Sorry but you need to actually read the thread. Links have already been presented that show that the carbon tax did actually do something. How about you try presenting evidence rather than sprouting uninformed opinion.
In any case for things that do nothing, they certainly made you take action. The very fact that you installed solar shows that the feed in tariff did do something.
Medhead you seem to have lost sight of the big picture.
Australia is a huge island a long way from where the solar panels are made despite the fact that most panels are based on patents created and lodged by the Centre for Photovoltaics at UNSW. A centre I know well.
As has been stated - overseas Govts stopped subsidies/incentives - some prior to and some just as JG and State Govts got them going on steroi_s.
One point to clarify -
where do you think Govt largesse comes from?
It comes from tax payers, less some handling costs, study trips and consultants' fees. It is not free and not some magical pudding.
The FITs are paid for by ALL electricity users Australia-wide. Many people saw the inequity of the FITs being 2 - 2.5 times the then Kwh prices and did the logical thing. Unfortunately the project was not properly designed, costed nor implemented. Just like the free roofing insulation this truly was a magic pudding and you had a good number of businesses spring up that had no clue (or pretty close) cashing in on the scheme at the wider community's cost. In NSW it was estimated (put out by NSW Treasury) as having added $200 per NSW power bill per annum before it was finally stopped. Each month the FIT at 60c/kwh continued was estimated to be adding $30 a year cost due to the huge upsurge in people rushing to take advantage of the 'generosity' at others expense.
"It has been reported that NSW households could pay an extra $600 on their electricity bill over six years ($8.33/month) to cover the $2 billion cost of the tariff scheme. The total cost to families in some regional areas could be $1000.[SUP]
[54][/SUP]
Note: $2bn was just the cost to NSW residents and estimated before the scheme was curtailed.
A detailed analysis of the German experience makes interesting reading vs the claims aired.
Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies - The German Experience (University of Essen)
http://repec.rwi-essen.de/files/REP_09_156.pdf
"
The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this effort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security."
Have a look at that study, plenty of real-world information unfortunately. Now you know why the EU carbon price plummeted - it did not work and 'The emperor's new clothes' were finally revealed for their true nature.
Just about EVERY European solar panel maker has gone bankrupt. They were rescued (swallowed whole) at cents on the Euro by three Chinese and one Korean company. The Japanese Govt already had stopped the subsidies within Japan before the EU and their industry imploded to some degree.
Then the Chinese solar panel makers imploded (especially Sunpower) including defaults on bonds issued and saw some taken over completely by the regional government.
These are all facts, not a hopeful hypothesis.
China drove the EU and also a couple of US solar panel makers out of business by selling the panels for less than the cost of silicon on them (aka dumping). Don't you remember all the fuss about Obama's biggest 'green' loan and subsidies to a US Solar panel maker that went broke within 12 months of getting the gifts, loans and loan guarantees?
Obama-backed, bankrupt Solyndra sues Chinese solar companies | The Daily Caller
"
Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009, after which, President Obama hailed the company as “leading the way” and the company represented one of the “true engines of economic growth.” “It is time to rev up the American innovation machine and reclaim our lead on clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu when the loan was announced.
“This investment is part of a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work, end our dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon pollution.” Despite warnings early on from DOE staff that the solar company would run out of cash by September 2011, the loan moved forward with the loan, and in August 2011, the Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, laying off 1,100 workers."
Solyndra; solar energy; bankruptcy; Obama - Los Angeles Times
"
Solyndra would become the third such company to file for bankruptcy in recent days. Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Aug. 19. Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 on Aug. 15."
Sure cost goes down as production rises (up to a point) but dumping is something else. Artificially stimulating (roof insulation for example) just distorts a market, encourages rorts and corruption and usually ends up destroying the industry and costs jobs over time. WA Inc should have been a good enough example of how Govts always fail in picking winners. If that was not enough then there was the Victorian Debacle, remember the State Bank of Victoria? Ringing any alarm bells?
Another impact of Govts picking winners, is the guaranteed return offered on ALL infrastructure spending by the power transmission companies (poles & wires). They get to charge every consumer Australia-wide so they get a guaranteed return (12% IIR the last time I looked) on every $1 they spend regardless of whether the capacity is actually required.
This is covered under the daily supply charge not the usage charges. As a result the daily supply charge is not covered under the discounts offered by power companies. The ACCC, IPART etc have much to apologise for.
As more solar panels are introduced (post-distortion) the daily supply charge will only increase despite the need for the poles and wires falling.
To answer your OP - things like carbon tax and FIT do bugger all.
