LF,

Your trite anecdote of changing out lights and pool pumps is no argument for economics on a macro scale. For example, the carbon price at which gas is cheaper than coal is $40, so there is no incentive to change, and when the ETS kicks in there will be less so.

As for electricity, it is well known that this is extremely inelastic, and the handful of people changing out house hold items is not going to make a measurable difference. For industry, it might be a small incentive to install more efficient equipment for new plant, but ripping out old equipment and replacing it is unlikely to be financed on energy savings.

The predictions are that under the carbon tax emissions will increase by about 7%, and the 5% reduction will be achieved only by buying credits.

This carbon tax is a redistribution tax dressed up as an environmental gesture.

SM's authoritative assertion,(as his assertions often are) that the coal-fired electricity price going up up will not lower its consumption is dealt with here http://www.ben-global.com/Business/News/Electricity_consumption_has_peaked_worldwide_not_j_10295.aspx or here http://www.borderwatch.com.au/news/national/national/general/power-sector-primed-for-overload/2574770.aspx or many other places he might google

LF,

An article on power lines, an article on energy use decreasing in a recession (without a price on carbon). What point were you trying to make? Energy use is linked with GDP. When GDP drops it is no surprise that power consumption drops. Sure there have been efficiency gains as there are always has been, but the trend has been inexorably upwards.

The only way to reduce electricity consumption is to hobble the economy, which is what the carbon tax is trying to do.

But SM, weren't you the guy on another thread asserting authoritatively that the carbon tax closed an old and inefficient aluminium smelter and not a recession in world prices? You remember, Ludwig, Led Zep, "the carbon tax did it" and all that, with you the stern guy? Whatever, we know how you roll.

It's interesting that you simply see the CT as (wrongly)redistributive, with the environment just a smoke-screen for some Fabian plot, presumably. That says a lot about you. Who'd have thought you had such a vivid imagination!

Shadow Minister,
Sadly, you're a dot short of a connection.
The goal isn't to reduce electricity usage - that's a means to an end.
The goal is reduce CO2 emissions.
Now, usage reduction is one - I repeat, one - means to that end.
But it's not the end.
And here's a newsflash, dude - nobody sets out to intentionally hobble the economy.
Your common sense should tell you that.
So maybe there's another reason for actions that you don't agree with.
For example, that decisions are being made by people who don't see the world the way you do.
To quote the bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
My point is, don't be so quick to assign idiotic motives to those who do not act in accordance with your world view.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

LF,

Emissions can be reduced simply by shutting down manufacturing, but that supposedly is not the point. The hydro plant was less efficient than new world best plants, but not less efficient than many others world wide. The same amount of aluminium will continue to be smelted world wide, producing the same amount of emissions, just not in Australia.

Ant,

As per my previous posts, if with a carbon price of $23 coal generated power is still the cheapest generation source, then there is no incentive to build alternative generation. So where is the CO2 reduction? Even Labor's modelling under the carbon tax shows an increase in emissions by 2020 of nearly 7% (not differing much from the modelling without a carbon tax) and the 5% reduction being made purely from purchasing "carbon credits" from often shonky businesses overseas.

"nobody sets out to intentionally hobble the economy." Really? It has been well known for a long time that the carbon tax is a negative for manufacturing. Are you claiming that this was an accident?

I am well aware of people's differing views on the world, but doing stupid things for the right reason, is still doing stupid things. in training new engineers I always have to teach them to look for unintended consequences, some of which are obvious, others are not.