Labor's carbon tax lie

[overhang]

I tried to find out the credentials of Jessica Marshall but did not have much luck.

She obviously is a Greenie Alarmist and appears to be expressing an opinion without any evidence..

So she is the lefty version of Andrew Bolt who you continually cite.

 

[noco]

The 50:1 project begins with Christopher Moncktons absolute load of crap trying to say dealing with CC will cost 50 times more than any damage that will be done

When you start with a load of lies there is nowhere else to go. They are all drinking the same toxic Kool aid.

And clearly I did visit the site to check out your reference.

I do like the way your respect scientific views of others.

 

[wayneL]

Interesting vitriol basilio.

Interesting as you condemn, from a position of zero integrity yourself. And you are so polarized in your belief system you find it impossible to concede a single point, even as the facts stare you in the face.

Astonishing hystrionics, just astonishing.

 

[basilio]

Interesting vitriol basilio.

Interesting as you condemn, from a position of zero integrity yourself. And you are so polarized in your belief system you find it impossible to concede a single point, even as the facts stare you in the face.

Astonishing hystrionics, just astonishing.

What can I say about a person who has so reinvented the English language that he redefines personal abuse of the grossest kind as "empirical fact" ?

Now thats an achievement in itself.

Of course having established that Waynes type of abuse is just "empirical fact" perhaps we can continue on the same theme.

Wayne you are simply an autocratic humbug with a power fixation whose complete incapacity to understand a scientific argument means you string together a meaningless menagerie of pseudo scientific drivel to debase any rational discussion on climate change.

On top of that you ruthlessly use your position in this board to destroy discussions and undermine any chance of a thoughtful conversation.

Now those are empirical facts.

 

[drsmith]

If Uncle Clive and his heard of cats play ball as expected, July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.

 

[So_Cynical]

If Uncle Clive and his heard of cats play ball as expected, July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.

What a tragedy, a carbon tax replaced by a doctor tax, a clean energy finance fund replaced with a medical research fund.

 

[noco]

What a tragedy, a carbon tax replaced by a doctor tax, a clean energy finance fund replaced with a medical research fund.

Yes but the poor old pensioners will be $550 better off without the carbon dioxide tax.....no, it is not a tax, it is a carbon price.......big difference.

The tress need carbon dioxide........so if we do away with carbon dioxide, the trees will die.....just think, one day Tazmainya will be a bare island denuded of trees.

BTW, the carbon dioxide tax has not reduced carbon nor has it had any affect on climate change.

 

[Smurf1976]

July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.

That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.

One can only hope that they don't try back dating to 1 July to suit the financial year accounting. The problem with such an approach, primarily in the electricity industry, is that the presence of the tax itself alters market outcomes sufficiently to make back dating in an efficient manner virtually impossible.

So ignoring all arguments for and against a carbon tax, if it is going to be repealed then to do it properly the effective date needs to be announced prior to taking effect and not be retrospective. I don't particularly care which day they do it on, but the actual date needs to be later than the day of such an announcement.

If they can't get it through the Senate until 7 July then that precludes 1 July as a date for sensible repeal of the carbon tax and it needs to be sometime later than 7 July. For reasons of accounting simplicity, the start of a quarter (eg 1 October) or alternatively 1 January would probably be easier to administer than some random date such as, for example, the 23rd of July.

 

[drsmith]

That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.

The AFR yesterday (page 5) in relation to the carbon and mining taxes,

The government wants these taxes cancelled as soon as the Senate sits on July 7 so the repeals can be made retrospective to July 1.

 

[sydboy007]

So if the age of entitlement is over, shouldn't the compensation for the carbon tax be withdrawn by the Government on the same day as the repeal of the carbon tax? If not, then isn't that just pandering to the entitlement mentality supposedly the root cause of our budget crisis? Wouldn't that be a fairer way to help the budget back to surplus than what was proposed last month?

I'm also not sure why the Abbott Govt wants to shut down the CEFC when it's making a profit and seems to be successfully encouraging investment in new renewable energy production, something we desperately need as the mining CAPEX cliff descends on the economy over the next 2 to 3 years. We can't keep pretending the externalities of fossil fuel use are free.

Is the Abbott Government lying about their ability to use DA to achieve their reduction targets? They're funding at roughly $10-11 per ton of abatement. Is that realistic? What modelling, if any, have they undertaken to give them the confidence that they can meet their target?

I also don't quite understand why a supposedly a Government aiming for as small a Government involvement in the economy, along with championing the free market (besides Andrew Robb who likes an oligopoly Australia) wants to stop taxing the polluter and bill tax payers to provide an incentive, though no legal obligation, to reduce pollution levels. How does a policy that's all carrot and no stick actually achieve much? How do you stop bidders from colluding to get the highest amount of funding for the abatement they choose to offer, especially when most companies will use external parties to help in their bids. It wont take long for those external parties to have a broad idea of what bids were successful.

How does soil carbon work? Has anyone been able to establish the long term abatement for it? Are the farmers required to pay back a prorata rate if the abatement is released back into the atmosphere? It's supposed to stay in the soil for 100 years, but does anyone really now? Surely if the weather forecasts are based on crap science, then it's likely any soil carbon forecasts are also based on the same crappy science? The CSIRO did some research into this http://www.csiro.au/resources/Soil-Carbon-Sequestration-Potential-Report and their results were less than encouraging:

When [soil carbon] stocks were followed through time, the majority of studies indicated that there was an actual decrease in the quantity of carbon stored in the soil. These seemingly contradictory results suggest that much of Australia's agricultural soils may still be responding to initial land clearing and that many management improvements are just slowing the rate of loss [soil carbon]... it may be extremely difficult to project these findings out into the future where the soil carbon condition is unknown.

--------

It reads like a Monty Python sketch, but this is the level of "information" we're at in regards to DA

I can't but help hearing the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby each time I read what Mr Power and Senator Birmingham had to say.

*Extract from Senate Estimates Hearing -26 May 2014:

Senator URQUHART (Labor): The current target for emissions reduction is five per cent by 2020. How has the capacity of the ERF to achieve this been modelled?

Mr Power (Department of Environment): I am aware of a number of external modelling parties who have done some work in a proxy manner. None of those studies have been conducted and directly modelled the actual white paper policy; they were conducted before that. ………..

Senator URQUHART: What about the departmental modelling, can you provide that?

Mr Power: The department has not released any modelling in relation to the Emissions Reduction Fund. As I said, it is a matter for government to release any estimates and it would consider that through its projections process.

Senator URQUHART: If the department has not done any modelling how do you expect to reach the targets?

Senator Birmingham (Liberal – Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment): That is not what Mr Power said. What Mr Power has highlighted is that there is a process for 2014 projections being undertaken but, based on the 2013 projections, we are aware of the abatement task that is required to meet the five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. We are confident that the structure of the ERF and the budget provided to it will allow the government to do so. Of course, further projections – the 2014 projections – are expected to be finalised near the end of the year and released somewhere around the New Year period.

Senator URQUHART: There is $2.55 billion of public money; why will you not release that material?

Senator Birmingham: We have released a lot of material and we have been through a very comprehensive white paper process in relation to the design of the Emissions Reduction Fund. The 2013 projections are publically available and the 2014 projections will be made publically available.

Senator URQUHART: But I am talking about the modelling. Why will you not release the modelling that the department has done?

Senator Birmingham: The government has been through a very open and consultative process in designing the ERF to achieve the bipartisan target.

Senator URQUHART: That does not answer my question. Why will you not release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: I think there is ample information out there. There is all sorts of advice provided to government over time, but what we have been very conscious of in this process is ensuring that the design of the ERF is robust. That is why we have engaged in such extensive consultations, been through a green-paper and white-paper process and made sure that we have in place a structure that can achieve abatement to achieve the 2020 targets without the type of punitive mechanisms that your government imposed.

Senator URQUHART: None of the material that you have released covers the projected abatement. Why will you not release the modelling that you have done?

Senator Birmingham: The material released gives clear demonstration on how the government intends to achieve its targets – bipartisan targets. Ultimately, of course, we will be judged and the success of the ERF will be judged on meeting those targets. We are confident that will occur.

Senator URQUHART: That still does not answer my question.

Senator Birmingham: I do not think I have anything else to add. In opposition we went through a very detailed process of looking at the potential sources and costs of abatement in government in getting the design of the ERF right. We are confident it will meet the targets.

Senator URQUHART: There is a serious majority of stakeholders who do not believe that you have released anything like enough detail, so why will you not release that?

Senator Birmingham: I would invite people to have a read of the white paper if they want some more detail on the ERF.

Senator URQUHART: I am sure they have got detail on the ERF, but I am talking about the modelling that it is based on.

Senator Birmingham: On these budget estimates processes and the expenditure of public funds the ERF is our primary vehicle.

Senator URQUHART: Which is $2.55 billion.

Senator Birmingham: We have been very transparent in its development and we are very confident that it will meet the targets.

Senator URQUHART: This is $2.55 billion of public money.

Senator Birmingham: And that is why we have gone through a very thorough, transparent, open, consultative and engaging green-paper and white-paper process to get the structure of the ERF right.

Senator URQUHART: Why won't you release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: That is what that whole process has been about.

Senator URQUHART: If you believe it is so good, why do you not release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: We have been quite open through this whole process. I cannot help but keep repeating that the development of the ERF has – in the very short period of time that the government has been in place, with a lot of hard work from a lot of people – seen the green paper released, seen extensive consultations and seen us make sure that we get the model right. We are confident that the type of process outlined will deliver value for money abatement for the taxpayer that will ultimately get us to the target. The test will ultimately be in terms of reaching that target.

Senator URQUHART: You are so confident, but you are not prepared to release that document for fear that it might show something.

Senator Birmingham: You are talking about a document that may or may not even exist.

Senator URQUHART: I am sure there is modelling. Are you suggesting that there has been no modelling?

Senator Birmingham: The government has all sorts of advice to it, and advice to government is not something that we traditionally explore at these estimates.

Senator URQUHART: I understand that, but I was asking about why you would not release the modelling.

Senator Birmingham: I am not sure what the modelling you are talking about is.

Senator URQUHART: The department modelling.

Senator Birmingham: I am not sure what the modelling you are talking about is. There are all sorts of input and advice received by government.

Senator URQUHART: So you are going to spend $2.55 billion, and there is no modelling.

Senator Birmingham: Very wisely and prudently and in accordance with the terms of the white paper.

Senator URQUHART: And no modelling?

Senator Birmingham: Very wisely and prudently to accrue genuine abatement in accordance with the terms of the white paper.

Senator URQUHART: But without any modelling from the department.

Senator Birmingham: We have had lots of advice from the department in the construct of the ERF, as we have from all manner of other stakeholders, and we are very grateful for their participation in that process.

Senator URQUHART: Does that modelling prove that the ERF will work and achieve the targets?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The government is confident that the ERF will allow us to achieve the bipartisan target by 2020.

Senator URQUHART: Are you confident on the basis of the modelling?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: We are confident.

Senator URQUHART: On the basis of the modelling that you have received?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: We are confident.

Senator URQUHART: Alright, I will move on because I think you are just going to keep saying the same thing over and over.

 

[Julia]

That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.

One can only hope that they don't try back dating to 1 July to suit the financial year accounting. The problem with such an approach, primarily in the electricity industry, is that the presence of the tax itself alters market outcomes sufficiently to make back dating in an efficient manner virtually impossible.

Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.

 

[Calliope]

Is the Abbott Government lying about their ability to use DA to achieve their reduction targets? They're funding at roughly $10-11 per ton of abatement. Is that realistic? What modelling, if any, have they undertaken to give them the confidence that they can meet their target?

PUP has promised to knock Abbott's Direct Action Plan back. Abbott and most Australians will be grateful, and you won't have to worry about it any more.

There is no problem with all Australians pursuing their own carbon abatement plans if they are interested. This includes you and your fellow Greenies.

 

[sydboy007]

PUP has promised to knock Abbott's Direct Action Plan back. Abbott and most Australians will be grateful, and you won't have to worry about it any more.

There is no problem with all Australians pursuing their own carbon abatement plans if they are interested. This includes you and your fellow Greenies.

If you support cigarette taxes to force smokers to help fund their increased medical costs, then how is taxing polluters any different?

How much longer can we pretend the costly externalities of fossil fuels are free?

What will our options be in 2017-18 when the USA and China both have nationwide carbon reduction schemes? Most of our trading partners by then will have some form of carbon reduction scheme running. They most likely wont take too kindly to our free loading.

 

[Calliope]

If you support cigarette taxes to force smokers to help fund their increased medical costs, then how is taxing polluters any different?

You, who are always carping about the"rentier classes" and the unemployed under thirties, are quite happy that the tobacco taxes slug the poor to the benefit of the rich. Increased medical costs is also a myth. Increased medical costs are mainly due to people living longer. You will be pleased to know that smokers die younger before the huge costs of just keeping old people alive set in.

Another stupid mistake you Greenies make is that CO2 is a pollutant.

That smokers are expected to pay for the cost of their healthcare is widely accepted even by smokers. Most smokers would not have a problem with paying a bit beyond that, but when the government is making a profit (tax revenue minus healthcare cost due to smoking) of $1,771 per smoker already, which will rise to $2,902 with the tax hike, many will turn to the black market and thus no longer fund their own healthcare.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/cigarette-tax-hike-defies-economic-logic/

How much longer can we pretend the costly externalities of fossil fuels are free?

What will our options be in 2017-18 when the USA and China both have nationwide carbon reduction schemes? Most of our trading partners by then will have some form of carbon reduction scheme running. They most likely wont take too kindly to our free loading.

Costly externalities? Where did you dredge that one up?

I doubt that they will give a stuff. The myth that anything we do can have an impact (costly externality?) on the world's carbon reduction schemes is a nonsense that exists in the minds of the likes of you, Milne and Hanson-Young, i.e. people who show their ignorance by declaring CO2 a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

 

[sydboy007]

You, who are always carping about the"rentier classes" and the unemployed under thirties, are quite happy that the tobacco taxes slug the poor to the benefit of the rich. Increased medical costs is also a myth. Increased medical costs are mainly due to people living longer. You will be pleased to know that smokers die younger before the huge costs of just keeping old people alive set in.

Another stupid mistake you Greenies make is that CO2 is a pollutant.



http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/cigarette-tax-hike-defies-economic-logic/



Costly externalities? Where did you dredge that one up?

I doubt that they will give a stuff. The myth that anything we do can have an impact (costly externality?) on the world's carbon reduction schemes is a nonsense that exists in the minds of the likes of you, Milne and Hanson-Young, i.e. people who show their ignorance by declaring CO2 a pollutant.

Wow. Got some stats to back up your claims. Unless a smoker dies from a heart attack they do generally linger on for quite some time. issues like emphysema and bronchitis, stroke, heart attack, a multitude of cancers. they generally don't kill that quickly so require costly long term care.

i would agree we're probably at the point now where the tax revenue is more than the medical costs though. Probaby it's as much a revenue grab as it is about public health. the sin taxes in Australia are probably some of the highest in the world these days.

Do some research and you'll see there's lots of health issues associated with coal mining and it's burning. It releases heavy metals along with other toxic gases. They are the externalities I'm talking about. The fact they are considered to be "free" is one of the reasons coal is so cheap compared to other forms of energy. It gets a free ride from this, so taxing it to cover the health impacts seems fair to me.

Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have:

• Higher rates of mortality from lung cancer and chronic heart, respiratory and kidney diseases.
• Higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung diseases, hypertension, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke and asthma.
• Increased probability of a hospitalisation for COPD (by 1% for each 1,462 tons of coal mined) and for hypertension (by 1% for each 1,873 tons of coal mined).

Children and infants in coal mining communities have been found to have:

• Increased respiratory symptoms including wheezing and coughing;
• increased absence from school due to respiratory symptoms.
• A high prevalence of any birth defect, and a greater chance of being of low birth weight (a risk factor for future obesity, diabetes and heart disease).

Communities near coal-fired power plants and coal combustion facilities have been found to have:

• Increased risk of death from lung and some other cancers.
• Increased risk of heart attack.
• Increased asthma rates and respiratory symptoms.
• Higher rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, miscarriages and stillbirths.

So the burning of solid plant food does seem to have quite a few negative impacts on humans.

I wont be surprised if our trading partners start to introduce WTO compliant Border Tax Adjustments on our exports if we have no form of carbon pricing.

 

[Calliope]

Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have:

Higher rates of mortality from lung cancer and chronic heart, respiratory and kidney diseases.
Higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung diseases, hypertension, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke and asthma.
Increased probability of a hospitalisation for COPD (by 1% for each 1,462 tons of coal mined) and for hypertension (by 1% for each 1,873 tons of coal mined).

Wow! That's scary Quite a few of those conditions appeared on my wife's death certificate and she never lived near a mine of any sort. Still you have given me reason to believe the problem could have been coal. You see her grand-father was a Welsh coal miner and even though he lived to be 86 it seems reasonable to suspect that the effects of the nasty coal could be hereditary.

Did your lengthy un-attributed research throw any light on this aspect?

 

[sydboy007]

Wow! That's scary Quite a few of those conditions appeared on my wife's death certificate and she never lived near a mine of any sort. Still you have given me reason to believe the problem could have been coal. You see her grand-father was a Welsh coal miner and even though he lived to be 86 it seems reasonable to suspect that the effects of the nasty coal could be hereditary.

Did your lengthy un-attributed research throw any light on this aspect?

Ah, we are talking about higher incidences, not absolutes. Using your wife's medical certificate has absolutely no relevance.

My great aunt in Scotland smoked and drank right into her 90s. Some people seem to be lucky genetically, others not so.

If you believe that living near a coal mine or coal burning power station has no negative consequences, so be it. 2 minutes googling will provide u with hours or reading pleasure on decades of research that shows it is. I believe this should be factored into the price of coal.

To put your mind at ease that I'm not not making it up:

http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/h...wer_plants_make_us_sick_executive_summary.pdf

In Europe, 18,200 premature deaths, 8500 new cases of chronic bronchitis, and more than 4 million lost working days each year, due mainly to respiratory and cardiac disease, are attributable to air pollution. That comes at a cost of 42.8 billion euros a year.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract

In the US a study by Epstein at Harvard Medical School found the costs of coal-fired electricity would increase by up to 300% once health and other environmental costs were included.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...e-coal-exporters-fear-loss-of-another-market/

In China air pollution caused more than 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010, mostly due to coal combustion. These amounted to 15% of total deaths.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2104595/opinion-health-experts-must-challenge-coal-lobby/

Coal from the Mandalong mine in the Hunter Valley, where the prize for the Million Dollar Mine promotion will be drawn, is transported by rail into and shipped through Newcastle, the world’s largest coal port.

Some 23,000 children attend school within 500 metres of the rail corridor supplying the port, which carries more than 4 million uncovered coal wagons per year.

Mandalong alone pumps out 16,000 kilograms of coarse particle pollution and more than 4000 kilograms of fine particle pollution a year. The coalmining industry nationally emits 330 million kilograms of coarse particle pollution and 7 million kilograms of fine particle pollution annually.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.

The trouble is that, from the industry's perspective, this does not seem to be legally enforceable in the event that the Senate rejects the carbon tax repeal legislation.

The crux of the problem is that different owners of power stations have a different risk tolerance. Potentially, those who are owed a refund will not be the same people who paid the tax and that gets hugely messy.

There's a lot of speculation at the moment as to who will and who won't take a gamble on the carbon tax. What actually happens as midnight 1st July? Which owners of generation are going to offer lower prices to the market based on not paying a tax? And who is going to play it safe and assume they are liable to pay the tax until the law is actually changed?

So you have a situation where companies are basically being asked to take on a political risk there with the potential for very significant losses if they get it wrong either way.

Eg Company A & B own technically and financially similar coal-fired plants. Company A takes the risk and assumes the tax is gone on 1st July, company B plays it safe and waits for the law to actually be changed as they are entitled to.

So what happens in the meantime? Company A generates a higher volume at the expense of Company B. So there's a change in physical output as a result of this strategy and both are taking a gamble, there being no "risk free" option. If the Senate passes the legislation then company B has just lost themselves a lot of money. But if the legislation is rejected then company A could, depending on the timeframe, be faced with a massive loss. There's no "risk free" way out of this one, generators are being forced to bet on the outcome of a political decision.

Even for the hydro generators, who basically have a foot in both camps and don't pay carbon tax as such, they still aren't sure what they'll be doing next week. How much energy will they physically be producing and at what price? That's anyone's guess whilst there's the "who will and who won't?" uncertainty regarding what the coal and gas generating companies will actually do about this one.

To put it into a more "layman's terms" scenario, suppose that you run a restaurant and there's a 100% tax in place on restaurant meals, proposed to be repealed retrospectively from 1st July. But what do you actually do in the meantime whilst waiting to see if the Senate passes the legislation? Do you drop your prices by half, sending yourself broke in the event that the legislation doesn't pass? Or do you play it safe, keep charging higher prices meanwhile practically all your customers go down the road to someone else who has taken the gamble on the tax being repealed? Whatever you do, if you guess the outcome incorrectly then you've lost a lot of money.

That's the problem in the power industry. Those who take the risk will be running their plants flat out whilst others lose volume. There's no option to not take a gamble on the outcome of a political decision here.

 

[Calliope]

Ah, we are talking about higher incidences, not absolutes. Using your wife's medical certificate has absolutely no relevance.

Yes, it's called satire i.e. "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues".

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, it's called satire i.e. "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues".

Duly noted. An adult discussion on a topic is not possible with you. Maybe cut back on the sublimated plant food.