AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.
The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne - key elements of the current package - will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.
I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.Expensive ripoff (imo) as per modelling by the Centre for International Economics consultancy.
I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing. But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.
I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing. But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.
Wayne Swan, asked yesterday whether the government would reopen the carbon package after Professor McKibbin's call for a $10-a-tonne price, said: "No."
Never get this past the Greens, to whom the whole point is the keep winding the tax upward, until all the coal burning plants shut down, and the steel mills are running on solar cells and wind power.I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment...
They are also aware of the risks of climate change and the international turmoil that will create.
I have no idea what you mean by that mr plod. But I will continue to look at the available evidence on balance and come to the best conclusion i can. I have read nothing that will shake me from my stated position Which is markedly different to the position which you Disingenuously assign to me.But woddathaygunnado with wayneL?
Bring up the water cart and all hands to the hoses.
CSIRO and BOM have just released the latest review of climate observations.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.
I think the data from 800,000 years ago was corrupted by Fred Flintsone because he was after a Govt grant.
... Or on balance the full range of bona fide and unadjusted scientific data
Despite your heinous lack of punctuation, I suspect that your post is interrogative.And you can?
Perhaps the alarmists here could also provide a link to the CSIRO paper that proves through observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions is driving this temperature change? The article the Basilio entity refers to simply states the obvious - temperature changes, yet weaves in CO2 as the absolute cause without proof.
Another way to read the article: Eliminating man's CO2 implies that without Co2, the temperature wouldn't change at all - laughable. I guess that's why the IPCC needed to change the historical temperature history between AR1 and AR3 by introducing the discredited hockey stick.
If there's no CSIRO paper, perhaps Basilio could refer us all to an elite scientist instead?
Information at this site:
is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
may not be accurate, current or complete
is subject to change without notice
should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.[/INDENT]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?