Carbon Tax

[oz_mark]

Yup, I'm another one in the $3 Club! Maybe we can get together and share a coffee one day with the compensation. I mean really, why bother, it will cost them more to administer the $3 compensation.

Well, actually it's just an adjustment to the tax scales. WHile they talk about the tax free threshold being lifted, they stay quiet on the fact that some of the rates in the tax bands are increasing. I found this table on The Australian site



See: Families to be over-compensated for carbon tax price rises: Labor | The Australian

 

[cove]

Mrscove just asked me whether this is another Government Department. Look stop being negative and just make sure you can credit card your electricity,water and tax bills and we will see you out there!

 

[cove]

oz-mark that table you posted left out the 1.5% health insurance levy which is just another tax.

 

[oz_mark]

Mrscove just asked me whether this is another Government Department. Look stop being negative and just make sure you can credit card your electricity,water and tax bills and we will see you out there!

I haven't figured out what it mean yet, but the plan is to increase the excise on aviation fuel in line with the carbon price:

As aviation fuels do not receive fuel tax credits, domestic aviation fuel excise will be increased by an amount equivalent to the carbon price on an annual basis over the fixed price period to provide an effective carbon price for aviation. From 1 July 2015, aviation excise will be increased on a six-monthly basis, based on the average carbon price over the previous six months. International aviation fuel use is not subject to fuel tax and will therefore not be subject to an effective carbon price.

Carbon price ($/tonne CO2-e)	23.00	24.15	25.4
Aviation kerosene	5.98	6.279	6.604
Aviation gasoline	5.06	5.313	5.588

Note: impact based on emissions of the fuel only, does not include impact from other refining based emissions or energy costs.

The current rate of excise on aviation (both aviation kerosene and aviation gasoline) is 3.556 cents per litre. Over the period the excise rate for aviation kerosene would rise by 6.604 cents per litre to 10.16 cents per litre in 2014-15, and the excise rate for aviation gasoline would rise by 5.588 cents per litre to 9.144 cents per litre. The vast majority of fuel used in aviation is aviation kerosene.

I am sure this will flow through one way or another (at least domestically - international aviation fuel evades the tax!)

Clean Energy Future – Transport fuels

 

[oz_mark]

oz-mark that table you posted left out the 1.5% health insurance levy which is just another tax.

Well, that and the flood levy!

 

[cove]

Yes good pick up,the flood levy is also conveniently missing so that schedule is out by up to 2.5% for convenience sake.Just don't panic and dust off a trusty credit card!

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces a $23 per tonne price on carbon

Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces a $23 per tonne price on carbon | Herald Sun
(^Terry McCain and Andrew Bolt discuss the new Carbon Tax)

...Funny how the whole 'Global Warming' line has been dropped some time ago...
(The 'Greens', the new Social Radicals)

 

[Moody]

Interesting debate. Ok - so it's not interesting and has descended (as always) into stupid comments from the less independent thinkers amongst us.

One point that really amused me was the "this is another con-job from the people who brought us the Y2K doom prediction - and didn't that turn out to be a great-big-new-lie".

Now I will admit up front that I am in IT and was involved in Y2K activities, but I can say without ANY chance of contradiction that if the investments in avoiding the Y2K effect were NOT made, then we would be talking about GFC1 and GFC2.

There really wasn't much science required to understand that certain IT hardware and software was going to shat itself when the YY parameters clicked over from 99 to 00. Businesses had a very clear choice - modernise their systems now or spend far more trying to fix the problem after the event. The vast majority took the less risky path, and the whole issue was handled pretty successfully around the globe.

Almost too successfully as now some complete idiots label it a socialist conspiracy. WTF!


Climate change has some similarities to Y2K but the models are far more complex and often non-intuitive. When the entire USA airline industry was grounded after 9/11 there were predictions that the lack of contrails would reduce the greenhouse effect, but the data gathered during this time were inconclusive. Whilst temperature variations increased (demonstrating the contrails were like a blanket) their reflective properties seemed to be as significant in an outward direction (cooling) as inward (warming).


So whilst measurements of CO2 and methane and global temperatures and ice volumes are absolutely without doubt, the predictions as to their impact on our ecosystem are a moveable feast. But every year that more data is gathered is yielding better models, and the common theme from climate scientists is that they have been (on the whole) underestimating the effects. This is not good news.

So our choice is fairly simple - follow the minority of climate scientists (and Andrew Bolt, Cardinal Pell, Ian Plimer, Tony Abbott, et al) and do nothing, or follow the vast majority of climate scientists and change our global emissions. I am in the second camp and am both trying to reduce my energy footprint, whilst at the same time supporting moves to make the energy I consume less CO2 intensive. If I pull my finger out I will offset my own increased costs by reducing consumption (as I will get little or no compensation), but if it ends up that I pay a couple of hundred bucks a year towards more sustainable energy production then I can live with that far easier than the alternative.

"Y2K was cough" has a familiar ring to it, don't you think?

 

[drron]

Well something just doesn't add up.
Garnaut in his original 2008 modelling said at $26 a tonne the tax would bring in ~ $8billion rising to ~$11billion in 2022 if the tax stayed at $26 a tonne.So first how are emissions reduced if you think the tax take is going up over 10 years with no change in unit pricing?
In the 6th update to his report he now suggests the tax will bring in $11.5 billion next financial year-

Past modelling suggests an initial carbon price of $26 is needed if Australia is to reduce emissions by at least five per cent by 2020.

That price would bring in $11.5 billion in 2012/13.

But I am seeing reports that compensation will be $15 billion.Now I presume that is over 3 years as all the industry compensation packages are.So adding up all the packages it is $39 billion or $13 billion per year.It does not take into account whatever we are going to give to the UN-again some rports suggest 10% of the tax.The government admits it will lose a billion a year so it brings down the estimated take to $12 billion a year.But Garnaut's modelling was with a tax of $26 a tonne so somehow the Government is expecting an extra $2 billion by dropping the price?

Then there is the fall in emissions.garnaut in March this year said a carbon price of $26 a tonne was needed to reduce CO2 emissions by 5%.
Julia said it would reduce CO2 emissions by 160 million tonnes in 2022.However as last year our emissions were 543 million tonnes(from the government's climate change website).This then would be a reduction of 30%.


The figures just dont stack up.

 

[scaredeycat]

Sorry if it's already been mentioned (I haven't read every thread), but won't this tax exempt Qantas from the EU's carbon tax on airlines? This would result in all of us who travel to Heathrow reasonably regularly being compensated far more than the average Aussie battler.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Well something just doesn't add up.

...Garnaut...

You said it in your first line drron.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Found this, worth a read

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf

This article began as a "Letter to the Editor‟ of the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin newspaper on 22nd December
2009.
It was written as a response to a radical well-known local "Greenie‟ who said in a letter to the editor that we were the laughing stock of the world, power stations were terrible polluters, 70% of the boiler heat went "up the chimney‟, and everyone else was changing to renewable energy.

"Now, lets do some simple Maths!"
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous is this proposed financial madness being promoted by the present Government.
The calculations are simple; you don’t have to be mathematical genius to see for yourself.
According to the believers in "anthropogenic global warming‟, CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.034% to 0.038% of air over the last 50 years, an "alarming‟ increase of 0.004%.

To give you a clear idea of what this means, consider the following:
Suppose you have a room measuring 3.7 metres x 3.7 metres x 2.1 metres (or 12 feet x 12 feet x 7 feet) then the volume that CO2 would occupy in that room would be a mere 0.25metres x 0.25metres x 0.17metres - approximately the size of a large packet of breakfast cereal.
Australia emits about 1% of the World's total CO2, and the Government wants to reduce this by 20% (i.e., 0.2% of the world's total CO2 emissions).
So what effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

That increase in CO2 over 50 years amounts to 0.00008% per year (i.e., 0.004% ÷50). And of that Australia contributes only 1%.
Thus, our emissions would have caused CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = 0.0000008%.
Of that 1% we supposedly emit, the Government wants to reduce this by 20%, which is 1/5th of 0.0000008%. The result is a ‘massive’ 0.00000016% effect per year on the World’s CO2 emissions.
Looking now at the area in our ‘room’, this equates to a volume in that room the size of a small pin!
To achieve this pin-sized reduction the Government has gone crazy in proposing a ridiculous trading scheme, inefficient „wind-farms‟, widespread and expensive solar and roofing installations, the failed "clean coal‟ technology, futile renewable energy targets, etc, etc.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

So if 9/10 people will be better off (abiet only ~20c) under the carbon tax scheme, how does this incentivize reduced emissions?

Perhaps mining tax 2.0 is a better name?

Also based on the other information in this thread and reseaching I'm finding it difficult to understand how this has anything to do with the environment.

 

[777]

So if 9/10 people will be better off (abiet only ~20c) under the carbon tax scheme, how does this incentivize reduced emissions?

Actually that bit is relatively simple. It changes the *relative* price of emissions intensive activities.

Totally made up figures but to explain the logic...

Say it costs 10c per unit to produce power using wind, or solar or geothermal.

Say the same power can be produced using coal for 8c a unit.

If you then apply a carbon tax to the power produced using coal and you raise it's price by 2c to 10c a unit and hand the 2c raised back to the customers to use how they please. Now the consumer (or the utility provider) is choosing between two competitively priced options - one carbon intensive and one not carbon intensive for the same price.

Over time, the theory is that it encourages companies to reduce their carbon emissions because they have to pay for them (right now they are free and any cost incurred be it through global warming or other consequences is paid by the rest of us or by our children through our taxes) and it encourages consumers to use less carbon because they are paying for it. The fact that they have extra money in their pockets doesn't change that.

I know some people here doubt the very existence of global warming -- that's a different argument. I'm not even going to waste my time going there. However, assuming it is prudent to reduce emissions (i think it is for both environmental and economic reasons) then a carbon price based mechanism is a far cheaper and more effective mechanism than the "direct action" alternative - which is essentially bureaucrats spending $10b of taxpayers money picking winners and paying polluters not to pollute. Hence Tony Abbott's problem with not being able to find an economist to support his approach.

 

[serfty]

...Of that 1% we supposedly emit, the Government wants to reduce this by 20%, which is 1/5th of 0.0000008%. The result is a ‘massive’ 0.00000016% effect per year on the World’s CO2 emissions. ...

Tim Flannery agrees with you: (No fast result in cuts: Flannery | The Australian)

No fast result in cuts: Flannery

* Mitchell Nadin, Stuart Rintoul
* From: The Australian
* March 26, 2011 12:00AM
...

THE Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years.

Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists.

In an interview with Macquarie Radio yesterday, Professor Flannery told hosts ... that if Australia achieved its aim of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases on 2000 levels, it would have a negligible short- or even medium-term impact on world temperatures.

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years," he said.

...

Also based on the other information in this thread and reseaching I'm finding it difficult to understand how this has anything to do with the environment.

IMHO, it has a lot to do with keeping a certain red head as PM by attempting to appease the Greens rather than anything else.

 

[777]

Tim Flannery agrees with you: (No fast result in cuts: Flannery | The Australian)IMHO, it has a lot to do with keeping a certain red head as PM by attempting to appease the Greens rather than anything else.

Interesting use of selective quotation there but it's the wrong question. The question is not whether global temperatures will drop it is the extent to which we are happy to see them continue to increase and the extent to which that rate of increase will accelerate.

Is your argument that we should not do anything or that we should do more because this is not enough?

 

[rechoboam]

Ok. What will be the reduction in rate of change then, and at what cost?

I don't expect hard figures but will it be non-negligible?

I would suggest that whatever index, accelerometer, thermometer, angels-on-head-of-pin-camera or anything imaginable would fail to detect any climate difference whatsoever between a world with or without a carbon tax in Australia.

If you care to disprove that statement the floor is yours.

 

[serfty]

...

Is your argument that we should not do anything or that we should do more because this is not enough?

If "Global Warming" is both happening and is made made then my argument is that taxing Carbon Dioxide is a waste of time ... as there is really nothing that can effectively be done.

 

[nlagalle]

Sorry if it's already been mentioned (I haven't read every thread), but won't this tax exempt Qantas from the EU's carbon tax on airlines? This would result in all of us who travel to Heathrow reasonably regularly being compensated far more than the average Aussie battler.

Interesting comment as according to Greg Combet yesterday in the briefing that international aviation was separate and wasn't under then carbon tax.. I wonder why we are different yet the EU can?

 

[777]

Ok. What will be the reduction in rate of change then, and at what cost?

I don't expect hard figures but will it be non-negligible?

I would suggest that whatever index, accelerometer, thermometer, angels-on-head-of-pin-camera or anything imaginable would fail to detect any climate difference whatsoever between a world with or without a carbon tax in Australia.

If you care to disprove that statement the floor is yours.

I think in the short term that's probably true - the impact is low and the effect is low - but if you look at the long term targets of 80% reductions by 2050 then the difference becomes much more easily quantifiable. We are pretty much the largest per capita carbon emitters in the world. If you assume we need some reductions - either for environmental reasons, or because the rest of the world may punish us in trade terms (eg. The EU threatening to slap Qantas) oro because the long term cost of carbon and fossil fuels is likely to rise and we should prudently reduce our dependence on it or some combination of the above - we need to have some mechanism to get there and this framework provides such a mechanism.

Will it do it all, quickly, no. But you need to start somewhere and you can pretty much rip anything apart on the basis that the beginning of the process doesn't get you to the end immediately - it's a debating trick but not a serious argument.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting we should do nothing or that strategically that this is not the right thing to do? They are two very different positions and i always like to know where people stand.