The Forum > Article Comments > Effects of a carbon price - debunking four myths > Comments
Effects of a carbon price - debunking four myths : Comments
By Ben Rose, published 28/4/2011Dealt with properly industry can pay a carbon tax and have higher profits at the same time.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
OK, how about having a crack at Myth 5: there is no anthropogenic global warming, so there is no need for a climate tax to 'combat' (or should that be 'combet'?) it. You may find that one a little harder...
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 28 April 2011 7:43:41 AM
| |
The numbers are not consistent with the facts about the role of energy in creating GDP. Energy in the USA accounts for around 7% of GDP. The figures must be similar for Australia. A price on carbon increases the cost of energy, initially via a tax and ultimately via substitution of the more expensive forms of energy that produce less carbon - if they are available. If energy costs double, as they may well do, then the impacts on the economy will be larger than a percent or two. Ben Rose is dreaming if he thinks that conservation will fix the problem. There is no evidence that conservation in the major energy consuming productive industries will be able to offer anything like those kinds of savings. Just have a look at the historical data for energy usage in the aluminium industry.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 28 April 2011 8:56:56 AM
| |
Jon J is quite correct: it IS a myth that there is no anthropogenic global warming. There is an observed and measured (and published) global warming trend, and climatologists are 90% certain that this is mainly due to human activities. This well-supported theory has not been refuted by any reputable researcher. See for example Raupach et al: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full
I can't comment on Ben Rose's figures, but if Tombee is right and that they are an underestimation, we still need to consider the potential costs of business as usual. Yes, yes, denialists, I can hear you clamouring that there's nothing wrong with this best of all possible worlds - but personally I have more faith in the objective assessment of the world's scientific community, than in the self-interested protestations of the Lavoisier Group or the IPA (et al). Posted by nicco, Thursday, 28 April 2011 9:18:24 AM
| |
Myth 1: 'A carbon price is a 'great big new tax' to extract more money from us'
"The Government assures us that for the majority of taxpayers (low and middle income earners) the increased energy costs will be at least neutralized." For the people not compensated, it's a GREAT BIG NEW TAX (do you think we're stupid?) "Secondly, the main intention of a carbon price is to be an incentive for energy efficient lifestyles." How? If you compensate the people you are trying to get to move to a more efficient lifestyle, why would they? There's no downside if they are compensated, and if they can't be bothered to move now, why would they bother in the future? "People who do this can have more money in their pockets than they had without a carbon price." People who have a second job have more money, same logic. If you can't be bothered, and it's not affecting you, where is the incentive? If it does affect you, then, IT'S A GREAT BIG NEW TAX. Honestly .. Myth 2 "most companies could pay the carbon price, implement energy efficiencies and still spend less on energy, which is precisely what the carbon price is intended to encourage." And the rest PAY A GREAT BIG NEW TAX! Myth 3 "By radical redesigning of mines, replacing trucks and bulldozers with conveyor belts, slurry pipelines and cable skips, energy savings of 30% can be achieved" So who is going to fund this radical redesign? To get a 30% energy saving? The investors will balk at this use of profits or new fund-raising, investors want returns and are generally not benevolent. This is just myopic pipe-dreaming .. business does not work the way you think it does, it is not charitable. Thanks for a good laugh though, as a sell job, this is poor but I'm sure will make all the eco wackos nod in unison at the perceived wisdom, it's all so easy to change everything and only polluters will pay tax (of course, it's so obvious now). No, everyone will pay for this. Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 28 April 2011 9:26:45 AM
| |
Dear Ben,
CAGW evangelism really is wearing very thin. Your problem is predominantly one of reality. You are addressing an audience that has access to the real life experiences of the EU’s “carbon dioxide mitigation” experiment which pre-dates Australia’s entry by at least fifteen years. It does not make any sense at all to pen this missive when everything you say is shown to be proselytizing nonsense. The bitter real life industrial experience in the EU has left you behind, as evidenced by many EU members. This has caused industries to collapse or move off shore, no green jobs, huge cost of living and energy cost increases, costly and ineffective renewable energy infrastructure, the collapse of green energy investment markets and the prospect of the loss of energy security by 2015. It is as absolute disaster. You need to point to the real problems for those nations that have been there, done that, and then tell us how you propose preventing those same issues hitting Australia. As for the four myths, they are not myths at all, they are the confirmed and evidenced EU reality. Unless of course you want to tell those in Europe that what has actually happened to them is a “myth”. Everyone is paying and paying very dearly. Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 28 April 2011 10:57:23 AM
| |
The opponents of a carbon tax are certainly as guilty as the proponents of global warming of exagerating the strength of their case. Nicco's post is a prime example of this on the global warming side. Whether or not climatatologists agree with a proposition is completely irrelevent. It is quite possible for a group of experts to be completely, 180 degrees wrong about their own field of expertise.
How can you tell when they are right and when they are wrong? The answer is you cannot. Delve into the information on forecasting if you don't believe me.. Start with www.forecastingprinciples.com The scientists concerned need to properly verify their computer models and not waffle about numbers or peer review. It say about great deal about the standard of the debate that policy makers have not set up adequate systems to verify any of the forecasting systems being used to "prove" global warming. Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 28 April 2011 11:18:29 AM
|