Australia’s climate change policy debate is far from over. Earlier this month Kevin Rudd conceded it was a mistake to shelve the ETS, and yesterday Rio Tinto joined the fray, warning Australia not to go it alone on pricing emissions. At The Punch we realised we hadn’t heard much about the international experience, so we spoke to Scott Wyatt, Energy and Environment Advisor at the Delegation of the European Union, about how carbon pricing (they have an ETS) has gone in the EU.

The only one we have

Q. How does carbon pricing work in the EU? Is it similar to the proposed Australian system (what details we have!)?

A. There are differences in scheme design, but the principle is very much the same as (the cap and trade system) proposed under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has been in operation since 2005. Under EU law, it places a limit or ‘cap’ on the total level of emissions across the covered sectors, and this cap declines with time. It covers electricity generation and emissions intensive industries–such as cement, iron and steel, and pulp and paper–across not only the 27 Member States of the European Union, but also in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Participants with obligations under the scheme must surrender allowances to cover their actual emissions. Allowances can also be traded. The price companies have to pay for polluting acts as an incentive to invest in lower emissions technologies and the ever-declining cap ensures a continuous reduction in emission is achieved.

Q. Was the EU community initially resistant to carbon pricing? 

A. Some in the EU were - and even those that were supportive obviously had concerns with how it would be implemented and what that would mean for them.  The apprehension largely died away as they became familiar with the system, though clearly the EU is looking to what others are doing around the world in regards to industry competitiveness.  We have dealt with this through continuing free allocation of allowances - although from 2013 this will be revised to create stronger incentives to reduce emissions.

Q. What has the outcome been so far? What results have you seen?

A. It’s abundantly clear that the EU ETS has brought climate change into the boardroom. In reality though, exploring the counterfactual is always fraught with challenges about assumptions on business as usual. However, if you look at the emissions and the price, even in the first learning phase, you can see an apparent relationship between the carbon price and emissions.

I think more telling is the results of surveys from Point Carbon and others that show that emissions trading has helped mainstream action to reduce carbon emissions and to include that consideration in investment decisions. The declining cap will ensure emissions keep dropping over time.

Q. What are the negative or challenging aspects of carbon pricing?

A. Getting the right coverage, and the right point of obligation is important - the latter can have an enormous benefit in terms of behavioural change that can equal the price effect.  Operators will all say that they want transparency and certainty to make investment decisions (and argue as to why they are a special case!).  It is important to remember that carbon pricing is a means to an end - a low carbon economy.

Q. Is carbon pricing the most effective mechanism for tackling climate change?  

A. Emissions trading is a proven, effective, least-cost tool for reducing pollution and this is what the EU has chosen. However, tackling climate change requires a whole range of tools.  Carbon pricing for some sectors provides flexibility and cost effectiveness but it is not the only policy instrument. 

Again, it is important to remember that this is a means to an end, so alongside a carbon market it is important to look at the obstacles to reducing emissions and whether other policies can help unblock these. For example, the EU has binding renewable energy targets for each Member State, and legislation covering areas as diverse as energy standards for buildings, appliance energy labelling, and vehicle fuel efficiency standards. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will consider further abatement opportunities in the land sector.

Q. Do you have anything else to add?

A. It’s very important to note that the EU ETS was divided into three phases. Phase one ran from 2005 to 2008 and was very much a pilot, ‘learning by doing’ period. We drew some important lessons from this initial trial. For example, the level of emissions across the scheme was overestimated, too many allowances were allocated, and the price eventually crashed as a result.

Of course, we now have robust, verified emissions data underpinning the scheme. So to criticise the current EU ETS on the basis of the pilot phase is ill-informed. Furthermore, a number of very important improvements have been made leading into phase three, which runs from the start of 2013 to 2020. These will make the scheme more efficient and effective.

For example, there will be a single registry; the allocation of allowances will not be done on a national basis, but across all participating countries; the level of auctioning will go up dramatically from about 4% now to around 50% - and 100% auctioning is the new rule for the power sector, with some limited and temporary exceptions; and lastly, access to certain international credits under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism will be further restricted.

For more information see the European Commission Climate Action website.

124 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Anthony says:

      06:22am | 01/05/11

      And what does this mean for Australia and our export competitiveness and our jobs? This is comparing apples with oranges. The EU can not be compared with Australia.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      10:58am | 01/05/11

      The guy says in the article, that they have FREE allocation of allowances,  They will review this in 2013, though.

    • John says:

      09:37pm | 01/05/11

      The article forgets to mention that the EU countries have nuclear power and we dont.

      Also how well is the EU countries financially going, down the SH@T hole last I heard.

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:00pm | 01/05/11

      @Adam,Scientists generally agree the there is human induced warming.  The survey shows that 82% of scientisis in general, and 97% of climatoligists (those who study the climate) accept that we have a hand in causing warming.  The data they ahve seen is generally freely available online.  I’m sure if you are genuinely curious and not just in denial, then you will find it.
      You would also know that a reduction in carbon emission is not designed to cool the world, but to reduce carbon emissions so that warming is limited to an acceptable level.

    • gytr says:

      09:56am | 02/05/11

      @Northern Steve - Sorry mate, this is one of those statistics that sways me the wrong way. Do you know the sample size for the surveyed “scientists” and the selection criteria that was used to include those surveyed? If so can you point me to the article which states that? The only one I have read touting those statistics was from a sample size of 77 selected scientists. And it was a thesis. So please, I am not being facetious, point me to where those numbers came from.

    • Adam says:

      10:45am | 02/05/11

      @ Northern Steve - I assume you were trying to respond to me. Scientists have generally agreed on lots of things in history and they have not always been right. This is why we demand empirical evidence to support scientific claims. Furthermore, I have read exhaustively on both sides of the debate and choose to remain cautiously sceptical due to overwhelming lack of proof relating to manmade climate change. Might I suggest you visit the below links. One is an open $10,000 prize for anyone who can empirically prove manmade climate change. It still remains unclaimed. The other is a petition from over 30,000 scientists who think climate change is a lie and an associated you tube video.

      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

    • forrest says:

      06:24am | 01/05/11

      the effect the EU scheme has on europe and the effect a similar scheme will have on our very different export market is huge, appleas and pears. more biased spin from our press

    • Brian Taylor says:

      06:26am | 01/05/11

      the question not asked was how much did it finish up costing the taxpayer, thats what I want to know

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      10:34am | 01/05/11

      Excellent question, Brian.

      From my daily reading of various European media sources, I understand that people in the EU are not exactly cheering. The impact of the scheme on the price of electricity has been VERY severe, let alone on national economies and the unemployment which currently stands at record levels in Europe.

      Of course, an Energy and Environment Advisor at the Delegation of the European Union - the main source for the above article - is unlikely to mention this.

      Besides, from the multiple sources I follow, I get a sense of growing disenchantment with not just the ETS but the whole concept of the EU from the people in the Western part of Europe.

    • Adam says:

      01:03pm | 01/05/11

      @ Brian - That is the first question I would ask. The second would be a two part question “Do you have empirical evidence to prove manmade climate change? And if not, why the expenditure?” The third would be “How much will the earth cool, in degrees C, as a result of your EU scheme?”

    • Brad Coward says:

      03:58pm | 01/05/11

      Makes you wonder why these questions weren’t asked by the ladies and gentlemen of the press corp, doesn’t it ?

    • Bleeding Obvious says:

      08:23pm | 01/05/11

      Oh you luddite freaks.

      100 yrs ago Brian, Geoffrey, Adam and Brad would ask why we need a confounded horseless chariot when the horsedrawn buggy has served mankind so well. If we go back 100 yrs and take the liberal/conservative/flat earth blinded dipshit moron viewpoint then we never have to find an alternative to oil cos we never start using the fucking stuff… 100 yrs ago oil was “unnecessary”

      The ETS drives NEW energy technology.

      Give yourselves a head-arse extraction and think again.

    • Adam says:

      11:38pm | 01/05/11

      @ BO - Your straw man and ad hominem attacks on others only serve to demonstrate the weakness of your argument and total lack of facts to support it. I assume you can’t answer the question posted above either?

      I’m also curious, since when was the EU scheme, or indeed our carbon tax, ever about finding an alternative to oil? They are primarily about reducing carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to curb climate change (despite no link between manmade CO2 emissons and climate change yet being established). Furthermore, Australia produces it’s energy by burning coal, not oil, and we have about 72 billion metric tons left (enough to last 180 years at present consumption rates). It is also very cheap so no alternative is necessary at this stage. And even if it runs out in 180 years time, we still have huge deposits of uranium that could last many millions of years using breeder reactors. So what makes you think new energy generation technology required in Australia?

    • Brian Taylor says:

      05:42am | 02/05/11

      @Bleeding Obvious
      how narrow minded are you?
      if you can not reply to a simple question without resorting to words such as “luddite freaks, dipshit moron , fucking stuff and head-arse extraction ” then maybe you’d better go back to reading your comics.
      Bet your mother used to wash your mouth out with soap, maybe she should do it again.
      100 years ago and even today, people like yourself are running around screeching like little girls, “the shy is falling, the sky is falling”
      whatever happened to the world was going into another “ice age”? not so long ago, now it’s we’re all going to die because the earth is heating up.
      what will it be next week?
      I’m quite sure people such as yourself will find ways of dipping your fingers into our pockets to take money that DOESN’T belong to you so you can waste it on crap.
      See Bleeding Obvious , I managed to reply without resorting to swearing or name calling, try it yourself

    • Robbo says:

      06:48am | 02/05/11

      so since the introduction in EU in 2005 what new energy technology has been developed and at what cost??

    • fml says:

      12:04pm | 02/05/11

      @bleeding obvious,

      To Add further to your point a quote from henry ford.

      If I would have asked my customers what they wanted,
      they would have said “a faster horse”.
      - Henry Ford (1863-1947)

    • Adam says:

      12:34pm | 02/05/11

      @ fml - Henry Ford also said words to the effect of “you can have your car painted any colour as long as it’s black”. This could also be reflective of some believers view on climate change.

      I might also point out that it was not a tax on horses that led Henry Ford to develop the vehicles he did.

    • fml says:

      01:20pm | 02/05/11

      @Adam,

      The point Mr ford was making is that his customers didn’t want change, his customers were afraid of change, and it took his vision and push for people to actually see the benefits, now we know that horse and cart is vastly inferior to the car.

      In relation to climate change, maybe we just need to push forward with it, and maybe in a hundred years time we will be thinking, what the hell were we waiting for.

      ““you can have your car painted any colour as long as it’s black”. This could also be reflective of some believers view on climate change.”
      How so?

      Yes i know it wasnt a tax on horses, Mr Ford knew that cars are going to change the world for the better, he pushed through despite peoples fear of change..

    • Adam says:

      02:02pm | 02/05/11

      His customers were not afraid of change, they embraced it, hence the success of Mr Ford. They just had no idea what technology was around the corner (or how far around the corner it may be) so they couldn’t ask for it. A similar position that we are in today, hence the concern regarding the potential costs associated with developing new technology that we cannot yet imagine. This is primarily because no one knows when a technological breakthrough will occur, what form it will take or at what cost, until after it has occurred.

      I’m also confident the market forces will provide what is required, just as they did in the case of the motor vehicle replacing the horse. No Govt meddling or taxpayer expenditure is necessarily required.

      “In relation to climate change, maybe we just need to push forward with it, and maybe in a hundred years time we will be thinking, what the hell were we waiting for”

      Or maybe the exact opposite may be true. We don’t know without empirical evidence or the benefit of hindsight. We could spend billions, handicap our industry and destroy jobs, then think what the hell were we doing acting with no proof of manmade climate change. What a waste of 100 years of progress. Personally, I’m an advocate of waiting a few more decades so more research can be done and empirical evidence either produced or the entire thing be debunked.

      “““you can have your car painted any colour as long as it’s black”. This could also be reflective of some believers view on climate change.”
      How so?”

      Because some believers seem to think the only way do things is their way (i.e. “you can do whatever you want, as long as we act now without empirical evidence” or “you can do whatever you want as long as we introduce a carbon tax now” or “you can do whatever you want, as long as it is what labor/green tell us to do”). Often these arguments are underpinned by scaremongering, rather than science, by telling people it will be worse if we don’t act now. Furthermore, they refuse to accept any opposition to their position, logical or otherwise. Personally, I believe it is only through robust debate, discussion and asking questions that we can reach the truth. This may take time but developing empirical evidence is more important than expediency because it allows us to act appropriately. The arguments of “acting now is cheaper” are folly because further research may prove we need to either do nothing or do something entirely different. Acting now may prove to be very expensive, particularly if we are doing the wrong thing (and this is entirely possible given the lack of empirical evidence).

    • fml says:

      04:28pm | 02/05/11

      @adam,

      there is bound to be wastage, It is a risk acting now, but the question is are we going to regret it in the soon future if we dont act?

      Nothing ever works perfectly the first time, as is being explained by that european bloke.

      the only analogy i can come up with is, if there was an asteroid approaching the earth, do we come up with a plan now and spend money in case it does hit, or do wait till its closer to the earth to make sure its definitely going to hit. How much is piece of mind worth?

    • Adam says:

      06:40pm | 02/05/11

      @ fml - An good analogy, even if it does fail to recognise that the carbon tax will do nothing to prevent climate change (i.e. in your analogy we’d have a asteroid tax that did nothing to stop the rock hitting earth, not a solution that addressed the problem). But anyway, I’ll use it to play along.

      If someone (or even a group of people) told you they thought an asteroid was going to hit earth but had no proof to support their claim, would you automatically respond by spending billions to prepare or would you firstly confirm what they had said using science first, then develop a rational response to stop the asteroid if required? I personally would use science to confirm what they had said so I could develop a rational and effective response (if indeed any response was even required). I most certainly wouldn’t introduce and asteroid tax that failed to stop the asteroid hitting the earth in any way. I suggest we do the same with climate change; that is let science look into it and develop a rational and effective response if required.

      Besides, based on even the direst credible warming predictions we can wait another decade to do more research. However, every time a believer refuses to let science do more investigation into if such warming in manmade I become a bit more sceptical. Mainly because I think to myself “Why would someone who believes something so strongly have a problem with letting science scrutinise it?”

      You probably saw my post above. There is an open $10,000 prize for anyone who can prove manmade climate change?

      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

      It amazes me that not one scientist in the world has been able to claim that prize and suggests believers have much less evidence to support their climate change apocalypse claims than they would otherwise have us believe.

    • Mark says:

      11:47am | 03/05/11

      @Bleeding Obvious

      Not sure about the head-arse extraction but I agree with your sentiment.

      For the skeptics, worst case is that we move off of oil and coal which are becoming scarce anyway. This gives us a head start on the rest of the world in moving away from these limited resources.

      For the rest: we help set an example (alongside Europe) as to how a country can move to a low Carbon economy and do its part on climate change.

      So we are all winners. At the time when our economy is booming why not make our economy less dependent on fossil fuels? Makes sense to me.

    • Adam says:

      04:53pm | 03/05/11

      @ Mark - Any reason we can’t go nuclear using breeder reactors? Our current supplies of uranium would last billions of years at present consumption rates (even with increasing consumption rates, our uranium deposits would still last millions of years). Furthermore, at its best, the Breeder Reactor system can theoretically produce no nuclear waste whatsoever. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate is in the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years and comes from light water reactors, hence why I suggest breeder reactors.

    • Mark says:

      06:23pm | 03/05/11

      @Adam

      The new IFRs (breeder reactors) are a much better option. I am not against the idea of nuclear and Its worth a thought. The only issue here is I’m not sure anything with the word Nuclear in it is going to have a run for the next decade.

      If we could migrate from Coal to Gas that would be a good start. Ok this is a fossil fuel but it produces half the green house gases per kw and we have enough of this (if managed correctly) to last us for the next century.

      By then the Nuclear option (or perhaps even the Thermal option) may be more palatable.

    • Adam says:

      11:09pm | 03/05/11

      @ Mark - Yep, the breeder reactors are great. Near everlasting energy, no bad nuclear waste, etc. It’s too bad the debate about nuclear energy is being stifled by green groups and the Australian population are largely uninformed on the subject. Most people instinctively fear nuclear energy and believe it comes with a waste product that remains radioactive for thousands of years, when this is simply not true with breeder reactors.

    • gytr says:

      06:30am | 01/05/11

      Interesting that the Environmental Group “Friends of the Earth” see it as a complete failure: http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/blog/eu-emissions-trading-scheme-success-or-failure
      http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf
      There are many more citing the failure of the EU ETS. I guess we once again have to wait for phase 3 to see if it can be turned into something successful, which doesn’t happen for another 2 years.
      Given the conjecture that seems to be surrounding the actual effect of CO2 on global warming, I guess it would be difficult for somewhere like the EU to recognise that an ETS may have been a waste of money, let alone actually recognise that there is conjecture.

    • Sherlock says:

      10:04am | 01/05/11

      But, but, but emissions declined for the first time in 2009. The fact that this was at the same time as the Global Financial Crisis is just pure coincidence. Just ask an warmenist.

    • Michael says:

      06:41am | 01/05/11

      And who pray tell believe the Gillard Government are able to implement such a complicated policy? No thanks, Gillard should wait and see what the US does before she embarks on a “heroes” save the planet quest, just to purely put her stamp on some sort of reform agenda for nothing more than political reasons and to satisfy her comrades the Greens.
      Julia Gillard - “there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”
      Christine Milne - “it’s an agreement we have made with the Prime Minister”

    • Super D says:

      06:45am | 01/05/11

      A couple of points. 

      Firstly the EU scheme is nothing like what the government is proposing.  It’s coverage is far more restricted that the Australian proposal and they give away most of the permits - as opposed to a high spending government trying to use it as a new revenue raiser. 

      Secondly not a mention of the rampant fraud in the European carbon market.

      Thirdly, no mention of emissions leakage - Britain’s steel industry has basically moved to India

      And finally not a single mention of how much the EU’s emissions have been reduced as a result of their ETS.

    • Markus says:

      02:25pm | 01/05/11

      Because despite the drop in emission levels that occurred as a result of the GFC, emissions continued to increase every year since the implementation of the ETS in Europe.

      When you’re spruiking the fantastic success of a scheme overseas as a means of implementing a similar one here, why would you want to point out the fact that it hasn’t actually worked?

    • Muzz says:

      06:52am | 01/05/11

      And what sort of mess is the EU in? default default default, borrowing to try and keep their economies a float as more countries falll into the pit. The EU finances are a disaster.

    • Harry says:

      07:27am | 01/05/11

      The “EU” can not be compared to Australia. They have, as in their title a “UNION” of other countries, so it’s a collective agreement between their countries. Australia’s main trading partners are China, India and the US, not the “EU”. No country in the “EU” went it alone and for good reason.

    • Mayday says:

      07:40am | 01/05/11

      Julia Gillard lied about bringing in a carbon tax, she is our first female PM and our worst PM.

    • Maccas says:

      10:47am | 01/05/11

      Just goes to show that a woman can stuff a perfectly good country as well as any man can….

    • Mayday says:

      11:55am | 01/05/11

      Yes she and her amateur hour government have made the Whitlam Labor government look competent!!

    • fml says:

      03:29pm | 02/05/11

      until the next pm ...

    • Fog Badger says:

      08:09am | 01/05/11

      The gentleman could have summarised his response to question 3 as: gobbledegook and blah!

    • Luke4 says:

      08:24am | 01/05/11

      This proves it is not sensible to go ahead alone. No one in the EU went ahead of other countries in the EU, they did it together not alone. Gillard and the Greens attempt at forcing Australia (against the wishes of our community) to enforce a carbon tax on our country without our trading partners US, China and India is foolish. Using this as an example shows Australia without US etc is destined for disaster.

    • The Redman says:

      11:13am | 01/05/11

      India, China and at least 10 states in the US, including California which is in the top ten economies of all countries, all have a price on carbon.

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      12:41pm | 01/05/11

      Such obfuscation, The Redman, and you know it.

    • Jim says:

      08:27am | 01/05/11

      I love this -
      Q. What are the negative or challenging aspects of carbon pricing?

      A. Getting the right coverage, and the right point of obligation is important - the latter can have an enormous benefit in terms of behavioural change that can equal the price effect.  Operators will all say that they want transparency and certainty to make investment decisions (and argue as to why they are a special case!).  It is important to remember that carbon pricing is a means to an end - a low carbon economy.

      Gee, no negatives? No challenges? It’s all good! ROFL

    • Ripa says:

      08:29am | 01/05/11

      and with all this hot air zero scientific information , there is no comment on how it will save us. what reduction in temp, nothing, how utterly ridiculous.
      Key words to note, Schemes, taxes, phases, mechanisms, pricing, trading,  market.
      none of these words seem to me to be of any scientific value. Strange things are indeed afoot at the Circle K.

    • Rosie says:

      08:40am | 01/05/11

      No thanks we don’t want this Minority Gillard Labor Govt introducing anything of this magnitude. We now know for sure they will not be able to handle it as their record over the last 4 years have been “stuff ups” on everything they have tried to implement. It has cost billions of taxpayer’s dollars and have taken the nation from a surplus left by the Howard Govt to a deficit.

      Even Kloppers have changed his mind and has said that we are rushing and shouldn’t do it alone.

      Gillard, Greens and the Independents ( too many Chiefs not enough Indians ) are desperate to force something of this enormousness and complicated issue upon us for their benefit, to be seen they have achieved something while in power. ( Full marks for a historic achievement )

      It has to be done but not while we have this incompetent Govt.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      01:18pm | 01/05/11

      So you prefer Abbott’s ludicrous scheme which would spend $11 billion of taxpayers money to get big polluters not to pollute? Three months ago I put the question to all punchers: name one economist who supports the Coalition position. Of course I’m still waiting for a reply.
      Its a poorly kept secret that a majority of Coalition MPs believe AGW is real and happening at an increasing rate but keep stum on it because they see political advantage in peddling their denialist lies.

    • Rosie says:

      03:37pm | 01/05/11

      Steve Putnam

      Oh dear you again! How presumptuous of you to presume putting a price on carbon has to be a Tony Abbott Govt? What is it with you lot?

      To be honest with you I have reached the stage of pure frustration at this “do nothing Govt” who can’t walk the talk. I want another election for a majority Govt be it Labor or Liberal and a fresh start to unraveling the mess we are in. When it happens we can then have a sensible discussion on this very important issue which will affect all Australians.

      At the moment, the Labor party is kowtowing to the Greens and Independents to remain in power and the Greens and Independents are using this as a self serving tool to show off that power.

      Why don’t we leave carbon pricing for later and start dealing with our damaged indigenous people. The issue is bipartsian so it is just a matter of coming up with something that will work to narrow the gap between them and us.

      Please try and understand what I have said as I do not want to get into a debate made long winded by a bad Govt.

    • Mark says:

      12:04pm | 03/05/11

      @ Rosie

      I think the point Steve was trying to make is that Tony Abbott is planning to spend $11 billion dollars of tax payers money to pay big polluters to stop polluting? He wants to know which scientist thinks this is a good idea?

      Whilst I agree the damage we have caused our indigenous population needs to be attended too I don’t see this action as mutually exclusive to a price on Carbon.

    • Andrew says:

      08:43am | 01/05/11

      The EU is not a country. So how can you relate this to Australia? Our situation on “our own” is completely different. This is what the arguement is about. If the USA and China were moving in this direction then I would agree, we should too. But the EU?

    • fml says:

      04:18pm | 02/05/11

      Huh?

      apples are different to oranges but they are both fruit. The EU is a number of countries. Im not even sure what you are arguing.

      You can relate it to Australia because they have already implemented a scheme and we can learn from it. You can still take any country under the EU and then compare to australia, and thats only if your nitpicking and want an example of a singular country.

      “But the EU?” How is that any different to the US and China?. yes the EU.

    • nossy says:

      08:44am | 01/05/11

      What a glowing endorsement of the Carbon Tax Punchers ! Not surprising to me as anyone with tuppence worth of brains would understand we have to take measures to drastically improve our environment. The Gillard Labor government is doing just that with a Carbon Tax due to come in by July 1 2012. Contrast that with the Coalition and their sad leadership who breathtakingly want to scrap the Carbon Tax if, and a BIG if, they get in to office which under Abbotts dead hand leadership is very unlikely - thank god. Now if turnbull was Oppn leader we may have another more positive view of the Coalition - he was attempting to engage the Australian voter on issues that concern us before Dr No moved in and sent the Coalition reeling back 40 years adding to boot “Climate Change is Crap” ! Australia has a clear choice - support a government who is addressing Climate Change and other important issues or support a “do nothing” Coalition led by, as Laurie Oakes has tagged him, “Tony the One trick Pony” - clear isnt it viewers !

    • Ben in Canberra says:

      10:09am | 01/05/11

      Having read much of your nonsensical commentary on the Punch for some time now, I feel compelled to reply.

      A glowing endorsement from someone with a vested interest in endorsing it? Wow, what a remarkably insightful observation! If you had any fundamental understanding of the differences between the EU and Australia, you would realise what folly your comments are. It’s sad in a way that your ALP tuned manifesto doesn’t allow you to consider factual arguments as opposed to idealogical garbage.

    • nossy says:

      11:37am | 01/05/11

      @Ben in Canberra - Benny always lovely to hear from fans fella !  hahah say the last time I was in Canberra I went Ballooning over Canberra and even Parliament House - lots of fun !

    • jf says:

      12:43pm | 01/05/11

      o   Nossy says:
      08:44am | 01/05/11

      “What a glowing endorsement of the Carbon Tax Punchers”

      And from such an unbiased source.

      “Not surprising to me as anyone with tuppence worth of brains would understand we have to take measures to drastically improve our environment.”

      Agreed. So how does taxing emissions of a naturally occurring substance improve our environment again?

      “The Gillard Labor government is doing just that with a Carbon Tax due to come in by July 1 2012.”

      Really? You seem to know more than the Government’s own members “The Labor MP, admitting he and his colleagues are as much in the dark as voters, complained: “How can I defend the Government’s position on carbon tax when I don’t know what it is?”” (Quote from your favouriate quotable source - Laurie Oakes).

      “Laurie Oakes has tagged him, “Tony the One trick Pony”;’

      Here’s another quote from your favourite quotable journo

      “the last remnants of the Gillard Government’s credibility on asylum seeker policy went up in flames with it. And Labor MPs were in despair.” and another “Gillard still has a very long way to go to prove that she is a real leader, especially when judged by her own standards”.

    • nossy says:

      04:43pm | 01/05/11

      @jf - thats a dreadful stutter you have there jf - I would get that looked at fella !  hahaahah

    • simon says:

      10:09am | 02/05/11

      Nossy, your blind support of everything Labor, irrespective of it’s merits, really does make you look very foolish!!

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:48am | 01/05/11

      “Q. What has the outcome been so far? What results have you seen? “

      Good to see the entire The Punch team was happy to let this question remain essentially unanswered.

      “Helped mainstream action to reduce carbon emissions” is not an answer. It’s a platitude.

      The more intelligent members of the public want to know by how much. Is it 60%?, 20%? or it it an increase of 3%?

      And until “journalists” insist on hard numbers the whole religion of AGW will keep getting promoted. And the worst government in living memory in Australia will continue with their deluded beliefs that they are saving us.

      What an appallingly poor effort. You had the chance to get some facts but just like Gillard gets a free ride so did AGW.

      Hang your heads in shame.

    • CD says:

      08:58am | 01/05/11

      What is the cost for carbon emissions? No question asked. No answer. We’re looking around $20. What is it for EU?

      Has their system been rorted? Not asked and not replied too. It has. Greatly.

      How are they dealing with rorts? Again not asked not answered.

      How has the pain been compared to the results? Not asked not answered. Just a few important questions in a lot left out.
      Sorry guys epic fail for me and I am very interested.

    • JohnH says:

      09:05am | 01/05/11

      27 members in the European Union, how many in Australia’s Union? We aren’t part of the EU in case you haven’t noticed. We’re on our own without China India and United States.

    • Simon says:

      09:19am | 01/05/11

      How much will it cost, and by how much will it reduce temperatures?

      Kind of fundamental to knows these things up front….

    • Elphaba says:

      11:47am | 01/05/11

      Yep.  Yet another article without any decent answers about the things that matter.

      Also, how will this impact jobs in the coal industry?  Still waiting for some stats on that one…

    • michael j says:

      09:19am | 01/05/11

      27,500 people died of starvation while reading this article,,maybe 1 from from climate change?
      And i still didn’t see the bit about costing $ 875.63 per annum, which will be more like $2,000

    • codger says:

      11:38pm | 01/05/11

      Alarmist drivel like that is what’s poisening this debate!  Show me where(maybe)  one person has died from climate change!  Not sure where the 27,500 stat comes from, but if you can show me ONE person dying, hell, even inconvenienced in some way by climate chagne, obviously that has to have highest priority.

    • fml says:

      04:21pm | 02/05/11

      One planet died while reading your comment.

    • Olga says:

      09:19am | 01/05/11

      The International experience? Your only talking about the EU who have little to do with our trade.. What about China, India, Japan and the US who have implications for us? How about we talk about what’s important for Australia.

    • Bruce says:

      09:43am | 01/05/11

      There will be NO carbon tax under a government I lead ??? What is it I do not understand about this statement.

    • Robin says:

      10:19am | 01/05/11

      Only YOU can answer that question Bruce

    • Adam says:

      01:08pm | 01/05/11

      @ Bruce - Probably the part where you believed a backstabber.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      09:49am | 01/05/11

      So, was this actually from “The Punch Team”? or, simply just an email reply from Mr Wyatt?
      So, whoever wrote the initial email, is responsible for this [non] story.

      I really do not see anything here that has contributed to the issue in any way.

    • Charles says:

      09:57am | 01/05/11

      Mr Wyatt’s answers certainly suffer from the sin of omission.  No mention of the fact that share trading has been suspended due to massive fraud, or the fact that European consumption of carbon has actually increased. 

      All this means is that they have moved production of CO2 to undeveloped countries outside the EU, the fraud on consumers stil persists though as they pay for non-existent reduction in CO2 across the planet

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      09:58am | 01/05/11

      Q1 - Are you embarressed at all by the concept of a derivatives market on thin air?

      Q2 - Are you embarressed that Carroussel fraud of billions of euros by organised crime is the result of your derivatives market on thin air?

    • michael j says:

      11:05am | 01/05/11

      @ Kurisu Sonsaku-in response to Q 2 can a poor person that does not believe the time is right for CTS and still has no understanding of how it works, make a quid out of this by mild deception that will not require the future use of a lawyer ? OR is this another scheme where only Multi-national’s and Insurance companies rule again?
      IS my predicted tax of $2,000 p.a going to blow out to $ 4,000 ?

    • michael j says:

      02:56pm | 01/05/11

      @ Mark-i watched and listened to all of things you have listed and might say there is some evidence climate change maybe/? happening it seemed a bit vague on whether the QLD muddcrabers were involved,,so there’s no way i am paying a tax of $ 10,000 a year until i know what’s going on,,,,some of those people in the articles,n, radio interviews seemed like ,,fruitloops,,,,,,,,

    • Garry says:

      10:35am | 01/05/11

      The reason you don’t hear much about the EU and their carbon pricing is because it’s full of frauds and their situation is completely different to Australia being alone without US and China on board. Even the desperate Gillard doesn’t mention them. Get back to us with what the US and China are doing about pricing carbon please, there the countries relevant to us not the EU. Gillard is hardly someone to listen to and her judgement on the carbon issue is skewerd, due to her political situation with the greens and the fact she can not change her position AGAIN for fear of total collapse of her Government.

    • June says:

      10:57am | 01/05/11

      Gillard and Brown are stuck with their carbon tax, but Australia isn’t. Call an election.

    • Harquebus says:

      10:57am | 01/05/11

      You need an economy for an ETS. Those of us who are aware of the consequences of peak oil do not worry about the climate.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      11:02am | 01/05/11

      Most of the comments thus far confirm my impression that most people who oppose the carbon tax do so because it might cost them some money.  Well done Abbott and his cretinous “great big new tax on everything” mantra, which evidently works for that sector of the electorate who won’t support any measures at all to ameliorate AGW if they think it’s going to cost them a few bucks.

      What such people don’t realise (or ignore) is that AGW is going to cost in terms of income, jobs and consumption, regardless of whether a carbon tax or ETS is introduced.  The only questions are really when and how much.

      Personally, I’d rather invest in the future of this country and the planet by paying a little now, rather than postponing action and causing my kids and grandkids to have to pay more - which is essentially what the ‘business as usual’ crowd want.

    • marley says:

      11:14am | 01/05/11

      CJ - I wouldn’t have a problem with paying more taxes if I believed they would achieve the desired intent.  I just don’t see how this particular tax is going to do that.  And I do have a problem with just paying more taxes, without getting some positive result.  And nothing in the article above really produces any evidence that the European scheme has in fact resulted in much of anything.  That’s the rub.

    • Julie says:

      11:19am | 01/05/11

      I could find only 1 comment about may “cost them some money”.
      And your final paragraph is just a re hash of the ALP/Green mantra, nothing else. Talk about misleading. People believe Abbott over Gillard, this is becoming ever increasingly true. Everything he says about her and her Government just keeps coming true, no wonder more and more people are listening to him.

    • Paul says:

      11:35am | 01/05/11

      Your being narrow minded. You shouldn’t share Gillards arrogant view as it’s about as popular as pig shit. Abbott is making sense, Gillard isn’t. If you care about our economy and jobs we shouldn’t act without USA and China. And stop peddling the kids and grand kids rubbish, your about as convincing as Gillard.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:52am | 01/05/11

      I have no problem paying to save the enviroment.  It’s the right thing to do.  But everything I have seen on the carbon tax points to it having bugger all effect on saving the environment.  Particularly with the government’s plan to compensate everyone for the tax, with money that is supposed to be invested in green technology.

      They’re taking money from big polluter, who will pass the deficit onto the consumer, who will get money back from the government to compensate them.

      So you tell me - how much will emissions be impacted and what will the overall beneficial effects on he environment be?

    • Ben81 says:

      11:58am | 01/05/11

      It’s opposed because it will make Australian products more expensive without having any effect at all on climate change.
      Care to prove me wrong?

    • L. says:

      12:03pm | 01/05/11

      “Most of the comments thus far confirm my impression that most people who oppose the carbon tax do so because it might cost them some money.”

      ...and the fact it is being massively defrauded in the EU’s experience.

      ...and the fact that there is no measure has to how it will help reduce temps.

      ...and the fact companies are simply moving to non-carbon trading countries.

      ...and and and….

    • CJ Morgan says:

      12:20pm | 01/05/11

      @ marley:

      The purpose of the carbon tax is as a precursor to the staged introduction of an ETS.  It’s not designed to be an end in itself - it’s just a first baby step towards achieving a low carbon economy.

      @ Julie:

      Many people “believe” Abbott, but that’s because they’re in denial about AGW, just like him.

      @ Paul:

      “Narrow minded” is an expression that I would have thought is far more applicable to those who can’t conceive of any way that we can conduct our economy (and indeed our democracy) other than how we do it now.  We have no choice about moving to a low-carbon economy, but we can determine when.

      The earlier we start, the more effective and less painful our AGW amelioration measures will be.

    • gytr says:

      12:43pm | 01/05/11

      My opposition to the “carbon” tax is not that I’m a “denier”, nor for that matter am I a believer. However there are a couple of things that are rapidly swaying me into the denier category:
      1. The overuse of catch cries designed to dumb everything down such as: “The science” - try scientific evidence; “Big polluters” - try heavy industry;  “deniers” and “sceptics”- try rational thinkers; “carbon” - try carbon dioxide or if you’re too lazy, CO2
      2. Whenever anyone questions the weight of scientific evidence for CO2 induced warming, they’re pointed to “the science” and to “carbon” being the root cause of all evil, and accused of being “deniers” or “sceptics” and dismissed out of hand.
      3. Doubt over tyhe validity of “the science”
      4. The apparent vested interest by the proponents of the “carbon” tax.

      If there is doubt, even 5% doubt as to the effect of Carbon Dioxide (yes, one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms) being the cause of global warming, then surely a halt should be placed on the implementation of a new taxation system that will effictively put an additional cost to market at every step of every process, be it a good or service, until the “deniers” claims can be irrevocably dismissed due to a genuine, unquestionable mass of scientific evidence?

      What would happen, if in 5 years time, as an example, if it were proven beyond doubt that apparent global warming was attributable to natural cycles, or to other non-anthropogenic events?

    • marley says:

      12:55pm | 01/05/11

      @CJ - “baby step”?  So, it’s going to cost money but not achieve anything?  How about we start acting like grown ups, and figure out a system that will achieve something.  Just having a carbon tax because the Joneses have a carbon tax is ludicrous.  Design one that will actually deliver tangible results, and I’ll happily (well, maybe not happily) pay more taxes.

    • Ryan says:

      01:07pm | 01/05/11

      @CJ Morgan: I for one would happily pay for a low carbon economy IF you could prove the the Anthropogenic part of Global Warming. Just one peer reviewed document that shows definitive proof that humans have a marker in climate change. I refuse to “just believe”, if I “just believed” I would believe in the sky fairy, aliens, the loch ness monster and the yeti.
      Sadly there are so many that are conned by all of these things and so we see the same with AGW. Only difference is you want me to pay for your latest imaginary friend.

    • Markus says:

      02:31pm | 01/05/11

      “We have no choice about moving to a low-carbon economy”
      Let’s see what the voters have to say about that…

    • Mouse says:

      04:57pm | 01/05/11

      CJ, I am sure the majority of Australians understand the importance of investing in our planet and keeping our environment healthy. Not believing that a carbon tax will fix it though does not make one a “denier”.  Your statement ” Abbott and his cretinous “great big new tax on everything” mantra”, is a mindless Labor drone and has been commented on ad nauseum.
      If gillard and co are going to tax carbon and then compensate companies and lower/middle income people, and some will be over- compensated, how is this going to change anything? How is it going to make the compensated people change their habits?
      Combet stated that these rebates are going to be permanent, remembering of course that these rebates are now down to 50 % and not the initial 100% as promised. You do realise too, that once carbon tax moves on to ETS and emissions are decreased that the money coming in to the governemnt will decrease also . OK, so where is the rebate money coming from now then? New taxes maybe?
      What is really going to be interesting is the May 10 federal Budget. In all reality, the carbon tax must be included because they will need to know the carbon tax revenue raised/spending for their forward estimates.  To do this all details must be worked out beforehand.  Without it the Budget cannot be relied upon. May 10…..can’t wait to see that one!

      We all want a clean planet, somewhere for our kids to grow and thrive in, it’s just that we don’t all agree on the way to do it. The science is not exact and the differing opinions are from one end of the spectrum to the other. We do need to work together, with other countries as well, and we do need to take some action in the near future. We just have to find a way that will not disadvantage only one section of taxpayers or businesses. Direct action has its advantages as does the ETS, so maybe a combination of the two. Maybe it is now the time for the government and opposition to look at the big picture, not just to the next election

    • Ryan says:

      11:12pm | 01/05/11

      @Mouse: “We all want a clean planet, somewhere for our kids to grow and thrive in, it’s just that we don’t all agree on the way to do it.” I couldn’t disagree more, I agree with the clean planet and green alternatives, bankrupting people so they cannot afford to buy said green alternatives is going to do one thing and one thing only, force them back to what they used to do in the old days, burn trees to heat the home and water. How clean will the air be then?

    • Mikko says:

      11:06am | 01/05/11

      Given the winters we’ve been seeing in the Northern Hemisphere maybe they should be cranking up their “carbon pollution” to cut down on heating homes to make them liveable and actually allowing airports to remain open for more than a few days. But they probably know it would not have any effect on climate as many leading scientists have been saying.
      Wonder what some of the US states planning to drop carbon trading would have to say about how cost effective it has been? Maybe The Punch could track them down?

    • CJ Morgan says:

      12:40pm | 01/05/11

      Still in denial about AGW, Mikko?

      Which part of the word “global” don’t you understand?

    • L. says:

      02:50pm | 01/05/11

      “Which part of the word “global” don’t you understand?”

      ..and CJ, which part of “Global warmin…” oh wait, we don’t use the term “global warming” anymore do we?? It’s “climate change” now, as the warming bit seems to get a bit confused every time the Northern hemisphere has a monster winter and bumper ski season.

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      03:05pm | 01/05/11

      CJ Morgan,

      The part of *global* many don’t understand is the missing *. . . carbon tax*

      The part I don’t understand is the missing replacement technology which would justify a carbon tax.

      The current stance is ’ punishment before the crime is committed ‘.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      08:38am | 02/05/11

      Global warming refers to the inarguable fact that the planet’s climate is warming on average.  Climate scientists predicted that this process would produce extreme weather events in different parts of the globe, including severe winters.

      Why do you insist on confusing climate with weather?

    • CD says:

      11:10am | 01/05/11

      I’ve read the comments so Punch team happy with the article now? Dare I guess you were looking for hits alone today? wink

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:22am | 01/05/11

      Sigh. I’ll say it again that a carbon tax is useless without carbon tariffs and population stabilization. You also want to remove any compensation from the start because a) you want to directly affect human behavior from the outset and b) the revenue would be more useful building and operating government owned nuclear reactors which would lower carbon emissions and provide relatively cheap electricity.

    • John A Neve says:

      04:44pm | 01/05/11

      Shane,

      I agree with all of your post except for the nuclear bit. Nuclear reactors are a short term fix for a long term problem.
      The world needs to spend far more on looking for renewable energy sources.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:25pm | 01/05/11

      @ John A Neve- You’re completely right as uranium is a finite resource, but if we have a 20 year nuclear power plant scheme to be phased out by switching to renewable energy sources in another 20 year period, then the transition to renewables would relatively painless (depending upon future energy requirements)

    • Adam says:

      08:50pm | 02/05/11

      @ John and Shane - There’s enough Uranium to power our civilisation at current energy consumption rates for at least a billion years (Uranium is about as common as Tin in the Earth’s crust so it is by no means rare) if we use breeder reactors that can use all of the Uranium we dig out of the ground (as opposed to less than 1% which most common reactors today can use). There’s also Thorium which reactors with sufficiently good neutron economy can breed into Uranium and which is about four times as abundant (the CANDU reactors which are the third most common power reactor design can run on Thorium along with spent fuel from LWRs and Molten Salt reactors will also be good at running on Thorium).
      By the time we run out of Uranium (which could be sooner than billions of years given that we’ll probably end up increasing our energy usage but is very unlikely to be less than tens of thousand years) we’ll very likely have fusion power available to us.

      See below for supporting info and further reading:

      http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
      http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power

    • Watcher says:

      11:36am | 01/05/11

      I believe the globe is warming, I have no idea if man kind has contributed to this or not but I do honestly think something needs to be done before we “cook” future generations. We live on through our dna, when mankind ceases to exist then we truly die. If the unions object to a carbon tax that makes alarm bells ring for me, I have started to wonder if that is why the Gillard Governent is punishing Australia’s poor, because they know a big wave of unemployment is to come

    • Shane from Melbourne says:

      12:15pm | 01/05/11

      The present consumes the finite resources of the past at the expense of the future. This is true for stuff like petrochemicals, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, minerals, forests, artesian basin water, soil degradation etc. Six Billion people has a huge impact on the planet. Human population X consumption rates X rate of environmental degradation (some areas of the planet are more marginal than others)

    • Ryan says:

      12:41pm | 01/05/11

      @Watcher: at some point in the future we will be wiped off the face of this planet, it will happen one day and it won’t be because of carbon dioxide, that you can 100% guarantee.

    • RRT says:

      12:06pm | 01/05/11

      To the Punch editors,

      Why don’t you do a story on the billions of dollars that this incompetent and unaccountable government has pledged and will give to the incompetent, unaccountable, unelected UN?

      You know, flex your journalistic muscles instead of trotting out more propaganda from the EU, who are yet another incompetent and unaccountable, unelected, bureaucracy ...

      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/carbon-demonized-by-climate-propaganda/

    • Bennymac says:

      12:25pm | 01/05/11

      Wake up everyone!

      The UN and IPCC are the EU in disguise, Others are allowed to come and play to give them more leverage than they would have by themselves.

      The problem with the EU is this, as a whole, their balance of trade is stuffed. 30 years ago it seemed a great idea to start moving primary industry and manufacturing offshore to developing countries, pay cheap wages, increase profit margins and clean up their own backyard, who would have guessed it wouldn’t take long for the developing countries to say hey, we now have the technology and knowhow to do this for ourselves. Has anyone else noticed that 15 years ago most manufactured goods coming out of china were western trademarked, now the developing industrialised countries have their own. For example, Great Wall Motors sold 10000 vehicles into the australian market last year, expected to grow by 20-30% this year, their single cab ute outsold the nissan navara and the holden collorado.

      So where does this leave the EU ? Their income stream from manufactured goods has dried up, wages are so high and land is in such short supply, most agriculture needs to be heavily subsidised to be viable, they don’t have the fortune Australia has in being able to dig the difference out of the ground to balance the books every year, and it’s only a matter of time before europes old money runs out.

      What about the US ? They have been living beyond their means for longer than Europe and their still OK.

      The US has something the rest of the world doesn’t, a world currency. Everything is traded in US Dollars, Gold, Silver, Oil, Debt. This means whenever the US needs some coin the printing press starts back up, and unlike in zimbabwe where this leads to massive inflation, the US not only has it’s own assets holding it’s currency up, the assets of the rest of the world are also holding it up, this has allowed the US to live beyond it’s means for years.

      So how does the EU get in on a gig like this? What if they had a world currency they could create and trade? What are the options otherwise? I can only think of two, re-industrialise europe, with a corresponding massive reduction in wages to compete with the developing world or starve.

    • a carbon based life form says:

      12:44pm | 01/05/11

      What’s REALLY happening in the EU:


      1.
      If countries in Europe stick to current projections, they will postpone global warming by just days and waste billions.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/13/moneyfornothing


      2.
      The European Emission Trading System has created a whole new class of well paid white collar jobs. The best paid are the emission rights traders and the electricity traders. They work for big banks or electricity generators. Most of them make millions a year (thank you consumers).

      Every company in the emission trading system has to be certified and audited. This creates jobs for an army of auditors and inspectors. Two billion reports about emissions are filed every year in the EU. The professional service companies thrive on more regulation and red/green tape.
      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-green-tape-jobs-we-dont-want/


      3.
      The great carbon credit con:
      Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?
      /www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html#ixzz1L441L5UB


      4.
      “... Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (”mothballed” is the euphemism). It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

      Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India. Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”. By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.
      http://www.climategate.com/stealing-steel-jobs

    • Steve Turner says:

      12:54pm | 01/05/11

      Gee Punch Team, that little attempt at warmist propaganda/BS went down well!!!

    • bikinis on top says:

      03:02pm | 01/05/11

      How does it work in practice? Julia Gillard is Robin Hood.
      She takes from the rich to give to the poor.
      She deserves a Gold Logie.

    • Knemon says:

      03:13pm | 01/05/11

      Great article Punch, thank you. I was so sick of the ‘we are going alone’ lie. The comments are also great!

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:37pm | 01/05/11

      Just like the EU we’ll source our products from India, or in our case China.

      It’s just out-sourcing the carbon dioxide.

      PS Hope you don’t drink beer or champers. What are those little bubbles?

      According to our PM for Myers/DJs they’re POLLUTION.

    • Glen says:

      04:43pm | 01/05/11

      The only good points about ETS, Carbon Tax or whatever you want to call it:

      1. If you are an energy trader, you are going to make a mint off all the suckers. Ah hem Enron anyone?

      2. We will finally be rid of the Labor/Green socialist alliance once the silly people realise that their wallets are a little lighter thanks to above mentioned traders.

    • Peter says:

      05:26pm | 01/05/11

      Challenge. “A. Emissions trading is a proven, effective, least-cost tool for reducing pollution”  Carbon sealed turbine. 30 times more output than Steam same heat. Fully operational outside heat above minus 10* Celsius. John Howard mapped Australian geothermal urban below 100* Celsius. One cant hide what Australians come up with, but you sure can back Coal. Zero Carbon zero Coal has never been an option. Nor has how its integration be of great benefit.

    • Joel B1 says:

      06:14pm | 01/05/11

      Dear The Punch,

      Did you mention to Wyatt that Gillard’s scheme will grab more money in just three months than the EU’s scheme has done over seven years?

      And did you ask what the flow-on-effects of this massive taxation might be in his opinion?

      You didn’t did you?

      It’s getting real hard to take you seriously as journalists. Sure, you’re excellent communicators, but that’s not the same thing is it?

    • Joel B1 says:

      06:39pm | 01/05/11

      “It’s abundantly clear that the EU ETS has brought climate change into the boardroom. In reality though, exploring the counterfactual is always fraught with challenges about assumptions on business as usual”

      I’ll donate $50 to a charity of your choice and email a jpg of the receipt to The Punch if you can satisfactorily explain the second sentence to me.

    • MH says:

      08:39pm | 01/05/11

      Come on Punch team, surely you can do better than that half baked series of gentle lobs for convenient dispatch by a patently vested interest.  If you’re going to do a piece in support of a carbon tax (and let’s face it, that was the idea) at least have the decency to be up front about it. Leave the Dorothy Dixers to our esteemed parliamentarians. 

      Meanwhile, is it just me or have we recently reached the point of inflection at which the tide of international opinion turns against the climate change crusade?  Or was that Copenhagen?

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      10:48pm | 01/05/11

      If this scheme gets up it might be worth moving to Zimbabwe

    • Kevin Hicks says:

      11:01pm | 01/05/11

      Q. What has the outcome been so far? What results have you seen?

      A. It’s abundantly clear that the EU ETS has brought climate change into the boardroom. In reality though, exploring the counterfactual is always fraught with challenges about assumptions on business as usual. However, if you look at the emissions and the price, even in the first learning phase, you can see an apparent relationship between the carbon price and emissions.

      I think more telling is the results of surveys from Point Carbon and others that show that emissions trading has helped mainstream action to reduce carbon emissions and to include that consideration in investment decisions. The declining cap will ensure emissions keep dropping over time.

      ??? How can you tell there is any correlation between an ETS and lowering of emissions?  As has been admitted by our Governments expert in these matters it will take near on 1000 years to discover if any significant improvement has occurred.  And of course in Europe who could tell what in fact caused any differences in emissions?  However manipulated data would of course improve this and assist in ensuring you could continue to tax the people on emission’s, until someone manages to be provided with full data from another source and the Govt figures are challenged on this

    • build energy efficient homes PLS says:

      07:06am | 02/05/11

      If as a nation we are serious about minimising our emissions, why don’t we only build houses with solar and/or wind energy, rainwater tanks and self-composting sewerage systems wherever possible? That would take care of a fair chunk. Making public transport superduper accessible and utilising all alternatives available re petrol powered engines would be another step in the right direction. What remains is big profitable companies who, surely will get their asses into gear if they wouldn’t be allowed to pass on their carbon tax.

    • Cry in my Gin says:

      08:14am | 02/05/11

      An article so devoid of facts, yet so full of catchcries like “mechanism” and “challenging aspects”. How about some down to earth Q&A’s for the rest of us. How much carbon has been reduced, how much has it cost the average taxpayer and how many people (particularly the elderly) have died because they were afraid to use the heating because they could not afford it?

    • simon says:

      10:17am | 02/05/11

      With support for the carbon tax falling away at a rapid rate, one must question why the Punch came up with this very flimsy article in support!! The plan by Labor/Greens to introduce a carbon tax is grossly irresponsible, if Labor/Greens can’t see this then they are either blind or foolish. To destroy the Australian economy simply for moral or political reasons is probably the most contemptuous and dangerous decision ever made in Australian political history. This Gillard/Brown government are amateurs at best!!!!

    • Kassandra says:

      03:43pm | 03/05/11

      CO2 = 1 carbon + 2 oxygen, so it would be more correct to call it a tax or “price” on oxygen. Wow a tax on oxygen… great idea guys ROFL

    • Enrico says:

      01:29am | 04/05/11

      Hands up all those hypocrites here who drive cars and use electricity but bleat about global warming?  I thought so.  Do me a favour, fashion a loin cloth and go and find a cave to live in.

    • Mark says:

      10:45am | 04/05/11

      @Enrico

      The issue is that a monetary incentive needs to be provided to encourage technology which allows all the activities you mention to be performed in a more sustainable way.

      If we harm the environment then we will pay more for doing so, this encourages us to go for options which affect the environment less. I fail to see how anyone is a hypocrite.

      @Kassandra

      You go breath from a cylinder of CO2 for half an hour then come tell me its a tax on Oxygen. You might be “OF” but no sure about the “R” and “L”.

    • WAH says:

      12:23pm | 10/05/11

      The truth is a carbon tax is the most economically viable choice.  Do you expect Australia to shut down it’s coal fired power plants?
      Yes it’s true the costs will be spread out to the consumers but I for one am proud to be part of a country that is at least trying to reduce carbon emmissions and foster support for climate change.
      A tax will help implement renewable energy by making it more competitive in the future.
      I would like someone to come up with a better idea.

    • Heléna says:

      09:35pm | 10/05/11

      however so much will be spent in compensation and proposed exemptions, that little will be left for funding alternate energy sources, I would much rather money be paid in grants to energy suppliers who implement “green” technology and research into alternate energy

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter