Global Warming

[tigersnake]

Re-imburse low income earners

And address market failures (look it up G) by subsidising the development of clean technology.

 

[Freezer]

...by subsidising the development of clean technology.

Such as...?

 

[tigersnake]

Solar, wind, natural gas, geothermal. If your implied point is there are no purely clean techs, you are correct Mr Freeze, but we have get rid of the most polluting ones, develop much cleaner ones and promote efficient energy use. The latter will have a huge impact. Currently there is no incentive for manufacturers to develop efficient appliances and cars, so it doesn't happen (as we all know, smart companies are jumping the gun because those with brains know that a price on pollution will happen, just a matter of when). Once manufacturers are competing for the 'most miserly energy use' tag, we'll see some real action, which is, after all, the whole point.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Shouldn't we make sure we have efficient alternatives for carrying base load electricity before trying to get rid of other existing forms?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Shouldn't we make sure we have efficient alternatives for carrying base load electricity before trying to get rid of other existing forms?

Yup. But the mining and energy sector includes plenty who will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cleaner technologies because right now they can continue making obscene profits without altering their practices. Maybe with the proper investment these new technologies can produce base-load? Why shouldn't those companies foot most of the bill? Isn't it a disgrace that in the country that soaks up the most solar radiation on the planet we are near the bottom of the solar energy producer tree? Germany leads the way! That is patently ridiculous. National pride ought to be on the line on this one. We should be racing the world to the top on clean energy, and just maybe hitting the hip pocket of the massive sloths of companies in the mining and energy sector will provide the impetus needed.

 

[Giardiasis]

Yup. But the mining and energy sector includes plenty who will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cleaner technologies because right now they can continue making obscene profits without altering their practices. Maybe with the proper investment these new technologies can produce base-load? Why shouldn't those companies foot most of the bill? Isn't it a disgrace that in the country that soaks up the most solar radiation on the planet we are near the bottom of the solar energy producer tree? Germany leads the way! That is patently ridiculous. National pride ought to be on the line on this one. We should be racing the world to the top on clean energy, and just maybe hitting the hip pocket of the massive sloths of companies in the mining and energy sector will provide the impetus needed.

What is obscene about their profits? What do you think happens to those profits? Real wealth generation benefits us all. Those companies won't foot the bill, it will be the consumer.

They use coal and oil/gas for power because if they didn't their competitors surely would and they would be out of business. Now if you want them to change their ways, you have to change what their customers want. If people were prepared to pay for more expensive alternatives that are apparently cleaner than they would. The problem is no alternative exists that can provide base-load power other than nuclear power. Not many people seem keen to go there. Now what you are suggesting will both drive energy prices (hence everything) artificially up. Consequently output will decrease as will our wealth. If you think the government should take action regardless of what people want, then prepare to lose an election. That's why the government is trying to fool voters into thinking they will be no worse off or even better off by re-distributing wealth through the tax system. Hence people the goverment deems as rich will pay. The problem is that the carbon tax will increase as the wealth of the so called rich decreases. Eventually the people the government doesn't consider rich will have to pay. Either way this government is setting itself up for a burn.

The problem with solar is that it is a very inefficient and expensive form of energy. It doesn't matter if we have the real-estate for it, the cost of implementing solar power is enormous. Germany leads the way, well perhaps you are ignorant of the real price of energy in Germany. National pride is no use if it leads to ruin.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

What is obscene about their profits? What do you think happens to those profits? Real wealth generation benefits us all. Those companies won't foot the bill, it will be the consumer.

What is obscene to me is the irrational, faux outrage of the Reinhardts and Forrests, you would think they were going to be left paupers.

They use coal and oil/gas for power

Yes they do, we the people, through our governments own the resources they are digging up. And these resources are finite. It only makes sense to me that the companies making massive profits from my minerals can pay more the priviledge.

The problem with solar is that it is a very inefficient and expensive form of energy. It doesn't matter if we have the real-estate for it, the cost of implementing solar power is enormous. Germany leads the way, well perhaps you are ignorant of the real price of energy in Germany. National pride is no use if it leads to ruin.

That is an old and out-moded point of view based mostly on photovoltaics (old data on these) which are not used for grand scale energy production, more for small scale (individual homes) distributed generation networks. Solar thermal is more useful especially in our situation. There is also the economies of scale argument. Once we start down the road the cost will come down. Need I remind you that sunlight is free? And that solar thermal has very few moving parts making maintenance very cheap?

 

[Giardiasis]

Yes they do, we the people, through our governments own the resources they are digging up. And these resources are finite. It only makes sense to me that the companies making massive profits from my minerals can pay more the priviledge.

Er, are we talking mining tax or carbon tax now? Not surprised people get confused, this government loves taxes.

That is an old and out-moded point of view based mostly on photovoltaics (old data on these) which are not used for grand scale energy production, more for small scale (individual homes) distributed generation networks. Solar thermal is more useful especially in our situation. There is also the economies of scale argument. Once we start down the road the cost will come down. Need I remind you that sunlight is free? And that solar thermal has very few moving parts making maintenance very cheap?

As far as I'm aware, no solar technology is used for grand scale energy production. It requires far too much capital to produce the same amount of energy as coal. Sunlight is free? That argument doesn't really stand up to even light scrutiny, it is expensive to utilise after all. Economies of scale sounds nice, but how much will the costs come down? Enough to be cheaper than coal? I think not. No matter what way you spin it, the wealth of this nation will fall if we turn away from coal, while other economies will reap the benefits.

 

[jb03]

Why are the ALP on the sell with a promise that households/people will be better off financially?

 

[lamb22]

Why are the ALP on the sell with a promise that households/people will be better off financially?

Its interesting how the media are playing this. The announcement of the carbon price mechanism in February was pretty clear that it was a compromise with the greens on targets. If you put a cap on emissions as in a cap and trade scheme you basically have to agree a target. With labor at 5% below 1990 levels and greens around 25% and no international agreement the debate abut a target would be non productive. If you impose a fixed price istead of fixed quantity you dont need target and as such the scheme has a fixed permit fee for 3-5 years and a year before thefully flexible ETS starts there is a review and a target is decided. If no consensus exist at that time - in all likelhood the fixed permit price continues as would be sensible.

However the bones of the ETS was always going to be similar to the old CPRS. Compensation in that scheme was about 45% of the pollution take. Even under that scheme a hosuehold on 120k would have their costs increase by around $1000 and receive back around $1200. These facts are not new. Trade exposed industries were also protected.

I was always surprised Rudd couldn't sell a scheme which takes from polluters and gives to households as opposed to the Abbott scheme which gives to polluters and takes from taxpayers.

I imagine the new scheme may be slightly less generous to industry and have less direct investment or support in transition or alternatives.

Higher income households will be worse off in relative terms.

 

[jb03]

By simply promising people that they will be better off financially defeats the ideals of any carbon reducing schemes. Surely the aim is to convince/satisfy consumers of the need, rather than sell a benefit. If the benefit then proves not to exist (which is highly likely) then the people will never support any sort of scheme again.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Er, are we talking mining tax or carbon tax now? Not surprised people get confused, this government loves taxes.

Hard to separate coal is both a resource and an energy producer so it belongs in both arguments. There is no reason why we shouldn't profit from selling coal to developing economies while cleaning up our own is there?

As far as I'm aware, no solar technology is used for grand scale energy production.

The largest solar thermal array in the world was built in the '80's in the Mojave desert and is still producing 345MW's in a hybrid confuguration (natural gas subsititutes during low solar energy times, remember this was built 30 years ago).

It requires far too much capital to produce the same amount of energy as coal. Sunlight is free? That argument doesn't really stand up to even light scrutiny, it is expensive to utilise after all. Economies of scale sounds nice, but how much will the costs come down? Enough to be cheaper than coal? I think not. No matter what way you spin it, the wealth of this nation will fall if we turn away from coal, while other economies will reap the benefits.

The cost of commodities is going up, our resource sector is benefiting, and that trend can only continue due to the finite nature of fossil fuels. So renewables, and in this case solar in particular, will become increasingly cost effective. Regardless of the rhetoric coming from the right emissions trading will be an economic reality on a global scale over the next decade making fossil fuels even more expensive. We have a chance, a diminishing chance, to stay ahead of the curve and be a leading light in the renewable energy sector. With a little vision that can filter down to education where we start to keep the brightest stars graduating from Engineering schools around the country who now have look overseas to find opportunites.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Its interesting how the media are playing this.
....

I was always surprised Rudd couldn't sell a scheme which takes from polluters and gives to households as opposed to the Abbott scheme which gives to polluters and takes from taxpayers.

Well I suppose that's because Abbott says he will find the money in "savings". Seems to me that the goverrnment's money is my taxes, so his savings are my costs.

I imagine the new scheme may be slightly less generous to industry and have less direct investment or support in transition or alternatives.

That is what I find hardest to swallow in Gillard's scheme. Lots of stick, not much carrot. Would love to see a progressive policy based on Australia becoming a regional powerhouse for design and forward thinking in the renewable sector.

 

[mld]

It is a very Labor way of trying to solve a problem, tax and wealth transfer. Meanwhile, nothing will be done about the subsidies to fossil fuel indudstries, so the level of churn is going to reach ludicrous proportions.

 

[Giardiasis]

Hard to separate coal is both a resource and an energy producer so it belongs in both arguments. There is no reason why we shouldn't profit from selling coal to developing economies while cleaning up our own is there? The largest solar thermal array in the world was built in the '80's in the Mojave desert and is still producing 345MW's in a hybrid confuguration (natural gas subsititutes during low solar energy times, remember this was built 30 years ago).

Well let's keep it to the carbon tax argument please.

Yes, so no grand scale solar is capable of producing baseload power.

The cost of commodities is going up, our resource sector is benefiting, and that trend can only continue due to the finite nature of fossil fuels. So renewables, and in this case solar in particular, will become increasingly cost effective. Regardless of the rhetoric coming from the right emissions trading will be an economic reality on a global scale over the next decade making fossil fuels even more expensive. We have a chance, a diminishing chance, to stay ahead of the curve and be a leading light in the renewable energy sector. With a little vision that can filter down to education where we start to keep the brightest stars graduating from Engineering schools around the country who now have look overseas to find opportunites.

If renewables are going to become increasingly cost effective, why the need to artificially make it so? Let's let the market decide when it is time to look to alternative sources of energy.

The ETS could become a reality in Australia, but the major contributers to CO2 emissions certainly won't be stupid enough to go through with it. So I disagree that we will lead anything other than the Australian economy to ruin.

Your suggestion of retaining our brightest stars is somewhat strange. If we plan on limiting the development of our most profitable industries that require engineers, this will help retain them how?

 

[lamb22]

It is a very Labor way of trying to solve a problem, tax and wealth transfer. Meanwhile, nothing will be done about the subsidies to fossil fuel indudstries, so the level of churn is going to reach ludicrous proportions.

Third term agenda MLD, I'd back the diesel fuel rebate for mining will be the first to go after the carbon tax and mining tax are bedded down.

Re taxation and wealth transfer - apparently you are unaware how government works. It taxes (in fact liberals over last 20 years have taxed more as a prerentage of GDP than labor) and then spend on priorities.

Labor follows more progressive revenue and spending policies meaning proportionately more to low and middle income earners and more economy and productivity benefitting spends such as higher infrastructure spends (NBN) and human productivity spends (health and education) . Liberals follow a more regressive taxing and distribution policy meaning a distribution of monies upwards - eg private schools disproportionately favoured; user pays uni places two tier health leanings , private health subsidies and of course subsidies to their constituents - large mining, energy , foreign multinationals etc.etc etc at the expense of productivity spends

The republicans in the US have taken wealth distribution upwards to ridiculous levels borrowing something like 80 billion a year from the chinese to give to the wealthiest 1% in tax cuts,

Bottom 80% in US have had no real increase in income in last decade while top 1% have average increase of $250,000 over the same period.

I'd be happy to have a discussion on tax and spending as your ideological catchphrase is basically bulldust with no connection to reality in modern times.

 

[mld]

Third term agenda MLD, I'd back the diesel fuel rebate for mining will be the first to go after the carbon tax and mining tax are bedded down.

Hawker, allow me to take your hypotheticals with a grain of salt, and focus on what is actually announced by the government.

Re taxation and wealth transfer - apparently you are unaware how government works. It taxes (in fact liberals over last 20 years have taxed more as a prerentage of GDP than labor) and then spend on priorities.

Nice attempt at condescension. Just because churn happens, doesn't mean it should happen, and doesn't mean I should be happy that it does happen. I fired up at the family tax benefit churn under Howard, and I will continue to fire up about such pointless churn under Labor. When the government acts to increase it, I will call it out.

Labor follows more progressive revenue and spending policies meaning proportionately more to low and middle income earners and more economy and productivity benefitting spends such as higher infrastructure spends (NBN) and human productivity spends (health and education) . Liberals follow a more regressive taxing and distribution policy meaning a distribution of monies upwards - eg private schools disproportionately favoured; user pays uni places two tier health leanings , private health subsidies and of course subsidies to their constituents - large mining, energy , foreign multinationals etc.etc etc at the expense of productivity spends

This paragraph is worth quoting, because it perfectly highlights just how much of a Labor spinner you are (as much as you claim not to vote for them). Much progressive spending increased under Howard, and the recent Protect Research protests indicate progressive spending will decrease under Labor soon.

Personally I'm not in favour of either of the bland black-and-whites you are framing here, but that is another discussion.

The republicans in the US have taken wealth distribution upwards to ridiculous levels borrowing something like 80 billion a year from the chinese to give to the wealthiest 1% in tax cuts,


Bottom 80% in US have had no real increase in income in last decade while top 1% have average increase of $250,000 over the same period.

No offence intended, but wtf does the US have to do with anything? Generic whinge?

I'd be happy to have a discussion on tax and spending as your ideological catchphrase is basically bulldust with no connection to reality in modern times.

You can start any time you like, all I have seen from you so far is childish name-calling and bland talking points. I threw my idea for implementing a price on carbon out there a couple of pages back, with no comment. I'd be happy if you addressed that, rather than the cartoon caricature you seem to have of me in your head.

 

[lamb22]

mld's three point plan to 'putting a price on carbon':

1) lambo linked to a report on subsidies for fossil fuel use. I take gia's point that much of the content wasn't actual subsidies - have the Productivity Commission review all subsidies and protectionism afforded to fossil fuel use, along with all taxes and excises.

Once the report is in, remove all identified subsidies and protection. It makes no sense whatsoever to slap a tax on something when it will continue to be in receipt of taxpayers' money.

2) Treasury and/or the PC assess the effective price on carbon as a result of the removal of subsidies and protection. If this is greater than or equal to the current proposed price on carbon, then we can stop. If it is less, then put in place a tax on fossil fuel use - not on emissions. Adjust fuel excise, levy similar excises on coal, gas etc.

3) Ensure that the tax is revenue neutral - use the Henry tax review to identify the business taxes that need scrapping, such as payroll tax, and scrap them. Taxation reform should more than compensate for any loss in competitive advantage from taxing carbon.

Didn't see this post MLD. I have no real issues with it. The question is whether an particular action will be effective.

There are of course poliitcal consideration with your proposal as it could harm our fossil fuel trade exdosed industries and cost jobs. I see the nice classical theory that more jobs will be created economy wide through reducing business taxes but would be a hard sell. However in essence the same argument is at work with he mining tax in using those funds to increase producivity and savings economy wide.

So how would you sell this to Abbott or the IPA and Murdoch, scrap fossil fuel subsidies and then tax them. Would there be murmurs of umm good idea or....shrill whines of we'll be roooned?

 

[mld]

More a case of putting forward ideas that I think would be more effective than that currently being proposed. I'd rather see good policy well-argued than poor policy that might be easier to sell politically. As an example, Hawke and Keating argued good policy well, and brought the people with them.

As far as I can see, people are complaining already, selling good policy would probably be as easy/difficult as selling the current policy of subsidising with one hand, taxing with the other, and bribing people to go along with it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Well let's keep it to the carbon tax argument please.

Yes, so no grand scale solar is capable of producing baseload power.
If renewables are going to become increasingly cost effective, why the need to artificially make it so? Let's let the market decide when it is time to look to alternative sources of energy.

It is not for the government to follow the lead of selfish industry. We elect politicians to make decisions based on more than economic rationalism. The market is reactionary. We expect our governments to be (or at least I do) pro-active. I have no reason to believe that the CEO's of these companies have my best interests at heart. But if I suspect that my government doesn't then I can change it.

Your suggestion of retaining our brightest stars is somewhat strange. If we plan on limiting the development of our most profitable industries that require engineers, this will help retain them how?

No vision. The world needs vision. As I said we can transition towards a renewable future as a centre for knowledge and engineering on renewable technologies. Or we can keep doing what we are doing now. No vision, let the market rule.