Carbon Tax!, Get your opinion on! Options

[SquallStrife]

NBN was never going to be finished in one term. Patience padawan.

It won't be finished in your lifetime.

Maybe not.

I've come to accept that some houses in brownfield areas having FTTH is better than none.

Turnbull's Howardised Telstra Mk2 FTTN network is an insult. I'd rather put up with HFC's retarded upload speed than play speed lottery with *DSL.

I'm somewhat at peace with broadband sucking hard for at least the next 10 years. If I don't move house in that time, I'll at least have tolerable download speeds, if nothing else.

This post has been edited by SquallStrife: Aug 23 2012, 02:46 PM

[Director]

nyuk nyuk, The geniuses in Canberra out-clevered again, who'd have thunk?

Link

Aus: Eurocrats laugh at our scheme all the way to bank

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment


IT is easy to find ways to poke fun at the EU and the tendency of its Brussels-based bureaucrats to draft detailed directives on the contents of sausages, the shape of vegetables and many other aspects of everyday life.


But when it comes to designing an emissions trading scheme in a way that protects their international competitiveness while simultaneously encouraging other countries to introduce carbon schemes that will make their mining, manufacturing and farm sectors less competitive, the Europeans are having the last laugh at our expense.

Indeed, the government’s decision to link its carbon tax with the EU’s trading scheme this week underlines just how comprehensively the Europeans have out-manoeuvred, out-negotiated and out-thought the Gillard government at the expense of our national interest.

Take the treatment of the coal sector, Australia’s second largest export.

Under the new linking arrangement, we will have the perverse situation where Australian coal producers will be paying the European carbon price equivalent while European coal producers will not.

That’s because the EU ETS does not even cover methane, the greenhouse gas (known as fugitive emissions) that is emitted during the mining of coal.

So if the government’s Treasury modelling is correct (and the carbon price is indeed $29 per tonne in 2015-16), Australian coal producers will be paying more than $1 billion annually in carbon costs. European coal producers meanwhile will not pay a single euro for their emissions. On the contrary, most of the high cost European coal producers will be receiving public subsidies.

That’s despite the fact Europe produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions from the production of coal than Australia. so, courtesy of the Gillard government, Europe’s producers will gain at our expense while global emissions go up rather than down.

EU industry one, Australian industry nil.

And it is not just the coal sector that has been dudded.

[xyzzy frobozz]

nyuk nyuk, The geniuses in Canberra out-clevered again, who'd have thunk?

Link

Aus: Eurocrats laugh at our scheme all the way to bank

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment


IT is easy to find ways to poke fun at the EU and the tendency of its Brussels-based bureaucrats to draft detailed directives on the contents of sausages, the shape of vegetables and many other aspects of everyday life.


But when it comes to designing an emissions trading scheme in a way that protects their international competitiveness while simultaneously encouraging other countries to introduce carbon schemes that will make their mining, manufacturing and farm sectors less competitive, the Europeans are having the last laugh at our expense.

Indeed, the government’s decision to link its carbon tax with the EU’s trading scheme this week underlines just how comprehensively the Europeans have out-manoeuvred, out-negotiated and out-thought the Gillard government at the expense of our national interest.

Take the treatment of the coal sector, Australia’s second largest export.

Under the new linking arrangement, we will have the perverse situation where Australian coal producers will be paying the European carbon price equivalent while European coal producers will not.

That’s because the EU ETS does not even cover methane, the greenhouse gas (known as fugitive emissions) that is emitted during the mining of coal.

So if the government’s Treasury modelling is correct (and the carbon price is indeed $29 per tonne in 2015-16), Australian coal producers will be paying more than $1 billion annually in carbon costs. European coal producers meanwhile will not pay a single euro for their emissions. On the contrary, most of the high cost European coal producers will be receiving public subsidies.

That’s despite the fact Europe produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions from the production of coal than Australia. so, courtesy of the Gillard government, Europe’s producers will gain at our expense while global emissions go up rather than down.

EU industry one, Australian industry nil.

And it is not just the coal sector that has been dudded.

That's great Director...

A "genius in Canberra", Senator Mathias Cormann, Liberal Party Senator for Western Australia, writes a negative opinion piece in the Australian about ALP carbon policy. This then gets a reposting on a website where gullible people like yourself lap it up, like a hungry dog over a bowl of Pal, because it's not a "mainstream" site.

SHOCK HORROR! Well done scoop! You've bagged the story of the century, and broken it right here on the Atomic forums!

How is it that you've not bagged a gig on Today Tonight? This is journalism par excellence!

Nyuk nyuk indeed!

EDIT - "a" mainstream site.

This post has been edited by xyzzy frobozz: Sep 5 2012, 12:57 AM

[Director]

nyuk nyuk, The geniuses in Canberra out-clevered again, who'd have thunk?

Link

Aus: Eurocrats laugh at our scheme all the way to bank

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment


IT is easy to find ways to poke fun at the EU and the tendency of its Brussels-based bureaucrats to draft detailed directives on the contents of sausages, the shape of vegetables and many other aspects of everyday life.


But when it comes to designing an emissions trading scheme in a way that protects their international competitiveness while simultaneously encouraging other countries to introduce carbon schemes that will make their mining, manufacturing and farm sectors less competitive, the Europeans are having the last laugh at our expense.

Indeed, the government’s decision to link its carbon tax with the EU’s trading scheme this week underlines just how comprehensively the Europeans have out-manoeuvred, out-negotiated and out-thought the Gillard government at the expense of our national interest.

Take the treatment of the coal sector, Australia’s second largest export.

Under the new linking arrangement, we will have the perverse situation where Australian coal producers will be paying the European carbon price equivalent while European coal producers will not.

That’s because the EU ETS does not even cover methane, the greenhouse gas (known as fugitive emissions) that is emitted during the mining of coal.

So if the government’s Treasury modelling is correct (and the carbon price is indeed $29 per tonne in 2015-16), Australian coal producers will be paying more than $1 billion annually in carbon costs. European coal producers meanwhile will not pay a single euro for their emissions. On the contrary, most of the high cost European coal producers will be receiving public subsidies.

That’s despite the fact Europe produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions from the production of coal than Australia. so, courtesy of the Gillard government, Europe’s producers will gain at our expense while global emissions go up rather than down.

EU industry one, Australian industry nil.

And it is not just the coal sector that has been dudded.

That's great Director...

A "genius in Canberra", Senator Mathias Cormann, Liberal Party Senator for Western Australia, writes a negative opinion piece in the Australian about ALP carbon policy. This then gets a reposting on a website where gullible people like yourself lap it up, like a hungry dog over a bowl of Pal, because it's not a "mainstream" site.

SHOCK HORROR! Well done scoop! You've bagged the story of the century, and broken it right here on the Atomic forums!

How is it that you've not bagged a gig on Today Tonight? This is journalism par excellence!

Nyuk nyuk indeed!

EDIT - "a" mainstream site.

And in your rush to make your usual ad hominem reply you forgot to actually explain which of the salient details in the article are not true.

This post has been edited by Director: Sep 5 2012, 07:02 AM

[Gharphield]

Not really Director, I think his post sums up that article that you're nyuk nyuk'ing about quite well. How about you go and find an article that's well balanced and post that?

I know it's easier to find the fluff that you posted, but it's the internet :)

[Director]

Not really Director, I think his post sums up that article that you're nyuk nyuk'ing about quite well. How about you go and find an article that's well balanced and post that?

I know it's easier to find the fluff that you posted, but it's the internet :)

So that's two ad hominem replies and still no information about what in the article I posted was not true?

It shouldn't be that hard, it's the internet after all.

Under the new linking arrangement, we will have the perverse situation where Australian coal producers will be paying the European carbon price equivalent while European coal producers will not.

True or not?

EU ETS does not even cover methane, the greenhouse gas (known as fugitive emissions) that is emitted during the mining of coal.

True or not?

So if the government’s Treasury modelling is correct (and the carbon price is indeed $29 per tonne in 2015-16), Australian coal producers will be paying more than $1 billion annually in carbon costs. European coal producers meanwhile will not pay a single euro for their emissions. On the contrary, most of the high cost European coal producers will be receiving public subsidies.

True or not?

Europe produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions from the production of coal than Australia.

True or not?





This post has been edited by Director: Sep 5 2012, 07:49 AM

[xnatex]

I wonder how much carbon tax that massive dutch trawler pulling up the ocean will have to pay

[Director]

They'll probably get away with tossing a few kippers at parliament house.

[Director]

How the rest of the world see our carbon criminals.

It was never about CO2 - it was always about MP's and their mates making moola.

Nice little real estate scam that one too.

[xnatex]

electricity bill came in and is only $150 more then usual, the air tastes cleaner already

[TinBane]

electricity bill came in and is only $150 more then usual, the air tastes cleaner already

And most of it will be a result of infrastructure charges. Bear in mind, that electricity prices tripled over five years before the carbon tax.
But hey, all increases in price must be carbon tax, amiright?

[xnatex]

electricity bill came in and is only $150 more then usual, the air tastes cleaner already

And most of it will be a result of infrastructure charges. Bear in mind, that electricity prices tripled over five years before the carbon tax.
But hey, all increases in price must be carbon tax, amiright?

Im just blaming whatever the last thing is that has been chucked into the mix to contribute to my electricity bill, unless there has been any other taxes slumped in there im pretty sure the last thing that increased it was the carbon tax.

But you can point me in the direction of whatever else is increasing it so i can direct my anger at that too

[TinBane]

Im just blaming whatever the last thing is that has been chucked into the mix to contribute to my electricity bill, unless there has been any other taxes slumped in there im pretty sure the last thing that increased it was the carbon tax.

But you can point me in the direction of whatever else is increasing it so i can direct my anger at that too

Sure, because blaming the carbon tax reinforces your pre-existing views, and it's up to other people to do research to inform you?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-a...1-1226444275419

"The Australian revealed in June that state governments were planning to extract $32bn in revenue from their utilities over the next four years, with electricity generators and retailers some of the biggest contributors."

So I'm guessing this is NSW? In Victoria it's all privatised.

"Ms Gillard will cite the dividend payments to state governments as a key reason for the price shock being felt by ordinary households, as they help cover the cost of the state dividends."

"Ms Gillard's challenge to the states is based on a federal government analysis that finds that NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell is counting on $1.4bn in revenue from the state's electricity network this financial year, equivalent to $515 per household."

"The analysis says Queensland is expecting $760 million or about $431 per household and Western Australia $195m or $216 per household."

"While the carbon tax led to a price jump last month, regulators have approved long-term price increases in several states because of heavy spending on network infrastructure."


Also, in light of the links, maybe my "tripled over five years" is wrong, maybe that's in reference to network investment.

But basically, some states make a lot of money out of a monopoly or near monopoly on energy production.
Likewise, many of these states pass the cost of upgrading infrastructure on through pricing, and the "cost" to the electricity providers is therefore in the zero to not much range. They don't need to compete, they just pass it on. As a result, why WOULDN'T they spend big on new shiney power whatsits that only marginally help the customer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-02/regu...mpanies/4172132

"The Australian Energy Regulator says it has noticed some unusually high prices in the wholesale electricity market since the introduction of the carbon tax."

"The watchdog says it will continue to monitor power generators amid accusations that Macquarie Generation in New South Wales and others in Victoria and South Australia have been manipulating prices.

The regulator has recognised that spot prices can fluctuate wildly as generators withhold supply during times when demand is high which can drive up costs.

The manager of research at the St Vincent De Paul Society, Gavin Dufty, has been tracking retail electricity prices in Victoria.

He has released a report which shows household bills have gone up by as much as 80 per cent in the past four years and are expected to keep rising.

Mr Dufty says about 8 per cent of the price hike can be attributed to the carbon tax."

That's 8 percent of 80 percent, or 6.4 percentage points of increase, this guy reckons are a result of the carbon tax. Of course, the labour figures factored in tax offsets etc, so this is the "raw" cost, but is not a "fair" look at the impact of the carbon tax.

"'We're just about to release reports for New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia and each state has a different story to tell,' he said." - Most likely because of the market distortion, as per the above article.

"We are starting to see, well in New South Wales and Queensland, it is much more about poles and wires pricing and in South Australia again it is poles and wires rather than a whole lot of other factors at play." - I'm guessing it's a reference to the cost increases caused by recouping (quickly) investment in hardware?

"Mr Headberry says Australia's largest power generator, Macquarie Generation, is one company which has withheld supply recently, causing prices to rise suddenly."


Everyone that knows anything about power prices, have been watching them go up for YEARS prior to the legislation and pricing of the carbon tax.
The problem is greedy governments, lack of competition, and perhaps also lack of regulation of the generators, which allows them to inappropriately limit supply to push up spot prices.

EDIT: Another big impact is just the cost of ugprading the grid, which we will all bear anyway. The biggest cost in the proposed plan to have Australia on zero emissions for electiricy by 2020 was upgrades to the grid, not cost of generation.

This post has been edited by TinBane: Oct 5 2012, 11:06 AM

[unco_tomato]

electricity bill came in and is only $150 more then usual, the air tastes cleaner already

We also just came out of winter, but let's forget that.

[Director]

The biggest cost in the proposed plan to have Australia on zero emissions for electiricy by 2020 was upgrades to the grid, not cost of generation.

So carbon dioxide tax by proxy then?

[TinBane]

The biggest cost in the proposed plan to have Australia on zero emissions for electiricy by 2020 was upgrades to the grid, not cost of generation.

So carbon dioxide tax by proxy then?

No.
The point is that the biggest cost on major reform of power generation to the extent that we could hit zero emissions for CO2, is reform of grid hardware that will be necessary over the next 20 years either way. And a large amount of the cost rises we are experienced are to do with upgrading infrastructure anyway.

[Director]

The biggest cost in the proposed plan to have Australia on zero emissions for electiricy by 2020 was upgrades to the grid, not cost of generation.

So carbon dioxide tax by proxy then?

No.
The point is that the biggest cost on major reform of power generation to the extent that we could hit zero emissions for CO2, is reform of grid hardware that will be necessary over the next 20 years either way. And a large amount of the cost rises we are experienced are to do with upgrading infrastructure anyway.

Yes I agree, I happen to be very close to someone in the regulatory side of that industry and the upgrading of infrastructure (which has been going on up here for the last few years anyway) is a LARGE cost that has been passed onto the consumer. Now that the work has been done though, will the price of power reduce in the next few years? (he asked, laughingly)

And if the goal of zero emissions is met by 2020 or whenever does that mean there will be NO carbon dioxide tax applied to our power bills from that point on?

[TinBane]

Yes I agree, I happen to be very close to someone in the regulatory side of that industry and the upgrading of infrastructure (which has been going on up here for the last few years anyway) is a LARGE cost that has been passed onto the consumer. Now that the work has been done though, will the price of power reduce in the next few years? (he asked, laughingly)

And if the goal of zero emissions is met by 2020 or whenever does that mean there will be NO carbon dioxide tax applied to our power bills from that point on?

We haven't even nearly upgraded the grid to the extent that we will need to. In fact, there are fears that a lot of the costs are being passed on to consumers for upgrades that aren't necessary or useful.
The goal of zero emissions by 2020 won't be met, but as we improve the carbon footprint of our power generation then yes, the tax will apply less and less. However we aren't targeting zero emissions, but we are being price-gouged like we are. So it's best of both worlds (if you are a power generator). A weak carbon tax, not much in the way of set targets, and the opportunity to buy optional add-ons to the grid and not pay for them.