Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
You likely didn’t realize that the First Rule for the Carbon Tax Club is … nobody talks about the Carbon Tax Club.
And not only that … it could cost the poor Aussies big bucks if they say what I just said about the Carbon Tax Club.
Gotta love totalitarianism in the service of national eco-themed suicide …
From Miranda Devine’s blog at the Australian Telegraph (emphasis mine):
THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government’s clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.
On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”
Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.
Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.
So if some Australian business prints up this post, and tapes it to his window … he can be fined up to one megabuck. A million dollar crime.
Eco-terrorism at its finest, where Australia now has criminalized free speech … carbon. A word to conjure with, the name that cannot be spoken.
w.
PS—I think we should have a contest for the best sign within the Aussie law. To open the bidding, I suggest that Australian businesses post a big sign inside their stores that says:
WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT
THE CARBON TAX IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR OUR PRICE INCREASES.
Sincerely,
The Management
Bulldust says:
November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
If one visits the ACCC site one can see that Miranda Devine has grossly misrepresented the position of the organisation. The Chairman was quite clear about the organisations’s position in his presentation, which is no different than it has been in the past about any other misleading advertising:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017300/fromItemId/142
“Business costs increase all the time, and businesses are free to set their own prices. However, if a business chooses to raise their prices they should not misrepresent this as a result of the carbon price when it is not the case.”
“This is not new – the message is simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to make sure it is right.”
I would suggest that Ms Devine has reading comprehension difficulties, or she is being deliberately misleading. The full guidance brochure can be found here, but the Chairman’s statements sum it up neatly:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017091
My BS meter went off immediately reading this story… always good to check the source first folks.
Thanks, Bulldust. While you are correct in theory, in reality there’s no way to do what the ACCC suggests. They say that if you want to say that the increase is due to increased carbon costs, you have to get a statement from your supplier that verifies that their increase is due to increased carbon costs.
However, a moment’s thought reveals the problem with that. If a man selling bread wants to make a statement about carbon, he has to get a statement from his baker. For his baker to make that statement, he has to get a statement from his miller, and his electricity supplier, and the man who sells petrol for his bread trucks, and the truck manufacturers where he buys the trucks, and for the increases in phone costs and every other cost.
And each of those, in an endless loop, all have to get statements from the other one. Try this on for size.
If I drive a Ford truck and I sell materials to Ford that they make cars with, they can’t make a statement about carbon without supporting carbon evidence from their suppliers … including me. But I can’t say how much my carbon costs have gone up without the carbon statement from Ford. Cute, huh?
The net results of this chilling regulation will be:
1. The actual costs due to the carbon tax will be underestimated at the business end. Since you can get fined up to a million dollars for exaggeration, every single estimate of the cost will be on the low side. This will no doubt be used to make the claim that the costs are minimal. They are not.
2. Many people will just say “sorry, I don’t have an estimate”, because a) it’s far too much work and hassle to contact every one of their suppliers and ask if they have an estimate, and b) you can get fined if you overestimate. Most folks will wisely say nothing … chilling. Unfortunately, when a supplier says that they have no estimate, what is the retailer to do? He is muzzled, he can’t say anything, because of another man’s inaction.
3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
So while you are correct in saying this is framed by the Govt as a “truth in advertising” issue, Bulldust, in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is designed specifically to make it very hard to say anything about carbon, with draconian fines. The net result is guaranteed to be a suppression of comment on the carbon issue. I see no reason to conclude that it is accidental that the regulations will have a chilling effect. The regulations have made it a practical impossibility for a businessman to determine the effect of CO2 on the business.
w.
PS—Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims? Why can’t they say what they want about carbon? At the end of the day the market rules, if they jack their prices too far they’ll lose customers. Who is hurt if they say “20% price rise due to carbon” instead of “20% price rise due to our kids going to college” or “20% price rise due to general business conditions” or “20% price rise due astrological influences”?
Me, I think the Australian consumers are smart enough to look at a sign saying “20% price increase due to carbon tax” and say “I’ll shop next door, they raised their prices 3%”.
So truly … what is the harm to the consumer? For me, that’s government gone mad.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William says:
Quote.
“November 19, 2011 at 10:54 am
Gail Combs says:
November 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm
In reply to James of the West.
James of the West says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
……The real core reason the ACCC ………….. – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
_____________________________________________________
You have a really weird idea of how pricing actually works.
The pricing continuum has the following points.
1. If you price below cost you lose money. (Loss leader)
2. Break even
3. Small profit – large volume
4. Large profit – small volume
5. Price too high – No sale.
Hi Gail,
If appears some people do not understand how capitalism works. Socialism works well until the government runs out of other people’s money to spend.
The following is an example of the problem.
There was an interesting article discussing some basic facts related the Greek railway system, in the Canadian Global and Mail newspaper. ……..
Those advocating spend trillions of dollars on so called “green” projects do not understand deficit spending is not sustainable. The proposed projects are ludicrous if one does even a basic estimate of the costs.”
Unquote.
My Comment.
It’s going to be HARD TALK! Excellent.
Thinkers are here.
I like it very much.
Now this room is a nice one.
William seems to be a hard worker. We work together
Welcome Sir.
To see what we are discussing on we should get more about OUR RESOURCES of ENERGY:
World electricity production by fuel type:
Resource: National Geography
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/world-electricity-mix/
Coal 41%
Natural Gas 21%
Hydro 16%
Nuclear 14%
Oil 6%
Biomass 1.3%
Wind 1.1%
Geothermal 0.3%
Solar 0.06%
World Energy Consumption by Source:
Resource:BP statistical review
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481
Coal 30%
Hydro 6%
Nuclear 5%
Oil 34%
Renewables 1.3%
Huh! many interesting subjects…
After hours reading and trying to understand the meaning of the words written by our friends in this chamber, with many thanks for staying hours and reading my OFF SIDE IDEAS, it is time to extract a result as a general view. Hopefully, the following note can be the closest output from discussions we made here.
It was worthy to write about some figures regarding world energy ( electricity) production by fuel type and the same issue but the world consumption. The resources of the information were NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and BP Statistical Review. I made it in my last comment.
Still Coal in production side, is far ahead in comparison with other energy sources, and in consumption is the same as oil, coal has its serious weight and position.
This show was to have all attentions towards the subject of what huge figures are involved in this regard.
We had simple words in this chamber that I would like to quote it, thank you Willi Eschenbach.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/weschenbach/
quote.
“3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/”
unquote.
With respect to all the friends ideas here, and considering their valued notes:
This is a truth that energy is like blood in a body. Any blockage in blood circulation means an ATTACK and the result is DEATH.
TAX on any product is nearly a linear equation. But TAX on energy is not as simple as a linear relation. It is exponential equation, something like blasting. It never complies with a win-win game. There are no winners at all. This is a simple mathematical translation of above quote.
TAX on energy is acting like ATTACK in a body, it is an impact.
Energy with wide spread aspects, is an exclusive subject quite far from other products It is the spirit of economy today it is the blood.
I am “GREEN” and I think “GREEN”.
I am still insisting on TECHNOLOGY as the right way to get out of this mess.
The above said World Energy (electricity a major field of energy) production and consumption by fuel/source type is showing, there are sources that technology can play role in the future of economy.
Man-made CO2 as a matter of fact, due to the latest researches is not an issue, we hope it is true. True or not, we have to take care of the earth. At least, the economy would force us to reduce our fuel consumptions per unit of work. The “TO BE GREEN” side of the matter is “less CO2”.
If we were in 19th century, there was the fear of never get out of the problem. But in 21st century, we can handle it.
Now we need the necessary fund/ budget which by means of that, we can improve, enhance, make, find, and expand the existing and new resources of energy ASAP.
The Govt. should maintain this budget from TAX/whatever except TAX on CARBON that is as the main resource of energy and economy. The new fields of energy should not be built on the ruins of world/local economy.
And here is one simple thing:
I am sure that the meaning of GOVERNMENT in any comments by anybody, have been the best definitions for it and including the one defined by PLATO.
Any shortages of any Government in doing its job or any Person was pointed out here, have not been on any purpose. We tried to have constructive discussions.
All the best.
I find it difficult to believe Aussies are wearing this – I’m a New Zealander who has lived in Australia for two spells, (Sydney & Brisbane) & for the character of the people I know from those periods, it’s hard to form a picture of those persons bowing to such Orwellian dictates. Danger, guys, BIG danger – make a noise NOW.
A DROP in an OCEAN is not a “DANGER”.
AMENDMENT
To prevent any misjudgement:
Please delete the last 2 paragraphs of my comment in “ACCKKII says:November 20, 2011 at 5:26 am ”
and replace:
“And here is one simple thing to say:
Plato, as a philosopher expressed the identity of “Government”.
We wrote our comments under the title “I Blame the Australian Carbon Tax for Price Increases”, We think that a GOVERNMENT is responsible to do well, so any other issues not related to the subject and beyond the mood of this title should not be considered.
We just wanted to have constructive discussions.
Regards
Carbon, on the uptake
by Anthony Watts
From the University of Bristol Carbon cycling was much smaller during last ice age than in today’s climate Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most important greenhouse gases and the increase of its abundance in the atmosphere by …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/#wpl-likebox
Titixxxx, Willis addressed this idea. Who could put forth this effort just for the ability to properly attribute their prise increases? This is the same reason that red light cameras are a small civil penalty instead of the full price of a traffic ticket. Making something almost impossible to comply with and with an easy way out ensures that almost no one will challenge it.
There will be no carbon tax increase under the business i lead.
If you believe that you believe in fairies in the garden.
To: SteveF,
Please refer to more than 260 comments.
Your comment was discussed here. You’ll find as many as you wish.
A Government is responsible to give the RIGHT answers in the near future about CARBON EMISSIONS.
What if the GOVERNMENT don’t do the job?
Quote:
“Preliminary 2009 and 2010 global and national estimates of carbon emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement manufacture are available at the link below:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx
These estimates show that 2010 was by far a record year for CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement manufacture. Globally 9,139 Teragrams of oxidized carbon (Tg-C) were emitted from these sources. A teragram is a million metric tons. Converted to carbon dioxide, so as to include the mass of the oxygen molecules, this amounts to over 33.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. The increase alone is about 512 Tg-C, or 5.9%, over the 2009 global estimate. The previous record year was 2008, with 8,749 Tg-C emitted; the 2010 estimate is about 104.5% of that, or 391 Tg-C more.
Preliminary 2009 and 2010 global fossil fuel emissions estimates. Click on this image to see a larger image.
Much of the 5.9% global increase from 2009 to 2010 is due to increased emissions from the world’s largest fossil-fuel emitter, the People’s Republic of China, where emissions rose 10% to 2.247 Tg-C.
Emissions from the United States were 1,498 Tg-C, up by almost 60 Tg-C, or 4%, of the 2009 estimates of 1,438 Tg-C. The record year for the United States was 2007, with estimated emissions of 1,589 Tg-C. The 2010 total is about 94% of that value, reflecting economic conditions.
The general methodology used to produce the 2009 and 2010 estimates is described at:
image http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/Preliminary_CO2_Emissions_Explaination.doc
A manuscript report on these latest numbers has been submitted for peer review. A report on last year’s update with some of the methodology involved was published in:
Friedlingstein P., R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, J. Hacker, T.A. Boden, et al. 2010. Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geoscience. 3 811-812, doi 10-1038/ngeo1022.”
Unquote.
Steve, I may believe in fairies in the garden, but as an economist, I do not believe in the “no price increases” due to the carbon tax.
I have not read all comments, but would it not be perfectly legal to say “our costs have increased X since the passage of the Carbon tax”? Whether it is due to the carbon tax or not, the statement is just the facts and not blaming anything, just using a point in time as reference.
The last comment was to remind those who like CARBON EMISSION is not a TABOO.
http://wp.me/p1P1AQ-37
So glad to see an economist here.
1. price are changed it is a true story;
2. carbon tax is a factor that can increase the prices.
3.to make it easy for everybody, I once again quote a very important note:
Willi Eschenbach says:
quote.
“Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/”
unquote.
So glad to see an economist here.
1. “price” is changed, it is a true story;
2. carbon tax is a factor that can increase the prices.
3.to make it easy for everybody, I once again quote a very important note:
Willi Eschenbach says:
quote.
“Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/”
unquote.
So what are we going to do about it? Enough with the verbal intercourse. It is plain for anyone of sound mind to see what is going on ….. we are debt slaves to their fiat empire and we have lost many important freedoms already, all the while the pace is quickening. Folding pocket knives were added to the banned list at a quiet session of QLD parliament a few days ago …. so it looks like you will be fighting for your lives and freedom with water pistols.
You went fishing and got drunk or watched football and got drunk or had a BBQ and got drunk … anything to avoid getting engaged en-masse to stop this tyranny early in its tracks. Yeah go Red … No go Blue No go Red ….
And still there are a broad majority who proclaim those who speak out are the extremists or just nut cases who are over reacting ….. this is what keeps you still and it has worked a treat.
We must remove all incumbent politicians at the next election … Liberal, Labour, Green will NOT get you back any of your freedoms and rights , none of them will reduce the size of government, and I bet none of them will roll back the carbon tax – it is a governments dream come true.
Woooh…
TOO HOT BOILER no need to COAL..
Great!
KICK THEM OFF,
neither Liberals, Labours, Greens, Berlusconis, Gillards, Browns…
HELLO!
anybody’s home?
nor CAPTAIN KANGAROO!
All removed.
OKAY.
What’s going on?
Where are others VOTES?
Is this that freedom we are talking about?!!
see all at NEXT ELECTION.
Until then:
Now let’s see what are the others comments.
Streetcred says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Bulldust says: November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
——————————————
2/3′s Of the Australian voting public no longer trust anything that comes out of the federal government and its agencies. The illegitimate Gillard/Brown government has so corrupted the Public Service to the point where any government report simply cannot be believed. We’re still waiting to see the Treasury model for the Gillard’s claim that the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX will have minimal impact on the citizens. Independent modelling suggests a significant impact … why is the government and treasury so afraid to release their documents? Why did the government allocate 2 weeks parliamentary debate on the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX and then gag it after a few days so preventing the Opposition from engaging them in debate? Why did they refuse permission to table scientific evidence not supportive of the CAGW Scare in parliament? … these peer-reviewed papers included the work of Mann!
We have seen the evil hand of socialism at work in Australia and it is terrifying for the legacy that it will foister on future generations … energy deprived, unemployment, huge national debt, no free speech, etc. Music to the ears of the socialist.
____________________________________________________________________
Bulldust says:
November 17, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I agree with you Willis, Australia is certainly a nanny state to a degree. We have a bazillion petty regulations, many of which are never enforced. In truth the ACCC is almost completely toothless in any case … it is no threat to business. Our supermarket industry is heavily dominated by two main players in Australia (Woolworths and Coles) and they certainly wield that monopoly power. Yet the ACCC is about as effective at curbing their monopoly power as the UN is at creating world peace. I doubt they will be doing any serious prosecuting of fallacious CO2 tax price hike claims.
We went through a similar exercise when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced. Wholesales sales taxes (WST) were removed and a 10% GST introduced on final sales. I was running a small business at the time, and in our case the WST equated to approximately 10% of the final price anyway, so I didn’t adjust prices for the transition to the GST. There were similar warnings by the Government agencies at the time, that they would prosecute anyone found guilty of unwarranted price hikes. Not sure if anyone was ever held to account.
So yeah, is Australia more regulated than some countries? Agreed. But also less than others. We generally find a happy medium for the most part, and we are certainly a lot closer to the libertarian end of the spectrum than developed EU economies. As for the CO2 tax… it (and all the associated ancilliary legislation) needs to go. But I digress…
Streetcred says:
November 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Willis, worse still … we have a 10% GST at the POS, Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is built in before that so we’re slugged an extra 10% tax on top of it … tax on tax.
AndyG55 says:
November 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I see a whole heap of BLACK BALLOON SALES !!!
(Aussies will understand)
_____________________________________________________________
We see all complaining….
NEXT ELECTION
THEY ARE FINISHED!
One MUST think about how can stop no more impacts..
Apparently the Australian High Court has said there is implied right to freedom of speech in the Australian Federal Constitution. Anyway it been awhile since the legislation has been passed in break neck speed so I waiting for lawyers to point out its many flaws.
Well, I’ll allow that you’re not allowed to say it aloud, but does that allow you to print it without reading it out loud?
Jeez, ACCKKII, back off, eh?
You make some decent points here and there, but your prose is barely coherent, full of grammar and vocabulary errors, and generally a pain in the brain to read. Enough, already!
I’m learning English Brain, you can teach me to be better, I”ll be thankful for your great help.
But, this is just a gentle reminder:
When someone new starts reading the comments here and there, he/she cannot find out everything unless follow up the comments from the beginning. Same as you really I had problem, should I say “…prose, barely coherent….”. The comments here must be too short and this may cause some misunderstandings or whatever you may say.
For the grammar and vocabulary, you are right. I’ll do my best. Thanks for your paying attentions.
I’m sorry, I don’t know the meaning of “JEEZ”, “ENOUGH” and “eh” here, but don’t worry, I”ll find it somewhere.
Get back! to work.
Brian H says:
“Well, I’ll allow that you’re not allowed to say it aloud, but does that allow you to print it without reading it out loud?”
I’m positive!
Carbon price claims Guide for business Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, November 2011