[Plantagenet]

Even if China's population stabilizes, the amount of CO2 being produced by China will continue to grow rapidly as their economy grows.

China has been building an average of one new coal-fired power plant each week for years----and they plan to continue to build coal-fired power plants.

China has a population of 1,300,000,000 people, the vast majority of whom are still poor peasants.

[kiwichick]

graph from EIA

enough said

[Graeme]

Australians Assess Their Greenhouse Plan

In the wake of Australia’s move to add a price to carbon dioxide emissions — which is particularly notable considering the country is one of the world’s big exporters of coal (and related CO2 emissions) — I sent a query to some Australian analysts of climate and energy policy to see if this holds lessons for the United States.

Here are the questions I sent (with some e-mail shorthand fixed), followed by the analysis:


1) Some Australians working on climate policy (visiting Baruch College through a fellowship program) told me the tax reforms integrated into the plan made the political difference, as summarized by the government this way:

To assist households with price impacts, there will be two rounds of tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. Significant tax reform will mean that more than 1 million people will no longer need to file a tax return. Increasing the tax-free threshold and cutting taxes also boosts incentives to work. Over 50 per cent of carbon price revenue will be spent on households. Household transport fuel consumption will not be subject to a carbon price. [More here.]

The government’s public outreach has really stressed the economic win for many families under the plan. Does this hold up to scrutiny?

2) Another question that came up in chatting with the visiting fellows was whether Australia’s carbon exports would in any way be affected/curtailed by this plan. It seems the answer is no? If that’s correct how does this square with the stated goal of limiting risks attending unabated greenhouse-gas emissions?

3) Is the plan too skewed toward renewables as opposed to a broader suite of lower- or no-carbon alternatives (e.g., natural gas)?

4) A pattern in efforts to pass U.S. climate legislation was the shift from hard caps to all kinds of add-ons that, in essence, served as escape clauses or safety valves. Has that happened there? what are the biggest “out clauses” in the package?

nytimes

[AgentR11]

Are Australians going to tax the CO2 value of the coal that they export?

[Graeme]

No.

there will be practically no impact on coal exports from the policy. Contribution to a global outcome is simply that Australia is trying to do domestically what may be its part toward global action, thereby encouraging others. The question of fossil fuel exports is much bigger than this policy.


The plan was also not designed to reduce Australian exports of coal to Asia, only to reduce domestic emissions. Asia has to reduce Asian coal consumption, the supplier nation is never going to do that.

[Shaved Monkey]

This was in the papers today
So being a Queenslander , low income with solar panels and solar hot water and no heater or air conditioner (perfect micro climate).... Im winning

Unlike the Treasury modelling, the study reveals which households are winners and which losers.

It shows that low-income families with children (the bottom 20 per cent) are on average $6.30 a week ahead, middle-income families $1.30 ahead and high-income families (the top 20 per cent) are $6.30 a week worse off.

All single parents with children come out ahead, low-income earners by $5.60 a week, middle-income households by $11.80 and high-income families by 50¢.

In total 69 per cent of households will be better off, 16 per cent worse off by less than $5 a week, almost 10 per cent worse off by between $5 and $10 a week, and almost 5 per cent worse off by more than $10 a week.

According to NATSEM, pensioners will be on average $4.70 a week better off and 80 per cent of self-funded retirees will also come out ahead.

NSW households will be on average $2.60 a week in front, less than the average $3.40 gain for Queenslanders who have lower heating costs, but more than higher-earning residents of the ACT, who will be 60¢ behind on average. Victorians will benefit by $2.30 a week.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... z1bAywuCFa

if you want to read the whole thing summed up very well this is a great and well written blog on the subject.
http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2 ... xin-mouth/

[AgentR11]

If the impact is so tiny, why does anyone expect it to alter CO2 emission behavior?

[papa moose]

If the impact is so tiny, why does anyone expect it to alter CO2 emission behavior?

IIRC the plan is to ramp up the tax gradually over time, at the moment its more about getting the system in place.

[ralfy]

Ultimately, a tax will not involve governments but peak oil, if not a resource crunch.

[papa moose]

Ultimately, a tax will not involve governments but peak oil, if not a resource crunch.

Hence my lack of interest in Gillard's carbon tax fiasco.
Price of petrol just climbs and climbs and climbs, carbon tax sure won't make it any cheaper.
A newspaper article the other day blamed the rising cost of petrol in WA on the supermarket chains dominating the service station industry... not sure how that logic works.
Peak oil awareness has really altered my perspective on a lot of issues. Superannuantion/retirement planning seems entirely pointless (will the BAU can be kicked down the road long enough for my retirement in 25 some years???) Mowing the lawn has also dropped down the priority list

[Shaved Monkey]

Carbon Tax long term benefits will allow Australia to transition into a post cheap oil future.
If it costs more to produce dirty energy, than produce clean energy, the investment dollars will go to clean energy.
If its cheaper to move goods by cleaner sources,or pay more tax for dirtier sources the investment will be in cleaner sources.
Mining companies will have to pay the tax or invest in green initiatives to avoid the tax and buy green cred.
So the pricing will be important and so will the reporting of who paid what and who invested in what.
Eventually it will morph into a ETS where the price will be market driven.

[papa moose]

Yeah, but ...
US economy is either back into recession or still in it from 2008, depending on who's kool-aid your drinking.
Greece is going to go *POP* either this week or next, again depending on who's kool-aid your drinking.
China will either go *POP* or steal all our farm land in the next 3 years, depending on who's kool-aid your drinking.
The Germany defense ministry is planning for riots in the streets within 3 years, but don't tell anyone cos that will just start the riots earlier!
Oh and all that kool-aid, well the US DoD is converting their aircraft to run on it cos even they know that PO is here.
So expecting Gillard or Brown or the Mad Rabbot to solve anything at all is sort of ...
Check out a blog at http://crudeoilpeak.info/, if you don't already. Gives a fascinating view of how uselessly the pollies are navigating our ship thru these dangerous waters.

[Arthur75]

About carbon tax, the prime rationale should be "push the economy/society towards more efficient products way of life", ie the message should be much more PO based than Climate/CO2 based, and I am not an AGW denialist or even skeptic at all, but the communication deficit around this is just ridiculous, and a "fossile fuel" volume based tax makes perfect sense even without CO2 aspect, how come people seem to forget that ?

[Shaved Monkey]

The CO2 narrative is easier to sell than the Peak Oil narrative
The story is the same its just most people haven't heard of PO but have heard of CO2.
I don't think the tax will solve the problem on its own but it is a step in the right direction and is only temporary until the ETS.
The only way to solve it is go totally renewable energy and the way to do that is make it cheaper to invest in green infrastructure.
The legislation is passed even if the Conservatives gets into power they cant repeal for 2 terms because the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate and/or Abbott will get knifed by Turnball eventually and he wants an ETS too.

[AgentR11]

If the impact is so tiny, why does anyone expect it to alter CO2 emission behavior?

IIRC the plan is to ramp up the tax gradually over time, at the moment its more about getting the system in place.

Right, which makes the discussion of its current costs, or non-costs to various levels of consumers pretty disingenuous.

My basic problem isn't with the concept of a carbon tax, in fact, I've described an awesomely right-wing version of just such a thing here before, but its implementation in AU doesn't appear to be anywhere near the scale necessary to move the supposed target behavior, and manages to exclude AU's enabling behavior of exporting coal which should remain in the ground in the first place, just as it was sequestered long ago.

In the end, all the AU tax demonstrates is that countries should make a gesture, but be sure to protect their most potent CO2 contributions from any impact the gesture might have.

[Arthur75]

The CO2 narrative is easier to sell than the Peak Oil narrative
The story is the same its just most people haven't heard of PO but have heard of CO2.
I don't think the tax will solve the problem on its own but it is a step in the right direction and is only temporary until the ETS.
The only way to solve it is go totally renewable energy and the way to do that is make it cheaper to invest in green infrastructure.
The legislation is passed even if the Conservatives gets into power they cant repeal for 2 terms because the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate and/or Abbott will get knifed by Turnball eventually and he wants an ETS too.

Agree that the CO2 narrative is easier to sell, however the PO concept is much simpler to grasp than the carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2 effect.
About ETS I think they should all be dropped, it is a completely false good solution that leads to many loopholes and it isn't targeted at the prime objective which is to consume less, on this I'm fully in line with James Hansen position in (2) below :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... rack-obama
plain volume based taxes (on fuels energy content or CO2 emissions values) are much better, and a bif part of their revenue can be directly redistributed as described above.

[papa moose]

Yes thats fine but remember that PO isn't real, BAU will continue for ever!
PO has been mentioned in the austrlian parliments a few times, also in the US, but certainly hasn't recieved much attention.
Even as some one who is PO aware i have never heard PO mentioned in Australian MSM, perhaps the politicians all are all prepping us for PO without actually telling us to avoid a panic...................................
Yeah that's the explanation!

[FarQ3]

The PO message is still not well known whereas climate change has been in the news for a long time. The leader of the oposition Tony Abbott publically stated that there is "no such thing as peak oil" in the lead up to the last election.

Companies respond to the 'profit motive' before anything else. A price on carbon will give the top 500 carbon polluters a 'profit incentive' to increase energy efficiency because initially the increase in tax will be passed on. The incentive will be to decrease carbon emissions and cream the tax savings as profit.

A large portion of the carbon tax will be directed into renewables and energy efficiency R&D and the rest to compensate lower income households. This will no doubt be adjusted as the scheme matures.

As one who works for one of the '500' I can see the prospect of a carbon tax has been working already And soon with the passing of the scheme though the senate the effort to find further efficiencies is sure to increase.

[sparky]

@ FarQ3
"Companies respond to the 'profit motive' before anything else"
.....so does employees , what is your point

"A price on carbon will give the top 500 carbon polluters a 'profit incentive' to increase energy efficiency because initially the increase in tax will be passed on. The incentive will be to decrease carbon emissions and cream the tax savings as profit."

.....their first incentive will be to balance their books by a proportional increase in their selling price
to customer , as they already do for any other taxes
there is very little efficiencies to be wriggled out of the industrial processes
the big improvement is in changing customer behavior , but this is not on the table

"A large portion of the carbon tax will be directed into renewables and energy efficiency R&D and the rest to compensate lower income households"

......Yes 10 Billions dollars wasted on ridiculous schemes because they are politically pleasant
and removal of any incentive to the customers to change their consumption patterns
NO , repeat NO limitation on Australian coal exports , four time larger than the local use
if CO2 is a drug , Australa is the biggest pusher around , first country in the world for coal export
with martin Fergusson dedicated to remove all bottlenecks to double our coal exports

This is the result of a political blackmail to a feeble , unstable government

.

[Laromi]

Sparky wrote:-
"A large portion of the carbon tax will be directed into renewables and energy efficiency R&D and the rest to compensate lower income households"

That is all very well but, as I have mentioned before on this forum the goal appears to be a CTS. Why? Because it permits the institutional/sovereign bankers to get some of the action, probably fund bail outs and open the way for further future option trading ventures by all and sundry. And why was the tax scheme rushed through and not held over for a few weeks in the light of the Rossi adventure this forum and others are presently undergoing? Whether or not it works is rather a moot point - at the moment, however if if the e-cat presents a new physic the carbon tax will remain in force as will the financial institutions desire to have a CTS.