Snr
Stop These Things
Storm data — Ryan Maue
The Marcus Review
Tom Nelson – twitter
Warwick Hughes
To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au
21 contributors have published
3520 posts that generated
A discussion of the Slaying the Sky Dragon science: Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth? (1265)
Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have... a rational conversation! (879)
More strange adventures in TSI data: the miracle of 900 fabricated, fraudulent days (878)
Dr David Evans: The Skeptic's Case (782)
Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels -- not humans (770)
Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges (760)
The day the Global Warming death spiral began (745)
Skeptical view makes Australian front page: climate madness, dishonesty, fraud, deception, lies and exploitation says Maurice Newman (711)
School president censors science (686)
So what is the Second Darn Law? (675)
Copyright © 2019 JoNova - All Rights Reserved
Site by Openwire