“At the time of the News of the World phone hacking scandal, politicians are learning the strengths of unashamedly standing up for what’s right.”

Nice idea, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

” Despite Gillard’s assurances that 50% of the revenue raised by the tax will see tax cuts that will benefit the average Australian, many remain unconvinced.”

Given that she gave assurances in her election campaign that she wouldn’t impose a carbon tax it is unsurprising that few will take her at her word now.

What effect will Australia’s new carbon dioxide tax have on the world temperature? A leading climate scientist – Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT) – said at the weekend: “I don’t think anyone could possibly detect it. It would be nothing, for all practical purposes.”

So I would like to know the answer for the UK: If the UK leads the world and reduces carbon by 30%, exactly what reduction in temeperature can we expect and when will we see it?

How can the tax take 45m cars off the roads when Australia’s population is only 22m?

Northern Worker @ 3

A leading climate scientist

Who are we taling about?

Richard Lindzen (MIT)

Oh, sorry, when you said ‘leading climate scientist’, I thought you meant ‘leading climate scientist’ rather than ‘PR man for the oil industry.’

Jim @ 5

Okay, ignore that. As you seem to be an expert, what’s the answer to my question?

Jim – That a person doesn’t agree with you does not mean that they are a “‘PR man for the oil industry.’” so I assume you have some proof in this case; particularly as Lindzen was enough of a leading climate scientist to work on the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report.

If you don’t agree with Lindzen’s assessment then what effect do you believe there will be and why?

@5 Jim,

Well do you have figure from a climate change scientist that agrees with your views that contradicts this figure?

A BBC article I read states that it is hoped that the tax will reduce carbon emmissions by 5% by 2020 (from 2000 levels). The OP advises that Australia contributes 1.5% of world emmissions and therefore a 5% cut will reduce global emmissions by less than one tenth of one percent. That is a lot of economic pain for very little benefit.

Fungus: do you piss and throw litter in the street? After all, there’s only one of you, and there are thousands of people in your town, so it doesn’t make much difference whether or not you piss and throw litter in the street, does it? Or did your mum have a conversation with you when you were about five years old that made clear that *that isn’t the point*?

@9

If the whole world adopted this tax and it works as expected it would reduce carbon emissions by 5%. Is it worth the huge economic pain? Shouldn’t that be discussed?

What huge economic pain? The Australian carbon tax (and I’m in Australia so have been following it closely) certainly isn’t going to cause the above – we’re not talking about the ultra-green plans of abandoning Western society as we know it and returning to the trees.

Sure, if AGW were a complete myth, then we shouldn’t be doing any of the above. But if it isn’t, then a 5% reduction in global carbon emissions that’s achieved with negligible impact on anyone’s lifestyle is a damn sight better than carrying on as we are. Y’know, might be the difference between “a few tens of millions of refugees from low-lying islands and bits of Bangladesh” and “hundreds of millions of people starve when farmland turns to desert”, kind of thing.

You can argue that AGW doesn’t exist. But you can’t in good faith argue that if it does exist, there’s no point in achieving a global cut in carbon emissions.

“You can argue that AGW doesn’t exist. But you can’t in good faith argue that if it does exist, there’s no point in achieving a global cut in carbon emissions.”

Nice Fork O’ Morton there JB. One obvious way out is that if the cost of mitigation is a great deal less than that of reducing carbon emissions, then it would be sensible to take that route instead. (I’m still unconvinced either way on AGW which apparently puts me in the evil camp on an “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” basis).

One way or another it all comes down to the trade off between the extra costs and any benefit that might result. If there is no measurable benefit flowing from those costs then there seems little point in applying them.

Falco: the Stern review found that the cost of carbon emissions (in terms of harm done by likely outcomes) is around $80 a tonne. Stern now thinks this was an underestimate. The Aussie price is $29 a tonne.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a bunch of subsidy-based rather than tax-based programmes that work out in triple figures and even high triple figures; these are either boondoggles or attempts at seeding local industries, depending on your personal levels of cynicism (the Australian federal government is quite honest, while the NSW government is the most corrupt I’ve encountered in the developed world, and does indeed provide insane, 10x the Stern cost subsidies to assorted ill-conceived renewable programmes).

But if AGW exists, then a $29-per-tonne carbon tax – while probably too low – is better than none. The Aussie government is using the carbon tax as an opportunity to raise the lower threshold for income tax, which is correct (as of next year, Aussies earning less than $18k per year – about GBP12k – will no longer pay income tax. This is *absolutely the right thing*, in terms of incentives to get a job if you’re poor). Arguably, the money should go into a “addressing the effects of climate change” pot, but since that wasn’t a politically viable option, they’ve done the next best thing.

Oh, before any obvious points are made re Falco’s #2, “honest” here = “federal MPs and ministers can rarely be bribed”, rather than “all federal politicians always stick to manifesto pledges, even when they’re governing in a coalition with a party that opposes one of their manifesto pledges”.

More on Richard Lindzen here:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/11/17/207051/climate-science-disinformer-richard-lindzen-accuses-colleagues-of-overt-cheating/

“the Stern review found that the cost of carbon emissions (in terms of harm done by likely outcomes) is around $80 a tonne. Stern now thinks this was an underestimate. The Aussie price is $29 a tonne.”

So Gillard sticks a price on thin air.

If anything she deserves to be shot in the face with a blunderbuss loaded with kangaroo shit.

The conceited notion that slapping a tax on CO2 emissions will somehow decrease global temperature is staggering beyond belief. But then that’s what you get when you live in a kakistocracy.

1bn people on this planet have no electricity, no running water and rely on subsistence farming to eat. The watermelons would have us believe that somehow this is a “good thing” because they sure as shit don’t want those 1bn people progressing beyond their current level but would rather drag the rest of us down to that level.

JohnB – Except raising tax thresholds is an extremely bad move in itself, since it encourages low pay by employers and encourages no feelings of reciprocity among low-income earners. This is offset in Australia somewhat by the relatively high minimum wage, but even so it’s simply not a *good* idea.

Putting carbon costs directly onto consumers is highly inflationary, and disproportionally hits the poorer in society, who cannot cut down on basics.

We must act now – NOW – to halt global warming.

Even as I type this, the vast floating island in the Pacific is steadily growing.

As all here are doubtless aware, this thick congealed mat consists of drowned polar bears, sodden copies of the collected works of every environmental alarmist ever born and not a few solar panels and pieces of windfarm debris.

It’s enough to make anyone weep!

Act now!

Hurry!

How is making bills for the average householder go up ever going to a popular or desirable idea in the name of “environmentalism” in this country?

Except raising tax thresholds is an extremely bad move in itself, since it encourages low pay by employers

Oh seriously? FFS. At low levels of income, the question is “do I stay on the dole, or do I get a job”. If, for the person who’s only capable of a job that pays $20,000 (GBP14,000ish) a year, we suddenly make them *not have to pay any tax*, that’s brilliant. If they do have to pay tax, it isn’t.

I feel fucking sorry for Jillard. She’s having to deal with being undermined by her own party (who were never really Blair-ed, so there’s still a deep undercurrent in Federal Labor and a gigantic one in NSW Labor, who still control the national party, that if you don’t work in a mine or a steelworks you’re a fucking pansy), and by the Greens (who are the balance-of-power in the Senate, and part of the problem in the House)

Meanwhile, Country Australia is still as Crocodile Dundee depicted it, and so not relevant to either Labor’s model of “Gordon Brown, but without the recession” or the Liberals’ (=Tories; some older writers till call them this and I’m hoping to carry on the tradition) model of I’m not George Bush, but, no, yeah, basically George Bush”. And the Tories have picked one of the biggest idiots of all time, who makes George W Bush look like a Centre For Intelligence, to be their candidate for federal PM.

It’s all bollocks and bullshit, but it’s clear that Jillard’s policies are costed and implemented, and it’s clear that Tabbott’s policies are cut from imaginary cloth.

Yes, seriously. There are papers on this – raising the percentage of people who pay no tax is not beneficial to the longer term economic wellbeing of the country.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A basic understanding of human behaviour suggests that your point is questionable. So a linky would be delightful.

Is there really any pain free option for tackling climate change? Doing nothing will not be a pain free option, indeed could well be catastrophically painful if any of the worse case scenarios ever come to pass, especially, ironically enough for Australia which could be one of the worst affected countries.

And wishing it will go away or pretending it doesn’t exist will not be viable positions for much longer.

At least someone somewhere is attempting to do something concrete about it instead of just waffling.

@OP: “This is in a country producing 1.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – 0.2% more than that of the United Kingdom, from a population almost a third of the size.”

Those statistics are the starting point for understanding why Australia uses so much fuel. Fossil fuel is not the only source of CO2 emissions, and Australia has a lot of agriculture, but I’ll skip farming for now.

Australia is a big area of islands and large settlements tend to be on the coast of the mainland. To get from A to B, Australians travel long distances. Lots of them own cars with big engines (General Motors build Holdens — Australian versions of Chevrolets — over there, as well as Australian versions of Opels), although city dwellers are likely to drive European style cars. Australians fly a lot and have a significant light plane industry. And they have lots of ships and trains to transport stuff.

Mining is a significant industry. Assuming that the energy used for the mining industry was carbon neutral, mining or gas production would still create greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are a consequence of digging holes in the ground or natural events such as earthquakes.

The Australian carbon tax isn’t an act of political bravery because there is so much scope for carbon tax avoidance by efficiency.

And when it is delivered, Australians will still contribute greater greenhouse emissions per capita than in the UK. Because they live and work in Australia.

@15 Sunny

Brilliant! The US put a patsy into the IPPC and use him as their Trojan horse. That is an astonishingly cynical act, no wonder people give credibility to paranoid fantasies.

His lone voice is, of course, the righty dog whistle heard above every other sound.

Why do they wonder that they are reviled?

Instead of trying to prevent developing nations from making progress, why has’nt it occured to the developed world that helping to create a new infrastructure, with ecology and environment at the heart of any plans, would be benificial to all? A common factor in developing nations, for simple reasons of geography, is sunlight. Lots of it. Is it beyond the imagination of western powers to see that solar power, clean and efficient, relatively inexpensive in relation to the damage caused by fossil fuel, would be a very worthwhile endeavour? Or is it simply the case that a two-pronged assault on the developing world is hampering the efforts made so far? The extremist enviro-nutters who calculate the impact of a dog farting, coupled with the corporate monsters defense of the status quo. The developing world is up against it, as well as dealing with the hardships of day to day life. We need to grasp the nettle and start working together, the consequences of staying as we are would be far worse than taking a risk that has real, long term benefits.

One that might surprise you.

http://blogs.forbes.com/timworstall/2011/07/11/the-australian-carbon-tax-plan-pretty-good-actually/

Certainly better than the shite that Huhne is bringing in.

@26. blackwillow1: “Instead of trying to prevent developing nations from making progress, why has’nt it occured to the developed world that helping to create a new infrastructure, with ecology and environment at the heart of any plans, would be benificial to all?”

Some engineering experiments in Spain and elsewhere are pretty interesting. They use the sun to create useful energy using photovoltaic panels or by heating water. In a couple of years, we will be able to make photovoltaic panels (and the supporting infrastructure) that deliver very cheap electricity to rich people in sunny countries. Advance clarification: photovoltaic is very expensive today.

Mass production is, by definition, a massive opportunity and a massive challenge. Libya, for example, has land area that is ideal for photovoltaic panels and a short transmission tunnel to Europe; but would you wish European energy supply to be determined by Libya?

Er, one for future consideration I’d say. But here’s a bacterial life form of a thought, the open ocean!? Fucking HUGE platform, right in the sweetspot, the equatorial region. A fucking enormous photovoltaic sun trapping, energy creating behemoth of a construction. Not certain of potential pitfalls, would need advanced modelling, but the basic idea is something I think should be looked at closely by finer minds than my own on this subject.

The reason why Australia has a really high emissions level is because they get so much (50%) of their energy from coal. Because it seems such an old fashioned energy source people forget how much the world is still dependent on coal.

http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Global-Energy-Use-by-Source-2010-with-Renewables.png

The use of coal is rising dramatically and not just in the developing world. Why? Because it is cheap and global oil production has plateaued or peaked.

http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/World-Coal-Consumption-in-Mtoe-2001-2010.png

Coal like oil has a fantastic energy density. Therefore, in terms of British Thermal Units (BTU) and energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) it will be cheap and used inefficiently unless it is taxed at a level to internalise the externalities. Well done Australia on applying the polluter pays principle.

This is in a country producing 1.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – 0.2% more than that of the United Kingdom, from a population almost a third of the size. Yet it’s heavily opposed.

Yet?

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is putting her career on the line in implementing this plan against her pledge – a big risk so close to the election in 2013. … Most of the population are said to oppose such a plan, which is predicted to see a hefty rise in bills for the average householder. …. Large FTSE 100 companies around the world have condemned the plans as damaging competitiveness and enterprise. … Imagine if politicians in our country had that sort of bravery.

Let see. Gillard is going to do something she promised not to do. Close to the election. Something that is opposed by most people. Something that will mean they will pay much higher electricity and gas prices. Something that will damage the economy and hence throw people out of work.

I can imagine if British politicians had that sort of courage. They would not be politicians for long. The Australian Labour Party clearly wants to go the way of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party. They will hold their next party meeting after the election in a phone booth.

“Instead of trying to prevent developing nations from making progress”

Where the hell did that come from?

On the Australia point, Richard is basically right, and Charlieman is conventional-wisdom-but-wrong. Australia likes to play up the Outback image, but it’s one of the most urbanised countries in the world (68% of people live in the state capitals, and 19% live in “inner regional” – ie commuter belt – areas). Most people and most goods don’t have to travel immense distances at all.

Australia’s carbon emissions are high compared to the US because of its reliance on coal. This is definitely true. However, they’re high compared to the UK because lifestyles here are more American: especially outside Sydney, public transport is risible and was utterly sidelined by car-loving politicians from the 1950s onwards. Suburbs sprawl. People live in big suburban houses that are cheaply built and poorly insulated, and hence use vast quantities of energy heating them in the winter and cooling them in the summer (relatedly, in the southeastern coastal belt where most people live, it’s hot enough in the summer to require AC, unlike the UK, and still cold enough in the winter to require heating).

@32. john b: “…Charlieman is conventional-wisdom-but-wrong. Australia likes to play up the Outback image, but it’s one of the most urbanised countries in the world (68% of people live in the state capitals, and 19% live in “inner regional” – ie commuter belt – areas).”

Permit me to quibble a bit, because I acknowledged urbanisation in my post. The “Made in Australia” widget manufactured in Tasmania has to travel a long way to get to Darwin. Equivalent to the “Made in EU” widget manufactured in Spain and consumed in Denmark. And there all of those mining products that have to be refined and shipped abroad.

Quibbling aside, the notable thing about this tax scheme is that it will (probably) deliver environmental results with economic benefits. Polluters will stop polluting because a few operational changes (industrial or domestic) save them from buying fossil fuel in the first place.