Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):

Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.

Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.

In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?

I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere" or "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".

OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".

And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?

 

[GumbyLearner]

Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):

Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.

Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.

In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?

I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere" or "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".

OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".

And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?

That is quite a well-articulated list Julia.

I look forward to any responses from this forum addressing the concerns raised by Julia.

I'm all ears.

 

[Knobby22]

I'll let that mad left wing green conspiracy organisation called Origin Energy answer the question.

THE Federal Government decision to abandon its emissions trading scheme is likely to see higher electricity prices in the long term, Origin Energy boss Grant King says.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...er-ets-abandoned/story-e6freqmx-1225868414780


http://www.originenergy.com.au/news/article/asxmedia-releases/1018

http://www3.intret.ret.gov.au/Documents/mce/energy-eff/nfee/_documents/e2wg_nfee_stag26.pdf


The absence of a carbon price is already having significant effects. Without a carbon price, business must build more risk into investment calculations, with the result that investment will be more expensive than it needs to be, leading to less investment taking place.

This is occurring already.

The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page, has stated that the uncertainty related to domestic climate change policy will result in a rash of smaller capacity, open-cycle gas turbine generators being built to meet incremental rises in energy demand, rather than fewer but more cost and emission-efficient baseload combined cycle gas plants. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price, could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or about $60 a household in 2020. Let me make this clear, opposition to a carbon price will force up electricity prices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a-cleaner-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225937875487

 

[Knobby22]

Another beat up by the left wing anarchist society the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-12/04/c_13634996.htm

CANCUN, Mexico, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) -- This year will be the third warmest year on record since 1850, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said here Friday.

Average air and sea surface temperatures in the first 10 months of this year were 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the figures in 1998 and 0.52 degrees Celsius higher than in 2005, it said in a statement.

The organization also said the decade from 2001 to 2010 was the hottest on record, with temperatures 0.46 degrees higher than the average from 1961 to 1990 and 0.03 degrees higher than in the 10 years to 2009.

Warming has been especially acute in Africa, parts of Asia and the Arctic. The worst-hit areas in each of these continents are the Sahara, west Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Greenland and the Canadian Arctic.

 

[ghotib]

The Fallacy of Decomposition is something that is not addressed in this whole climate debate.

You mean this fallacy?

Fallacy of decomposition :fallacious belief that one has triumphed in debate when in reality one's opponent has died of boredom or old age.

Ghoti

 

[nioka]

Another beat up by the left wing anarchist society the World Meteorological Organization

Where do you draw the line between left wing anarchist and left wing socialist, and between right wing liberals and the extreme right wing. Is there no difference in your mind with anything left of your extreme right wing attitude to anyone with differing opinions to yours?. Thats how I read your postings.

If we all thought the same and never changed our mind over the years we would all be driving black Holden cars.

 

[jonojpsg]

Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):

Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.

Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.

In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?

I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere" or "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".

OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".

And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?

Have to agree Julia - only have to look at our behaviour a couple of years ago when petrol prices were through the roof - don't reckon anyone changed their driving habits, just got used to paying more for petrol.

Big question is then, IF we need to do something about CO2 emissions, which may well be the case given that we are clearly increasing the atm conc dramatically, HOW do we do that?

 

[Knobby22]

Where do you draw the line between left wing anarchist and left wing socialist, and between right wing liberals and the extreme right wing. Is there no difference in your mind with anything left of your extreme right wing attitude to anyone with differing opinions to yours?. Thats how I read your postings.

If we all thought the same and never changed our mind over the years we would all be driving black Holden cars.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was being sarcastic.
They are meteorologists. Just reporters of the facts. And the facts are that the world is warming up.

Others on this thread will say it is a conspiracy involving these guys and other scientists and its not happening (head in sand crowd).

 

[sails]

I'll let that mad left wing green conspiracy organisation called Origin Energy answer the question.

THE Federal Government decision to abandon its emissions trading scheme is likely to see higher electricity prices in the long term, Origin Energy boss Grant King says. ]

Seems a bit hypocritical when he picked up $3.8m in salary and bonuses this year:

Origin boss Grant King lives in harbour city luxury :

He also refused to explain why he deserves the $1.8 million bonus he picked up this year on top of his $2 million salary.

And more on what other energy bosses are earning here: Big bonuses for energy company bosses as bills soar

From what I can see, it's all about helping themselves to as much as they can. I become more skeptical of this whole carbon thing by the day...

And great questions, Julia. I would also like answers other than that of an energy boss.

 

[drsmith]

The absence of a carbon price is already having significant effects. Without a carbon price, business must build more risk into investment calculations, with the result that investment will be more expensive than it needs to be, leading to less investment taking place.

This is occurring already.

The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page, has stated that the uncertainty related to domestic climate change policy will result in a rash of smaller capacity, open-cycle gas turbine generators being built to meet incremental rises in energy demand, rather than fewer but more cost and emission-efficient baseload combined cycle gas plants. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price, could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or about $60 a household in 2020. Let me make this clear, opposition to a carbon price will force up electricity prices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a-cleaner-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225937875487

It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created to advocate it's new tax and it's not too worried about the impact on electricity generation investment in the meantime.

Business is not going to care whether there's a carbon price or not. They'll just pass the cost onto consumers. A no carbon tax outcome can be just as certain as a carbon tax outcome.

 

[Julia]

It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created to advocate it's new tax and it's not too worried about the impact on electricity generation investment in the meantime.

Business is not going to care whether there's a carbon price or not. They'll just pass the cost onto consumers. A no carbon tax outcome can be just as certain as a carbon tax outcome.

Exactly. The energy companies can't believe their luck. They can wave about this oh so vague allegation that prices to the consumer are rising because of 'uncertainty' and 'lack of a price on carbon'. Most consumers are too bewildered by the whole situation to question this.

Why exactly is any uncertainty driving up prices? If someone could explain to me the details of what mechanism is actually causing the prices to rise, then I'll be interested.

Surely, without a price on carbon (and I still don't actually know what this phrase means: is it a carbon trading scheme, is it a carbon tax and if so on what/whom?) everything would be just chugging along as it has in previous times?

I'm finding it pretty hard not to think the energy companies are taking this golden opportunity to raise prices and increase their profits. They are being nobly assisted in this by the government repeatedly telling us we need to put a price on carbon.

Until someone can explain, as I asked in an earlier post, how this 'price on carbon' is going to ameliorate climate change, its effects in Australia, and not disadvantage our economy while our main trading partners are not employing any similar mechanism, I remain sceptical of the energy companies doing anything other than price gouging.

And for the government, I don't think Tony Abbott's 'big new tax' is too far off the mark.

And Knobby, just repeating what the energy companies et al have said doesn't at all answer my questions. But perhaps you were just saying it over again, not actually offering your earlier post in answer to mine.

 

[Julia]

Have to agree Julia - only have to look at our behaviour a couple of years ago when petrol prices were through the roof - don't reckon anyone changed their driving habits, just got used to paying more for petrol.

Big question is then, IF we need to do something about CO2 emissions, which may well be the case given that we are clearly increasing the atm conc dramatically, HOW do we do that?

And that's sort of OK for those of us who can afford increases, but even then is it right that we should be stuck with unjustifiable increases that are actually going to increase the profits of the big energy companies, including increasing substantially the amounts earned by the bosses?
Of course these people are going to jump at the opportunity to whack up prices. It's completely in their interests.

But it's a whole other story for the people who are living in poverty now, or those who are just scraping by, with difficulty. Interest rates will rise again next year, pushing up mortgage payments and rents.

A society where the affluent continually increase their wealth but the poorest people sink further into their misery should feel a sense of shame.

 

[joea]

Julia.
If they do committ to a carbon price, we will see it fizzle out in a few years, (more money wasted).
Academics cannot solve the Murry Darling problem.
Why, because academics are learning from books written by other academics.

I would be interested in if you had read a book "Beyond The Brink" by Peter Andrews.
Its about his radical vision for a sustainable Australian Landscape.

This fellow is out there rehydrating properties and getting his hands dirty.
I have got it from the Library but intend to buy one.

In the book he explains what our problem is with the climate in a way it makes sense. The government now have him involved in seminars to get the farmers to come along.
The CSIRO have admitted that he can achieve on a property in 2 - 3 years what they take 12 years to achieve.

I have not answered your question on carbon but can direct you to a book that I believe makes sense, on the real problem.

For the correct answer on carbon I do not think you are going to get it anywhere but WilkiLeaks.
Cheers

 

[noco]

What an embarrassment for Combet and his followers at Cancun Mexico.Record low temperatures are being currently experienced. GLOBAL WARMING??????? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING???????? What fools these people are trying to convince the world about Climate change.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...w-temperatures-during-cop16-in-cancun-mexico/

 

[jonojpsg]

What an embarrassment for Combet and his followers at Cancun Mexico.Record low temperatures are being currently experienced. GLOBAL WARMING??????? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING???????? What fools these people are trying to convince the world about Climate change.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...w-temperatures-during-cop16-in-cancun-mexico/

Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???

 

[wayneL]

...seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record high temperatures indicate that global warming is occurring???

For interest, a slight modification to your post.

 

[Smurf1976]

Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???

It comes down to the politics of it all.

If there were record high temperatures then I'd be very surprised if there weren't claims from the other side that such temperatures were "proof" that climate change is real and is happening.

Remember the droughts that were never going to end and so on?

Both sides in this debate have thus far been willing to use short term weather events as "proof" of their argument in relation to long term climate. In a scientific sense that is junk, but it has been a widely used practice since this whole debate started over 20 years ago.

 

[Smurf1976]

Exactly. The energy companies can't believe their luck. They can wave about this oh so vague allegation that prices to the consumer are rising because of 'uncertainty' and 'lack of a price on carbon'. Most consumers are too bewildered by the whole situation to question this.

Why exactly is any uncertainty driving up prices? If someone could explain to me the details of what mechanism is actually causing the prices to rise, then I'll be interested.

Components of household electricity bills:

Generation = 40%
Distribution = 31%
Transmission = 17%
Retail = 8%
Other =3%

(Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding).

Combined increase in residential electricity prices 2007-08, 08-09, 09-10 (not compounded).

Vic (energy mostly from coal, gas, hydro in that order) = 53.6%
NSW (coal, hydro, gas) = 46.1%
Qld (coal, gas, hydro) = 45.6%
WA (gas, coal) = 42.5%
Tas (hydro, gas, coal, wind) = 41.9%
ACT (energy same as NSW - coal, hydro, gas) = 32.6%
NT (primarily from gas, rest mostly diesel) = 30.8%
SA (gas, coal, wind) = 29.6%

Now, amidst all of this, the major drivers of increasing prices are NOT related to power generation. New baseload generation 30 years ago cost about 4.2 cents / kWh from coal and about 1.4 cents from new hydro. In 2010 it's about 3.7 cents from gas and about the same from black coal.

The cost of generating baseload power hasn't increased at all over the past 30 years due to both technical and operational efficiency improvements combined with a fall in the real price of domestic fossil fuels.

So why the soaring bills? It's primarily related to distribution, transmission and all sorts of costs associated with being in a "competitive" electricity market (which has delivered higher prices...).

Note that both the smallest (SA) and highest (Vic) increases are in states with privately owned power supplies. Ownership makes little difference - it's how it's actually run (in a technical sense as well as management) that matters.

Average retail price at average household consumption:
SA = 22.8c / kWh
NSW = 22.8c / kWh
WA = 22.4c / kWh
NT = 20.9c / kWh
Qld = 20.1c / kWh
Tas = 20.1c / kWh
Vic = 20.1c / kWh
ACT = 16.3c / kWh

Retail price data sourced from the Tasmanian Economic Regulator and Aurora Energy (Tas) with some additional calculation by Smurf. www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au Wholesale generation cost (as distinct from actual pricing) data is my own.

 

[ghotib]

Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):

That's a big overstatement of my opinion, but I'll assume it's a bit of steam releasing rhetoric and try to answer the questions. Please bear in mind that I've concentrated on the science of climate change, not the economics of mitigating and adapting to it. I think that discussion about whether and how to end carbon emissions from fossil fuels is a separate question from the physical science of what's happening to the climate. I think the evidence is overwhelming that the effects of our fossil-fuel dependent way of life on the climate are a serious threat to human life and that they will make the life of the generations after mine far less secure and comfortable than mine has been. I accept a responsibility to try and lessen that threat, but I recognise that other people might see meeting the immediate needs of, say, an 85-year old pensioner, as a greater responsibility. I hope there are ways to meet both sets of needs.

More specifically, I don't have an opinion about the best economic mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions and I hope someone with a better understanding of economics will chime in. But seeing as you asked me directly:

Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.

Proposals involve a bit more than just a price on carbon, but the price is a necessary step. It brings the cost of carbon emissions into economic and financial systems, which makes it possible to charge the costs at the point of emission instead of leaving them to be carried by the community at large or of a future time. In the case of electricity generation, for example, coal-fired electricity has been cheap because the generators didn't (and couldn't - I'm not blaming any one for doing what seemed like a good idea at at the time) count the costs of carbon emissions. That has led to the economic distortion where coal-fired power still has a cost advantage over other power sources, but all consumers have to carry the cost of changes to the climate caused by those carbon emissions. In effect, not making coal fired power generators pay something for their carbon emissions means that consumers and/or taxpayers are subsidising them, only we don't know it.

One complication is that the costs of carbon emissions didn't become apparent until many decades after the huge rise in coal and oil burning had started; I guess in that way it's a little like the asbestos compensation nightmare where the damage is done decades before it became apparent. Another complication is that the atmosphere doesn't know about national boundaries, so it's not possible to say that any one source of carbon emissions is responsible for any particular weather event or crop failure or species extinction or...

Anyway, I don't know if a price alone would be sufficient to bring emissions down by 5% or 40%. I suppose it might be possible, depending on what the price is and how it's charged. However most proposals seem to include a carbon price with other measures to reduce emissions, such as cap-and-trade schemes.

Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.

You mean what difference does little Australia make when India and China emit more carbon in a week than we can cut in a year? Well, one point to consider is that little Australia has been putting fossil carbon into the atmosphere for 150-odd years and most of it is still up there, so our cumulative emissions are much more significant than our present annual emissions (and no I don't have exact figures for that, though it would be interesting to try and find them). Maybe there's an equity argument that we should cut to zero immediately till everyone else, including Samoa and Kiribati, catches us up?? Another point to consider is that our emissions per person are among the highest in the world and we have more room to cut them - which is not to say it's easy, just easier for most of us than for most others. However, it's true that if carbon emissions from Australia fell by 5% and carbon emissions from all other countries stayed the same as they are now the effect on the climate would be effectively unnoticeable.

In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?

Exponentially? The worst I've seen is quadruple over about 7 years, which is pretty awful but not exponential. And who knows the effects on all other bills: many commercial and industrial centres are capable of generating their own power if it makes economic sense for them to do so. I don't mean to trivialise the pain of big increases in domestic power prices, but its unreasonable to assume that there will be only one effect.

The kicker in that question is right at the end where you ask when will we see a result. Of course that depends partly on what everyone else does, but even if all countries could somehow reduce carbon emissions to nothing immediately the Earth would keep getting hotter because the climate system will take decades to get back into balance.

I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere" or "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".

OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".

And that's not an unreasonable question. Sadly, I don't think it can be answered exactly; that's why we have error bars and measures of uncertainty. Given how much of our present way of life relies on fossil carbon and has developed without costing fossil carbon, the effects of a carbon price have to be widespread and probably some of them will be surprising, but that doesn't mean they'll all be bad, any more than the effects of no change would all be good.

And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?

I really hope someone will pick up this question because I don't have specifics. Some Australian industry is already significantly disadvantaged by our failure to act in this respect: consider all the solar power technology that's gone overseas. I've seen a lot of commentary about Australia already falling behind in general "post-carbon" technologies. I've seen suggestions that nations who refuse to reduce emissions will face trade boycotts. Cancun seems to be working towards a lot of small agreements rather than one big scheme; that might open more possibilities. I had another look at the Garnaut report today; it has quite a lot of discussion of how an Australian ETS could relate to other schemes over time. Essentially I have a higher opinion of Australian enterprise than your question assumes, but that's not really an answer is it.

They're good questions Julia, and I wish I had better answers.Do you read Climate Spectator? That might be a good place to look for them. In the meantime I continue to support a price on carbon in Australia because I can't see any better way to start forcing our carbon emissions down, and because I have even less ability to influence the carbon emissions of other countries than I have of the one I live in.

Ghoti

 

[Julia]

Ghoti, thank you for what is at least a thoughtful and considered response, even if you can't actually answer the questions.