“Solar panels are not built here, nor are wind turbines, no R&D was done on those here”

“-- no R&D was done on those here”?? You are blowing in the wind with that statement, Amicus.

The author does not understand that putting a price of $20-$30/tonne on carbon is initially intended to increase the price coal to the point where it becomes economically attractive for the private sector to use cleaner (lower carbon emission) technology to generate electricity, such as gas and coal/solar.

That price will generate revenue which government has declared it will use in part to assist the development and use of new technology which will generate electricity even more cleanly than gas and hybrid arrangements such as coal/solar. Part of the revenue (>50%) will be used to compensate households for the inflationary effects of higher priced electricity and to compensate trade-exposed businesses.

Over time, the price of carbon will be increased. The effect of that increase will be to reduce carbon emissions until it is clear that reduction targets will be met and to make it increasingly attractive to use emission free, renewable sources to generate electricity and meet our other energy needs.

Present estimates are that when the price of carbon reaches $60/tonne electricity generated by renewable sources (wind, hydro, geothermal) will be cheaper than electricity produced from carbon emitting fossil fuels - which will then cease to be used.

Between 2012 (introduction of Carbon Price) and the time when that price reaches $60/tonne (in ?? years), the intention is to continue allocating part of the revenue generated to the development and use of new technology to needed to improve the production and supply of our energy needs and manage a smooth transition from fossil fuel to renewables.

Shadow Minister,

(I posted this thread on Tristan Ewins piece today, but am hoping you will also look in on this piece on this tax. Hoping.)

You seem to have a real handle on both the political debate and the economics relating to this proposed Carbon Tax. Can you do me, and methinks a great many others, a great favour by giving us your thoughts on the proposed tax (being, on what we have been allowed to know of the proposition so far, and perhaps on what else it may entail), and on the alternatives - such as government grants/investment in sustainable energy development.

I don't like Garnaut's argument, and don't believe he has really looked at alternatives - not since he was originally commissioned to produce a report to support Rudd's CPRS. Also, I don't think he's nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

On TV recently I saw a piece showing Ms Gillard visiting an Oz solar plant, supposedly one of the biggest (factual or proposed) in the world, and heard Gillard say this was an example of private industry pressing forward with investment in alternatives BECAUSE OF the government's introduced Green Energy target. However, I also heard mention of the project being funded by a government grant. What was NOT mentioned was any ratio of private vs government investment in this project. I think Ms G was doing her usual thing and tailoring her statements to political interest, rather than the naked TRUTH!

Given the growing opposition to this tax, by industry, the workers and the unions - over potential job losses, industry moving offshore, and far greater cost of living increases than mooted (as well as the inbuilt complexity and uncertainty of the whole blessed thing) - Could you PLEASE give us your thoughts, on the economics and on alternatives.

Thanks also for the link to The Australian. You've already made my day. Holding my breath.

colinsett .. blowing in the wind .. really?

So where's the industry colinsett?

Where are we manufacturing solar or wind turbines in Australia?

Apart from the minuscule R&D done, as I mentioned in my post .. what R&D has been done here?

Where is it going, is it growing?

I work in the R&D field colinsett, in the high tech area, and we work offshore mostly as it's too expensive and tax wise prohibitive and insanely complicated and over bureaucratic, other countries actually help you without treating you as a cheat or thief from the moment you want to access government R&D assistance.

The only people who get anything out of the government R&D programs are those big enough to afford all the lawyers and accountants to structure your investments and record keeping .. it is so onerous, people give up and go away.

Successive governments do nothing to improve it .. if CSIRO came up tomorrow with a huge worldbeater technology, it would be years and years before anything happened to it as it would be so overladen with royalty arguments, caveats and overheads.

We just don't do it at all well .. and look around you, see how much Australian innovation there is ..lots of R&D at CSIRO, DSTO universities all going no where, it is almost never taken to market within a reasonable time.

The Americans rule this area because their government gets out of the way, leaves money with the people who make it to invest, instead of a bunch of political hacks trying to make high tech investment decisions, exactly the wrong people to do it.

leave the money with the people who know what to do with it, get the bureaucracy out of the way and we might stand a chance .. what does the ALP/eco weenies want? More government control more taxes!

We're doing the exact opposite of what we need for a free innovative marketplace

Shadow Minister,

(This thread originally posted today on the tail of Tristan Ewins piece.)

A Post Script: I'm a bit tired of the political debate which is clouding discussion on the REAL ISSUE - which is the carbon tax. I'm also tired of the skeptics and naysayers - BECAUSE I think what really matters is the efficacy and sincerity of this proposed tax. It is TIME we focused on what this tax may, or may not do, to OZ, to all of us. It is time we focused on the FACTS relating to the tax itself, and on whether it is really a responsible and effective mechanism.

I can't help feeling Ms G is only pushing this tax as a tax-grab on the one hand (because of as yet undeclared huge budget black holes, perhaps), and on the other hand as a last ditch attempt to lever Labor towards a slim hope of remaining in power after the next election. Neither of these potential motivations can justify this tax imposition (as an alternative to coming clean with the Oz public), nor do I believe that this tax has anything whatsoever to do with addressing climate change, and nor do I really believe that it is the most effective way for Oz to build a sustainable energy future.

Sorry for getting a bit ahead of myself. I am really interested in YOUR VIEWS on this matter, and should not be demonstrating a closed mind by railing on. My apologies.

Apologies also to Tristan for not being the least bit interested in Liberal-Socialism or Easter Bunnies. My head is sore enough already.

Also sorry to the climate skeptics who keep saying "convince me, convince me; give me the proof!" They unfortunately miss the point altogether, being that we are addressing a new tax scheme, not global warming - whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. (As really are the underlying political motivations.)

There's nothing to say about this debate but this:
The Australian government does not actually want us to stop using coal, oil and grid electricity because there is simply too much money to be made;
There are cheap renewable options already in existence and the government is either completely pretending they don't exist (electric cars), or trying VERY hard to discourage consumers to use (killing subsidies and rebates to Solar- because, it, um, is reducing power consumption too much).

Next Federal election anyone who picks on these points and promises to deliver will probably get a high spot on my election paper; anyone that imposes a 'carbon tax'- especially those who refuse to actually HELP bring in the alternatives we are allegedly "supposed to be converting to (but not really)" won't even get a mark; they don't deserve my vote at all.