The Forum > Article Comments > Emissions indecision déjà vu > Comments
Emissions indecision déjà vu : Comments
By Geoff Carmody, published 13/7/2011Australia's production-based emissions pricing will discourage our trade competitors from following us. Why? Because their competitive gift from our own-goal will shift activity, jobs (and emissions) to them.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 12:16:14 PM
| |
Rubbish!
"It is incorrect to imply that Australia risks going it alone on pricing carbon. Thirty-two countries and 10 US states already have emissions trading schemes. California, one of the largest economies in the world, is due to start emissions trading next year. Other countries, including China, Taiwan, Chile and South Korea, and a number of Canadian provinces, are either considering developing their own or already have trial emissions trading schemes in place. Carbon taxes are in place in Britain, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada and under discussion elsewhere, including in the EU, Japan and South Africa. China has a tax on coal, oil and gas extraction in its largest gas-producing province and plans to extend this to all other western provinces. India has nationwide tax of 50 rupees per tonne levied on both imported coal and coal produced domestically, to be used for clean energy development. South Africa has released a discussion paper for public comment on a broad carbon tax." http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dirty-tactics-on-carbon-pricing-20110310-1bp8z.html Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 3:44:10 PM
| |
Ammonite
All of the examples you cite so indignantly are just window dressing.. I've looked at most of those countries. The article in the Age is just green agitprop. Take China. Where did the idea that China has a price on carbon come from?? One report I saw calculated an implied price, but a closer look showed that it was taking a line from a government subsidy to encourage larger coal fired power plants. Now there is a proposal to introduce a carbon tax but to suggest that they have sufficient control over their own industry to put in place an effective carbon tax is risible nonsense. Until recently illegal coal mines were common. India has a tiny tax per tonne on coal, called a carbon tax, which is designed more to raise money for a clean energy fund. It does not intend to reduce emissions, but has pledged to reduce emissions intensity.. The US ETS systems are all partial, vary in effect and are quite mild. In any case, the Federal government does not intend doing anything. Need I go on. Combet really should have known better than to write such obvious nonsense, but I guess he had to do something. In any case, there is no international agreement. Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 5:15:03 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
But then the tax is not intended to reduce emissions. The aim of the exercise is to keep the greens happy - keep things stitched together until the next election which Gillard will be in no hurry to call..