Gillard's Carbon Tax a futile achievment

You forgot the moooooving forward, bit. Bugs, you could completely wipe Australia off the map, and not make a scrap of difference, it`s all about taking other people`s money, nothing more.

 

Get of the drugs bugs

For heavens sake anyone who puts their trust in wall street to clean up our pollution.......................well what can i say without being rude.

here have another one.

 

What don't you understand about the simple fact that a reduction in emissions will result in a reduction in the impacts caused by these emissions?

 

Do you understand anything here at all? And what does Wall St have to do with anything?

I do not place any great trust in our governments current policies.
I have said all along that I would prefer to see a carbon tax implemented - not an ETS.

But - that being said - it is ridiculous to deny that an ETS is a proven method of reducing emissions. And a reduction of emissions will result in a reduction in the impacts caused by these emissions.

 

Have existing ETS schemes served to reduce emissions?

 

Where & When ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

USA
1990 to present


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

 

An interesting program I was unaware of.

However can it be said to be successful at reducing emissions?

Was the trading scheme effective at reducing emissions?

Not if it is compared to the European regulatory method of reducing emissions.

Did it serve any function at all? Maybe not at all, because regulation was also used as a disincentive to emit.

It would be interesting to examine the effectiveness of a trading scheme as an intellectual pursuit in terms of economics, not that I am an economist.

But, simply, how can a trading scheme in 'pollutants' be effective when, in theory, there is no benefit in acquiring a diminishing asset.

 

Yes - the trading scheme is effective at reducing emissions, but also, yes direct regulation as used in Europe was more successful.

But can you seriously imagine that government regulation of carbon emissions would be accepted at the moment?!?! Just look at all of the Alan Jones listeners squealing that the world is about to end simply because of the introduction of an ETS that 95% of them will feel no impact from at all!

To look at emission regulation on a global scale, the best example is the Montreal Protocol - which effectively banned the production of CFCs. It worked very well and has had good outcomes - but the banning of coal (as desirable as it would be) - does not look politically possible at the moment

I agree that regulation would be more effective. I would also prefer to see a tax on carbon, not an ETS. Unfortunately though - our government is really no different to the opposition on this - all too little, too late.

Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html#ixzz1qdjUx4SV

There is a benefit because a monetary cost has been placed on pollution. It is not about acquiring assets, but minimising cost. The less you pollute, the less you pay. There will come a time when the emission credits will be worth close zero - as you said, a diminishing asset - because almost everyone will be under the cap and no one will need them. At this point you would need to lower the cap

 

Curley talk bugs, not truthfull.

 

Bugs please stop misrepresnting the TRUTH!

It was successful because they started to use coal with a less sulphur content than before and they installed scrubbers to clean the emmissions.

The fact that they had an ETS had nothing to do with the cleaning up of the emmissions, but they will all be paying for it for a very long time with no further gain.

And you know what bugs they didn't have sulphur (S) credits like were going to get for CO2.

The same conditions could have been met if thier government simply said that they SHALL reduce the sulphur content of the coal and install scrubbers to clean the emissions prior to releasing into the atmosphere.

Now these poor sods are stuck with an ETS that will do no further good in the reduction of emmissions but the tax will not come of their energy use.

How thick is a plank of wood?

 

What is untruthful about the statement:
"a reduction in emissions will result in a reduction in the impacts caused by these emissions?"

Could you explain?

 

What's a matter bugs cat got your tongue!

 

The Acid Rain Program has produced remarkable and
demonstrable results. It has reduced SO2emissions
faster and at far lower costs than anticipated, yielding
wide-ranging health and environmental improvements.
In fact, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program
accounted for the largest quantified human health
benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major
federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10
years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1
http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

And why did companies "use coal with a less sulphur content than before and install scrubbers to clean the emmissions":

Allowance trading, which places a value on emission reductions, provides an increasing reward for innovation and use of more effective and efficient pollution reducing technologies. Acid Rain Program implementation has
been accompanied by reduced costs and improved performance of pollution control technologies, which have led to lower than expected overall program compliance costs.
http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

Utility strategies for compliance with new sulfur dioxide standards included a mix of options with varying financial costs:[11]
- several existing and new stack-gas scrubbing and clean coal technologies;
- switching to all, or blending high-sulfur coal with, low-sulfur coal;
etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program#cite_note-10

Yes - they called them "allowances" - not "credits". Big difference?!?!


The program is an implementation of emissions trading that primarily targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called "allowances") according to individual needs and costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program#cite_note-10

Yes. It could have. Would you prefer our government regulate industry on how much coal they can use rather than allowing them to develo their own cost effective stategies?

Are you a Communist or something?

Huh?!?! You have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

 

Hey bugs

Like i keep saying to you they could have achieved the same results without an ETS.

We did it here under the Howard government (and you know how much i hated Howard) they simply instructed the oil companies to reduce the sulphur content in petrol from 10% TO 6% within a 5 year time frame.

And you know what they did it.

Now if that was Gillard and Brown they would have given us an ETS that would have placed us in financial slavery to the corporations the stock markets and the bankers for eternity, just like those poor sods over the acid rain.

You donot need an ETS as a matter of fact its the worst thing that can be bestowed upon a nation.

I suppose you like sending out billions of tax payer dollars to foreign corporations for infinity and what will be the result what was it 0.06 degrees celcius.

What a joke.

 

You really don't understand what emissions trading means, do you.

But sure - let's go down the full totalitarian regulation route. Suits me. But I don't think your mate Jonesy would agree with you

 

I think better than you.

For if you comprehended what it does really mean for the average Australian, i'm sure you would be doing something about it.

 

Why don't you actaully read the information about the Clean Air Act I gave you.

Let me know what you have trouble understanding

 

I`ll breifly explain. With all due respect bugs, you are only repeating ALP propaganda, this propaganda doesn`t take into honest account, the crippling effect the ALP carbon tax will have on our nation, it doesn`t openly admit the futility of the carbon tax. The carbon tax, ETS, call it wahtever you like, is a hate tax. It`s a tax of hate of a country from the inside.

 

agreed

And only traitors like Gillard, Swan and Brown would implement such a treasonous act upon the Australian people.

 

How is:
"a reduction in emissions will result in a reduction in the impacts caused by these emissions?" "ALP propaganda"?

It is a simple logical statement? And one that you seem to have no answer for.



Propaganda, on the other hand is statements like:
"the crippling effect the ALP carbon tax will have on our nation"
which is complete bollocks.

The macro economic impact from the Government’s Clean Energy Future plan is unlikely to be large. The price effects will probably be minor, at around 1% and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is likely to look through them. There might be a slight near-term, negative impact on growth as a result of continuing uncertainty, but this is likely to be reversed next year as compensation payments are recieved. Longer-term, the impact on economic activity is expected to be minor as the economy adjusts and the clean energy industry grows in importance.
http://www.ampcapital.com.au/K2DOCS...the-Australian-economy-and-markets.pdf?DIRECT

The carbon price gives effect to a structural shift in the economy, from higher emission intensive to lower emission intensive, but overall is predicted to still grow at a rate only 0.1-0.2 per cent lower than the “business as usual” scenario.
The “offset” is the range of sectors in the economy that will grow due to the carbon price signal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-tax-wont-kill-the-economy-20110505-1e9ij.html#ixzz1qh1amOUR

The updated modelling confirms the Australian economy will continue to grow strongly while emissions are reduced. Macroeconomic and sectoral projections from the updated policy scenarios are very close to those of the SGLP policy scenario, as the policy scenarios feature the same emission targets, the same carbon prices after the first three years and share a majority of other policy features.
Average incomes measured by gross national income (GNI) per person increase by around $9,000 from today’s level to 2020 and by more than $30,000 to 2050. GNI per person grows by 1.1 per cent per year to 2050 with carbon pricing, compared to 1.2 per cent per year without carbon pricing. Employment continues to grow strongly, with national employment increasing by 1.6 million jobs by 2020, with or without carbon pricing. All state economies continue to grow strongly.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/update/Modelling_update.asp


Westpac’s Economic Research team has made a number of observations around the broader economic impacts of the introduction of the Clean Energy package:

Smaller impact than the GST: The direct impact is smaller than the introduction of the GST, and in fact raises just 1/3 of the income that the GST does so the impact on prices (a 0.7% boost to the CPI in the first year 2012/13 vs. 2.5% with the introduction of the GST) and activity will be smaller. Of this increase, the tax is expected to boost electricity prices by 10%, gas prices by 1.5% and food prices by less than 0.5%. The remaining goods and services in the CPI are forecast to rise, on average, by around 0.4%. Treasury estimates that this will boost total household costs by $9.90 per week while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week.
Having evaluated the assumptions made, this appears reasonable and would suggest that this policy may be mildly stimulatory in 2011-12. A smaller 0.2% rise in the CPI is expected in 2015-16 as the carbon price moves to a world price of $29/t as the programme transitions to a market price.

Minimal impact on overall economic growth or jobs: Treasury modelling suggests that the tax will have a minimal impact on growth and employment. While we think this is a fair assessment overall, this does not mean there may not be significant adjustments within and/or between industries.
http://www.westpac.com.au/docs/pdf/aw/sustainability-community/inquiry_aust_clean_energy_future.pdf

 

The labor party will be reduced to ashes at the next election most NO nearly all people i talk to want them and their lies OUT.

 

Yeah. Right.

The banking and insurance industries are obviously ALP stooges.

Do you ever think before responding?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMy3ifWsR-w"]Bob Katter exposes "Carbon Tax" will only benefit the bankers 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

 

I asked you "Do you ever think before responding"?, and you post a clip of Bob Katter!

I think we can consider my question well and truly answered. Thank you.