Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
The problem may be that energy use is very inelastic and demand may not reduce that much - think of petrol when the price was heading to $2 a litre
I'm not sure what taxes would be reduced to offset the additional expense for business, industry and householders. When did governments ever reduce taxes other than personal income tax?Not sure if I misunderstood your question or am stating the obvious, but less electricity means less greenhouse gases as electricity is produced by burning coal.
Arguably, given the ETS is just a tax, there may be reductions in tax in other areas to offset it. So, it is not necessarily a bad outcome for everyone financially. And we save the planet, to boot, assuming you believe in global warming of course
My view is as you stated previously, i.e. that electricity use is pretty inelastic. I don't know anyone who uses more than they need.
At least, Gooner, you've been good enough to postulate a suggestion.
In this thread and others the assertion has been repeatedly made that researchers will produce the result required by those who are paying them.
Whilst I'm absolutely prepared to believe in the reality of such a suggestion,
I'm just not able to so far understand why the government of Australia is determined to adhere to or promote research which is going to be very costly to individuals and organisations, and - if some suggestions are to be believed - will risk wrecking our economy more than it is already.