Uncategorized

Carbon Trading: on in Australia, off in New Hampshire

15 years ago
Anthony Watts
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:
February 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm

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:
February 23, 2011 at 4:47 pm

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!
By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oakgeo
February 24, 2011 9:31 am

SideShowBob says February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
“ Steve
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products. Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue … I mean Christ where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!”
So many things wrong with this…
“… making people choose …”: it’s not a choice if the government is making us choose the “more efficient product”.
“more efficient products”: they are “more efficient” because the tax forces oil/coal/gas to be more expensive than the subsidized alternatives. The alternative energy products are not more efficient and won’t be for decades or maybe centuries.
“Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue.”: redistribution of my money via government fiat, yeah we all want that (sarc.). Plus we are trusting the government to decide and distribute. Nicely thought out, comrade SideShowBob.
“… where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!”: Yes.

0
bubbagyro
February 24, 2011 9:45 am

Frank K. says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:59 am
I am also a proud NH citizen who has been on my representatives’ tails through this process.
Just a small state? I prefer “bellwether” state.
And though few historians know, New Hampshire sent more men to the famous 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill than all other states combined. That’s just one of NH’s little-known contributions to the American Revolution.
ALSO, the At the urging of Paul Revere, hundreds of locals raided the King’s fort at New Castle Island (Portsmouth) in December 1774 (Fort William and Mary). It was the start of the American Revolution. NOT Lexington and Concord, although this latter was noteworthy because revolutionaries were killed there. The Newmarket Militia from Seacoast New Hampshire carried out the operation at Portsmouth. Lexington and Concord followed four months later in 1775.
Just a small state???
The colonial attack on the British Fort followed a warning by Paul Revere who had arrived in Portsmouth, NH the day before. The gunpowder stolen during the raid was reportedly used at the famous Battle of Bunker Hill in Massachusetts, nearby. Among the leaders of the raid were John Langdon and John Sullivan, both of whom became early governors of New Hampshire. Soon after the raid, the last British governor, John Wentworth was driven out of New Hampshire to Nova Scotia.
More importantly, Portsmouth harbor was strategically critical. The British had planned to send fleets with thousands of soldiers to the harbor and march them the short distance to Boston to quench the growing rebellion. The Fort was never relinquished, and the British had to reinforce in other ways, with much delay, for the duration of the War.
Just a small state???
Another contribution? Our Representatives and Senators each get $100 PER YEAR for serving. They are truly servants of the people here. New Hampshire has the third largest legislative body in the English-speaking world. Only the US House of Representatives and the British Parliament have more representatives than New Hampshire. We pride ourselves on our “citizen” legislature as the 400 members of our House of Representatives and the 24 Senators receive a salary of only $100.00 per year. The New Hampshire Governor and Council form of government has stood the test of time. It is by far the most unique and open form of state government in our nation. The New Hampshire Executive Council holds the distinction of being the first and the last of its kind in the nation. It is a vestige of the Colonial era and a public reminder of the continuing indication of the basic distrust Granite State citizens have for dictatorial government.
New Hampshire is the Only State with an Executive Council. New Hampshire’s Governor and Council (5 Members, Sununu is one) combination has become without equal in the nation. This sharing of executive authority, as a curb on autocracy, was once popular throughout New England but now it continues in full force only in the Granite State.
New Hampshire’s Governor and Council, all elected by the people, has become the most democratic form of executive government in the nation, or elsewhere in the world. All state business, as ordered and ordained by the Legislature, is voted in public, and no other state enjoys such open accountability between its Executive Department and its citizens.
For more on New Hampshire’s unique governance, see: http://www.nh.gov/council/history.html
Small state? Or the Live Free Or Die State? It was not the first state, but the only state to keep the founding principles.

0
George Tetley
February 24, 2011 9:49 am

SideShowBob
I work and live in Germany ( not easy ) I think that the money I earn is mine to decide how I spend it ! I drive a car that weighs nearly 2 tonnes and has a 585 hp engine, I can, here in Germany, legally do speeds of over 250 km/h on the autobahn , a small puddle jumper is not a means of transport to ensure a healthy existence, and at that speed (250 km/h ) I have been passed like I was standing still.

0
dp
February 24, 2011 10:10 am

This is good news for industry all over the world – except in Oz where outsourcing will become the new norm. They are too busy building a nation of burger flippers.

0
Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2011 10:26 am

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products.
There is nothing stopping people from choosing “more efficient” (which is GreenieSpeak for “smaller, and does less work, so it will take longer and probably do a cr@ppy job, but so what, you are “saving the planet”) products now, so that’s just a red herring.

0
ferd berple
February 24, 2011 10:44 am

” I do support a progressive taxation system that supports a welfare state”
Carbon taxes are more likely recessive, because the poor pay a greater portion of their income on energy than do the rich. Often the rich can deduct the taxes as business expenses, while the poor have no such deductions.
For example, as an employee, if you drive a car to work, can you deduct the cost of the car and fuel? In many place you cannot. However, if you own the business the company car and the fuel it uses are very likely deductible expenses. Any carbon tax you pay will simply be tax deductible from income.
If there is any net tax to business, then all businesses will raise their prices slightly, or go out of business, and in the end the employees of those businesses will pay extra tax through higher prices of loss of employment. There is no free lunch.

0
sHx
February 24, 2011 10:46 am


“C,mon, Australia, any okka is way better than that.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Okka “
You gotta admire the effort put into describing ‘okka’, whatever that is. Anyway, while you’re at the urban dictionary don’t forget to check ‘ocker’.

0
Lady Life Grows
February 24, 2011 10:50 am

You Aussies had better do something more than complain about the price tag of this tax, enormous though it will be.
You better tell people what the current 12 degree C average temperature means to crops and what the future really holds if temps do rise. Have a farmer shvering in Spring weather saying this is NOT optimum and warmer would be better.
And then get vicious–the greenies are. Show those rioting Arabs and Africans wanting FOOD prices to drop and tell the people what this nonsense is REALLY doing. So-called greens are black murderers (black as in the color of dead vegetation). Show pics of children starving and dying from nonsense like this.
Our enemies play hardball. It is time we did. Because this is the truth.

0
Josh Grella
February 24, 2011 11:02 am

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
Wow, you’re so right. I mean, it’s obviously peak oil time. no one has found any untapped sources of oil for well over a century now. How foolish of all of us to expect the government to allow us to make our own choices… /sarc off
We have plenty of oil to use if we just stop the BS that is preventing us from getting it out of the ground and refining it. That is the problem. By some estimates, if we had starting drilling for oil on our own soil in the 70’s and opened several more refineries, we’d be paying $1 or less per gallon right now. That’s not a peak oil problem or an unsustainable problem. It’s a greenie imposed supply problem that forces us to get oil from other countries. Educate yourself a little more before trying to sell your snake oil on this site.

0
kramer
February 24, 2011 11:16 am

Gillard confirms: she lied about about no carbon tax
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_confirms_she_lied_about_about_no_carbon_tax#79874
Seems like this is how democrats and liberals are getting it done these times… Lie about what you won’t do and then do it.

0
Peter Miller
February 24, 2011 11:50 am

Possibly one thing we should all consider is that it is probably in all – with the exception of Australians – our interests that this self-imposed impoverishment scheme goes ahead in Australia.
The typical politician and greenie are so far removed from the real world that only economic disaster will make them see a glimmer of common sense.
Well done Australia, thank you for drawing the short straw.

0
Dr A Burns
February 24, 2011 12:13 pm

>>Mike Haseler says:
>>Which century are they living in?
We’re living in the Dark Ages where religion and politics rule over science and common sense, with utter nonsense promoted by a ridiculously biased press.

0
Andy G
February 24, 2011 12:25 pm

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products.
ummm.. like what ?
It would take one heck of a large tax plus massive subsudies to make wind or solar viable, if it were even possible, which it isn’t.
The ONLY effect this tax will have is to lift the prices of many things, it will not change the balance of energy use, except because people are pushed below the poverty line and can no longer afford it.

0
Graeme
February 24, 2011 12:31 pm

More than 12 months for this “policy” to be overtaken by events.
This is one of the most “courageous” decisions taken by a politician in a government with a tenuous majority that I have seen.
You can get away with a new tax when you have political capital to spend – not when you don’t.
This is a gift for the opposition parties – and we will see if they are capable enough to take advantage of it.

0
archaeopteryxgr
February 24, 2011 12:31 pm

I have a very simple hypothesis in all this. Could the lady have been “influenced”, directly or indirectly by some Siemens offshoot?
There are two groups (that I can see from my little perch in quasi bankrupt Greece) that are desperately pushing the Green Craze: The Germans (I label the, for simplicity’s sake the Siemens-Deutsche Bank duo) and politicians that go under the “Socialist/Democratic” label. In Greece they pretend to be socialist. In the US, it is the lovely Democrats with assorted do-gooders.
The sad Greek experience is that Siemens has bought into every political party but with a special affinity for the “socialists”. In the last 3-4 years it has been more discreet, and has gone through Green NGO’s, hordes of them, and through its subsidiary, Osram. Osram funded some obscure local NGO that brought Al Gore to Athens to do his bit.
I used to be “shy” about making such absurd conspiratorial statements, but it is no longer the Russians, they sneer at AGW, it is the Germans. They discovered a great scheme to promote their “solutions for a sustainable future”, all conveniently found in Siemens brochures. They have devised a masterful concept with feed-in-tariffs (an early 1990’s German SPD Law) and CO2 certificates. These are pressure mechanisms for all the hordes of idiots to be bying German salvation. If we, bankrupt Greeks, for example, buy a lot of wind and PV gadgets, we will offset carbon penalties. Excellent for German and Danish GNP, horrible for us.
CO2 certificates are worth “0” in the US, thanks to the death of cap-and-trade, and they will be worth “0” in Europe, unless a pan-European carbon tax is imposed 2-3 years from now. The Europeans, including the Germans will feel quite stupid if they are the ONLY ones with a carbon tax. Therefore, the pressure and the incentives must be huge to entice other suckers to go along.
I apologize that this sound like yet another conspiracy theory. It is not. It is a nicely conceived and masterfully executed business plan.
I have no info on Australia, but I bet you will find plenty of NGO support for Greenies. Invitations to Nobel events etc.
This is not about science, and Climatology will probably die out. It is about German export strategy.

0
Graeme
February 24, 2011 12:36 pm

For above posters going on about Peak Oil…
I would like to mention a couple of things for you to consider.
1. Coal to Liquids conversion
2. Gas to Liquids conversion
3. Methane Clathrates
4. Uranium and Thorium for electric power
We have liquid fuels for centuries if not millenia – we will most likely have to deal with the next glacial period before we run out of liquid hydrocarbons.
The key challenge is maintaining prosperity so that we have the cultural/civilisational capital to deal with any issues/risks in the future.

0
Mark Twang
February 24, 2011 12:39 pm

Seems like many of the Commonweath nations are bound and determined to throw away their common wealth on a dare. Sux to be them, but at least the rest of us will get to witness a test case.

0
david elder
February 24, 2011 12:43 pm

Julia Gillard promised no ‘carbon’ (sic) tax at the last election. Now she changes her mind, and compounds the error by planning to eventually turn the carbon tax into cap and trade – more complex and accident-prone, aside from its rorts. Even the carbon tax would seemingly have to be very high to make expensive renewables like solar power competitive.

0
BoomBoom
February 24, 2011 12:58 pm

Oil can hit $140 a barrel, and it’s still a better deal to drive a gas car than an electric (despite the delusions of greenies) electricity prices are connected to oil prices.
There’s a myriad of factors besides oil as well — safety being one of the most important… I cerntainly don’t want to get in a wreck with a car wired with deadly voltage and toxic chemicals, that’s for sure (never mind range, etc).
But it’s just like liberals to judge you, and to tell you how to live your life. It seems they like choice, only when it involves aborting a life. Energy? Nope, no choice for you!!

0
Mark in Oz
February 24, 2011 1:40 pm

Gillard has just been on the Alan Jones program for about 30 minutes. I had to turn it off as the dissembling, sophistry, not to mention outright mendacity spewing from the radio exceeded my tolerance level in very short time.
She actually expects people to believe that she campaigned for such a tax! Well, all I can say to those who voted for her and the watermelons is, suck up big ’cause no excuses for stupidity are accepted in the real world.

0
SideShowBob
February 24, 2011 1:49 pm

Robert of Ottawa
Ummm not such a foreign concept you know
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/push-for-junk-food-tax-gains-weight/story-e6frfmd9-1225939778160
George Tetley
You can spend your money however you want, I dare say in the future with that car you’ll be spending most of it on fuel
Bruce Cobb
“There is nothing stopping people from choosing “more efficient”” – you mean to imply energy prices don’t factor into consumer buying habits, what rubbish!
Josh Grella
“There’s plenty of oil” – yeah you just keep rocking back and forth telling yourself that buddy. Tell me is there enough oil for the 2.5 billion people in China and India that want a US style lifestyle? Do you recommend they adopt an American life style too ?

0
Annei
February 24, 2011 2:05 pm

‘TimDot says:
February 24, 2011 at 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…’
Just like the UK now, eh?

0
manicbeancounter
February 24, 2011 2:34 pm

In economic theory, in a closed economy and zero transaction costs, with all other things being equal, a carbon trading should work quite well to reduce carbon emissions. In the real world consider these points.
1. The oil price has more than tripled in the past decade. There are enough incentives to increase energy efficiencies from this alone. The marginal impact of carbon trading will be much lower than if the oil price had been static.
2. Those businesses which can most easily pass on the extra costs to the customer are those with no competition from abroad. Supermarkets, which consume huge amounts of energy, are a good example. Australians cannot hop over to New Zealand or Singapore for their weekly groceries. Manufacturing businesses – which can be shipped abroad to China – will do quite nicely from the carbon credits. They can cut back on production and use the carbon credits to fund new ventures overseas.
3. The energy trading schemes are highly complex and need experts to set up the rules. Or rather people who read up on the theory, and know more than the naive punters. (Sorry, I mean the elected representatives of the people.) Enron was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. Lehman Brothers was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. With mortgage securitisation now so last year, this presents the way to make extraordinary profits.
I do not keep up with politics too much, so Anthony, are you sure that you have things the right way round? A socialist government in Australia is bringing in a regressive policy that could cause consumers to subsidise manufacturing jobs abroad, and help a return to the multi-million dollar bonuses in the financial services industry. All this, in the name of a policy that will be near impotent in constraining CO2 emissions. The Republican Party (who represent business interests) in New Hampshire is proposing binning a policy that would help their real constituents.

0
bubbagyro
February 24, 2011 2:42 pm

China has coal enough for generations to come. China is importing cheap coal from Oz and the US right now, preserving her own. US alone has enough coal and gas for hundreds of years.
It is a short-term supply/demand issue. With nuclear and coal and gas, I expect fuel costs to be much less, once we “Drill here-Drill Now”!
Oil and gas are being found using a new paradigm (see abiogenic oil) in China, Russia, and even Viet Nam. It is a renewable resource, I am convinced by the evidence mounting each day.

0
Ripper
February 24, 2011 3:12 pm

In Western Australia , Mitchell’s are running a fleet of road trains running on LNG (dual fuel) already.
We have a dozen go past here every day.
It costs around $80K per conversion , and as the oil price rises it will become more and more cost effective.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/orbital-wins-lng-truck-contract/story-e6frg2s3-1225861966050

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Related Posts

Uncategorized

This Fourth of July, Put American Pride and Patriotism on Full Display

7 years ago
Anthony Watts
Uncategorized

Lumir K: Cooking Oil Powered LED Lamp

7 years ago
Charles Rotter
Glaciers Uncategorized

Surprise! Study says some glaciers actually shrank during the last ice age

8 years ago
Anthony Watts
Aerosols Uncategorized

Study: Interactions between smoke and clouds have unexpected cooling effect

8 years ago
Anthony Watts