Carbon Trading: on in Australia, off in New Hampshire

Julia Gillard Picture
PM Julia Gillard - Image via Wikipedia

Australia appears to be ready to run down the Carbon Rabbit Hole, from the WUWT Tips and Notes page

Richard says:

A PRICE is set to be put on carbon from July 1, 2012, under a deal announced today by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Ms Gillard has announced a two-stage process for pricing carbon, which will start with a fixed price period for three to five years and then shift to an emissions trading scheme with a “flexible” price linked to international carbon markets.

Ms Gillard said that the new deal would be the “cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build clean energy economies”.

She said she didn’t believe Australia needed to lead the world on the matter, but added it couldn’t be left behind.

Ms Gillard said she anticipated that the Opposition would “launch a fear campaign” on a “great big new tax”, but said she would “not take a step back” on the issue.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/pm-to-set-price-on-carbon-from-july-1-2012/story-e6freon6-1226011295526

===========================================================

pat says:

The quickest “consensus” evah! and all in the name of “climate change” with never a mention of AGW:

24 Feb: ABC: Gillard to lay out carbon price policy

In the aftermath of last year’s election, Ms Gillard established a multi-party climate change committee to build consensus on what form a carbon price should take.

The ABC understands the committee has now come to an agreement and Ms Gillard will reveal more details at 11:30am AEDT…

The Government abandoned its previous emissions trading scheme last year after it failed to get it through the Senate.

This backdown is widely believed to have led to former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s slide in the polls, and his eventual sacking…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147523.htm?section=justin

fyi, the former PM’s sacking is not “widely believed” to have been sacked over his failure to get an ETS through; in fact, the Opposition leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, lost his job for backing such a scheme. also note no member of the main Opposition party sat on the “multi-party” committee, and the Opposition is leading the incumbent party in the polls at present. our present Prime Minister promised there would be no carbon price if she was voted in and changed her mind the second she got in. plus the following is from just six days ago!

18 Feb: ABC: Carbon price deal is months away

The Government’s multi-party climate change committee, which is chaired by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and includes the Greens and independent MPs, held its fourth meeting in Canberra this morning.

Ms Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet were widely expected to unveil their preferred model after the meeting.

But the committee says no final decisions have been taken on how to price carbon or what assistance will be offered to industry and taxpayers.

It says the final design of the carbon price will only be decided when all the elements of the policy can be considered together, and that should happen in the coming months.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142797.htm?section=justin

=================================================================

Ric Werme writes about New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire House has passed a bill that would have NH withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Next step is Senate (maybe a stop at a Finance committee, and then the Governor. He may well veto it, but the house passed it 246 to 104. The senate will like pass it by a veto proof majority too.

All in all, looking promising!

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/new-hampshire-smacks-down-cap-and-trade/

RGGI was supposed to segue directly into a national cap-and-trade system, and was designed by Lisa Jackson, now EPA administrator, when she ran New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. The pitch to industry was that they could get a head start on buying cap-and-trade permits for two or three dollars each, and make a fortune when a federal bill passed with permit prices ten times that or higher. Now that a federal bill is dead, RGGI is a lose-lose for everyone except the politicians who get to spend the money and the special interests receiving subsidies.

The overwhelming veto-proof, bipartisan vote today means that New Hampshire is now on a path to doing something that looked impossible just a couple years ago — repeal a cap-and-trade program. In the process, it could deal the death blow to cap and trade both regionally and nationally.

While RGGI can survive the loss of a small state like New Hampshire, it could probably not survive the loss of a large state like New Jersey, where a repeal effort is picking up steam fast, with at least 37 co-sponsors.

Data to be collected by Glory will help scientists improve our ability to predict Earth’s future environment and to distinguish human-induced climate change from natural climate variability.
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brendan
February 24, 2011 2:17 am

Just yesterday a galaxy poll revealed only a third of Australians believe “The world is warming and man’s emissions are to blame”
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1298438094_document_230211_-_not_buying_the_climate_scare.pdf
This after the now PM made the solemn promise during the election campaign on 17 August 2010 that “s Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ”There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,”
We have a Government driven by the AGW carpet baggers, beholden to a Greens senator for power and with a record of utter incompetence with a raft of ‘green bling’ that have achieved more in emptying our wallets than saving the planet.
We have a Climate change department of 400 that has done nothing for 3 years!
And its just been revealed that the PM, in the midst of all this, hadn’t spoken to the Governments own chief scientist (and she a staunch AGW believer) for nearly 2 years.
Already increased costs for electricity are hitting households. This has little hope of ever eventuating.

Don Keiller
February 24, 2011 2:17 am

Gillard clearly demonstrates that light travels faster than sound.
She appears bright until you hear her speak.

johanna
February 24, 2011 2:28 am

Depressing. Still, there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip. We were almost at the point of copping a particularly obnoxious cap and trade scheme a few years ago, when shenanigans in the Senate, ironically Greens who thought it wasn’t hard line enough, killed it.
I know from personal contacts that there are quite a few Labor MPs who think this is a terrible policy. Trouble is, the Greens hold the balance of power. There is no spoon long enough to make supping with this lot safe.
People don’t yet grasp the implications of this proposal, for consumer prices and the economy as a whole. As they are teased out, I expect that community support for it will plummet. I also think that privately the Government would be delighted if there was a way out which could be blamed on someone else.

UK Sceptic
February 24, 2011 2:30 am

…shift to an emissions trading scheme with a “flexible” price linked to international carbon markets.
Link to what, exactly? The carbon market in the US has closed its door and the one in the EU has been suspended because of major fraud. It seems doesn’t Gillard actually follow current affairs that have a profound effect on her lunatic policies so where is the dizzy bint at?

February 24, 2011 2:43 am

Sorry everyone. Australia’s unhappy being a 1st-World nation so we’re going to quickly drop ourselves down to 2nd-World status.
After that, when the Watermelons take over, we’ll shoot through 3rd-World status quick smart and be living the perfect 21st century hippy agrarian lifestyle.
insert deity here help us…

February 24, 2011 2:44 am

When Gillard campaigned for the Federal election in Aug 2011 she said: –
“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_friday_february_25/
So out of 150 of the House of Representatives who were elected, only one, a Green, Adam Brandt, campaigned for a carbon tax over the term of this parliament.
Do you believe this?

Chris in Hervey Bay
February 24, 2011 2:45 am

I cannot believe so called intelligent people would make a decision on the welfare of our country based on such flimsy evidence.
What sane person would bet their house and all their possessions on a weather prediction 100 years out??

Paul R
February 24, 2011 2:49 am

Congratulations to Prime Minister Brown and his ALP poodles, they finally figured out that a mandate is not needed in a deception, just a consensus among peers is required when you’re masters of the universe.
At the end of the day it’s just another tax for the relatively wealthy people of Australia to endure but I’m afraid it marks a small victory in the larger war these creatures are waging against humanity.

Adam (Just out of Newcastle...)
February 24, 2011 2:51 am

It disappoints me to say this… but our country is run by Traitors.

harry
February 24, 2011 2:54 am

It should be noted that she categorically promised that there would be no carbon tax in any government she leads. Her deputy stated that claims they would bring in a carbon tax were hysterical.
Their promises are worthless.

Cliff Huston
February 24, 2011 3:01 am

Stephan,
“No link to Mann’s page at Penn what is happening
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Try this link:
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

Jack
February 24, 2011 3:19 am

Even though it was fully reuted 2 weeks ago by a prominent economist, Henry Ergas, the Prime Minister is still using the TV grab that the cost of a carbon tax is less than the cost of inaction. Ergas blew that up spectacularly but his explanation required some concentration. Concentration our Prime Minister does not have because her attention span is fully used up by a 30 second TV grab.
2ndly, this is the reversal of proof. She can make any claim and you have to disprove it. She could claim she only had one personality in her head but could she prove it? ( A bit of dry humor). She is on record as proclaiming simply and directly that there would be no carbon tax in any government she leads. I wonder she can sit still with combustible trousers.

Peter
February 24, 2011 3:23 am

Although she claimed that the Liberal Party’s opposition to the tax was based on a ‘scare campaign’ about prices of goods and services skyrocketing, when asked whether prices would increase, she said “Well that’s the idea isn’t it?”.
She’s going to kill off the economy of one of the worlds most prosperous countries.
The Greens who want to push the country back to the stone age, are happy to help.

February 24, 2011 3:59 am

However, Australia still has one big advantage over US: the parliamentary system. You can remove a bad government quickly when needed. America has no way to do a No Confidence Vote or call an immediate election.

Coach Springer
February 24, 2011 3:59 am

Sitting in Chicago, I can think of another fear. That this turns out to be only incrementally bad and the do-gooders of the day and rent seekers develop a whole lot more trading schemes to raise the cost of other “undesirable” products and behaviors. The Gores and their Enrons and Goldman Sachses are out there. You know, frog boiling time. (We’re the frogs.)

David
February 24, 2011 4:04 am

Viewed from afar (the UK) – I find Julia Gillard VERY SCARY….

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:06 am

“UK Sceptic says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:30 am”
There’s the NZ ETS. Not sure who they are trading with.
“Andy G says:
February 24, 2011 at 12:48 am”
In Aus, it matters not who you vote for. They are all in it for the cash flow.
Personally, I don’t support a “carbon” tax, whatever the hell that is. S. Bob Brown is on record during the elction campaing saying that “..If we want transport, roads, hospitals and schools etc etc…” “then a carbon tax would pay for that”. Now, my question is what are our current taxes being used for? Lets have a “carbon” tax, which is a consumption tax after all, which replaces ALL other taxes. I’d go with that.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:11 am

“Adam (Just out of Newcastle…) says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:51 am”
Yet people still vote (Ok, its compulsory to REGISTER to vote, not vote itself, in Aus. And I have committed a crime by posting this).
What amazes me the number of people who trust/believe politicians and what they say. Haven’t you learned yet? The literal translation from Greek words which form the English word “politician” almost literally translates to “lie to the people”.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:15 am

Now, with the proposed carbon tax, it is now the responsibilty of the Gillard Govn’t to prove “carbon” (By which they mean to be Co2) IS damaging the planet, IS driving climate change in a catastrophic maner. So far, all I have seen is computer animations.

BFL
February 24, 2011 4:21 am

Re SideShowBob, rising cost in oil prices always works its way uphill to food and all other products because they require energy to produce. The price of petrol is just the first and most immediate consequence and I wouldn’t think that Europeans would be exempt unless those governments have a handy-dandy way of reducing petrol taxes on an oil price increase. Unfortunately, wages are always slow to catch up and the people at the bottom are the most effected economically. Oil price and unnecessary carbon tax increases lower the standard of living for almost everyone except the very well to do.

rukidding
February 24, 2011 4:31 am

If I was the opposition I would be running ad’s showing that the government was coming for everybody’s SUV’s.I would think it would have the same effect as running ad’s on US TV saying the government was coming for their guns.
Maybe an ad showing a hyundi gets being pulled backwards down the boat ramp by a 12ft tinnie.:-)

Steve
February 24, 2011 4:43 am

SideShowBob, while a carbon tax might encourage people to buy smaller cars it has other consequences. Having a tax on oil (which our carbon tax here in Ireland is) hits everyone. It affects people trying to heat their homes-a woman froze to death this winter in Ireland as she couldn’t afford to heat her house. It affects business because diesel prices have also shot up in the last couple of years since our carbon tax was brought in-hence transport costs increase. It affects tourism-people are less inclined to travel around their own country if petrol prices are too high. At the moment ~65% of what I pay for petrol goes to the government in tax. Oil is not a luxury item & most people have little choice but to use it. Only when a truly viable alternative is available might high taxes on oil might make sense.

JohnB
February 24, 2011 4:46 am

SideShowBob, it might be a good idea to reference which nation you are talking about. The Oz .gov already gets $16B in fuel tax as well as $68.3B in “Resource and Petroleum Rent Tax”. This makes up about 1/4 of the total tax income for the Australian Federal Government.
I’d say we already have a “fuel tax”, wouldn’t you?
http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_37.htm

amicus curiae
February 24, 2011 4:52 am

I used less power than in winter, I have no elec heating or aircon, and yet?
my bill is up 40 for this quarter withpout the carbon con being added.
fuels at near 1.40 a litre now..
I suspect if Aussies hadn’t handed our guns in they’d be thinking more carefully about how the populace is going to take this!
still we DO have rope:-)
seriously the womans an idiot! in good company with brown and the rest of the agw converts.

Saaad
February 24, 2011 5:07 am

I thought we’d escaped this lunacy after the demise of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard’s election promise that she would not introduce a carbon tax. However I don’t think people are as ill-informed or as gullible as she obviously believes. This will surely be her undoing.