Prev
Next

What we still need to know about a carbon price

Leigh Ewbank

by Leigh Ewbank

09 Sep 05:40am

Must Reads

Would you kill for a job? - this is a caption

Would you kill for a job?

194

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun? - this is a caption

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

53

Hipsters with hip replacements - this is a caption

Hipsters with hip replacements

27

Filed under: Carbon, Carbon Price, Climate Change, Environment, Gillard Government, The Greens

103 comments

The drama of the 2010 federal election came to an end as the independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor threw their support behind Labor. This has an immediate impact on Australian climate policy.

A Gillard minority government promises a new cross-party Climate Change Committee to spearhead carbon-pricing legislation in the next term of government. This agenda will face stiff opposition, but with the right design, it can help move Australia towards a low-carbon economy.

Both Labor and the Greens support the notion of carbon pricing but have not yet agreed on the specific mechanism for doing so. (Labor attempted to pass an emissions-trading bill in its last term, however the Senate twice rejected the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Coalition opposed the CPRS because it was too onerous, and Greens because it was too weak. As a stopgap measure, the Greens proposed an ‘interim carbon price’ of $20 per tonne for two years, but Rudd and Gillard dismissed the idea.)

The Climate Change Committee will set the agenda for climate policy over the next term of government. The narrow terms of reference mean the committee will recommend either an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax/levy. Whether it’s an ETS or a straight out carbon tax, there is still a lot of politically contentious ground for the government and its allies to deal with. As Chris Berg notes:

In 2009, Parliament was discussing the mechanics of the government’s elaborate cap and trade scheme. But in 2010, we’re stuck on this simple phrase: “price on carbon”. It makes it all sound so simple.

But what would its target emissions level be? When would it start? How should trade-exposed energy-intensive industries be compensated, if at all? Should low-income earners be compensated?

Resistance to carbon pricing will intensify as we gain clear answers to these questions.

Gillard and Brown have tried to tip the balance in favour of carbon pricing. They have established narrow terms of reference that hamstring the Coalition. By default, the Coalition’s anti-carbon pricing position excludes them from policy development process and positions them as a barrier to progress. Abbott’s strong opposition to carbon ‘taxes’ is well known, and a flip flop on the issue will damage his credibility and potentially weaken his leadership position. This dynamic will help proponents of the carbon price in the parliament, but as we have seen recently, the success or failure of policy also rests on interests beyond Canberra.

Rest assured, Australia’s ‘greenhouse mafia’ will work hard to kill off, delay, or weaken any legislation the committee recommends. The mining industry’s successful anti-RSPT (Resources Super Profits Tax) campaign will give the fossil fuel industry hope of victory. And the effectiveness of any climate change legislation that would gain the approval of the Greens balance of power in the Senate will give them motivation.

Carbon-pricing legislation can avoid the same fate as Rudd’s Resources Super Profits Tax, but to understand how, we have to look at why the RPST failed. The fact that the mining tax wasn’t directly linked to measures that benefited Australians and potential allies seriously damaged its prospects. Because the public was not aware of how the RSPT revenues would be invested they were not willing to support it. Linking the tax revenues to specific initiatives would have made it more difficult for the major miners to pursue an anti-tax position.

Those proposing a price on carbon should say where the money raised would be spent, and say how this would be in the national interest. The next attempt at pricing-based climate legislation can feature a national clean technology fund to invest in Australia’s low carbon future. The Commonwealth could use the fund to invest in new transmission lines, electric vehicle charging stations, and R&D grants to drive innovation in battery technology—helping to overcome non-market barriers to cleantech deployment. The government could also finance large-scale demonstration projects (e.g. concentrated solar thermal power) and clean tech procurement—the effect of which will spur industry development and drive economies of scale.

This approach will require a shift in thinking. Carbon price signals alone are not enough to drive the scale of technological change needed. The principle objective of a carbon-pricing system should be to accelerate the pace of decarbonisation. In terms of policy, a politically achievable price to generate revenue to invest in decarbonisation would take precedence over a ‘high’ price per-tonne of carbon to punish polluters. The latter will inevitably lead to compensation arrangements and cost-containment measures (see offsets) that reduce the effectiveness of a carbon-pricing regime.

Will climate change be solved if a carbon price is successfully implemented? No. It’s a wicked problem that requires a raft of policy measures. A carbon price can be a helpful tool in our efforts to address climate change, however, it all depends on its design and how the revenue is used.

Most commented

344Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
264La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
194Would you kill for a job?
186The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
175Those greedy ATMs gobble up more than your card

103 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:49am | 09/09/10

      Your article, “What we still need to know about a carbon price” overlooks the most important thing we need to know.

      That is - is a “carbon price” necessary?

      Until we actually know whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real - and the jury is very much out on that question - we will not know whether a carbon tax is a good idea or not.

      Until such time, Tony Abbott could well gain from a strategy of condemning the Government’s rigged committee, and promising to repeal whatever it comes up with in a future Coalition government.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      08:59am | 09/09/10

      Exactly but the answer needs to go even further than that. Not just is anthropogenic Global Warming real,

      but assuming the answer is yes;
      what is the real cost of action?
      What will this action achieve?
      If a carbon price (set at a certain level) decrease Australias CO2 emmisions by 20%, how will that effect the climate?
      Is CO2 actually the cause of an assumed anthropogenic Global Warming?
      Are we actually taxing the wrong thing? Should we be taxing CO (carbon monoxide) instead? or any other gas?
      At what point does the cost of carbon become too high to affordibly abandon this proposal and focus on alternative solution?
      Would it be more cost effective for us to adapt rather than fight climate change?

      I know there are pleanty of climate genious’s on here who swallow everything Al Gore says so if one of you genious’s can answer the above i would be greatful.

    • LC says:

      10:15am | 09/09/10

      An extra point, Nathan, is that even if we manage to get our emission levels down to our current government’s goal, if the two most populated countries (China and India) do little or nothing to lower their emissions then is any significant difference made?

    • dave says:

      10:58pm | 09/09/10

      what is the cost to Australia if China chooses to set export levies based on the foreign companies polution levels?

      Australia is pumping out CO2 pollution per capita way ahead of most other developed countries.  The atmospheric CO2 levels are at higher levels than since the dinosaurs walked the earth.

      It is time for the poltical dinsuars to realise they lost the argument and let the realists fix the problems created by greed, sloth and ignorance.

    • Freeman says:

      10:41am | 10/09/10

      Dave,
      the sole reason we have a higher Co2 output per capita is because the
      rest of the developed world is using nuclear power and most of our power still comes from burning coal.
      So are you an advocate for nuclear power?

    • Ferret says:

      03:08pm | 10/09/10

      Dave I will happily shot holes in this per-capita crap. CO2 emission has a strong correlation with GDP growth. Soo a better measure is the amount of CO2 per $of GDP. A simple measure of per capita is dumb to say the least as an influx of population will quickly reduce our emissions without actually doing anything. By at least starting with a reasonable link like GDP you can see the true impact of Emission reduction and the need to develop smart ideas on how to handle the situation.

      Anyone who thinks we should look at emission per capita needs to hit the books again. They have clearly missed the strong links between industry and emission levels.

    • Front Row says:

      08:38pm | 11/09/10

      Eric,
      I tend to lean towards your more balanced view of the world, but finding a way to diversify our energy sources seems like a smart thing to do.
      If we take all the Marxist crap out of the “Climate Change Debate’, there are some potentially good ideas in the mix - albeit good ideas for the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean.
      For instance: If individual Australian households can purchase price independence through solar panels, or wind, rather than be dictated to by government and privately owned power sellers, then the big suppliers become power “insurers” rather than cost dictators.
      There’s an up-front capital cost, sure, but look at the future benefits to those people.
      The same goes for investing in independent catchment of roof/rain-water into big 30kl tanks beneath all new (or even older) homes.  It gives new power to individuals, rather than the corporate state and our damned bureaucracies.
      Now…  that might happen to tally with the Warmists’ view of how things should go, but who really cares? I don’t care if climate change is real if I have a chance to leverage some independence off the back of a possibly misguided push-subsidy from the government.
      Why don’t we think about ways to minimise the mestatic power of the state?  Let’s sack the mongrels and do what we can for ourselves.

    • Gregg says:

      01:59pm | 12/09/10

      It’s not just the developed world getting nuclear Freeman but even Vietnam and the Middle East.
      Australia will soon be part of the less developed but more polluting and poorer world unfortunately.
      http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Reactor_and_fuel_take_back_for_Vietnam_0909101.html
      And @ Front Row,
      nothing to stop you going for the wind/solar and you may even get a generous generation payment but how responsible is it for other taxpayers not able to afford the initial outlay to be subsidising those able to take up offers and then having even more cost to the taxpayer where generation payment is an incentive.
      At the same time, you’ll still have a need for power stations for all the base load power.
      With the water tanks, you’ll find many rural people have water tanks and one of the reasons why it may not be so desirable as a complete system for suburbia or any urban living is the extent of pollution that ends up on house roofs and eventually in your water tank!
      Your tank water might be acidic enough you could do away with a waste connection and just have a good cesspool!

    • Front Row says:

      08:13pm | 12/09/10

      Gregg -
      I know what you mean, the subsidies are already going all over the place.
      Perhaps governments could drop all the subsidies and, at the same time, make the household energy investment a simple expense that can be depreciated at 50 percent, with interest on loans also a tax deduction.
      I know, it’s still a “subsidy” in one respect, but we might as well use the tax system for something beyond redistributing national wealth to the politically fashionable.
      Landlords could “sell” domestic power to residents at a capped 45 percent of an agreed MWh price until their outlay is recouped, then make their own arrangements.
      The power base-load problem is only going to be addressed once we have small “cassette” nuclear reactors at each major user of three-phase power and regional communities.
      This will dice the “transmission costs” rorting of the major energy companies and make a lot of remote/regional Australia economically viable, attracting people away from overloaded cities along with other existing things like cheaper house prices, less congestion/crime et al.
      The Yanks already run aircraft carriers and subs on this nuclear technology, so why the hell not? Security is something that needs to be thought through, but it’s not impossible.
      What’s always got me in this debate is that people who want to control carbon in the air seem to think that’s somehow easier than controlling the remnants of nuclear power.
      I’d rather bury the by-product encased in three foot of lead out on the Woomera rocket range, two km down inside some of the most stable geological systems in the world, and put a 200km fence around it.
      Better that than chase invisible, un-smellable gases around the sky - with the cheery help of Goldman Sachs.

    • Super D says:

      07:05am | 09/09/10

      I’m a climate skeptic though support a carbon tax - on the basis that Governments do need to tax something so it may as well be carbon.  That being said I support a CO2 consumption tax, not a production tax as is currently proposed. 

      Some sort of eco-GST is what I’m talking about - where domestic consumption is taxed whether from domestic production or imports and exports are not taxed.  As it stands all of the proposals based around production will simply gut Australian industry for no net environmental benefit.  We can close down our coal industry if we want - the upshot will be more coal from Indonesia and other countries gets mined and burnt for no change in global CO2 emissions, just a reduction in our living standards - ie a wealth transfer from Australia to the rest of the world.  Lets not forget that this sort of wealth transfer is actually considered a good thing by the far left end of the political spectrum who are more than happy to have it rebadged as an environmental measure - Claiming saving the planet is a better message than proposing to take your money and give it to foreigners.

      Lets not forget either that its politics that gave us the production oriented model - specifically european gamesmanship whereby consumption increases year after year yet production, thanks to the collapse of dirty soviet era industry and the outsourcing of most dirty work to Asia and the sub-continent is reduced as a percentage of GDP.  The europeans greatest success was to get 1990 as the base year - which was by some coincedence was the year of German reunification and the closure of the former east governments industrial sector.

      Oh and don’t get me started on the rorts associated with the creation of carbon credits under the UN’s clean development mechanism (CDM) (google “HCF-23 scam”).....

      The fact is a consumption based carbon tax allows Australia to go it alone and do it properly, the fact that it’s incompatible with what the rest of the world is doing is a huge positive.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      05:55pm | 09/09/10

      Great idea Super D! This completely changes the mechanics of Carbon taxing~ instead of trying to adjust the supply-side of the equation with a monolithic tax on industrial production, we can change the demand-side of the equation by instituting your CO2 consumption tax. This in turn leads to changes in consumer’s behaviours, a change in mind-set that could well be contagious and catch on in other countries~ we could become world leaders in enviro-conscientiousness (instead of the highest or 2nd highest carbon emitters per capita like we are now).

    • dave says:

      11:07pm | 09/09/10

      wait, you are saying that destroying a gas which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is not an activity worthy of reward?  You would much rather this just be released into the atmosphere?

    • Front Row says:

      12:47pm | 10/09/10

      Wouldn’t it be easier just to put a one percent tax on everything that burns carbon or methane?  Then tip that money, with minimal bureaucracy and politicking, into renewables and/or nuclear subsidies?
      That means petrol, hard fuels, power, agriculture, the whole lot. One percent.
      Fixed.
      Next?

    • Gregg says:

      04:10pm | 12/09/10

      @ Dave,
      Did you bother to look at the Scamming aspect that would exist if the HCF23 is being deliberately manufactured in the first place so that credits can then be sold for its destruction.
      The keyword being deliberate!

    • Paul says:

      07:35am | 09/09/10

      If someone could actually tell me how to sell a carbon credit I would. It sounds like a huge con.
      What is it like a gum tree or something.

      Reply

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      09:05am | 09/09/10

      @ Paul

      Good question. As far as I can tell, there will be a limited number of carbon credits in cirulation. Those that clean up their act will not need to buy them; those that don’t will need to buy them until such time as they bring their pollution levels down.

      The people who will make money are the Government, who will sell them (ie it is effectively a tax) and the middlemen who will arrange the sales (probably the usual Collins St crooks-in-suits).

      Companies who are forced to buy will then pass on the extra cost to the consumer, such that we (the mug punters) are the only people who are actually out of pocket.

      More info: http://www.ctrade.org/about.html

    • Gregg says:

      04:51pm | 12/09/10

      Its quite likely to be somewhat a bit more disastrous than that Tony and you may eventually be looking for a cheaper place to live than Poorakistan.
      If governments continue to believe we have to decrease carbon output in the form of CO2 even further, it’ll kind of be a bit like Argentina or Zimbabewe inflation with printing more bank notes only in this case it will be CCs.
      It’ll not be the government selling them so much but no doubt there’ll be some form of revenue for them involved in getting a credit established and then in the trading as per stocks on any exchange.

      So back to the old gumtree Paul and may well the Kookaburras be laughing even more but you’re not all that far off the mark for it seemed the fuzzy wuzzy angels were still abounding up Kokoda way to apparently have Australia paying for forests not to be logged.
      http://www.theage.com.au/national/png-forest-logging-threatens-emission-scheme-20080602-2kw3.html for some info and now with backflips and Brown handstands and Kevin flipping about who knows what will happen while Garnaut is singinging merrily merrily are we as a couple of companies he is part of are busily raping and pillaging other resources.
      Somehow I think it’s more like a giant redwood we’re all being shafted with!
      Maybe we can get credits for all the Sandalwood being grown in the Ord River irrigation area and shipped to India to offset the shipping fuel and eventual burning of it.

    • thatmosis says:

      08:36am | 09/09/10

      Unfortunately we are going to be subjected to a Carbon Tax to placate the Greens,aka The Raving Looney Party. This tax will do nothing to lower the world wide production of CO2 but will give the Green,aka Raving Looneys, voters a warm and fuzzy feeling whilst increasing the price of everything that we buy. All commoditiy prices will rise more than they are now placing increased pressure on people like the lower paid and pensioners who are battling already. It will also insure that Australian companies become uncompetitive in the world market, cause busineee closures and therefore more unemployment and all bnased on erroneousm misleading and downright false “science”. The so called Climate Change Committee will just be a rubber stamp affair that will cost the tax payer millions and do exactly what the Raving Looney Party wants regardless of whether it is beneficial to Australia or not. We are going to pay the price of the tree huggers fervent claims that the Sky is Falling when its only a heavy shower and will pass. Going it alone in the world might look good in the papers but it will not do Australia or the world one iota of good apart from make our trading competitors very happy. Welcome to the end of the Australian lifestyle as we know it.

      Reply

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:01am | 09/09/10

      thatmosis :  Very well said indeed .  Not once has the Brown the Green addressed the cost to the community for Carbon Tax implementation.
      Everyday living will cop a whack upwards , those struggling now , will be pushed to pauper status . Pensioners will bear the brunt of the raving lunatics who are proping up the remnants of the Rudd/Gillard failure .
      The Raving Looney party will be in a position next July to extort their price for passing legislation in the Senate and able to introduce their own legislation via Bandt the barbarian in the House of Reps.
      Rest assured , the Greens will demand a reward for propping up a govt. cobbled together with the aid of turncoats and a Green loony posing as an independent.

    • Dave says:

      12:55pm | 09/09/10

      If those on the right of the political spectrum (e.g. climate skeptics) were even vaguely prepared to listen to the climate believers and accomodate some of their wishes for a low carbon economy, voters wouldn’t be forced to turn to the Raving Loony Party.

      The only reason I voted Green this election is because they want to do something about climate change. The rest of their policies would bury Australia.

      The general “climate believer” wisdom is, the longer we wait the more it will cost. The recent election is proof of this. If something had been done about this years ago, the carbon tax would have been a lot easier to deal with. Now that people have voted the greens in, they wont hold back on carbon pricing.

    • Eric Ireland says:

      02:15pm | 09/09/10

      A carbon tax would not recessarily hurt pensioners and low income earners. The revenue generated could be used to compensate them for any increase in the cost of living. Sweden, Denmark and Norway have had a carbon tax since the early 90s, and all three countries have had higher economic growth than the average for the EEC countries.

      As for th reality of climate change, have a look at the NASA website. Do you believe they’re a bunch of raving looneys too?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      07:00pm | 09/09/10

      Eric Ireland :  One would assume pensioners and low income earners would be compensated but under this cobbled together mess we have ,
      its highly unlikely.  How these drongos expect charging a carbon tax to cut down on carbon discharge , no one knows.  Industry must survive or the alternative will apply , unemployment and misery , so the fact remains , the public will pay the price and the carbon pollution will carry on and on.

    • Gregg says:

      05:14pm | 12/09/10

      @ Dave,
      And just how well have you researched climate change yourself to believe everything that is put forward?
      Have a look at the history behind the IPCC
      http://www.wiseupjournal.com//?p=1203
      And whilst it can be said this is just more pro skeptic propaganda, also have a further read on how temperature claims are questionable and findings of US Senate hearings being amongst a lot of information about.
      And Eric I, I’m glad you’ve put it like ” would not recessarily hurt ” for just like any increases in cost of living the ability of governments to accurately monitor and adjust is dismal and you only have to look at the IPCC climate change modelling variations and our own governments recent mining tax bungling for some great examples.
      State/Local governments with electricity and water privatisation and no ability to control/answer re cost increases for more and so one way or another all we’ll have is more bureacracy and costs with nought to be gained other than more more desperate people.

    • Eric says:

      09:03am | 09/09/10

      And another thing - if the Labor-Greens Coalition is serious about cutting carbon emissions, why isn’t it looking into nuclear energy?

      Australia has both the resources and the technology (http://silex.com.au) to become a world leader in carbon-free energy.

      The fact that this practical and profitable alternative isn’t being considered makes me think the ALP/Greens are just in it for the tax money.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      09:28am | 09/09/10

      Well that’s what the ALP is in it for. Anything to fill their budget holes.

      The Greens are just idiots though. Gaia first, and to hell with humanity.

      BTW did anyone catch the Simpsons last night? Watching them try to power their home with a wind turbine, hilarity.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:54am | 09/09/10

      This whole thing is a joke. Other than the NIMBY issue there is no reasonable debate against why we don’t go nuclear. Its cheap, its clean, we have vast amounts of unused land that we can store the waste, we can make a fortune from it, it emits NO Carbon, its reliable, it produces huge amounts of energy, why oh why are we not even having the debate.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:01am | 09/09/10

      Because Eric - Nuclear Energy is the devil and will destroy the planet by next Thursday….around 1:30pm from memory….

    • Phil says:

      10:17am | 09/09/10

      @ Adam,

      The reason why its not considered is partly because of the Loons who think the world will be destroyed if we go nuclear and the fact that there isnt as much money to be made by taxing the sh!t out of us all for a carbon tax.
      Yet another bloody tax thats all we need.
      At this rate i really hope i dont live long enough to become elderly and live on a pension or any of my savings as its all going to be spent on stupid taxes!

    • Ella says:

      10:36am | 09/09/10

      because nuclear energy is not cost effective, will take too long to develop, and there is still no safe way to contain nuclear waste for the amount of time that is remains dangerous. There is also some evidence to suggest that the process of extracting, transporting and processing uranium produces so much carbon dioxide that it is not really that much more efficient that coal.

      The biggest problem off all is that nuclear is non renewable. Which means in 100 years (or how ever much time it takes) when we run out of uranium we will have to restructure our power generation again, costing more money and effort. We might as well start working on solar and other renewables now.

    • TimB says:

      12:16pm | 09/09/10

      Ella, the dozens of nations safely using nuclear energy say that you’re wrong.

      We sit on about 40% of the worlds uranium. We already have to store the nuclear waste of other countries. It’s ridiculous that we don’t have nuclear power. We should have started 20 years ago. It’s because of the idiot greenie NIMBYS that we’re in this situation now.

    • heather says:

      02:30pm | 09/09/10

      don’t panic and don’t forget your towel

    • Who says:

      04:05pm | 09/09/10

      Actually Ella is not wrong. 
      Lead Times:  It would take approximately 8-10 to get an Australian nuclear power plant from conception until commissioning.

      Cost of production:  Nuclear power is expensive with an official statement from one of its peak industry bodies placing the cost between 10c and 15c/kWh.  To put that into perspective Gas is around the 4.5c/kWh mark and IG combined cycle coal is around 5c/kWh.  Even some renewables are cheaper with wind around 5.5c/kWh and Hydro at 9c/kWh. 

      Cost of storage:  Spent nuclear material requires long term isolation and this is expensive.  With too much to go into here a suggest you look up the canned Yucca Mountain project in the US.

      For Adam Driver Specifically:  The NIMBY concerns are reasonable as the fallout from Chernobyl covered most of Europe. 

      Finally, if you don’t agree with AGW science then there is simply no benefit of using nuclear in Australia.  Fossil fuels are abundant, cheap, easy to process, easy to transport and easy to store.  In fact the only downside to fossil fuels are their emissions.

    • farkurnell says:

      08:56pm | 09/09/10

      Brilliant Eric .Just another issue for the 4 & half Indies to mull over during there coffee shop meetings .Why don’t you also include the Middle East peace process,I’m sure the Oakster will have an opinion on that.

    • Eric says:

      07:23am | 10/09/10

      Relying on Chernobyl as an example of nuclear safety is deceptive. That reactor was of an old and dangerous design which is not proposed for any future plants.

      Modern pebble-bed reactors are literally meltdown-proof and can be made small enough to power remote towns.

      Even better, next-generation thorium reactors offer hundreds of thousands of years of fuel supply based on the waste products from mining, and cannot be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

      http://bit.ly/aGDc4O

      Fearmongering based on superstition and outdated facts is all the opponents have. Let’s not be left behind, when we could be leading the world in clean energy.

    • Who says:

      01:41pm | 10/09/10

      Eric,
      Please don’t skew my argument by focusing on one section addressing one of the reasons why people hold NIMBY views towards nuclear.  You obviously sound like you know a little bit about the industry but still chose not to address the other very real down side of nuclear power and instead decided to accuse me of fear mongering.  Poor form. 

      Let’s look at Thorium then.

      NIMBY Concerns:  Gone – turn off the particle accelerator on an overhearing core and fission cannot be sustained so no melt down – Definite positive.

      Lead Time:  Safe to assume this would be even longer as technology is immature:

      Cost of Production:  Safe to assume would be higher than mature nuclear technology.

      Cost of storage:  This would be reduced due to the small quantities and shorter half life of thorium reactor waste however the waste material remains dangerous for around 500 years so not eliminated.

      There is no magic bullet to fix our energy needs and if we are only going to look at the positives of a fuel sources then hydrocarbons win hands down

    • Rainier says:

      07:31am | 11/09/10

      Eric,
      modern pebble bed reactors are indeed somehow meltdown proven, but not fire proven. A graphite fire as in Chernobyl is a high risk for pebble bed reactors, too. Further, the South African pebble bed reactor project PBMR collapsed this year after spending about 1.5 bn A$. It failed for technical and safety reasons.

    • MarK says:

      09:54am | 09/09/10

      And still AGW is a debated topic. But hey lets just tax everyone anyway.

      Great way to redistribute wealth for no net benefit to anyone.

      Oh well anyway lets look at a paper on the topic

      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5000/australia_climate_policy_draft.pdf

      from here http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/

      upshot is

        ” This paper evaluates Australia’s proposed emissions trading scheme in terms of the implied rates of decarbonization of the Australian economy for a range of proposed emissions reduction targets. The paper uses the Kaya Identity to structure the evaluation, employing both a bottomup approach (based on projections of future Australian population, economic growth, and technology) as well as a top-down approach (deriving implied rates of decarbonization consistent with the targets and various rates of economic growth). Both approaches indicate that the Australian economy would have to achieve annual rates of decarbonization of 3.8% to 5.9% to meet a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 5%, 15% or 25% below 2000 levels, and about 5% to meet a 2050 target of a 60% reduction below 2000 levels.

        The paper argues that Australian carbon policy proposals present emissions reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.”

      Originally from BoltA blog.

      The paper is actually a good read. I suggest everyone does it.

      Reply

    • Dana says:

      12:58pm | 09/09/10

      Ewbank and Pieke Jr are on the same page regarding carbon pricing. In a post yesterday Pielke argued that we should ‘tax or otherwise price today’s energy supply to invest in tomorrow’s energy supply. India’s government has proposed a variant on this theme with a coal tax to be used for clean energy innovation.’ This is obviously the point made in this article.
      (http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010)

    • ibast says:

      09:55am | 09/09/10

      I work in the power industry and I can tell you work in the industry stalled when carbon trading didn’t go through.  There is billions of dollars of work to be done and none of it being done.  A carbon trading system would be a massive stimulus to the Australian economy.  Virtually every coal and oil fired station in Australia would engage in multi-million dollar upgrades.

      Not only that, plants are being run into the ground in anticipation of future changes. “Why so that now, when next year things will change?”.

      An ETS, if done correctly ,would be the equivalent of the next mining boom.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      10:10am | 09/09/10

      “An ETS, if done correctly” - if done correctly is the key.  I don’t think that it can be and am 99% sure that even if it could, it wouldn’t.  Look at the insulation debacle where every scammer with a ute and an ABN ran rings around the woodducks in the environment department.

    • L. says:

      10:37am | 09/09/10

      “An ETS, if done correctly ,would be the equivalent of the next mining boom.”.....

      With the “boom” coming out of my pocket for almost zero climate benefit.

      Screw that.

    • Randal says:

      12:23pm | 09/09/10

      @ibast, if you do work in the “power industry” and from your comments I seriously doubt that, then the last thing you should support is an ETS or a Carbon Tax as the primary purpose of such a tax is to make the cost of burning coal for energy so expensive that it is replaced by renewables, thereby shutting down the coal fired stations (actual Green policy).

      So and ETS done correctly, instead of acting as a stimulus for the mining industry that would drive our next ‘mining boom’ it would instead be the death of the mining industry, as as such your job.

    • ibast says:

      02:22pm | 09/09/10

      Randal, being in the industry I know that renewable will only constitute 20% of power in the medium (to even longer) term.  So this means that the coal stations will need to upgrade.  Every station I visit has any number of projects on the shelf ready to go once a carbon trading scheme is initiated.

    • simon says:

      02:27pm | 09/09/10

      Well ibast, I could not disagree with you more. The objective is to reduce carbon, not make money!!!!!I am pretty sure most people dont want a carbon tax, most people are struggling to pay their bills now!!!!

    • Randal says:

      02:54pm | 09/09/10

      So Ibast what you are asking for then is for the Australian people and businesses to pay a premium on our energy, not because it will see a reduction in our carbon emissions, but because you think it will be good for some of the power to have a makeover.

      Well that is one way to look at a tax that would bankrupt the nation.

    • ibast says:

      03:12pm | 09/09/10

      Simon and Randal, the beauty of it is it forces efficiencies.  Making a power plants more efficient is the best way of reducing carbon emissions.  So you don’t see the big price hike, rather savings are made.  The bonus is you reduce carbon emissions.

      The problem I have is that it only addresses carbon emission.  It should be expanded to more toxic emissions.

    • Randal says:

      03:21pm | 09/09/10

      Well it sounds a little like the fanciful “Clean Coal” nonsense to me, but I would look at any measure that assists in a cleaner environment at a cost which is not burdesome upon the nation.

      However what you propose is long way from the policies of the Greens who are driving this committe and want to see an end to Australia’s coal industry through a punitive carbon taxation system.

    • ibast says:

      03:46pm | 09/09/10

      A future without coal and nuclear is not going to happen within the next 3 generations if at all.  So yes, the Greens have fallen out of their tree on that one.

      I should expand on my original proviso in “so long as it’s done right”.  What is absolutely critical here is the lower limit of the ETS.  Set too low, it will cripple the economy. Set too high and it will have not effect.  It needs to be set to a point that encourages the more efficient station to remain efficient and the less efficient ones to come up to that standard.

    • acotrel says:

      08:42am | 10/09/10

      Nuclear power ‘if done correctly’ would solve the problem? Some people have great faith in Australian engineers, most of whom are relatively inexperienced!  The costs of going nuclear would involve purchase of complete systems, including competent personnel.  They certainly don’t come out of our universities!

    • n_dude says:

      04:57pm | 10/09/10

      Makes sense. Look at what has happened with cars. Ever since the price of oil went up, the car makers are falling over themselves to make more fuel efficient cars.

    • Gregg says:

      10:56pm | 12/09/10

      @ ibast says
      Your theory has a basic fallacy:
      What a mining boom does is create investment by local funds and also brings in foreign capital to create a productive venture that brings in revenue, usually from sales of product abroad - the revenue, usually from sales of product abroad being the key feature and that aside from the royalties and taxation that can flow to governments.

      Now sure there is various coal burning efficiency technolgy about and has been for decades, the stumbling block to implementation is that coal is abundant, the efficiencies to be gained are marginal and costs extremely high, reconstruction of the massive boilers and different turbines.
      All that investment is not going to lead to income from abroad but will have to be paid for by taxpayers, a huge difference!
      Also it is not so much ” Not only that, plants are being run into the ground in anticipation of future changes ” for anyone associated with the technical aspects of generation plant will know it is not just Australia that has a nominal life on power generation infrastructure of somewhere about the 30 year mark or it has been and that to some extent related to proximity of the coal field to the power station with some plants.
      I say ” has been ” for in fact there are power stations here in Australia that have already undergone ” rebuilds ” , Hazelwood PS in Victorias LV being a prime example where upgrades were a feature even before it was sold off to a private consortium in the 90s, already being 30 years old then and now there is talk of coverting a couple of units to Gas.
      A carbon trading system is not however going to be a stimulus to the Australian economy for all the cost flow on will just mean more people will have less disposable income.
      The sense of massive efficiency upgrades for older plant is questionable when their working lives may be suspect to other factors and the real question that desperately needs to be addressed by governments is ” What should we be doing now about the new power stations that ought to be under construction already if not being planned for imminent start of construction “
      In the most populous region of Australia, the south east, there has been significant upgrade during the nineties of state systems interconnection such that better management of available generating capacity to be online together with a few gas turbine plants has enabled putting off the need for new generating capacity to be developed on a larger scale.
      As demand continues to grow and existing power stations age even further and become less reliable, the delay in action for new power larger power stations is becoming more critical and the longer nought is done the greater the probability of extensive periods of power shortages and blackouts will be.
      Perhaps something that ought to be on peoples minds when negotiating with or voting for the Greens.
      I winder whether any government has the conviction to seriously address the issues and not that the views are all necessarily correct, Siemens give a snapshot of sorts.
      Somewhere a lot of money ought to be being allocated to rather than the NBN plan.
      http://aunz.siemens.com/NewsCentre/2010/Pages/20100322_SiemensAnnouncesTechnologyBlueprinttoSolveAustraliasWaterandEnergyissuesby2030.aspx

    • Charles says:

      10:00am | 09/09/10

      Putting a price on carbon will do nothing but put a lift in the fortunes of Big Banks, Big Government and Big Greens.  It will do nothing to affect the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and will consequently do even less to change or vary the climate.

      Since humans are responsible for only 12 of the 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, anything we do to change the levels of carbon we emit to the atnosphere is the ultimate exercise in futility.  Something that only the Greens or a complete idiot would contemplate.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      10:15am | 09/09/10

      “Something that only the Greens or a complete idiot would contemplate.”

      You say that like there’s a difference between the two raspberry.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      10:02am | 09/09/10

      Quite apart from the fact that this is now a dead issue globally (the fat lady sang at Copenhagen) why do we need to revert to pictures of dirty stacks pumping out god knows what besides carbon. The scare won’t work a second time, just like Your Rights at Work.

      Reply

    • Dom says:

      10:05am | 09/09/10

      @Eric,
      With past form being an indicator of future form, do you really believe the people responsible for the insulation and school building debacle should be charged with rolling out nuclear energy?  The thought gives me little comfort.

      Reply

    • Dash says:

      10:27am | 09/09/10

      I notice you didn’t mention inflation once in the whole article. Please let me know what you think the impact to the CPI will be. Simple economics will suggest that this will put prices up both directly and indirectly. We already have upwards pressure on inflation and power bills have already started to increase significantly in Sydney (partly because of the incompetence of the state ALP). Inflation will slow growth and erode disposable income and that will be bad for all of us! To me it’s just plain dumb politics but happy for you Leigh to explain why we need this when the environmental impact will be close to zero and basically irrelevant. All green and ALP voters please take note that when our utility prices start going through the roof, it will be on your heads! Don’t whinge about being on the bread-line when you voted for this cr@p! The majority of the population who didn’t vote for this will just have to suffer for the morons who use this kind of nonsense for political gain I guess.

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      10:43am | 09/09/10

      “Rest assured, Australia’s ‘greenhouse mafia’ will work hard to kill off, delay, or weaken any legislation the committee recommends. The mining industry’s successful anti-RSPT (Resources Super Profits Tax) campaign will give the fossil fuel industry hope of victory”

      What?????? Who are these supposed pranksters?? The Fossil fuels industy has had almost nothing to say throughout the whole AGW debate. If you don’t agree with me, show me some examples of the fossil fuel industries scare campaigns against action on climate change. They said nothing during copenhagen, nothing when Rudd tried to get the ETS in last August. You whacky lefties are always fighting your imaginary battles against ‘Big business’ LOL.

      Reply

    • Denizen says:

      01:26pm | 09/09/10

      They are too gutless to come out and say anything under their own banner. Rather they pay so called “Think Tanks” and other organisations to do it for them. Try not to be too naive… there’s a good boy. I guess you don’t use “Google”?

      Try this for starters: http://www.exxonsecrets.org

    • Freeman says:

      10:37am | 10/09/10

      Denzien,
      You provide as ‘evidence’,  A Greenpeace conspiracy theory that says Exxon,  a company that stands to loose billions upon the introduction of an ETS, gave just 1.3 million to ‘denialist organisations’ who they can’t name. Do you seriously swallow this rubbish without question? Do you understand the difference between news and unqualified propaganda from an activist website?  Gotta laugh mate,  You only support my statement of lefties fighting imaginary battles. Yes I use google, But I also qualify the content I read before I accept it.

    • Helen says:

      12:58pm | 10/09/10

      Greenpeace are the most biaised anti scientific organsation. I once worked for them, and when I wanted to be objective and report the results of a scientific study by one of the most esteemed academics in the field, that disagreed with their viewpoint, I was told in no uncertain terms not to publicise this research or I would be sacked. Further, most of the larger environmental organisations are multinational companies in their own right; and little different.

    • L. says:

      10:48am | 09/09/10

      If everythting which is manufactured in this country will be subjected to the cascading effects of a carbon tax, wouldn’t that mean goods imported from non-ETS countries.. (I’m looking at you China)...will be even cheaper again..??

      How will Australian companies compete with this..?

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:54am | 09/09/10

      Al Gore must be rubbing his grubby, money hungry hands together at the news that Australia is going to introduce a carbon tax. Money for nothing hey Al Gore?

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      11:01am | 09/09/10

      So Australia produces about 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, and we want to reduce that by say 20% so that we produce 0.80% of the world’s carbon emissions. The US produces 20% and is no closer to a carbon price. China and India, the worlds fastest growing carbon producers are doing nothing.

      We hamstring our economy and cause massive pain through structural change, all for Green hubris.

      We need to understand we are not world leaders. Unlike NZ our economy is heavily dependant on our ability to produce cheap energy. Until the world decides to take action it is economically irresponsible for any Australian government to take action.

      Having said all that, no-one has ever convinced me that carbon is the cause of AGM or indeed that AGM is truly anthropological.

      At least this article is honest in the final paragraph where it talks about what will be done with the “revenue” from carbon taxes. What the greens and government have failed to explain is that the tax is not designed to reduce emissions, it is designed to raise revenue and transfer it. But unless all of the proceeds of such a tax are placed in a independently controlled sovereign fund designed to ease the structural change pain and encourage clean energy I fear it will be placed into consolidated revenue and used to fix labor’s bad economic management.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      11:43am | 09/09/10

      I can tell you where the revenue is going, in to huge salaries, big bonuses and back to the government to be wasted on all manner of other silly things minority groups can come up with to “save the earth”

    • loxy says:

      06:03pm | 09/09/10

      Andrew if everyone took the attitude you sprout i.e I’m not doing anything until the other countries do then no one would ever do anything. Personally I would be extremely proud to be part of the country that takes a stand and sets the standard in this area for all the other countries to follow!

    • AJ says:

      11:11am | 09/09/10

      I haven’t seen sufficient proof to support the thesis that Global Warming is necessarily the fault of man kind. There is no doubt mankind hasn’t helped (amazon forest clearing etc) but a carbon tax is merely a fund raising exercise totally ineffective in limiting the big emitters overseas. So why do the greens persist in the Big Stick approach when the whole western world knows the profit motive is a far more powerful as a motivator of business behaviour. So, rather than tax anything that can be pointed to, how about letting the market decide through tax breaks, GST exemptions etc for businesses that provide devices and technology of clean energy? I’m sure given the Darwinism that impedes all businesses that fail to compete on lower costs, that the eventual outcome will be thrive versus death in those industries clinging to old production processes. And guess what? No tax penalty!

      Reply

    • Peter Wood says:

      11:17am | 09/09/10

      It should not be forgotten that despite the campaign against the RSPT, we will likely get the MRRT or some sort of tax on resource rents. If a large portion of the money raised goes back to low-and-middle income households, perhaps through raising the tax-free threshold, people will understand that the claim that a carbon price is a “big tax on everything” is silly. This was done to a certain extent with the CPRS, but the government failed to explain it and was limited in how much of this it could do because of the handouts to polluters. Investment on R&D is also a good idea, because R&D is underprovided by markets alone. Money raised can also be used to provide incentives to farmers and other land users to sequester carbon in ecosystems and reduce land clearing.

      Reply

    • Warwick says:

      11:18am | 09/09/10

      We know that neither big party truly believes that reducing the amount of CO2 produced in Australia would make any difference to AGW. Both parties are planning to spend millions of Dollars upgrading the coal export facilities at Newcastle in NSW and also in Queensland.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      11:47am | 09/09/10

      Carbons emission trading wont work.  Its a money making scheme.  note “trading” like on the sharemarket….  If australians are really serious about carbon then we would be looking at shutting down coal mining and industry.  Are we really going to continue to export coal to the world, continue to use it to generate our own electricity.  AND offer large concessions to the coal industries within the framework of an emissions trading scheme?  Yes, because Australians care about our economy.  I share the sentiment.  But it doesn’t change the cold reality of it does it?    Emissions trading IS delayed action, there are too many vested interests for it to be successful. 

      I just don’t understand why we can’t go for a more simple approach.  It isn’t terribly clever, but it far less suspicious.  Why not compulsory solar panels on new homes.  Why not hydro power and wind power.  All industries directly funded by governments, together with private industry.  Why do these things have to be profitable in the first instance to be viable.  Eventually they will be profitable, as the technology becomes less expensive to manufacture.  Australia could become world leaders in the technology.  God knows we have the resources.  I don’t care even if it takes 50 years for the infrastructure to pay for itself.  Lets do that.  And lets look after our lovely country too, with revegetation properly funded and encouraged and sustainable farming and living made a higher focus.  The people WANT this, whether they are skeptics of climate change or not, australians don’t want to desecrate their environment.  They just need leadership from the government.

      Reply

    • Warwick says:

      04:03pm | 09/09/10

      True, we do not want to desecrate our environment. Monstrous windmills desecrate our environment. Furthermore, when the wind stops they produce no power. This means that all wind power sources need backup coal fired power stations. These stations will have to be continuously running, they cannot come online in twenty minutes, although the wind can stop in twenty minutes. So building windmills will simply desecrate our environment without resulting in less CO2 being emitted.

      If a number of nuclear power stations are built they will supply energy at all times, when the wind has stopped and when clouds and nightfall block out the sun.

      As well as that, the power will be so cheap that we can use it to desalinate sea water and pump it to the dry outback, and create millions of acres of productive farmland, forests and wildlife habitat.

      This will be to the Snowy Mountains Scheme what Wilbur Wright’s biplane is to a jumbo jet.

    • hs says:

      07:36pm | 09/09/10

      aah, speak for yourself, I LOVE windfarms, they are awesome.

    • Gregg says:

      03:39am | 10/09/10

      Kate, you need to get a grip on reality
      1. Solar panels on new homes is fine but it is still only fringe power.
      2. Hydro needs water that we do not always have an abundance of in the right places for even with current flooding and Queensland/outback flooding, all that water at low level is useless for hydro.
      There’s the Snowy, Kiewa and Tassie systems already tying up what higher altitude water we do have and perhaps New England / Cairns tablelands being other possible locations but it means a lot of dam building and guess what the Greens do not like.
      The technology for wind power is already far advanced in Europe as is Nuclear and no technology development is needed but wind also has its limitations as does solar for greater capacity power generation.

    • True Believer says:

      12:40pm | 09/09/10

      Ah Leigh, I like your style, we have a “for your own good” ideal that we want put into place that lacks the support of the majority of the community as the thought of being taxed to hell for absolutely no benefit, that puts at risk our most profitable industry and would drive the cost of doing business in this nation through the roof, putting pressure on inflation, jobs and interest rates is too much be those with substantially less intelligence than you or I could bear.

      So rather than allow a true public debate now that we have left wing control of the Parliament we instead need to limit the debate to include only people that agree with us, and then make it a choice of “Which tax do you want??”

      Once we have the Greens up in the Senate we can then formulate legislation and bang it through the Parliament before it is tested at the next election, and then deride anyone who criticises us being part of a “greenhouse mafia” and we can then use terms like “flat earthers” and “deniers” and belittle them into submission.

      Anyway they don’t matter as we will shut them out of any debate and just run the “for the sake of the planet” line and once we have the legislation through going backwards will not be an option as we can hit the election yelling that we “acted” to save the planet and the votes will come before any nasty impact can be felt.

      Loving your work Leigh, and once we get this pesky climate tax out of the way let’s move onto legalising drugs, death and wealth taxes, hitting evil corporations with more tax and banning animals in the zoo.

      Imagine what a future we can create together!

      Reply

    • Denizen says:

      01:40pm | 09/09/10

      Your argument doesn’t make sense.

      First you say: “we have a “for your own good” ideal that we want put into place that lacks the support of the majority of the community”; then you say: ” now that we have left wing control of the Parliament”!

      The fact that we have left wing control of the parliament, and that so many voters jumped from the ALP to the Greens shows quite clearly that the majority DO support action on climate change.

      But please don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant!

    • David C says:

      02:21pm | 09/09/10

      yes and after all those “green jumpers” they still only got 10% of the vote , doesnt strike me as a consensus

    • TimB says:

      02:27pm | 09/09/10

      Denizen perhaps you need to check your definition of majority. The Greens picked up a 3.97% overall swing for a toal primary vote of 11.76%

      Assuming we follow your logic that anyone voting Green wanted action on climate change, that works out to be a little over 1 in 9 people.

      But hey don’t let facts get in the way of your sweeping lies.

    • Denizen says:

      05:32pm | 09/09/10

      How unusual for you rightwingers to read something and not understand it! LOL.

      I did not claim that the Greens had control of parliament. I merely commented that TrueB’s argument didn’t make sense.

      But anyway, here are the facts:

      The Labor party nominally controls the Lower House with 76 seats.
      The Labor party has 31 seats and the Greens 9 seats in the Senate, enough to form a majority.

      That looks to me like the “left wing controls parliament” as TrueB so correctly put it.

      But I’m sure you can spin those facts to fit your deluded view of the world.

      Good luck with that!

    • True Believer says:

      05:53pm | 09/09/10

      Thats right Denizen, we have control and can do whatever we like and I cannot wait until I grow my own weed, inject anything I want and tax the hell out all those evil rich people!

      Happy days my friend, happy days!!

    • David C says:

      02:18pm | 09/09/10

      This issue is rapidly developing and being a “rationalist” it makes me happy. The cultists, the alarmists and the doomsayers have been cut out and we seem now to be moving towards a more rational discussion. I think behind this is a desire/ need to move towards renewable energy to give us energy independence and security.
      Key to this is not to make existing energy more expenive, that just punishes everyone for nothing. The key is to make the alternatives cheaper (Like the ozone/cfc issue)
      It seems there is a new move to acjhieve this through a carbon tax but set at an initiai level that the vast majority wont even notice, probably adding 2-4 cents say a litre to the cost of petrol for example.The funds raised through this will then be channeled to making renewables and alternatives cheaper though subsidies and innovation. This is obviously a simplistic summary but one that I think defines a new middle ground. This would be greatly hastened if the greeny hairshirt brigade stopped going on about the end of the world, punishing coal executives, we are dooming the children and making ads with polar bears falling from the sky.
      We have moved away from cuting emmissions and ETS/CPRS, that was so last decade.

      Reply

    • Heather says:

      02:54pm | 09/09/10

      I’m getting really irritated with the whole thing; climate change is the new black and the new christianity, all rolled into one annoying doctrine. It’s worse than religion; there’s no concrete proof, you’ll go to hell if you reject it, its promoted by sages in white coats, and it gets bucketloads of money from the government.

      The absolute fundamental of the scientific method is objectivity and reasoned analysis of alternative interpretations. However, it is now virtual heresy to criticise any aspect of climate change science; woe betide the unwary soul, henceforth branded as, shock horror, a sceptic. What’s wrong with being a sceptic? I actually *don’t* reject the science; but because it has become so sacrosanct, I’m going to argue against it, just to irritate the climate change doomsayers and proselytes. A small rebellion, but it amuses me…

      Further, climate change policy reflects most Green attitudes; which views humanity as some vile cancer upon the face of the earth; and totally ignores our innate ingenuity and problem solving ability. The very reason we become such a successful species is our adaptability! In addition, a global scale problem is being blamed on individuals, who now have to PAY, a lot, to solve an issue that they can do absolutely nothing about. What can you or I do about the vast increase in cars in India or Chinese coal fired power plants? But that is the underlying ethos of such policy, make the individual feel guilty, and take the blame for everything. It does nothing in the long run, save cost a lot; and just makes some sorry souls feel guilty and helpless, and others just reject it outright as falling in the much too hard basket.

      Reply

    • Damian says:

      03:02pm | 09/09/10

      Ordinary people are not preoccupied with worries about global warming.  Stop with this nonsense as if using badges and guns is going to force society as a whole to act in certain ways that will ‘save the planet’.  It’s a complete disgrace that western culture has allowed itself to dabble in this new state sponsored religion that at it’s logical (actually illogical) core just means population reduction and deprivation/wealth confiscation dictated to you by wise scientific carbon ‘market’ climate propheteers/profiteers such as Al Gore.

      Reply

    • loxy says:

      05:58pm | 09/09/10

      “Orindary people are not preoccupied with worries about global warming”. I beg to differ Damian, in the 2007 election this was one of the top three concerns of the Australian people and a major reason why Howard (the climate change non-believer) lost by a landslide.

      I am extremely worried about climate change and sick to death of governments talking about it but doing nothing.

    • YY says:

      03:53pm | 09/09/10

      A carbon tax is bad because it’s unnecessary and nobody wastes money better than big government, but a carbon trading scheme is worse.

      The latter is a fake market that feeds corruption and creates it’s own vested industry of financial brokers who profit no matter what the price and no matter who buys or sells (they just need a government mandated scheme that forces businesses to buy and sell), and no matter whether anything useful happens to the environment.

      Once the financial houses are set (and they are already well advanced) how could this policy ever be unwound?

      Time for a lobby group that actually represents the wishes of the majority of Australians who want neither.

      Reply

    • dave says:

      05:09pm | 09/09/10

      carbon tax is a tax grab.what they didnt say how high car rego will be when it’s applied to the pollutors(car owners). we didn’t need any of these fantastic new taxes pre rudd/gillard. ten bucks the first thing this illegitimate government do is give themselves a pay rise.

      Reply

    • N says:

      05:12pm | 09/09/10

      I’ll support a carbon tax when the government wholly supports and implements nuclear power. There is no good argument against the use of nuclear power to be heard of so far. Since the majority of our power is generated using coal, which is heavily carbon producing; surely an intelligent person can see the paradox of having primarily coal fuelled power stations and a carbon tax, while ignorantly protesting nuclear power.

      Honestly I see the carbon tax as another to fill the Government coffers and a wealth redistribution tool. It’s been stated in no uncertain terms time and again that the struggling and even ‘average’ family will be compensated for the increased costs associated with a carbon tax. Hardly an enticement for the majority of people to curb their carbon output if only the ‘wealthy’ are picking up the tab!

      Reply

    • Denizen says:

      06:06pm | 09/09/10

      Er… how about Chernobyl? Forget that one did we?

    • N says:

      06:27pm | 09/09/10

      Denizen; Not at all, but similar to Three Mile Island, that was nuclear power in its infancy, we have moved along way in 25 years. While Chernobyl is an unquestionable tragedy, the outcome from both of these disasters was the implementation of safety measures so such events can never happen again.

      I guess when you look at countries like Germany with 17 plants, UK with 19, Sweden with 10, Russia with 32; all with no accidents. Chernobyl was in the Ukraine (with 15 plants), before you jump up and down about Russia having no accidents. France has 58 plants with only a single minor accident (the only one in 30 years) where 3 workers entered a particle accelerator without protection; the executives were subsequently jailed. 

      With today’s checks and balances, the fear of nuclear meltdown is totally unfounded and a specious argument.

    • Denizen says:

      11:01pm | 09/09/10

      Hmmm… where have I heard those kinds of claims about safety and devastating events never happening again?

      Err… Gulf of Mexico anyone?

      No one can claim a 100% safety record and the problem with nukes is that if there is an event, the damage lasts for thousands of years.  And I haven’t even started on cost, time to build and security issues.

      I doubt a terrorist group would ever try to blow up a wind farm.

    • N says:

      12:27pm | 10/09/10

      Denizen; It’s pretty safe to say when you draw the “Terrorist Threat” card, you’re clutching at straws in an arguement. There are over 400 nuclear power plants around the world, ZERO have been attacked by any group; terrorist or otherwise. Let’s say we have a group of “evil dooers” with enough explosive to expose a reactor core…. consider the distance from boundary fence in relation to the actual core and the amount of explosive required to crack it. It’s far more likely said “evil dooers” would roll up in a truck in the CBD and detonate it there.  It’s also infinitely more likely you’ll be hit by a bus than be subject to either scenario.

      Happy to have a conversation about cost. How about we look at the cost to the nation of implementing another tax and its crippling effect on the economy and international investments? As opposed to using a fraction of the yellowcake we supply the rest of the world for our own needs, without another tax, providing a stronger and more agile economy? The idea that we sell nuclear fuel to other nations then fail to use it ourselves is akin to IBM or HP making computers but not using them!

      Agree nuclear fallout last thousands of years, which is why the area around Womera is totally useless courtesy of British testing.  Chernobyl is the worst nuclear power disaster in history; yet they continued using the remaining reactors up until 2000.

      Acotrel; Yes infancy; 2nd generation nuclear power plant as opposed to 4th generation we have now. I’m not comparing the talents of any nation here. It’s stupid to think that Aussie engineers would design their own reactor from scratch, rather find a nation with a pristine nuclear record and leverage their design. France would be the most obvious.

    • Amy says:

      10:53am | 11/09/10

      Uhhh Denizen.  Heard of Lucas Heights?  The Nuclear Reactor there has been running without significant incident for 62 years, 31kms from the Sydney CBD.

    • dave says:

      05:13pm | 09/09/10

      its like an insurance company using act of god as an excuse for denying honest people there claims when they can’t proooooove he exists.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:00am | 10/09/10

      N -  Nuclear power ’ in it’s infancy’ at Chernobyl? Are you trying to tell us that Australian engineers are superior to Russian educated people? It’s pretty obvious you’ve never worked in an engineering based industry in Australia!

    • dave says:

      11:31pm | 10/09/10

      acotrel . the topic is about carbon taxes not russian nuclear power stations

      havent worked in an engineering based industry you think.mmm

      I can tell you that the recycling industry is one of the biggest polluting industries in the world. it starts with one of the big mining companies mining the raw material to beging the manufacturing process for the tools , equipment and machinery used and required to reprocess garbage.
      now lets say we have all our machinery parts assembled and we are ready to start recycling,but first,we have to remember the highly polluting industry that manufactured our fantastic new toy, what a nice industry.
      now its time to flik the switch. oh no nothing happens. the smoke billowing coal fired power station hasn’t been hooked up to my fuse box yet giving my new toy the juicy electricity it loves to suck so much.before we try turning the machine on again, i think its best we turn on the 100 or so electricity consming dock lights so we can get a better look at our new toy in action. oh no we havent got any paper to recycle yet. what will we do.
      we will get the mining industry to mine some more raw material to make hundreds of smoke billowing trucks( plus on going replacement parts ) to drive around at idle speed in congested traffic all day and collect recyclable rubbish.
      mate to pretty much sum it up with out going into all the logistical system and the companies involved in the polluting manufacturing processes for everything we do and use in our daily lives.
      sit down with a piece of paper and pick any item in your house and write down the full logistical process for pollution generation from raw material to consumer. i’ll give you the heads up. if you pick dunny roll it starts with the mining industry mining the raw material to send to japan to make the tools for the lumber jack to cut down the tree.
      also dont forget all the office system for every company involved in your plan.
      i can go on all day with logistics but at the end of the day,the volume of pollution that is generated from all the manufacturing processes for everything we have and do in life is at such a high level cant be avoided.we are a selfish greedy spiecies.
      so when you finish your logistical plan of an item you have at home, apply a carbon tax to every industry involved in your finish plan and think to your self , how much will this push prices up. any item in your house with a full logistical break down from raw to consumer and every polluting industry involved. hears a thought,you better by a reem of paper.

    • Richard says:

      06:33pm | 09/09/10

      The author writes: “The fact that the mining tax wasn’t directly linked to measures that benefited Australians and potential allies seriously damaged its prospects. Because the public was not aware of how the RSPT revenues would be invested they were not willing to support it.”

      I would disagree with this statement, because I think he fundamentally underestimates how informed the Australian electorate is as a whole, and does not understand the ideology that drives us. We don’t believe that it is the Government’s role to put their fingers into every pie and meddle in other people’s business. We have instinctive faith in the free market to organise and distribute most things smoothly and efficiently, yes even wealth.

      The vicous decline in mining stocks (which Australian workers own through their superannuation accounts) and the Australian dollar (which we use to buy imported products and travel overseas with) due to the proposed implementation of the RSPT [the correlation is very strong if you look at the charts and the dates and compare this to the government’s announcement] clearly indicated that average Australians were actually going to be worse off under an RSPT, not better off.

      Government and bureaucracy is simply not as efficient as private-enterprise. We have faith in the free-market system to allocate resources correctly and generate profits that we can all directly benefit from through our investments and super, without the corrupt and creaking bureaucracy getting involved and zombifying the system. Most Australians believe in this and opposed the RSPT, which was incidentally the real reason Kevin Rudd was brought down, not his CPRS abandonment…. Most Australians also oppose Emissions Trading Schemes and Carbon taxing.

      Don’t believe me? How else do you explain the polling position the Liberal party was in last year under erudite and articulate (and ETS-supporting) Malcolm Turnbull (i.e. under 40%) compared to its current position now under the blustering and brash (and Carbon tax opposing) Tony Abbott (i.e. over 50%)? Considering Labor also did all it could to hide its ETS/Carbon Taxing plans away during the election campaign (because they knew it would cost them votes), we can only state with any certainty that the only voters who are categorically in favour of an ETS/Carbon Price are the ones who voted for the Greens (i.e 12% of the electorate). Hardly a resounding majority.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:15pm | 09/09/10

      Yep, I have faith in Wall Street to loot as much wealth from the U.S Treasury and U.S public as possible. Very efficient, but not good for the long term economic health of the United States…...
      BTW China is doing far better than the United States but is hardly a free market….

    • Richard says:

      01:40pm | 10/09/10

      You’re right about Wall Street Shane, but I don’t think that is a free market, more like a corrupt oligarchical intermingling of big business on Wall Street and big government in Washington ~ Government Sponsored Enterprise/Enterprise Sponsored Government.

      Deng Xiaoping’s free market reforms in China actually opened the door to their astounding economic growth and success. The still have a loooong way to go, but some commentators I respect say that China actually has a free-er market than the US these days….

    • Carl Palmer says:

      07:22pm | 09/09/10

      It is great to see the nuclear word being debated. Unfortunately it is only here and nowhere else. Yet it is the only solution available today that will deal with the “greatest moral challenge of our time” or whatever that bloke said.

      Building a couple of these little beauties will have an immediate and instant affect on these disastrous GHG’s which if we don’t do anything meaningful will kill everything on the planet, destroy my children and their children’s children’s future. These beauties will eliminate the possibility of having Bondi beach at Dubbo and the Great Barrier reef would be saved.  We won’t have power outages because these little beauties generate bucket loads of crystal clean power.  Those who truly love the planet can end up hugging as many trees as they want because the planet will be saved by those evil GHG and those horrible people who love to drive their cars, earn a living, cook a meal for their family and spend a little time under a fluro helping their children at night with their homework.  And for those that have a plasma TV, well they can go to well you know.

      How will all of this be paid, easy.  If this is ““the greatest moral challenge of our time” as that very famous man said then we would shelve the NBN and spend the money on the world saving green loving power generating juggernauts. Happy days, too easy.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      10:59pm | 10/09/10

      Its absurd, a carbon price will not affect our coal exports, the biggest in the world, but will shut down coal fired generators in Australia before the end of machinery life. Rocketing electricity prices will not only send electricity intensive industries overseas where there is no carbon price, but will make our own industries less competitive. Will the last person out of Australia please turn off the lights!

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      12:32am | 11/09/10

      Let me tell you how it will be
      There’s one for you, nineteen for me
      ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

      Should five per cent appear too small
      Be thankful I don’t take it all
      ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

      If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
      If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
      If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
      If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

      Don’t ask me what I want it for
      If you don’t want to pay some more
      ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

      Now my advice for those who die
      Declare the pennies on your eyes
      ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
      And you’re working for no one but me.

      When we were kids at school in the 70’s we were told there would be no fuel for our car by mid 70’s. We thought we would have no car now look at all the cars and machinery in everyday use. So it is with this nonsense. It won’t matter if governments add this to the GST, medicare you name it ever rising road taxes registrations of everything… Many of us will not be able to use power IF we even have a house or get to keep it as rates rises add the rates so on this goes. Now we are poying for poisoned water in Water rates similarly. Thankfully some of us will only be older and it won’t matter one way or the other.. think about it if you will..We are getting taxed out of existence and the only ones getting rises are hummmm the government. They lie to us and send us to wars we didn’t create..Migrants well we are not so..We all borrow and use for the time we live only..Most of us are not living, barely surviving. we are depressed angry had a gut full of BS we are being sold. We didn’t vote for the gov we got?

      Reply

    • Max Power says:

      08:48am | 11/09/10

      Plant more trees, stop cutting down Rainforests and Jungles, shabangabang, no Carbon pollution worry.
      Never happen, as the Govt won’t make money from it. Climate change is all about the $ and control of the people.
      We have talk about growing crops for Bio-fuel, which would require the clearing of more land. So to save the environment, we need to destroy it.
      The ability of religion to scare and control people has worn off. So those in power need a new fictious belief to acheive fear and control of the people, enter man made climate change.

      Reply

    • David says:

      09:38am | 12/09/10

      Carbon Tax has nothing to do with global warming it is just a tax.  Families are already paying a $1000 a quarter and that will go up to $1,500 before the end of next year.  The BIG CON is that when we switch off the lights, we do not reduce carbon emmissions.  Earth Hour has ZERO impact to carbon emmissions.  The balck balloon adverts are LIES, LIES, LIES.  Anyone who understands how the electricity is generated and distributed knows what a con job this is.  Basically Carbon Tax is a tax based on untruths and deceptions, it will do little to reduce carbon emmissions,  Sooner or later the truth will come out and then people will be furious.

      Reply

    • Quokka says:

      05:21pm | 14/10/10

      Is there any harm in developing renewables in the regions, as Bob Taylor outlines (‘Renewable energy can zap some life into regional Oz’ - an excellent article in Punch) and bring about carbon emissions reductions as a side effect. Sure, it may not be necessary if it turns out to be fine to continue the way we are, but it would create employment and benefit the regions, two objects worthwhile in themselves. Added to that, it’s a kind of insurance policy!

      Reply

    • StaceyHarvey31 says:

      01:20am | 06/07/11

      Some time ago, I did need to buy a building for my business but I did not earn enough money and could not purchase something. Thank goodness my friend proposed to get the credit loans from banks. Therefore, I acted that and was satisfied with my term loan.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 11 Feb 12 06:01PM

@EmiliaKate ahahahahmazing

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 11 Feb 12 06:01PM

RT @TheWallAU: "You know what, Gina Rinehart? Take it, it's yours." @bencjenkinshttp://t.co/1MZ0fJVW#readerrage#fairfax

Paul Colgan

Colgo 11 Feb 12 05:22PM

Had a great lunch and didn't take any photos of it

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 11 Feb 12 04:47PM

RT @gregprichard: Those TABS in which people gave Black Caviar standing ovations have resumed normal transmission, with punters blowing up and bagging jockeys

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Hockey is pucking around with dollars and sense

by Laurie Oakes

147

Hockey is pucking around with dollars and sense

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has been whacked around the head this week for denying he ever admitted a…

Homophobia is the hate that dares speak its name

by Senthorun Raj

42

Homophobia is the hate that dares speak its name

The recent resurfacing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda, or the “Kill the Gays” Bill…

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

194

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

153 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed