It seems Australians are waking up to the folly of a carbon tax. I’m sure Mr. Flannery’s quote of the millenium helped bunches.
However the sheer pig-headedness of PM Julia Gillard, who lied about not seeking a carbon tax to get elected, is stunning in this statement:
Ms Gillard yesterday vowed to press head with the carbon tax plan despite poor polling and the campaign from the Opposition Leader.
“I’m interested in the policy cycle not the political cycle,” Ms Gillard said.
Full story here
The voter opinion turnaround is testament to the hard work of my sceptical friends in Australia. Good on ya!
I think $8.50 AUD for a Big Mac is not quite enough.
[ducks, runs]
I’ll be attending the No Carbon Tax rally in Brisbane on May 7th wearing my NO CARBON TAX tee shirt. People are now listening, the media has more stories but Julia Gillard is still trying to push the tax through. The polls show little support for the tax and a bit less support for Julia.
I guess Oz was probably a major starting place for the greens a couple of decades ago – and I know my cousins ex-husband was a major player 10/15 years or so ago – but he was a complete muppet and incapable of thinking stuff right through – but nevertheless managed to get himself elected on the green ticket, and I believe many ‘innocent’ aussies seemed to fall in line and take the green ‘pledge’. I doubt any ever realised the BS and the long term problems they were generating for themselves. But hey, they have twigged it now and I just hope they can overturn the crass policies being inflicted on them…..
Canspeccy, to say “At what concentration does CO2 significantly impact human physiology?” on this forum is simply trolling. You can look up the number, you can easily see that it has no resemblance to the anthropogenic emissions. Likewise you claim that our changes are “radical” is an exaggeration.
However you are correct about a carbon tax being the least bad option. It gets rid of the whole scam of carbon offset trading. However you would also have to agree that the owners of the carbon (energy shareholders like myself) must be compensated for our losses incurred by taxation. Agreed? Otherwise no dice.
“I’m interested in the policy cycle not the political cycle”
Sounds like something that Charles I of England said – before the Brits chopped his head off.
Aussies, soon will be your chance to play like the Irish voters, and eviscerate your Labor party. For they will not understand until you eviscerate them.
On a similar vein, Rob Oakshot, one of the independents propping up the minority labor government made this wonderful statement:
INDEPENDENT federal MP Rob Oakeshott has pledged to base his final decision on whether to support Labor’s carbon tax on evidence, rather than the views of his constituents, saying to do the latter would be nothing more than populism.
oakeshott-to-rest-carbon-vote-on-the-evidence-over-voters-wishes
He also said
Mr Oakeshott said he would have failed his electorate if he followed his constituents’ views over those he thought were right, and that he was not scared of losing his seat as a result.
I guess he doesn’t understand what a democracy is and that he better start looking for a new job.
Smokey
You claim scientific objectivity but then say:
“The air in many offices and factories is routinely over 1,000 ppmv. CO2 at those levels is harmless, ”
which is merely a bald statement of your conclusion without any evidence.
And when you say:
“And yes, C-4 plants react differently than C-3 plants. So what? They all benefit from more CO2. In a world of rising food prices, and where one-third of the global population subsists on $1 a day or less, the added CO2 is an unmitigated good. ”
Here you support a sweeping assertion based on an irrelevant statement about two widely disparate groups of plants about which I had said nothing.
All other things being equal, rising CO2 concentration will most likely increase productivity of many crop plants (though not, I predict, rice), but where will that get us: to a global population by 2100 of 15 billion instead of the predicted ten billion? You call that an unmitigated good?
My chief point was, and this is also Ross McKitrick’s point, that if you want to limit carbon emissions (yes I am sufficiently scientifically literate to know that combustion yields CO2, not pure carbon) then a carbon tax is the cheapest way to achieve a particular target.
And there are benefits to a carbon tax aside from any that result from a reduction in carbon emissions: namely, scope for offsetting reductions in other taxes, e.g., income tax, a reduction in the flow of resource revenue to unstable ME and African despotisms, and a delay in the exhaustion of conventional oil and gas reserves.
Millrat
Re: “I guess he (Mr. Oakeshott) doesn’t understand what a democracy is…”
Perhaps he merely has a view of democracy that differs from yours.
Australia has a representative democracy, where those elected not only speak, but also think, for their constituents. One view of the role of a representative under that system is well expressed in the words of the eminent British parliamentarian, Edmund Burke:
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774
Your assumption that the mass of people have a clearer idea of what is in the interest of their community than a distinguished individual who has been chosen to represent them and who has devoted time and study to questions of public policy is evidently, even today, not accepted by all parliamentarians.
Brendan says:
“Sometimes coaxing the public to your point of view reaches an immovable barrier. Sometimes people must be jolted out of their complacency by militancy, even if that means a period of rancour, turmoil and danger.”
I’ve got a pretty strong feeling that particular course of action won’t turn out quite how they expect it to, should they choose to pursue it.
CanSpeccy says:
“You claim scientific objectivity but then say:
‘The air in many offices and factories is routinely over 1,000 ppmv. CO2 at those levels is harmless,’
which is merely a bald statement of your conclusion without any evidence.”
Keep digging, deconstructing your provably wrong statements is fun ‘n’ easy. I provided evidence: my boy, who served in the USS Helena, a fast attack sub, reports that CO2 levels below 5,000 ppmv are considered harmless for extended periods. If you disagree, go argue with the Navy.
Another meaningless statement, which could just as well apply to H2O:
“At what concentration does CO2 significantly impact human physiology? At some point it is lethal, at lower concentrations it impairs physical and mental performance. What are the thresholds for such effects?”
We know the threshholds for CO2 concentrations very well. They’re easy to look up, so it’s best to get up to speed before commenting. Start your search with “MSDS.”
And as I stated, many offices exceed 1,000 ppmv.
Next, you say:
“Here you support a sweeping assertion based on an irrelevant statement about two widely disparate groups of plants about which I had said nothing.“
Contrary to your assertion, you stated that different kinds of plants react differently to CO2:
“Plant growth responds to carbon dioxide concentration, but some species respond more than others.”
This isn’t realclimate or climate progress, where scientifically ignorant head-nodders pass on equally silly talking points – and get away with them, because those echo chambers censor out corrections and opposing points of view. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, where false and/or scientifically untenable statements are promptly debunked.
“If you disagree, go argue with the Navy.”
The US Navy is not a scientific authority.
The fact is, there is very little research on the effect of carbon dioxide on human performance. That 5000 ppm is not lethal does not say anything whatever about the threshold for physiological effect. So if you want to argue the science, maybe you could give us the scientific references.
Or is it the case that in your world of “fun ‘n easy” determination of the truth, the scientific literature is a needless distraction.
But for morons, I suppose there’s nothing to worry about in changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere so long as it is not immediately lethal.
On further thought, I should not have used the word “morons”. I do not wish to create acrimony.
However, I am puzzled by the apparent determination of some to trash every expression of any concern for the consequences of human action on the environment, however, tentatively those concerns are expressed.
Humanity is possessed of the capacity for reflection and anticipation. We should should surely exercise those gifts. In a world of billions and a growing world economy, the human environmental impact will surely become detrimental at some point if it is not already.
We should think about that. For example, if the global economy were to grow at 3% for 100 years it would reach about $one quadrillion in constant dollars or about 20 times its present size. If energy consumption increased proportionately, we’d need nearly two billion barrels of oil a day, which would clean out Saudi Arabia in about a year, the Canadian tar sands in another year, the rest of the world in four or five years. The environmental impact of all that carbon added to the environment would surely be spectacular, which is not to mention twenty times present day pollution from coal and gas, etc. At some point we will have to limit these impacts. It is surely sensible to start thinking about it now.
CanSpeccy says:
“The US Navy is not a scientific authority.”
They might disagree with you at Annapolis.
[And I don’t mind being called a moron. Facts and evidence are all that matters. Opinions by themselves don’t mean much.]
So if you don’t accept the Navy as being an authority on the effect of CO2 on submarine crew performance, you probably won’t accept any authority. There are reams of data on the effect of CO2. I’ve pointed you to the industry standard MSDS resource, in addition to this link. If you bother to get a little knowledge you will understand that atmospheric CO2 levels are simply not a problem. CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past, and the biosphere thrived.
At current and projected concentrations, atmospheric CO2 is completely harmless. Burning every last barrel of the world’s oil could not double CO2 levels from here.
You say that the “environmental impact of all that carbon added to the environment would surely be spectacular, which is not to mention twenty times present day pollution from coal and gas, etc.” That is just an emotional conjecture based on non-science. CO2 is not “carbon,” and it is not “pollution.” It is a tiny trace gas essential to life on earth. Your claim that CO2 could rise twentyfold over the next century shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Finally, the free market, if allowed to operate, will efficiently allocate energy resources as it always has. Yes, the price will rise, but the world will not run out of oil. In fact, Forbes magazine just ran a story [4-25-11] on solar heated steam injection into depleted wells, which will allow the recovery of at least 300 billion barrels more oil in the U.S. alone.
Human ingenuity can easily solve our energy problems. The real problem is the truly evil enviro-lobby, which fights tooth and nail against any and all new production of desirable, efficient fossil fuels. The eco-Malthusians do not care how many of the world’s poorest starve as a result of their obstructionism; the end justifies the means. And their goal, my friend, is a massive culling of the population. AKA: genocide.
These eco-Luddites push for inefficient, wasteful and silly ideas like windmills – a pathetic energy source that would die on the vine if it didn’t receive enormous taxpayer subsidies. They are so misguided that they believe that hobbling the economy will benefit the average citizen. They are totally wrong. The really scary part is that they can vote.
“So if you don’t accept the Navy as being an authority on the effect of CO2 on submarine crew performance,”
I didn’t say that. That US submariners operate at 5000 ppm CO2 merely proves that it is possible to function in such an atmosphere. It says nothing about the impact of such an atmosphere on performance relative to performance at 370 ppm.
The concentration of CO2 in a submarine will reflect a compromise among various factors including human performance and the size and cost of the equipment necessary to scrub CO2 from the ship’s atmosphere to concentrations below 5000 ppm.
“Burning every last barrel of the world’s oil could not double CO2 levels from here. ”
That seems to be incorrect.
Proven oil reserves are around 200 billion m^3. So let’s say there’s nine times that much still to be found (you’d probably say more). Burnt, it would yield 7.3 X 10^12 Mg of carbon dioxide, or more than 3.5 times as much CO2 as is currently in the atmosphere. So burnt all at once, it would raise atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 1300 parts per million.
If oil consumption were to grow by 3% a year for 100 years, the annual use would total about 4.5 X 10^11 Mg per year, at which rate it would take just 4.4 years to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by the amount currently in the atmosphere (ca. 370 ppm), assuming negligible sequestration of the added CO2.
What the actual rate of sequestration by geologic and other processes is seems obscure. I once asked a number of experts in the climate science field but got no satisfactory response. I doubt if anyone really knows — wow, a whole new field of modeling for the climate science guys.
In addition, there might be several times as much CO2 added to the atmosphere through the combustion of natural gas and coal, which are much more abundant than oil.
“Alfred Burdette”? Or “CanSpeccy”?
Which one is the sock puppet? And how many more are there?
FYI, sockpuppetry is not admired here.
I am using different machines that automatically log me in. I had not notices the change of id. Canspeccy is my blog, which is the name I thought I was using here all along.
So hope that dispels your paranoia.
Now to the facing the facts you have wrong.
CanBurdette,
Whatever you say.
Cherry-picking certain points I raised, that you believe you might be able to answer [while avoiding the rest] is simply attempting to re-frame the argument. But I’ll play along, and refute all of your arguments. You commented:
“So let’s say there’s nine times that much still to be found (you’d probably say more).”
Wrong.
If the only way you can try to score a point is to put make-believe words in my mouth, your argument necessarily fails. I wrote verbatim: “Burning every last barrel of the world’s oil could not double CO2 levels from here.” I meant that literally, and I am careful with words. So quote me exactly; don’t fabricate my statement by implying that I meant there is 900% more oil. That is your prevarication, and I don’t agree with it.
By arbitrarily inflating my statement by 9X, you then claim a 3.3X increase in CO2. I’m a little bit astonished that you actually believed that would fly under the radar here. This isn’t the realclimate echo chamber, where your shenanigans might gain traction. Inventing fictional numbers on which you base your argument fails.
And it strains credulity to presume that the U.S. Navy would make a trade-off between an alert crew and a trace gas, if the Navy thought it was harmful. You questioned the reliability of submarine personnel operating in higher than average CO2 atmospheres. Since you made the statement, provide convincing evidence of your conjecture – or admit that the Navy knows more that you do about the harmlessness of CO2 under 5,000 ppmv.
The result of a mistake-prone submarine crew due to CO2 could be a nuclear WWIII – if that were the case, which it is clearly not. Further, you avoided both the MSDS and the Minnesota public health links I provided, which refute your belief that current or projected CO2 levels are a problem, you denigrated the Navy as being unscientific, and you accused it of compromising safety. Could you be less credible? Not unless you really tried hard.
Finally, I have provided a convincing argument that CO2 is harmless: show us any convincing, testable, empirical evidence showing that global damage has occurred due specifically to the rise in CO2. If you do, you will be the first to do so, and you will be on the short list for a [now discredited] Nobel prize. In fact, there is no such evidence. None. Therefore the null hypothesis rules, and CO2 must be accepted [barring any new evidence] as a completely harmless trace gas.
However, there is strong empirical evidence showing that CO2 substantially increases agricultural productivity. If you would like to see that evidence, just ask.
Conclusion: CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More CO2 is good. I know that rocks your belief system, but here at WUWT the scientific method rules. CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. Deal with it.
“By arbitrarily inflating my statement by 9X, ”
I wasn’t arbitrarily inflating you statement. You talked about burning all the oil there is.
To estimate how much CO2 that would produce, you have to estimate probable as well as proven reserves. I estimated probable reserves at nine times proven reserves. I assumed you would claim the ratio to be higher than that. If you think it is less, you could have told us what you think it is.
But although you boast of an interest in facts and logic, you seem to find both annoying. You just keep repeating your mantra “CO2 is good.”
Pointless, to continue the discussion.
CanSpeccy says:
“Pointless, to continue the discussion.”
I accept your concession statement. By previously asserting that “I estimated probable reserves at nine times proven reserves,” you mis-attributeed that fictitious number to me. That was, of course, false.
And as always, you avoid the plain fact that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. If you want evidence that CO2 is clearly beneficial to the biosphere, just ask.
Actually I wish Ms. Gillard all success in pushing through her carbon tax/carbon trading scheme. This will offer several clear benefits.
1. It will crush Australia’s resource based industries, driving up the price of commodities yet further for the benefit of all those economies, such as that of my country, as a free rider on Australia’s misery. Because of the large administration required for it, it will increase public service and decrease the private sector, reducing Australia’s productivity. Again this works to the benefit of all other nations with resource based economies.
2. As the first nation to actually implement such a policy, Australia will serve as the great ghastly example of what not to do. Thus far, questions of adverse economic impacts have been largely theoretical. Australia will serve as a useful test case as to how destructive it really is.
3. If the tax is effective then it will be universal. And it will thus conclusively demonstrate just how regressive it is.
4. The claims of revenue neutrality will finally be shown for the lies that they truly are. Never in the history of mankind has there ever been a revenue-neutral tax. Such claims will certainly add yet another patina of mendacity to the already thick tome of falsehoods uttered over the years by the Green machine.
5. The economic horror inflicted on Australia will be more than sufficient to exterminate Labour at the next election and banish Ms. Gillard to electoral hell.
It’s simple folks.
In politicians minds the operative word is ‘tax’. Not ‘carbon’.
All politicians like tax. It’s like having their own big pot of money that they can dip into and distribute to those they see as ‘worthy causes’ aka ‘voters’. They like doing this. A happy voter with tax money in his pocket is more likely to vote for the politician.
The only problem is that other people don’t like paying taxes to start with. So any excuse will do for a politician…if they can make the payer willing to pay. If today’s excuse is to save the planet from thermageddon, that’ll do fine. Tomorrow it might be that the tax will be used to build vast thinking machines that’ll scare off the vast invading alien hordes from teh outer planets.
The actual excuse is immaterial, so long as people believe it.
Today carbon, tomorrow uranus.
Colin,
you say, “It [the carbon tax] will crush Australia’s resource based industries …”
But it will, in fact, affect all industries, some more energy reliant even than resources, e.g., airlines.
Further, why will a carbon tax, any more than any other tax, crush these industries?
Australians use approximately 6000 kg of fossil fuel per person per year, so a carbon tax at the rate of, say, 4 cents per kg, as currently applied in the booming resource-based Province of British Columbia would total about $240 per person. A significant charge, but quite small given that western states currently impose taxes equal to 40 or 50% of GDP.
And in fact, a carbon tax may have no impact on the overall level of taxation despite Latimer Alder’s cynicism, since it may be applied on a revenue-neutral basis, e.g., with a compensating reduction in income tax, as Ross McKitrick has urged.
Further, if a countervailing duty on imports from countries without a comparable tax, then there should be no negative impact on overseas trade.
And, as indicated above, Australia would not be blazing a trail, but following the lead of British Columbia, which has a strongly pro-market and free enterprise government.
Your idea that there is some universal law against tax reductions, which negates the possibility of a revenue neutral carbon tax is mistaken. If you follow the history of taxation in a country such as Britain where left and right governments have alternated over many years, you will see a consistent pattern or alternating tax increases and reductions (as a percent of GDP).
Oh, yeah, here’s how you make a carbon tax revenue neutral:
BC Ministry of Finance:
Tax Cuts Funded by the Carbon Tax
Not sure that I entirely believe it. But these claims seem to be correct:
“B.C. now has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for people earning up to $118,000, B.C.’s corporate taxes will be the lowest in the G7 group of countries, and B.C.’s small business tax rates will be the lowest in Canada by 2012.
These tax cuts will attract investment, create jobs and put more money in people’s pockets.”