« profile & posts archive

This author has written 782 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

16 responses to “Has the carbon price worked?”

  1. Lefty E

    Good post Rob. Combet’s office suggests the 2nd quarter of emission reductions in electricity sector brings it to 8.6%, but not official yet. Some of that is RET, and some decreased usage, which appears to corrrelate with the timing of the tax.

    I think its fair to say to CO2 price is working, albeit in combination with other policies.

  2. Hoa Minh Truong

    Carbon Tax created by broken promise of Julia Gillard government and the Greens pressure. Labor minor government wants to obtain power, so they have to listen the outsiders: Greens and the other three independents, Tony Windsor, Robert Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie.
    The carbon tax is a modern of socialism, that is capitalist beaten, but they apply flexible into the democratic country by tax, tax and tax…there is not only on dioxide, but the mining tax too and they would devise the other taxes to pinch people pocket. If the pupil of Karl Marx being into the country like China, Vietnam, North Korea…they have no need to tax, but the army, public security guard force just come to house to house, then castigate the property, arrest the rich people and sending to the reeducation camp. Unfortunately, Labor government has applied the capitalist beaten policy into a wrong place, so they have to receive the damage control by the bad opinion poll, actually Labor lost the support from the most important sate’s election in Queensland, N.S.W, Victoria, Northern territory and recently in WA.
    Carbon tax has been effecting into the living cost by electric, water, gas..hike. However the carbon tax is just a reason that causes the deal between Labor and the other parts, it is not acceptable by people, a top job’s lover, Julia Gillard cost the Labor lost and people harmed. On the other hand, carbon tax made by a small group in parliament houses, it oppose against the democratic rules” majority defeats minority”, the Australia constitution has turned ugly, the electoral rules have been carrying the loophole.
    Carbon tax changes nothing the global climate while the most dioxide releasing country as China, US, Russia, India ignore, so the most climate conference hadn’t result, the most super power state just promised.
    Therefore, the carbon tax could harm the economy and national interest, the company move to offshore for avoiding the cost product, but the product made overseas still release the same dioxide quantity as in Australia, but the worker in Australia lost job the Union strike.
    Carbon tax harms than good, it is not effect people, but Labor has been damaging, the federal election on September 14, 2013 will answer to how people anger…

  3. akn

    Without citing numbers or any figures I reckon what has worked is Abbott’s carbon tax scare campaign. All round the bush where I live people are going off grid and installing solar/wind/battery combinations; they do this because public discussion of power marketing, a lot of it inspired by Abbott’s end of civilisation ranting, has taught us that paying for ‘gold plating’ the grid is a rort so we’re opting out as quickly as poss.

  4. michaelfstanley

    Hard to disagree with Hoa Minh

  5. paul burns

    Well, if the early signs are good, that’s all I need to know. My eyes tend to glaze with this sort of stuff after a while and its great when I can get to work out what’s going on without a brow-creasing effort. ( – brow-creasing – eek! Gawd, I been watching my Spartacus DVDs too much.)
    Thanks, Robert.

  6. michaelfstanley

    On a more serious note I think akn is onto something as well.

    A lot of businesses could have been prompted by the tax to look at measures that already made sense (or will in time to come). This is of course a way the tax would be working if true.

    Some people caught up in the hype might be investing in efficiency/alternate sources even when it doesn’t make sense.

    Is there any kind of useful data on investment in energy efficiency/conservation etc?

  7. paul burns

    People might also be going off grid because they want to do their little bit toward stopping the impact of climate change. Personally, I think its too late and we’ve reached the tipping point. That’s not just an intuitive thing. There have been one or two items in the MSM (I think; might have been science mags) lately about geo-engineering. Which undoubtedly means, to my suspicious mind, that somewhere the ruling elites have worked out we’re already cactus when it comes to climate change, carbon pricing isn’t going to work in time so they better come up with something else quick if they want to keep their hands on the levers of power.

  8. Ootz

    AKN, according to my local renewable energy person, there is a trend on this off grid business up here in FNQ too. These come in containerized units, thus are transportable, can be moved or even hired out. Better investment in one of these than in Super backing carbon.

    Since the Potsdam Institute in the PwC report deemed an annual 5% CO2 reduction as a recommended level to stand a reasonable chance to stay below 2°C warming, then in that measure the toxic tax is a failure.

  9. Tim Macknay

    Paul, I don’t think it requires a suspicious mind to recognise that moves to reduce global emissions aren’t happening quickly enough to head off the risk of a level of warming the IPCC has described as dangerous. I think everyone working or engaged in the fields of climate science and climate policy would acknowledge that.

  10. paul burns

    Robert,
    It was very recent. Last week or a couple of days ago I think. But I had read about it before then now and then with a kind of morbid fascination. You will probably recall my deep pessimism on any body actually getting their acts together to do anything effective to stop CC and how it (the lack of effective action) depresses me which is why I rarely comment on climate posts here or elsewhere. But I do lurk.
    Tim, yep, but my suspicions are to do with the world’s politicians looking for ways to cover themselves and keep hold of their power and their coal/oil/etc money. I’m a gloomy old soul on this topic.

  11. John D

    Many people are starting to realize that renewables are actually saving money because they are replacing high cost daytime power and peaking power rather than average priced or base load power. For example, this article in REnewEconomylooks to at the impact of the growth in rootop solar and estimates that, for a feed in tariff of 44 cents/kWh, was actually saving the average Queensland householder $65/year. Unfortunately the numerically challenged Qld government has been claiming that the feed in tariff is costing householders $240/yr on the simplistic basis that the feed in tariff is higher than what householders pay for power.

  12. Lefty E
  13. Brian

    Combet answered a Dorothy Dixer in parliament about this one today. In addition to the emissions reduction he emphasised that a million low earners had been taken out of the tax system and 7 million had received a tax cut because of the reduction in the tax threshold.

    A couple of weeks ago Tony Windsor asked a question to let the parliament know about developments in beef processing in his electorate. Last year Teys Australia was whingeing about the impact on its beef processing facilities. But they’d set up a “Utilities Reduction Teams with the sole objective of off-setting the increase in the price of energy with the use of energy improvements”, a fact ignored by Catallaxy.

    Now from the Northern Daily Leader and a Windsor press release Teys and Bindaree Beef have used their ingenuity to reduce emissions, create energy, fertiliser and other stuff.

  14. Brian

    Further to John D @ 13, I think the fact that he was rung up by a power company offering more than 44c for solar power shows that the utilities are deliberately telling lies about solar increasing the cost of electricity to other users.