In celebration of World Environment Day (today), the Queensland Division of the Property Council of Australia convened a breakfast meeting last Friday morning (June 3rd) to debate the topic “Australia needs a carbon tax”.
Leading speaker for the motion was Mr. Matthew Bell (Climate Change & Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young), supported by Ms. Kellie Caught (Acting Head of Climate Change, WWF Australia) and Mr. Kirby Anderson (Policy Leader, Energy Infrastructure, General Electric).
Speaking against the motion were Mr. Michael Matusik (Director, Matusik Property Insights), supported by Mr. John Humphreys (Director, Human Capital Project, University of Queensland) and Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University and Institute of Public Affairs).
The audience of about 150 persons were treated to some pointed exchanges, with the team speaking for the motion concentrating rather more on the science, and their opponents almost exclusively on the economics and cost:benefit analysis of the introduction of a carbon tax.
One compelling argument was the observation that to introduce a carbon tax of $25/tonne of carbon dioxide would cost around $100 billion by 2020, for a notional benefit of 0.0002O C (two ten thousandths of a degree) of warming averted.
The opponents of the tax were awarded a clear win, on rendered applause, by debate Chairman Mr Mark Ludlow (Australian Financial Review).
Source: summary written by an attendee known to me – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Among the other problems with the AGW hypothesis, we have to observe that even if this preposterous bogosity were predicated upon any verified tropospheric heat trapping potential for man-made atmospheric carbon dioxide, not even rolling back the world’s economy to the levels prevailing in 1632 could in any significant way mitigate the conditions the climatology charlatans keep peddling on the basis of their computer simulation “climate model” programs.
In other words, if global warming is happening, or is going to happen, none of the predatory thieving viciousness proposed by the “tax-and-regulate” government thugs will have any impact except to destroy the ability of the human race to adapt and survive whatever hypothetical adverse consequences might ensue.
Assuming, of course, that the real consequences of restoring global temperatures to some level approaching those which prevailed during the Medieval Warm climate optimum would be in any way “adverse.”
Well, it is that rare occasion when one can paraphrase Monbiot who said that the Greenies have offered no way out of the problems of global warming. The cost-benefit analysis cannot support mitigation that goes beyond common sense.
Anthony,
just to clarify: there will be $ 100 billion tax revenue till 2010, which will make it $ 10 billion revenue a year, out of 400 million tons of coal produced per year in Australia. But the 20 million Australians do not consume 20 tons of coal per person and year, maybe 2 tons. Most of the coal is exported to other countries such as China. So relabel it an export tax.
The coal sheiks of Australia will do what the oil sheiks have done since decades…
What would be wrong with that?
One compelling argument was the observation that to introduce a carbon tax of $25/tonne of carbon dioxide would cost around $100 billion by 2020, for a notional benefit of 0.0002O C (two ten thousandths of a degree) of warming averted.
“…of *possible* warming averted.”
Just sayin’…
Just what was Kellie caught doing?
Carbon tax schemes always make somebody rich. The taxpayers pay to make them rich. Similarly, carbon taxes and associated regulations give governments too much power, and we citizens lose our freedom. The regulations are supported by other powerful entities because the government creates a new regulatory market where profits are assured. And we pay that bill too.
Time for the torches and pitchforks.
Warmists don’t like debates. They don’t even like sceptical comments because I have now been banned 10 times by the Guardian for pointing out inconvenient issues with AGW. One Warmist lady thought that co2 by itself can cause dangerous warming, I soon put her straight and she vanished. This is the kind of brainwashed mindset we are up against.
it looks like some of the scientists down under are also seeing the light
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Tucci78 says:
June 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm:
…even if this preposterous bogosity were predicated…
-and-
…none of the predatory thieving viciousness proposed …
Wow, I hope sometime I get a chance to use these phrases, and I hope you don’t mind.
dh
Our current “government” seem to have forgotton about the Eureka Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion
Aussies don’t like to be pushed too far.
It is pretty sad that Ernst and Young thinks they need a division of Climate Change & Sustainability Services.
Has this test been conducted between carbon tax and temp decrease?
If it works on carbon, how about tax on air and water?
If Australia wants to make a meaningful inroad into global warming just shut down the coal industry.
In 20 years when there is still no sign of runaway greenhouse and we’re all dirt poor we can at least say we did something meaningful.
Meanwhile the Australian electorate is just waiting for a great big carbon tax with baseball bats at the ready-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/angry-voters-want-election-before-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226069753915
The oligarchs are at it again trying to extract $100 billion from the sheeple each year, you know through pass thru costs. They’re really PO’ed we squashed their original plans for a global carbon tax for the third leg of their world government scam.
INTERVIEW-W.Bank to Suggest CO2 Levy on Jet, Shipping Fuel
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE75407H20110605?sp=true
Unfortunately Romney has not educated himself on AGW and is talking gibberish,
No wonder they’d prefer to make proclamations such as “the science is settled.” It’s sort of a dumb tactical error for them to agree to a fact based debate where people are allowed to hear both sides and decide for themselves. One way communication is much better.
Thats only 500 trillion dollars per degree.
I’m going to use the word ‘bogosity’ every day from now on!
The pro side could never hope to win; they already know there’s close enough to zero benefit, so it’s no wonder they avoided that.
And I see there is another debate and someone has asked for help. I couldn’t help laughing at the ridiculous suggestions that were being put: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110605120836AA0c4it
icecover says:
June 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Unfortunately Romney has not educated himself on AGW and is talking gibberish,
=======================================================
Romney, the candidate the left wants the right to run.
tom T says:
June 5, 2011 at 2:12 pm
It is pretty sad that Ernst and Young thinks they need a division of Climate Change & Sustainability Services.>>>>
They’re accountants. The more complex the taxation rules get, the more money they make advising clients on how to structure their finances to minimize taxes. They likely don’t care one way or another except to appear politicaly correct…and to encourage more complexity in the name of “fairness” and “economic sustainability”. Try proposing a flat tax and watch who leads the charge against it.
Alarmists are losing the debate everywhere, because the planet isn’t cooperating. Once again they’re trying to move the goal posts.☹
I still think that saying there will be zero benefit from a carbon tax is actually wrong.
Yes, the tax might reduce CO2 produced by Australia by a tiny amount, but as industries move overseas to less efficient power usage, and more stuff is freighted to and from Australia, the nett effect on world CO2 levels is more likely to be in the upward direction.