In a momentary fit of madness we have allowed the government to tax the very air that we breathe. Now it's time to repudiate this insane nonsense.

An interesting and informative article.

First let's be clear in our concepts and terms. It's not a market for carbon or carbon dioxide. It's a market for tax receipts.

So basically it looks like the market price must be the price resulting from
a) the premium imposed by governments in restricting productive activity by a given money amount per unit of carbon dioxide, thus causing people to freeze in their homes, minus
b) the discount in the value of the scheme in its own terms, which reflects governments' inability to force and threaten the masses of ordinary people into complying with their daft and wicked scheme to adjust the weather in 500 years time by taxing the air we breathe.

"Behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit."
Isaiah

"Second, no one has been able to design a taxation scheme for carbon dioxide that is effective, free of rorts and not unduly repressive in terms of jobs lost and other serious economic."

Fancy that. And what were the arguments of the tax's opponents?

The very idea that the government would control all the carbon oxidation and reduction reactions in the world, just tells us all we need to know about this absurd belief system.

I know its portentous but the carbon [CO2!] tax is a tax on life.

I'll conceived and described from the start [a greenhouse does not warm through 'trapping' of radiation but through curtailing of convection] the tax has been infiltrated by criminal enterprise from day one.

The role of the tax was to prevent use of cheap, efficient and plentiful fossil energy. By erecting trading scenarios within a shrinking market the object was to make use of the fossils too dear and for a parity price for renewables to be introduced.

But renewables don't work at any price; that is at the current energy usage and resulting social structure.

The tax is therefore designed to deconstruct the Western social model. This model has been the most beneficial to human survival and expansion.

Ergo the tax is a tax on life.

This is simple first principles. Looked at in this fashion the proponents of the tax are simply enemies of the Western society. Given this I don't understand why they are given moral ascendency.

The atomic weight of a carbon atom is 12, and that of CO2 is 44.

This means that the carbon tax of $23/t on CO2 is actually a tax of $84 per ton of carbon (or roughly per ton of coal or diesel etc) but it sounds better to use the lower figure.

I notice that Juliar and Whine are quite happy to leave the carbon tax black hole, and the unfunded NDIS and Gonski budget blasters to the next parliament.

Well thanks for a sensible article.

Thank god that this particular bubble has burst. This one really needed to.

Well the first thing we should know about an ETS, is the 140 billions PA, that could be earned by paper shuffling carbon brokers, who want this scheme and a universal/global application!
The second thing is that the European model is reportedly, both highly flawed and seriously rorted?
It's like granting various entities a virtual licence to print (Ponzi) money. I mean, some are already talking about creating a carbon derivative market?
Making it work, will require a veritable army of bureaucrats to police it.
The current European market price, also means it costs more to collect than it earns as revenue.
We should junk it now,before it begins to cost us more jobs and industries.
If we really want to go down this path, why not a cap and tax model?
Impose a sliding scale cap, which progressively goes down; and only tax the emission above that cap, with a sliding scale tax, that progressively goes up!
Anybody staying under the cap pays no carbon tax!
Those that just don't bother, eventually go out of business!
If we allow so-called offsets, we will simply allow polluters to continue business as usual.
As one other poster noted, the greenhouse effect is a product of increased convection!
Ditto warmer summers and colder winters, worse more destructive storms, droughts and record floods.
Doing nothing is not an option, and we simply cannot allow global ambient temps to rise beyond a tipping point of 2C!
I mean, power stations can mitigate against all smokestack carbon emission, just by the companion growing of algae, and then using that as the basis of highly profitable, additional profit, bio-fuel production.
Better yet, we should just generate all our domestic power supplies where it it required, rather than push it down wires.
Just this much change would immediately half power production needs and carbon production.
The options include natural gas or biogas, and ceramic fuel cells, for just a fraction of current power prices, minus the usual blackouts or brownouts.
Rhrosty.

not only is this tax fraudulent but a grade 3 student could handle finances better than this Government. They have not a clue.How is their still 30% of voters so ignorant. Oh thats right most of them are in the trough provided by tax payers.

What price carbon?
Don Aitkin,
how much does Australia need to get out of Labor's debt ?

A number of industries have already converted their operations to low or neutral carbon.
Many abattoirs, have simply covered the effluent ponds, to collect and use the methane they produce, to power their operations in whole or part.
Even without a carbon tax, this change makes complete commercial sense.
We also are looking at converting some of our power to NG.
Burn Gas in central power stations, and then push it down wires, so we the consumers can have the pleasure of paying double, and or, creating twice the carbon we need to make, just to keep some foreign operator, rolling in our money!
And pay yet again for all the aging poles and wires that need to be replaced, or gold plated, in order to keep the grid, we have been conned, I believe, into believing, is the most efficient way to reticulate electricity.
Tell that to those people who saw their towns razed to the ground by wild fires, started some believe, by rotting poles falling over in high winds, and starting unstoppable fires.
Just imagine if those same towns had their own small power stations, as reticulated NG, powering super silent ceramic fuel cells.
The wind could blow a veritable gale and no wires would be blown down.
If we are going to convert most of power supply to NG, why not directly at the home or business premise, where the energy coefficient, created by a combination of NG and ceramic fuel cells, is as high as 72%.
Compare that with coal fired power of just 20% max, and one can see considerable savings.
Compare the super silent ceramic fuel cell, with few if any moving parts to wear out, with very expensive to maintain turbines and incredibly expensive transmission line roll-outs, replete with oil filled transformers, which are routinely subject to lightening strikes and or overheating!
And the comparison and total costs further widen, even much faster than inflation or NATURAL cost.
No cogent case can be mounted for keeping what we have now, when local supply paradigms, as outlined, beckon!
Rhrosty.

Footnote: Or convert all our biological waste into biogas,(methane) in smell free digesters.
And use that source of basically endlessly sustainable free fuel (scrubbed) to power the same ceramic fuel cells!
Stored in simple bladders, (much cheaper than batteries) biogas can supply on demand ceramic cell electricity and endlessly available, free hot water.
[Once the infrastructure costs are fully recovered, the resulting power supply is virtually free?]
The FREE hot water, could be used to heat our pools or (reverse cycle) heat/cool our homes, if we also use solar hot water systems?
Adding food scraps or wastage, creates a saleable energy surplus, or recharges the family's/residents' electric vehicle(s).
Rhrosty.

Fuel cells for use in buses with cng did not turn out to have an economic life time.
Maybe things are changing though and it could be a goer.
Still with such high production decline rates, 60%/yr, we could be out
of gas before the transition was made

buses with cng did not turn out to have an economic life time.
Bazz,
Like in most situations people have become so impatient that if an idea in the morning isn't providing handsome dividends by smoko then it's not working.
get these morons to live off their own initiative & revenue & see how they're going.

The EU ETS was rorted totally by the Russian oligarchs which was where
they got the money to take over the Russian oil industry and other industries.
From what I can see the system has not been repaired so it could be
disastrous for Australia to get involved.
It might be the reason that the EU commission did not make the changes that were proposed.

Individual,
the fuel cells have a problem that no one has yet solved
that I have heard. Not that anyone would tell me, but I think if the
fundamental problem is solved they will be everywhere.

I thought all the trialled fuel cell buses, in WA ran on hydrogen?
At $6.00 plus per cubic metre, hydrogen extracted from NG, as supplied by the fossil fuel industry, is not a cheap option.
The traditional platinum catalyst, is easily soured by impurities?
The ceramic fuel cell is a very different kettle of fish.
The very expensive platinum has been replaced by comparatively inexpensive polymers; and runs quite happily on neat methane; producing mostly water vapour as the exhaust, in a chemical reaction, rather than a Co2 creating burn.
Queensland's CNG buses, are still powered by conventional engines and therefore still produce some Co2 and all the other nasties associated with naturally aspirated, internal combustion engines.
Nearly every vehicle plying road or rail, with the plumbing tweaked, can quite happily run on CNG.
One cubic metre of CNG, has the same calorific value, as a litre of petrol.
We have quite massive reserves of NG, and significant LPG, occurring as well head condensate; but now have to import nearly every litre of petrol!
Yet all our major manufacturers, still churn out mostly petrol powered variants; even the hybrids!
Is that because they're owned by the oil companies?
If we are going to subsidise this production, then let it be as variants that run on copious locally available, much cheaper fuel.
Mine would be a CNG/ceramic fuel cell powered electric, with a world's best 72% energy coefficient and consequent longest range.
This would also produce a huge export market; but particularly, where there are worsening smog problems!
Conventional engines use up to 85% of their available power, spinning the flywheel?
Whereas, a fuel cell delivers all its energy production directly to the drive wheels and inboard amenities.
The acceleration is quite remarkable, given the torque of the electric engine.
Carbon fibre, would allow acceleration numbers 0-100 of under 3 seconds.
Top speed?
Well, the fastest quietest trains in the world are electric, and there really is no reason, why they can't be powered by inboard fuel cells and CNG, rather than incredibly expensive and lethal overhead wires!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, my information was on the UK govt & bus builders trials in the UK.
The trials were OK, except for the lifetime of the fuel cells.
I think, but I am not sure, the trials were pre ceramic cells.
Now that the UK is a oil importer in an increasing manner I am sure
they will try anything.

CNG is a problem in the UK as they have a rather precarious supply chain.

Hi Don,

The 40% decline in the trading value of EU emissions this April is actually further drop on the 40% announced just three months ago, January 2013.

<< The CCX collapsed in December 2010, by November 2012, Barclays US Carbon trading Desk closed, the UN, EU and NZ markets were trading at just off their all time lows at A$5.60, EU, UN backed credits A$8.45 and NZ trading A$4.10.
By January 2013 these markets had collapsed a further 40% with NZ trading at just US$ 2.00.>>
(From The Australian in January 2013)

This market rose to a peak above 30 Euros (about A$45) in 2006 and has savagely declined since. Like all trading markets the investors need certainty, confidence and a return on investment for that trade.

It is clear that this months collapse has come as a complete surprise to the many less enquiring Australians, for which we can blame the ABC and much of the commentariat for failing to keep the public informed.

We’ve had this discussion before on OLO in respect of the collapse of the global warming infrastructure and yet it seems that many just don’t know or understand the significance.

There is nothing left to encourage investors, not in the emissions trading markets, down from $45.00 in 2006 to $4.0 in 2013. Not in the renewable energy industrials with RENIXX down by 90% since 2007. No global governance or agreed targets from Kyoto with no replacement agreement.

The bottom line is that there is no global mechanism, no momentum and nor is there sufficient “energy” left in this market system for it ever to recover.

R.I.P.

"This means that the carbon tax of $23/t on CO2 is actually a tax of $84 per ton of carbon (or roughly per ton of coal or diesel etc) but it sounds better to use the lower figure."

The following sounds even better and even more accurate:

One tonne of carbon produces 3.67 tonne CO2, a greenhouse gas, when burned. 3.67 tonne taxed at $23/t comes to $84. Carbon is not a greenhouse gas, or even a gas. It is a solid that makes up most of coal. Diesel is a liquid hydrocarbon (i.e. made from carbon and hydrogen) and one tonne burned produces 3.16 tonne CO2 which, taxed at $23/t comes to around $73.

Whatever is the point of all this I do not know. Just thought I'd do my bit to help SM with his figurings.

LF,

Being an engineer involved in the generation of power, the costing are based on fuel input, not resultant output. Note that I used the word "roughly" which should take into account that not all coal is combustible, and that the carbon price creeps up to $29/t. If you wish to nitpick over specifics, please go ahead. The issue that was raised previously was that this was not a carbon tax but a tax on its oxide. The argument that the price is based on the pollutant value also does not consider the SO2 emitted nor the particulates, NOx etc.

It is a technicality that has meaning to some, whereas to others it goes over their heads.

Rhrosty, You have mentioned Ceramic Fuel Cells a few times now as a source of household power. I used their calculator to see if it would work for me, answer no. Why, I use around 11 units a day. Their BlueGen CFC produces 30 units a day, with no feed in tariff it is way too expensive. The web site said they expect the cost of the units to drop to around 8 to 10 thousand by 2008. No update since. in addition the company has apparently closed their Australian manufacturing plant and moved to Germany. I assume following the subsidies.

As for the Hydrogen fuel celled buses in WA, no idea what has happened to them. There has been no mention of them for quite a long time. Most of our buses run on gas, and as they are developing a habit of catching fire I suspect their days are also numbered.

"If you wish to nitpick over specifics, please go ahead."

Not really. It's just that a calculation supposing to demonstrate some Government sleight of hand should have more light shed upon it for OLO readers, just so your exercise does not "go over their heads".

The CT is applied to CO2 output (the greenhouse culprit, not carbon or diesel) so if your concern is paying more than $23/t for CO2 output you have a strong case for a refund that should be pursued. Are carbon credits applied and, if so, are they on the same basis as the CT is applied?

" The argument that the price is based on the pollutant value also does not consider the SO2 emitted nor the particulates, NOx etc."

There is no tax on SO2, particulates, or NOx. These are not claimed to be of greenhouse significance. Is Gov't or anybody claiming that they are?