While there were many, many things left unresolved in the carbon price announcement, it does appear that the transport sector is in this time around. The CPRS effectively exempted transport fuel until 2015 – as Greg Combet notes in this Hun article, by cutting the excise each year as the carbon price went up.
From an economic point of view, this was counterproductive; the whole point of the CPRS (which Julia Gillard was bold enough to explicitly state in Question Time last week, something Grog noted with enthusiasm) is to increase the cost of activities that emit greenhouse gases.
As many others have noted, a carbon tax is likely to only have an extremely modest impact on the price of petrol – about 0.23 cents per litre, for dollar per tonne CO2e that the tax is set at. A $25 per tonne carbon tax would be around 6c/l. But it’s likely that any rise in the price of petrol that happens in the first few months of operation will be blamed on the government, regardless of the actual source of the rise.
Bob Brown was on Meet The Press denying claims that the Greens were insisting that the rise go “uncompensated” (by which it is presumably meant that the compensation is in the form of general income tax and benefit adjustments, rather than petrol-specific measures):
PAUL BONGIORNO: There’s discussion in the papers this morning that the Greens would insist that transport, that petrol be kept in, and there is now talk that maybe the Gillard government will offset some of that pain. Are the Greens sympathetic to compensation for any carbon tax that is introduced?
SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well, absolutely. Our job is to ensure that the average Australian householder and car user is not punished by a carbon price. The idea here is to make the polluters pay. The big corporate polluters, who are threatening this country’s economy and jobs with dangerous climate change…
Petrol-specific compensation is a political fix, pure and simple. The fairest and simplest way to compensate for rising petrol prices is the same way we’re compensating for every other CPRS-induced price rise – an adjustment to income tax and welfare benefit rates. But if a political fix on petrol prices necessary, it’d be nice if it was done in a way that didn’t damage the overall long-term intent of the scheme. So here’s my modest proposal – a one-off cut to the petrol excise exactly equivalent to the initial level of the CPRS. So, if the initial carbon price was $25, which works out to 6c/l of fuel, the excise gets dropped by 6c.
This might sound similar to the CPRS’s fix on petrol, but there’s one key difference; the CPRS proposed to match the excise cuts with the carbon price as it rose; this proposal doesn’t.
This idea is based on several observations:
- The government is most likely concerned about a one-time hit to petrol prices when the carbon price is introduced.
- The effect of the modest initial carbon price on the transport sector will be very small anyway – the stationary energy sector will almost certainly clean up first unless Peak Oil cleans up transport for us.
- To clean up the transport sector with a carbon price, it will have to go a lot higher than anything mooted in the short term; my guess is well over $100 per tonne CO2e.
- As such, from a policy perspective what matters is that the transport sector is affected by the rising carbon price in the longer term.
- With this policy, there would be no price impact when the scheme is launched, so no matter how hard Tony Abbott squealed, he couldn’t blame any coincidental rise in the petrol price on the government.
- But as the carbon price goes up bit by bit, year by year, it will imperceptibly start to bite, so in 2020 or so that pluggable hybrid or EV starts to look like a good financial bet.
What do you think?
I will be amazed if the transport sector is included properly in the short-term. Even the EU has excluded it from most of their scheme until 2020. The implicit cost of abatement is already very high under existing excise taxes and I simply expect there to be offsetting excise tax reductions. I also can’t imagine that Labor wants to fight on this front as well as all the others.
The whole problem with compensation, as Gittins points out today, is that if you take $1 from someone with a carbon tax and give $1 with an income tax cut, or whatever, they are still grumpy, because they feel the loss of the $1 they’ve lost more than the $1 they’ve gained.
Robert,
I agree, except that I would imagine the government would extend your duty-offset approach to 3 years, to ensure that the offset exactly compensated the carbon price for all 3 years of the fixed-price period.
Petrol pricing is such an emotive issue for voters that Gillard would do well to stay well away from it. Particularly since, as you note, transport is not the main game here.
I recall the fury around GST on petrol, whereby the duty-offset was based on the GST amount at the time the GST was introduced and so failed to offset the GST when the price of petrol increased.
IMHO petrol is a political landmine. Rising prices causes riots abroad. Apparently it’s political suicide in Venezuela – hence Chavez keeps the price artificially low (even with their bounty of oil).
Back home, I think it’s best we stop the ~$9b in fossil fuel subsidies (mostly oil based AFAICT) first before we tax fuel directly.
In terms of the excise cut:
“a reduction in the fuel excise to cancel out the carbon price would unduly favour the rich” – Climate Institute chief executive John Connor http://j.mp/fKYfSX
While we are ostensibly the most urbanised nation on earth and grossly overstate our “country” credentials, regional areas are very dependant on fuel which causes further political angst for the independents and so any tax affecting must be very delicately handled.
Sam @2,
It’s worse than that. If $1 is the average carbon tax, some motorists will be paying $5 and they will shout and scream, whilst those who don’t even drive will quietly pocket the $1 compensation.
John Howard, who had plenty of gut feel for these things, solved the compensation problem with the GST by massively over-compensating. And even then there was plenty of hue and cry that the world would end on 1 July 2000, when the GST came to be.
Gillard’s problem is that there is no scope in the budget to massively overcompensate, unless she grows a spine and start hacking into some worthless expenditure (baby bonus, first home owner’s grant …)
If I was in the business lobby or the petrol industry I’d be raising prices now and blaming it on the ‘big new carbon tax.’
A shortcut to regime change. Julia wouldn’t last a week.
Oh FFS tssk, give it a rest.
Yes please tssk. Find another tune to play.
I’m just worried Adrian and Fine. Julia has been quite brave with this. If she can last past March then she will be unstoppable and we’ll actually see this swing into action at last.
Tssk has a point: I think its imprtoant JG etc come out NOW and start taling about the pnehnomenal electricty price rises of the lst 5 years – and how uncertainty over future invesmtent climate was a key factor.
price rises from a CO2 tax will be minsucle by comaprsion to the disgusting price gouging from privatised providers.
And compo.
Compo compo compo.
The only way your ever going to get some of the eletricity price gouging back is via this scheme!
No hold barred – the LNP a ripe for a complete rout over this one. But youve gotta hold your nerve and attack.
On that point Lefty E – Climate Spectator has an article today called: “Don’t blame renewables for your energy bill” written by the general manager of Pacific Hydro Australia: http://j.mp/hq0nYV
Yes Lefty E @ 11. But do they have the courage.You would hope so after actually announcing the carbon price intro. My conservative parents have been taken in the the ‘but she lied’ brigade, very difficult to argue the necessity. We end up at ‘all politicians lie’. Very frustrating.
The problem is that the combination of a feral media and a totally unprincipled opposition has made it almost impossible to convey anything other than meaningless soundbites in which the opposition excel.
Even as we speak, this whole issue is being framed on the opposition’s terms as always.
Of course Gillard (and the entire government) has to be strong and go on the attack, but I just wish that she had the political ability to legislate a policy and then deal with the flack after it had been implimented. All the endless rounds of consultation and committees seems to achieve is to give the opposition forces and vested interests an opportunity.
Lefty E, your scenario would require Labor holding their nerve, effectively selling a policy, withstanding News Ltds wall to wall negative coverage, aided and abetted by Our ABC, and the greed and shortsightedness of many in our community. Hmmmm, why are tssk and I sceptical?
I see your skepticism, and raise you two optimisms, Wilful.
What are the other options, srsly? Better to go down swinging that accede to the swamp of bullshit Australia political debate has become.
Fact: Political debate is almost dead in this country. Someone has got to take all those forces on and win. Now that Bitar and his ilk have been purged, and most importantly, the ALP isnt 100% in charge, it is all possible.
Minority govts have to have backbone or they’re out. Another great argument for proportional representation!
FB update from Bob Brown:
“I plan to devote every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week in the next election campaign to thwart Tony Abbott’s promise to polluters.”
ITS ON!
I don’t agree Robert. Offsetting excise would not pass your test of undercutting fossil HC usage. De facto, it would be an exercise in rebadging and it would have to be done every year.
If the government lacks the nerve to do something effective, it has no business being the government and it should fall.
All the government has to do is to guarantee all surplus revenue will be returned in full to low/middle income households in the form of cash or non-discretionary services. It publishes a quarterly balance sheet and returns this with interest through the family tax system on a means-tested basis.
People on half of AFTWE could get up to 120% compensation, partly through a smart card system which could operate at supermarkets for staple goods, medical providers, public transport, childcare etc. Far better.
In the long run though, as people will know, I regard a more sweeping reform of pricing of road usage as needed.
Yeah, bob brown, while I respect the guy a bit (not a lot), I seriously think he’s on the nose with most Aussie. Not saying that’s fair, it’s just my perspective.
More generally, I do hope you’re right, Lefty. We’re not a crisis levels in Australia yet, but god knows what we’d do for political discourse without the internet.
Has Bitar been purged?
I think this is being too tricky by half, Robert. Apart from anything else, if there’s a spike in fuel prices on the supply side—any of the sordid oil republics around the world invading each other, for instance—it’d still be bread-and-butter Opposition politics to blame it on Government policy.
Mainly, though, I’m averse to suggesting to anybody in the Federal Labor Party that they could achieve a policy outcome with a political fix. (Might be because I’m from Sydney).
Here’s a political fix that will take JG back to lodge in a canter in 2013: take a lesson from Bracks and defend the urban-rural cross-subsidy principle.
The NBN, and the regional benefits of a CO2 price are GOLD for this agenda. And the LNP is built on a faultline that can’t hold: they have the Nats in their pocket, but they are utterly opposed, ideoloigcally, to urban Australia’s wealth funding rural infrastructure. There’s a massive contradiction for the ALP to exploit.
Pushing this line has the added advantage of suporting the likes of Windsor and Oakeshott. They are winning on this contradiction already. The Nats are useless for the country!
The LNP and the media have this 100% wrong: Windsor and Oakeshott’s natural allies are not the conservative parties, with their free market rhetoric, but the ALP, which can at least countenance the idea of nation-building cross-subsidy to regional Australia and state investment in infrastructure. Thats the only thing between regional AU and complete oblivion.
This was one thing Bracks did quite well – hell, parts of country Vic even swung TO Brumby despite the monster overall statewide swing against the ALP.
This is the ALPs hidden Ace. I hope they learn to play it.
“Has Bitar been purged?”
As I read it, the Bracks et al internal federal election review basically calls for him to be run out of town at the end of a pitchfork, Wilful.
Not in so many words, of course.
)
Liam @20,
On second thoughts, I agree with you. It is all too hard. Why bother? The oil price is already doing the heavy lifting and the duty is currently much higher than any likely carbon price equivalent for the foreseeable future (it is 38c/litre which, according to Robert’s numbers, equates to a carbon price of $165/tonne)
Why is it necessary or efficient to tax twice? (Answer: it isn’t)
Furthermore, the rural independents will strongly resist any increase (actual or potential) in petrol prices. Windsor has already entered the fray on this point. No point in gaining the greens but losing the indies.
How about a compromise? Only levy a carbon tax/price on petrol if and when the duty is below the carbon price equivalent.
Fran we are quibbling we are quibbling about a policy that will cut fuel usage (based on a long-run price elasticity of about 0.4) about 2% from business as usual, were fuel prices and the carbon tax to stay at current levels.
The carbon price won’t make any substantial difference to transport until it gets much higher. The point of principle to argue on is that in the long term motorists should be exposed to it.
If trading off a minimal short-term effect is required, I reckon that’s something we should live with.
I&U part of the problem with excise taxes on petrol is that the tax is serving multiple purposes. For example, it is partly being taxed at a high rate because demand is inelastic and therefore it is efficient to tax it more than most other types of goods and services (the Ramsey principle). The environmental externality is only part of the rationale and a relatively new one at that. That said, given the minimal contribution including it will make toward abatement and the potentially large amount of political pain associated with including it, I’d expect the government to be working toward a first option that ensures that most transport emissions are out in the first stage or at least all near-term rises in the carbon tax are offset by reductions in excise.
Robert, it’s funny about petrol price inelasticity. Remember a few years ago when petrol went up to $1.40 and stayed there for a good while. Doom and gloom, a lot less SUVs were bought for a year, then the price stayed up but everyone got used to it and kept on buying large inefficient cars. Seems to me that we need a clear signal to everyone that the price is going up, will keep going up, cannot stop going up, before people get the message properly.
Of course, in the meantime I’ve gone from driving 5000km a year to 25000, so that would make me pretty grumpy.
I think Gillard has shot herself in the foot with this one. Of course I could be totally wrong. I just can’t see her selling whatever it is she is trying to sell – because we still don’t know what it actually is she is trying to do.
This is exactly the same mistake Howard made with WorkChoices. You would have thought he learnt his lesson from the GST. Truely major reforms need to be put to the electorate instead of rammed down their throats. Take them with you or they will take you down.
Now that the Coaliion has declared “Roll Back V2.0″ we will have an election on it. I just don’t see them winning on it. Yes, Howard may have taken a CPRS to his last election, but apart from a minority of true believers, it was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors allusion for the Doctors Wives (including Malcolm Turnbull). The desperate action of a tired government. Not unlike Kenneally’s million trees promise today.
The completely accurate point that Abbott will have to deal with the new Senate after June 11, can be easily knocked off by committting to going to a DD if the Senate blocks his efforts. That would definitely give the Greens something to think about.
LO @ 25,
Agreed. What makes it suitable for a Ramsey tax (low elasticity) makes it unsuitable for an environmental tax.
What’s more, the main objective of a carbon price on electricity is to promote low-emissions production. I don’t think there is an equivalent opportunity for petrol.
i support taking action against pollution, but not sure this tax will work.
so the gov takes $x off corporation and gives it to the corporations customers to cover the extra that the corporation now has to charge the customers to pay the $x tax.
there seems to be no net difference… i suppose this scheme will employ some people to pass that money around in circles…
but i think the corporations, clever, greedy and opportunistic that they are, will make even more money from this.
they’ll simply charge more than enough to cover the carbon tax, and bam, new source of income.
i think we should redirect all government subsidies to the renewable sector. and please investigate these companies when they raise prices. are the 300% increases in electricity really justified? i really don’t believe so. i havent’ seen any new infrastructure and they’d probably be stupid to do so since we’re on the verge of changing technology away from coal burning.
If you have a GST & carbon price, remove the $18B (as I understand it) in current subsidies for fossil fuels, there should be no reason for excise duty on petrol. The price of petroleum will continue to rise due to peak oil and therefore consumption will fall. Getting the excise off petrol will reduce the lobbying power of the road construction industry and would force them to compete for scarce public resources like other sectors. Level the playing field and let the market do its magic. Renewables and the environment will do a lot better in a fair transparent system than they currently do now.
I thought the whole principle of putting a price on carbon was to make polluting more expensive so polluters do less of it and instead invest in cleaner technology etc. Compensation defeats the whole purpose of this. What you will get instead is the polluters getting taxed, passing the impost onto the consumer and then the consumer getting compensated by the Government. This doesnt reduce carbon emmissions.
Jamo, two scenarios:
a) I charge $10 per day for parking at work.
b) I give you an annual bonus of $3000 “compensation”. I charge $10 per day for parking at work.
In scenario a), you would be less likely to drive. In scenario b), guess what, you’d still be less likely to drive.
Jamo it’s what you do with the compensation – you can continue polluting and have your compenstion go directly towards paying for that or you can use the compensation to reduce your carbon footprint and be out in front. Just like those that are still benefiting from the solar electricity tariffs – the initial outlay will be recovered over time and the ongoing compensation is first used to pay down that outlay before becoming cream. Knowing this would you just stick to the staus quo and do nothing to reduce your expenses?
Robert @ 32 – but if you over compensate like the government is talking about doing you might just end up driving more because you have more money. And you’ll still complain when the parking charge goes up more in the future because you’ll be used to the subsidy.
I’d much rather that the government restrict use of the compensation money so it can only be spent by households on efficiency related improvements. Eg house improvements leading to lower energy usage, purchase of more energy efficient appliances, perhaps even on public transport fares.
The idea that demand for petrol is inelastic is overstated. Here’s some data on just this point:
http://economics.about.com/od/priceelasticityofdemand/a/gasoline_elast.htm
The basic summary: A 10% increase in price causes a 2.6% reduction in demand in the first year, and a 5.8% reduction in subsequent years.
Presumably the effect increases over time because people take a while to buy a more fuel-efficient car, move to a place with better public transport, take up cycling, or simply change their daily routines to travel less.
Robert @32
Scenario a) – I find alternative modes of transport because I can’t afford to park thus reducing climate change.
Scenario b) – I use the compensation money to pay for my parking at work thus continuing to drive and not reducing my emmissions output.
I repeat, compensation deafeats the whole concept of putting a price on carbon emissions.
What you are proposing is pretty much what the Pacific Party put forward in NZ in 1992. Impose a Carbon Tax on fuels and with an initial neutral impact by reducing transport road taxes by the same amount as the imposed new Carbon tax.
Having said that, considering the intense environemntal forces now to be inevitably unleashed on Australia along with the looming threats of resourced depletion particularly oil now also certain in the coming decades, this political touchey feeley exercise with this minimal carbon pricing introduction is almost farcical.
The Farmers Federation was this afternoon rejecting climate change, describing the highly volatile weather under was “as a demonstration of how variable Australia’s weather can be”.
This whole debarcle could have been avoided if the government had adopted the concept of a levy on electricity, an action which would have achieved the principle objective while avoiding the much of the negative invective.
Jamo, the point is you most probably get paid either weekly or fortnightly. Monthly if your boss is a dick.
You don’t consider the annual compensation through the tax system because it only comes around once you’ve got your group certificate and you send it away to the ATO. It’s the same reason many people on objectively PAYG high incomes feel unfairly taxed even though when they even it out through FBTs A and B they aren’t.
Jamo @36
Scenario B will reduce driving by less than scenario A, but it will still reduce driving. Compensation doesn’t completely defeat the concept of a carbon tax. And if that reduction in benefit is the political price to pay to get this thing established, maybe it’s worth it.
Robert said:
I regard the messaging as all wrong though. It’s in petrol that the rubber hits the road for most people. We also need to be able to spread the cost across the whole of the economy. I don’t regard that as a quibble. Were it purely up to me, petrol would go up 60cents per litre rather than 6.5cents. Disclosure: I have two cars and we go through about 34,000km pa
I accept that in practice that’s not politically saleable, which is why I’d opt for a largely separate scheme for road access charges. I’ll leave repeating it here as it would probably be off-topic for this thread.
I & U said:
Unless you get vehicles onto the grid (via PEV, PHEV) and clean up the grid (perhaps with nuclear power).
Fran,
You’re right. Ultimately, cars will have to run on carbon-free electricity. But we need to generate the carbon-free electricity first. Taxing petrol too high at present could encourage cars to run on coal-fired electricity, which makes no sense at all.
That’s why the carbon price needs to be the same across all fuels. Your suggestion of 60c/l equates to a carbon price of around $240/tonne. With respect, that’s crazy.
I & U said:
I disagree. Even that would be an improvement because a commuter vehicle running on black-coal fired electricity would still be more efficient than one running on petrol. Moreover, since the bulk of that power would be purchased in the off-peak, when plants have to run regardless of demand, the marginal extra demand would probably be quite low. Of course, once peoplle get EVs the driver of falling CO2 intensity is then the grid CO2-intensity rather than people’s willingness to junk their cars.
In Victoria, and elsewhere brown coal and older black coal plants would concede their load to gas plants and more efficient black coal plants (and of course hydro would be in the mix.
Your suggestion of 60c/l equates to a carbon price of around $240/tonne. With respect, that’s crazy.
Not really. I read that in Norway they pay about $2.40 per litre for fuel. We could reverse Robert’s suggestion. We put the price up 60cents and agree not to allow other excise charges to push it above that price.
More seriously though, I say we repackage road usage charges as a more effective way to deal with the problem.
Well, absolutely. Our job is to ensure that the average Australian householder and car user is not punished by a carbon price. The idea here is to make the polluters pay.
We are all polluters.
You’re right Robert the government will get punished for any rise in energy costs whether related to the tax or not. And I’m sure the Sen Brown’s daemonic ‘big corporate polluters’ would only be too happy to make that happen if they can get away with it.
The ALP obviously wants to introduce the tax and wait until they bump it up.
no matter how hard Tony Abbott squealed, he couldn’t blame any coincidental rise in the petrol price on the government.
I believe his allies can and will attempt to this very thing. If there’s more wild weather before the next election it’ll be moot. If not it’ll boil down to tactics.
The sad thing is that even if you tax ‘em so that they have no choice but to walk to work, the impact on the climate won’t be measurable.
India and China are both planning manifold increases in CO2 output. I have no doubt that they will be successful.
Let’s focus on adapting.
. . .but . . . but . . . Peter, the Chicoms are cutting their emmissions. That’s what I keep being told on this blog.
PeterTB, good luck with adapting to a possible 6 degree rise. I’m glad I’ll be dead by then, but I weep for my children.
A 6 cent/litre price increase would have added about 25 cents/day to the cost of running the average car in 2007. So it is hardly enough to justify all the winging and weeping. More importantly, it is also hardly enough to inspire people to change their travel habits, particularly if they are being asked to sacrifice convenience, comfort and status.
Meta studies in the US and UK on the effect of price changes on fuel consumption both concluded that a 10% increase in the price of fuel reduced average fuel consumption by 2.5% initially rising to 6% after a number of years. If you run the 6% figure for a base fuel price of $1.30/litre and tailpipe emissions @ 2.44 kg CO2/litre you get:
Tax =$887/tonne CO2 abatement
Reduction in fuel bill before tax=$532/tonne CO2 abatement
Nett cost =$302/tonne CO2 abatement
By contrast, alternatives that don’t depend on a carbon tax to drive change will give a nett SAVING of $532/tonne CO2 abatement. The difference is a massive $887/tonne. Which makes putting a carbon tax on fuel about twice as stupid as cash for clunkers.
What worries me about the Greens is that they are campaigning for a carbon price without appearing to have done any of this type of analysis.
This is a very tough sell for the Gillard Government if the Greens insist on transport fuels being included in the CPRS and I hope they do.
One political ‘plus’ that will eventuate soon is the Zero Carbon Australia plan for transport to go with their 2010 release of their $170 billion 2020 electricity generation grid.
Now the ZCA plan to date is politically impossible and their transport segment is likely to be equally unpalatable even though it might leave us long term with no alternatives.
Gillard should use the stark reality of ZCA’s proposal as a trojan horse to ready the public for their ‘driving’ future.
Investment decisions are made on the basis of perceived future conditions. The process of introducing polluter-pays principles is the significant thing. As long as the future is perceived to be a place with ever rising fossil fuel prices, investment decisions will favour infrastructure and production technologies that use less of the stuff.
The point about putting the carbon tax on transport fuels is not that it will make much change rapidly to transport usage patterns, but that exempting transport fuels will distort the economy, since power generation would have to bear more than its share of abatement. This would, for example, paradoxically make electric transport vehicles less attractive, since the price of electricity would rise relative to the price of petrol and diesel.
The issue with agricultural emissions is the difficulty in measurement and collection. The existing emissions reporting system, introduced by the Howard regime, would be the basis for the tax and the beauty of it is that there are only a few hundred payers. Introducing it in agriculture would widen the net to include tens of thousands of payers. There are also arguments about what net agricultural emissions are. At any event, the fossil fuel burning elements of agriculture will be caught by virtue of the tax being applied to fuels and fertilisers.
I weep for my children
DI(NR), 6 degrees won’t happen until 2080 or so. Your children will probably be dead.
Sam,
2,3,4,5 degrees are no picnic on the way to 6. The worlds population at 6 degrees could well drop back to 1 billion, about where it was in 1900.
“A 6 cent/litre price increase would have added about 25 cents/day to the cost of running the average car in 2007.”
Exactly John.
You’d have to empty three average tanks a week for the increase to add up to ten bucks.
If this affects Ozzy agriculture too much, making imported (often more polluting) produce more financially attractive. How is that positive? We just send our farmers broke and raise emissions,in a global sense.
John D @48
“What worries me about the Greens is that they are campaigning for a carbon price without appearing to have done any of this type of analysis.”
I sincerely hope they haven’t. That analysis is absolute drivel. The whole point of a carbon tax is that mitigation action is “voluntary” and people will only take abatement action where the cost (or loss of value) in doing so is less than the carbon tax. Otherwise it is business as usual.
DI (NR):good luck with adapting to a possible 6 degree rise
6 degrees? That’s pretty serious isn’t it?
Can we talk about a serious response yet?
Jeebus. Gretel Killen’s appearance on QANDA was like some sort of new sign language interpreter for the dimwitted.
HAL0900 and I&U: So what you are telling me is that we should put a tax on fuel instead of using regulation to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars despite the fuel tax option giving much lower reductions in emissions and much much higher costs per tonne CO2 abatement? And why? Because of pompous crap like:
Car manufacturers will invest in setting up to produce fuel efficient cars if they know that regulations are going to force them to lower the average fuel consumption of the mix of cars they sell. Experience has taught them that increasing fuel prices will have little effect on people’s buying patterns.
John D, I heard recently (forget where, but they were plausible) that govt regulation is actually a far more effective driver of innovation than any market mechanism.
Agreed: we need some good old fashioned solid regulation to accompany any other schemes.
Just lower the acceptable CO2 emission rating on a range of electrical goods and autos – and watch the innovation fly.
Fran @43: You are right about fuel costs per tonne CO2. If you convert the price of fuel into price per tonne CO2 ex tailpipe, a petrol price of $1.00/litre equates to about $410/tonne CO2 ex tailpipe. It would be higher if the emissions generated getting the fuel from well to petrol tank were included.
Jamo further up thread – you need to take a course in economics – unless there is massive overcompensation or the good for which the relative price has increased is completely price inelastic on the demand and supply side, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the income effect will outweigh the substitution effect. The goal of the policy is to allow changes in current and future relative prices to drive behavioural changes (mainly on the supply side) not to reduce disposable incomes.
The right principle with carbon pricing is for the transport sector to face the same carbon price as other sectors of the economy. The problem with including transport fuels is that at the moment they face a much higher implicit carbon price than electricity because of existing excise taxes, which function as a de facto carbon tax. At the expected rate of growth of the tax it will decades for the carbon tax on electricity to catch up to where petrol already is.
Can anyone point to anything of substance she contributed to anything? But them again, that had to be the worst Q&A ever. (And that’s saying something).
John D, how much can mandating increased fuel efficiency with a price on carbon really help? It surely means those that continue to drive the same sorts of distances have more money to spend on other things (which all require CO2 generation to produce), and the rest will most likely take advantage of the opportunity to simply drive more without increasing their fuel bills.
I assume you’re familiar with the Jevons Paradox.
A carbon price at least has a chance to avoid this problem, as there’s an obvious advantage to consumers in spending money on goods/services that require less CO2 emissions to produce.
(BTW, I’m happy to accept that the Jevons Paradox is not nearly as much of a problem as some assert, but the rebound effect is a real and observed phenomenon)
John D @58,
I said that your analysis was drivel, not necessarily your policy position.
I argued @23 upthread that levying a carbon tax on petrol (over and above the existing excise) was probably not sensible or necessary.
I think there is much to be said for regulating emissions or efficiency standards for vehicles. However, your analysis implies that such regulation is costless, which it is not. Innovation in engine technology (say) is expensive, whilst driving a smaller car (say) would imply a loss of value for drivers who enjoy a large car.
I have never said anything along the lines of “The process of introducing polluter-pays principles is the significant thing.” The significant thing (to me) is to reduce carbon emissions at lowest economic cost and that is likely to require a mixture of carbon pricing, government intervention and direct regulation.
My biggest problem with your “analysis” is that you are directly comparing a taxation mechanism (carbon tax) with subsidy mechanism (cash for clunkers). They are apples and oranges. It would take a much better economist than you are to do a proper comparison. And they would certainly reach the opposite conclusion to you.
This “debate” is obviously going to be all about spin. Already I note this morning that Greg Hunt speaking to Fran Kelly avoided using carbon, carbon pricing or carbon tax but focused on the “new electricity tax (on families)”. So, Labor are going to have a difficult sell and News Ltd and talk-back are not going to help them. This is going to be a real challenge for our ABC to maintain balance and find the truth and communicate the national interest.
Fran @43,
I did some googling on this and came up with this
If this is accurate (NB its source), I shall have to concede your point. I would also agree that, over the medium-term and with a moderate carbon price, it is likely that CCGT would be at the margin during the overnight charging period and so the generation emissions intensity and consequential electric car emissions would be much lower (perhaps half as much).
Nevertheless, I would probably agree with John D on this point that a transition to electric vehicles is best encouraged by targeted government incentives and regulation, rather than an extreme carbon price on petrol.
Wantok I think they’ll be countering that by referring to it as ‘Pollution Tax’
I&U
You must have got it by now that JohnD doesn’t actually understand the concept of least cost abatement in the economic sense. In his world CAC mechanisms are least cost simply because they don’t formally price carbon.
JohnD, did you ever read the OECD review of the EU’s GHG mitigation strategy that I mentioned (and wrote)? There you will see some review of the literature on the economic costs of different abatement options and why many CAC mechanisms, including some of those you favour, can have very high implicit abatement costs.
I & U …
Just in terms of transport the following appeals to me:
All fuel excises, sales taxes on vehicle parts, tariffs, stamp duties, CTP, road tax, registration fees beyond pure processing etc are abolished. Instead, transponders or similar are placed in vehicles and people log in biometrically to drive them. Everyone is charged a fee to use the roads based on road contention, tare, driver compliance, driver skill, vehicle type, emissions of aerosols (apart from H20) and particulate. Funds raised are hypothecated to public transport, road maintenance and compliance, the accident, trauma and physiotherapy units of hospitals, to third part personal injury liability and support of medium-high density public housing and housing coops meeting suitable criteria on sustainability and social inclusion.
The vehicles are fitted with the technology to impose first a warning and then an infringement for speeding, running red lights and stop signs, crossing unbroken separation lines. The vehicle is equipped with the ability to detect someone with PCA and can require the driver to submit to a breath test from a unit placed in the driver’s seat and which sits in front of the driver’s lips while driving.
Fine amounts are reduced but escalate rapidly if compliance is not achieved and can even progressively shut down the vehicle’s EMS if non-compliance persists. Those who avoid getting warnings for 6 months get extra points and a cut in their per distance road costs.
Sounds good to me. We get a cut in a whole raft of taxes and charges, much better (and per vehicle mile, cheaper) compliance, safer roads, and better services. We cut road trauma at hospitals and cut the number of police required to do highway patrol work and cut time in the courts on road traffic offences. We also bite hard into unauthorised motor vehicle usage and radically increase vehicle recovery rates — reducing the cost of vehicle insurance. While the measure does price CO2 it also prices other road-related externalities with greater actual and realtime integrity and because it shifts expenditure private expenditure from sunk costs to marginal costs it underpins more rational usage of motor vehicles and laying the foundations for their less-intensive usage and cleaner air in the here and now. Because public costs (like accident and trauma, police are cut) there’s room for more state service in other key areas of state provision — public transport, housing, education.
If we got that done, the need for a separate carbon price on liquid fuel would be much reduced, with the arguable exception of off-road diesel, petrol, LPG usage.
LO,
I am not bothered about JohnD: I don’t think anything or anyone will budge him from his position. I just don’t like to leave his statements unchallenged where others may read them and take them seriously.
Fran @71,
That all sounds good, if a little off-topic. FWIW, I think the priority is congestion pricing. Next priority is driver compliance, but that can be achieved through low-tech mechanisms: ie speed cameras.
As a matter of principle, I would like tax revenue increasingly collected from “bads” (pollution, congestion, speeding etc) instead of from “goods” (wages, profits etc), so I am with you on that.
As another matter of principle, I don’t like hypothecation. If some is worth doing, then fund it. It doesn’t matter where the tax revenue comes from.
In relation to the post topic, I think a carbon price is adequately reflected in the petrol excise. No need for high-tech solutions there.
In The Age this morning:
Billions spent on fossil fuel incentives
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/billions-spent-on-fossil-fuel-incentives-20110228-1bbsn.html
I reckon we can start here first before we piss off the public on a petrol price rise.
Lefty @21
…the urban-rural cross-subsidy principle. The NBN, and the regional benefits of a CO2 price are GOLD for this agenda.
And on the NBN, when the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built there were exactly 5 cars on the North Shore of Sydney (so says the Harbour Bridge Climb walk leader).
The foresight of the Bridge planners shows up totally the myopia of the NBN nay-sayers.
And the recently completed Adelaide Airport extension is many times greater than current needs.
Fran,
Apart from your “idea” representing micromanagement of peoples lives to an obsessive extent, transponder technology is incapable of achieving what you propose. Even GPS’s aren’t accurate enough to perform many of the tasks on your wish list. A trial of a GPS device to do the speed management was trialed in Woolongong last year or perhaps the year before, and has not been heard of since.
HOWEVER, technology to better control traffic is being developed with a far more ambiscious objective. And that is to replace the driver altogether…autonomous driving systems. A little googling and you will find where the state of the art is now. VERY close. This technology will achieve all of your objectives without the penalising aspect that you seem to enjoy. The bonus is that driver the frustration and fallibility that creates speeding and accidents is eliminated. Autonomous flight is already a reality, but that is fairly simple compared to the task of threading a path through the proliferation of obstacles, and people, at ground level. It is being done though and several test vehicles have just travelled from Europe to China in a demonstration run, entirely autonomously. By allowing the “driver” to release his concentration from controlling the vehicle most of the frustration that leads to speeding, and inefficient energy consumption, is eliminated and the driver is able to utilise his/her travel time in a useful manner ie phoning, texting, accessing, reading, conversing, mentally preparing, etc.
I haven’t looked into the amount of computing power required for autonomous control of vehicles, but I suspect that it will ultimately not be that much greater than a handful of iphones. As the algorithms are developed processing compaction usually leads to quite modest computer power compared to the computer banks required during experimentation. And processors designed for specific tasks are usually cheaper, fast and efficient.
Having said all of that, your repeated desire for universal road user charges is entirely on the nose, threatens freedom of movement, and I will fight that notion visciously.
Yeah baraholka – the ALP wasnt to upside the Libs heads with this one – a serious, practical pitch at the rural and regional vote. Get em fighting a new front. Ally themswlves to the country indies – all themselves proof of the failures of National party – more explcitly.
Flank the bastards. Mess with Tony’s head.
I & U said (in part):
I do, not because it achieves anything in administrative terms but because it wedges opponents of various warranted state programs. We have had perhaps a hundred years of populist whining about “gubbmint taking our money” and it’s about time people began to put both sides of the ledger together.
It’s clear that road usage and health system costs are connected. Let it be so. It’s clear that the drivers (pun intended) of unproductive road usage include urban sprawl and excessive levarage — so let high quality affordable public or similar housing in areas handy to public transport be connected. Let us reduce the per person cost of infrastructure, make common what should be common and leave private what ought be private.
There is a lot of substance in this statement
“so let high quality affordable public or similar housing in areas handy to public transport be connected”
In Sydney where the free market has done the planning we have a disasterous outcome for public transport. There needs to be an entirely new rethink of how we will get around in an oilless, destructive climate impacted world.
I think the solution is in an intelligent remodelling of our communities, and a breakup of the “hub and spoke” current public transport model. I’m imagining that one of the key problems that our system has is the cost of realestate, and a possible solution the consequent loss of community “shape” is to find a zoning formula that creates public and commercial space that is affordable. At present commercial space is only made “affordable” by attracting very large foot traffic numbers. This has the effect of enlarging the commercial service area, and making the provision of locality public transport more difficult. The end result in smaller communities, such as Winmalee where I live, is shopping malls with half the shops unoccupied, ie rents too high for the foot traffic.
Here is an off the wall idea to promote more public transport use. Shopping malls and centres required to operate free or subsidised bus (electric) runs for their service area, with a call feature. Some do, there could be more. When it hits the malls profit line it will become in their interest to shape and promote those services more efficiently to either reduce the cost or increase the customer foot traffic. They might even call for the design of electric busses that are better designed to help people lug their shopping home. They may also run promotions and special sales for their shuttle service customers, something that they do not have any incentive to do at present.
There is some foolishness to shoot down. Fire away.
If they are calling this a carbon tax then I suggest that power utilities refuse to pay it. They are not emitting carbon. Even coal companies do not emit carbon. They dig up coal and transport it.
The government ought to get honest about what they are proposing and calling this a catbon tax is far from honest.
Why is it so difficult to call the tax what it is?
Gillard and Combet should also provide detailed proof of how much Australian temperatures will fall with the imposition of this tax. Surely they know the answer to that question as this the the poit of the tax, is it not?
I have asked Penny Wong this question and she has failed to provide an answer. I pursued the matter through my local member and he advised that after the Copenhagen Conference he would forward me a reply. How long ago was that? I’m still waiting.
The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it just a giant tax grab based on an unproven hypothesis. The electorate deserves more than this.
amortiser@80
I can remember the two major parties being firmly against a carbon (CO2) tax ,at the last election.
What % of Australians voted for a carbon tax?
Is there mandate from the Australian voters?
“unproven hypothesis”?
Do you think that if every economist in the world was warning of a building problem with the integrity of derivatives products and trading, with exact details and precise model results of the consequences for the world’s economies, that we would have had the global financial crisis and the loss on GNP that resulted from that?
CRAIGY, I doubt that anybody who voted Labor in 2010 did so on the basis of no carbon tax, and is outraged about it now.
The people who are outraged are the people who voted Liberal, who relished this whole situation of Labor being stymied and checkmated, and now the buggers have slipped the leash and gone and done something despite great gobbets of confected outrage. What next? To whip up a storm of outrage was to win the debate, surely?
@83
“”"”"”CRAIGY, I doubt that anybody who voted Labor in 2010 did so on the basis of no carbon tax, and is outraged about it now.”"”"”"
So the ALP voters new she was lying,and didn’t care?
Says much about ALP voters.
(And what you “doubt ” , does not a fact, make)
I don’t emit carbon either. I just buy the petrol, start the ignition, put the car in gear and tread on the throttle. It’s the big companies who designed the fuel injection system in my car that are emitting all the carbon.
Amortiser @80,
Just as well for you that the government is not also planning a bullsh*t tax.
“As a matter of principle, I would like tax revenue increasingly collected from “bads” (pollution, congestion, speeding etc) instead of from “goods” (wages, profits etc)”
WTF?
Surely from a carbon efficiency POV speed is a good thing, isn’t it?
I’m not suggesting open slather on road rules, but sneaking that into a discussion about carbon efficiency requires some justification.
Bilby @79
To say that Sydney’s planning is a product of the “the free market” is to ignore the fact that virtually all the roads are built with government funds and users do not have to pay for them directly (or for their externalities). Those roads compete with the public transport system, which does have direct user charges. It’s all highly skewed against public transport, and yet the average motorist thinks that roads somehow “pay for themselves” and that public transport is based on subsidies. Well, it’s all based on subsidies; I’d say more to the road system than to the public transport system.
Simon,
“the fact that virtually all the roads are built with government funds ”
Not so, Simon. Most roads these days are built by land developers who also layout the roading. A friend of mine is a surveyor whose family has a long history in civil construction so I will ask him how long this has been the norm. The government takes resposnsibility for the maintenance of roads once created and for the creation of most main roads, though not all.
So it is true to say that Sydney has been planned by market forces.
FDB @87,
“Surely from a carbon efficiency POV speed is a good thing, isn’t it?”
The faster you drive, the worse your fuel consumption is. Have you never noticed that? It is straightforward physics. The only exception is where you are driving too slow to be in top gear. So I guess your argument might justify speeding in a school zone.
On the other hand, when you are stuck in traffic, your fuel consumption goes up too. Not because you are going slower, but because you are in a low gear and keep stopping and starting.
So, reducing speeding and congestion are both good for fuel efficiency and hence good (other things being equal) for reducing carbon emissions.
Not that that was a connection I was intending to make in my comment.
Autonomous vehicle control? Where is it at? Here is a bit of a look
http://blog.cafefoundation.org/?p=2775
Quite correct I & U. though I suspect FDB was speaking tongue-in-cheek. Had he been serious, it would have amounted to a composition fallacy.
Driving very slowly and periodically stopping is extremely wasteful since inter alia you have to dump the energy you expended getting up to speed. If you can drive steadily at 60kmh in top gear witghout labouring the enguine, you will use a lot less fuel per km. Of course, if you drive steadily at 160kmh in top gear you will use more fuel per km than at 60kmh as the relative advantage of being in top gear and not dumping momentum has vanished and now the value of other physical contraints kick in substantially.
Fran @93,
I was looking for FDB’s tongue on that comment but could not locate it. Perhaps his humour is too dry for me.
Not sure where the composition fallacy is, though, but maybe you are joking too.
The “energy dumping” is an important factor and, I suspect, a reason why – through re-generative braking – electric and hybrid cars are so energy efficient.
The basic structure of a composition fallacy is to assert that the macrocosm shares its properties with the microcosm.
Thus, if 280ppmvCO2 is good, then 560ppmv is twice as good — or something. If denial of access to the sun gives you rickets then sunbaking is simply brilliant. (pun intended) and so on.
So if going slow is fuel inefficient, then going faster must be less so.
Going slow is fuel inefficient for one reason while going fast is fuel inefficient for a completeley different reason (wind resistance which icreases with the square of the speed). There will be an optimal fuel efficient speed for most vehicles, but that is rarely going to match the time-efficiency/accident-risk speed for the occupant. So there are a whole lot of operative conflicts there.
BilB,
I would expect (although I am no expert), that going slow is less of a problem for electric motors than for petrol engines.
So, tying this thread together, we want electric cars running on renewable electricity driven safely by automation.
Quite so, I&U, electric motors only pull from the baterry the energy required to obtain the movement. Internal combustion engines require to be kept turning over above a minimum revolution rate to allow the combustion process to be maintained, and ot overcome the considerable internal friction from the many moving parts. ICE’s, remember lose an average 70% of the fuel as heat which is wasted to the atmosphere.
“So, tying this thread together, we want electric cars running on renewable electricity driven safely by automation”
Optimal and very achieveable, as long as we get on with it immediately.
Remember we may have as few as 20 years of stable global economies due to oil depletion and demand competition. There will come a time when countries decide to retain the bulk of their remaining oil for their own citizen’s use, as Venezuela has.
Re Incurious and Unread at 86:
“Just as well for you that the government is not also planning a bullsh*t tax.”
Instead of engaging in ad hominems it would be more productive to address the points that I made.
Where in all this debate is carbon being taxed? Did you do highschool chemistry at all.
We have been hammered ad nauseum that increasing concentrations of CO2 will result in accelerated golbal warming and consequently environmental catastrophe.
How will a tax on carbon do anything about this supposed problem when the culprit is something completely different? Does Gillard, Combet and the regulars here honestly think that Carbon (C) and Carbon Dioxide are the same thing? Is this what you regard as me spouting bull***t?
Carbon is a black, sooty, dirty substance. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas which is vital for all human life on earth. Carbon emissions have long been reduced if not eliminated from industrial processes in countries like Australia. Why call the tax a Carbon tax? Is it bulls**t to ask such a fundamental question.
If the title of the tax is fundamentally wrong why is not the rationale of this whole exercise questionable?
Is it bull***t to ask what is the expected outcome of the tax being imposed? Why cannot the government provide an explanation that can be tested?
If the government can’t answer those basic questions then it may as well be called a bulls**t tax.
Amortiser,
Sorry, I’m not really sure what your point is.
The “Carbon Tax” is really a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the major one.
Where fuel is taxed based on its carbon content, this is done on the assumption that the fuel will be burnt and so release CO2.
Where carbon is purchased that is not for fuel(eg timber) it will not be taxed.
I’m sure you know all this, which leaves me confused about the point you are trying to make.
Incurious and Unread:
Then why not call it a Carbon Dioxide tax and get the chemistry right? Carbon is not a pollutant and neither is carbon dioxide for that matter. But truth and accuracy is not a priority when it comes to raising government revenue.
If what you say is true and they are taxing the carbon content then I suppose that the carbon tax of say $26 a ton will be only 14/46 of that for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
Pigs will fly too.
On the way to being very wrong, Amortiser, you ask a question worth answering. It is called a Carbon “price”, not a tax, because although the concern is for carbon that arrives in the atmosphere as CO2, carbon can arrive as CH4, methane. Also the carbon price applies both as a debit and a credit where the Carbon is being stored in various other forms. So you see this “carbon price” is not at all bad.
Amortiser:
Hmm … you’re ticking a lot of troll boxes …
BK on Crikey – Our carbon addict tax system
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/03/our-carbon-addict-tax-system-is-stronger-than-a-carbon-price/
“And on current political form, there’s a greater chance of a carbon price than of anyone taking the razor to fossil fuel subsidies.”
Fran @ 102:
So carbon in the form of coal which is dug out of the ground is a pollutant? How so?
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant in your mind only. It causes no harm to human health unless that is all we have left to breathe. It currently constitutes less than .04% of the atmosphere. It is vital for plant life which is vital for human life so how is it a “pollutant”?
I fail to understand how such facts constitute a troll unless you are completely blind to reality.
Oops … delete last Mods … TA
Amortiser said:
Well if it is polluting my mind, then it’s harming my health …
Jokes aside …
False dichotomy …
It can be either, depending on the concentration. Copper (Cu) is essential to human health in microscopic quantities. Copper deficiency can see you die horribly. So can copper poisoning. Too much or too little oxygen and people dies.
CO2 is an essential component in the atmosphere and vital ecosystem services depend on it. But like most things in the ecosystem, too much Co2 disrupts the balance we humans do best with. That makes surplus Co2 i.e Co2 above a certain concentration (arguably above about 280ppmv) a net cost to human well-being and thus a pollutant.
Some definitions of pollution:
the action of contaminating (an environment) especially with man-made waste.
http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers/glimpse11.htm
undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities
befoulment: the state of being polluted
contamination: the act of contaminating or polluting; including (either intentionally or accidentally) unwanted substances or factors
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I hope that helps.
Amortiser @100,
I understand that the carbon price is quoted in terms of dollars per ton of CO2 (or its greenhouse equivalent, for gases other than CO2).
Chemistry is not my strongest point, but I would guess that a tonne of CO2 would contain around a quarter ton of carbon atoms.
Incurious and Unread @100:
My point exactly!! So why is it called a carbon tax when it is a tax on CO2 The carbon content of CO2 is 14/46.
It has to be a deliberate decision to call it a carbon tax rather than a Carbon dioxide tax. This is not a matter of semantics.
Fran @105:
You try to argue that Co2 is a pollutant because man is befouling the atmosphere with it.
Can you tell me the difference between CO2 emitted by termites and CO2 emitted by human activity?
Is the CO2 emitted by termites harmless and that by humans harmful?
BTW the amount of CO2 emitted by the actions of termites far surpasses that emitted by humans by around 10 times. Why are not termites a greater threat to the planet than human action?
Geez amortiser you sound like a disingenuous troll.
kuke@109
And Fran and yourself have resorted to name calling.
Let him speak (type) i say.
Amortiser said:
No … it is largely semantic. It’s called ellipsis. Saying carbon diuoxide all the time becomes tiresome and CH4 — methane (another even more powerful GHG) also contains carbon and has a similar anthropogenic etiology.
Yes. Termites digest organic matter — primarily cellulose drawing chemical energy from it and expelling, inter alia, CO2. In this sense they are no different from all other biota on the planet. Only humans contribute new sources of CO2e to the flux, because by contrast with the case 1000 years ago, we don’t simply feed on organic matter that we find or recycle, but dig up the carbon stores laid down between 360mya and 280mya during the carboiniferous era and then combust it. Termites and every other living thing recycle and we humans augment. Termites are not adding to total inventories. We are.
Craigy Said:
Nobody is stopping him (?) from posting. I said (s)he was ticking a lot of troll boxes. If you say silly things, expect others to so characterise them. Amortiser frequents Catallaxy so it’s hard to imagine (s)he can be offended by what is said here.
Kuke @ 109:
If I am a disingenuous troll why do water utilities not call their charges Hydrogen charges since the product they are charging for is H2O?
Instead of engaging in useless ad hominems why don’t you address the argument raised?
My contributions to this thread have been referred to as bull***t and disingenuous trolls. That is a convenient way of avoiding reasonable questions and says a lot about those making those claims. If the issue is beyond discussion why have a blog thread devoted to it?
Fran was the only one to come close to addressing the issue of the harmfulness of carbon dioxide by likeing it to dangerous levels of copper. At less than .04% carbon dioxide we are far from that gas being at dangerous levels. Growers use CO2 enhanced environments which are multiple times the natural level and work inside those areas quite safely so Fran’s analogy is spurious.
If you have a contrary viewpoint to any matters raised then articulate it. Ad hominems are very unbecoming.
Amortiser said:
The world’s national academies of science and pretty much every actively publishing climate scientist disagrees. Next to that, what you regard as a clear and present danger is utterly moot.
But Fran, it says so on the internet on the internetit must be true.
OT/BTW amortiser, since you are interested in the science of greenhouse gases, methane/co2 ratio is approx 2:1 in Methanogenesis which is the microbial process in which organic matter is assimilated and metabolized by microorganisms which in turn are ‘utilised’ by termites.
What the amortisers in this world are really about is fogging the issue, so they can shirk to pay their due.
If you not prepared to take your heart medication prescribed by your specialist, that’s your problem. Honestly, you can do what ever you like to do on your turf. However, if you play stupid to the consistently raised advice, born in the same sandstone building like your specialists advice, then WE have a problem!
This is not a good time to do a dummy spit or play catch me, too much at stake, like our collective future.
I like the european union commissioner take on the ‘failure’ of their first carbon emmisson measure. IIRC it went something like: “Well, look at it this way, it took us two years to find out where the major weaknesses were in our initial attempt on a massive unprecedented undertaking. We are now much better equipped to introduce legislation that will have real impact and send the right signals. Which is, by the way, more than anyone else has at the moment.”
So it will take time for what ever measure we are going to start off on to settle into an effective and acceptable solution. But let’s get going, the meter flag has gone down a while ago and the clock is ticking. Time is money, as they say.