This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new

Attachments

  • dn-tax-wide-20140714143953118048-620x0.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 75
Slowly but surely, one by one, the generating companies have been adjusting their prices based on what they think is actually happening with the carbon tax.

Some jumped at midnight 1 July, gaining market share as a result, and at least one still hasn't moved (presumably waiting for the law to actually pass). But overall, prices have been trending down, some have gained market and others have lost it, and looking ahead to tomorrow it seems that the carbon tax is now pretty much gone in terms of expected wholesale pricing.

The great difficulty, of course, is with the notion that the removal can be effectively backdated. Government can refund the tax as such, but it can't undo the altered market outcomes that arose due to the uncertainty thus making it difficult to properly pass on the refund to consumers. Eg company A that gained market share due to taking a gamble won't be won't be handing any money to someone who didn't. Now, that gets really complicated if company A was paying little (gas combined cycle) or no (hydro) carbon tax in the first place. Etc.

But in a physical sense, there's a few generating units online that wouldn't be if the carbon tax was to remain and likewise some offline. So there's been a partial shift already, and it's been progressively happening since 1st July depending on how much of a risk the companies were willing to take.

I know that at least some have taken a probability approach to pricing the tax. Eg they've operated on the assumption that they're paying carbon tax at a rate lower than the actual rate but not zero, reflecting their assessment of how likely it was to actually be removed. Whilst the actual rate paid is set by government, such internal assumptions do impact physical dispatch of generators and make a proper back dating of it effectively impossible (though in practice government will fudge it, and a few $ will end up in odd places).
 
Below is an extract from www.restoreaustralia.org.au


The Global Warming aka Climate Change Scam
Global Warming scam

Global Warming scam

Take the Global Warming scam for example. First they presented their pseudoscience backed up by “authoritative experts” like Al Gore. They trotted out various ‘scientists’ to back up their claims, and the people lapped it up because it all sounded so plausible and fuzzy feel-good. After all, the ‘experts’ couldn’t be wrong, could they?

But even a cursory glance at the credentials of these so-called ‘experts’ showed that they were not qualified weather experts. In fact, while some of them were indeed scientists, they were not qualified to comment on the weather…not even on the state of the weather outside their own windows.

Did you notice what happened soon after Al Gore went around the world crying out that the end of the world was neigh due to global warming?

Europe experienced its coldest winter in centuries, laying waste to the apocalyptic claims of Gore and his fellow scammers.

But they were undeterred. They just shrugged their collective shoulders and changed the name to “Climate Change” instead. Same silly claims, just a different name.

The Fabianists hijacked the environmental movement and used it for their own political purposes. The ultimate aim is to unite people behind “fixing” environmental issues to push people into demanding a “global government” that would have the authority to do the job; something that individual national governments would not, and could not do.
 
Noco, you can stop worrying.

Al Gore has never claimed that the end of the world was neigh. And Mr Ed never discussed climate science.
 
ghotib said:
Noco, you can stop worrying.

Al Gore has never claimed that the end of the world was neigh. And Mr Ed never discussed climate science.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm....typical Fabian comment......deny the spoken word.
 
noco said:
Hmmmmm....typical Fabian comment......deny the spoken word.
Click to expand...
<sigh> I was pointing, gently, to the silliest mistake in that written farrago of nonsense you quoted.

"Neigh" is the sound horses make. Rhymes with "hay", which is what horses eat. No relation to "nigh", which the end of the world is probably not. Easy enough slip of the fingers and I'd let it pass without comment if it didn't come from a group that's trying to rewrite the constitution.

The group's history and logic are as feeble as their spelling. If 'they changed the name to “Climate Change”' after Al Gore's movie was released in 2006, how come the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and named in 1988, with its first task being "to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate." (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml)?
 





The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a challenge requiring international cooperation to tackle its consequences. It therefore played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change.

This whole thing was set up by the United Nations and ever since the Kyoto protocol became into vogue, every convention after that date has been a complete flop without reaching any agreeable consensus.

Furthermore, when the UN General Secretary Ban-ki-Moon is a well known Greenie, any material they are presented with will be very selective to suit their own agenda and that agenda is for a World Government.
 
One attack at a time. restoreaustralia claims that "they" changed "global warming" to "climate" change some time after 2006. I pointed out that the IPCC, founded in 1988, has the term "climate change" in its name. Therefore the term "climate change" was widely used for at least 18 years before Al Gore's movie was released, and restoreaustralia is incorrect to claim that "they" changed "global warming" to "climate change" for any reason associated with Al Gore.

It's a small point of fact. restoreaustralia made a mistake. Maybe you can point it out to them and they'll correct it. Then they could tackle some of the others.
 
ghotib said:
If 'they changed the name to “Climate Change”' after Al Gore's movie was released in 2006, how come the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and named in 1988
Click to expand...
Perhaps not officially, but in common usage it was known as "the greenhouse effect" in 1988 and this term was very widely used in relation to it at that time with books written, media reports etc all using that term. And 1988 is, of course, the year in which most Australians first heard of the issue and there was a very high level of publicity about it at that time (heck, even a popular TV comedy show did an "environmental special" to join in with all manner of more serious coverage of it).

Sometime later the commonly used term changed to "global warming" and in more recent years it has become "climate change". But as someone who has long had an interest in the subject, I sure don't recall anyone calling it anything other than "the greenhouse effect" back in 1988.

As for the carbon tax, enough generating companies have now "climbed on board" to reduce wholesale prices to what is effectively a zero carbon cost level. That didn't happen on 1 July as I said previously, there has been a gradual change, but as of yesterday it seems that most companies are confident the tax will be removed and back dated at least as far as yesterday (and probably to 1 July, though most didn't have sufficient confidence back then to rely on it). There's only one company that I'm aware of (though there could be more that I haven't noticed) that still seems be acting on the basis that they will, or at least could, end up paying tax on CO2 emitted today. Suffice to say they're not generating much power, rivals taking that part of the market.
 
It's goorne.

I wouldn't like to be Penny's cat tonight.
 

Attachments

  • thz10-20140717124334887374-620x349.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 75
Yep, it's gone and some rather weird things have been happening.

Hydro Tas is copping an outright beating publicly, not just in the media but in federal parliament too. Apparently it's a real stuff up, foolishly generating more clean hydro power when the carbon tax was in and now the lights will go out because of it. And yep, it's Labor politicians leading the criticism.

In reality, no, the lakes aren't empty and the lights aren't going out in Tasmania. Yes, they're fairly low at the moment but the turbines are still spinning nicely and not about to grind to a halt anytime soon. And HT is, after all, the only electricity generator in the entire National Electricity Market that is actually obligated by law to maintain supply so it's not going to run the system into the ground. There's no such formal requirement placed upon anyone else and it's all hush hush indeed.

Storage levels today (versus 1st July 2012 when the carbon tax commenced):

Great Lake catchment = 28% (45%)
Gordon = 21% (65%)
Derwent = 46% (57%)
King = 24% (74%)
Pieman = 26% (41%)
Lake Margaret = 94% (92%)
Total System = 28% (54%)

So yes, there has been high production for the past 2 years but that's exactly the outcome intended by proponents of the carbon tax. But the lakes aren't empty, and the lights won't be going out due to lack of water. There will, of course, be less power produced in some parts of the system going forward - hence the lakes won't dry up even if there's a drought.

What we really need is more engineers, scientists and other practical people in parliament and fewer lawyers etc who simply don't grasp this stuff.
 
Isn't hydro green enough for Labor ?

Above average rainfall across most of Tasmania over the past 12-months may have helped with dam levels.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...test&step=0&map=decile&period=12month&area=ta

I wonder what sort of a chance they've taken with an El-Nino forecast this spring but that's now looking a little less likely.
 

Attachments

  • latest_ta.gif
    38.5 KB · Views: 68
I just find it strange that the COALition which preaches self reliance wants people to be totally dependent on big coal companies for their power, and not be able to generate it themselves by via solar panels. Sure people can still go out and buy solar panels, but receive little subsidy, whereas the coal sector receives billions in government subsidies.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...301312395?nk=03f932d63c1d4aba2e01583f8b2cd5d3
 
Well the carbon tax is gone but so too is the Morwell (Vic) briquette plant and associated power station which is to be mothballed at the end of the month.

This closure, and it does look to be the end of the power station at least with a modest chance that the briquette works might return to operation at some point, marks the first closure of any power station in Victoria since Yallourn E station officially closed in early 1989.

That said, it's not the first closure of a coal-fired plant nationally with Playford B (SA), Munmorah (NSW), Wallerawang (NSW), two units at Tarong (Qld), Collinsville (Qld) and Callide A (Qld) all either closed or mothballed in recent times. Kwinana (WA) is also closing the entire original plant (coal, oil, gas) although some new gas-fired generation remains active at that location.

The Tarong units are to be brought back online however, but then Swanbank E (Qld, gas) is being mothballed so it's basically swapping one for the other.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2450329/latrobe-valley-brown-coal-plant-mothballed/?cs=7

On the plus side however, the rain is absolutely pounding down here in Tas so that'll keep hydro generation up nicely. Gotta love money just falling from the sky - and it's natural rain too. Most of the lake level rises are modest thus far, although there's another 300mm on the way forecast over the next few days. Lake Gairdner (Wilmot power station) is only a small storage but it has risen 7 metres since this morning - that's 7m measured vertically from the water surface and it's still rising. Better hope nobody left any trailers, boats etc on the shore.....
 
Peta Credlins recent admission that Abbott's opposition to carbon pricing was completely political the consequences of which have left the country with no clear workable energy policy framework for industry investment, has left us with little less than a national tragedy.
These have been wasted years, increasingly the drum beat of rational business leaders here and in the broader world are calling for the inevitable; A price on Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
And here? we have fools carting lumps of coal into parliament. In 1830 it would be seen as forward thinking.
Abbott's grasping delinquency and the clowns that aided his ascension; a gift that keeps on giving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...