Playing the carbon numbers game
The focus on really big and scary numbers from the anti-carbon pricing brigade shows no sign of abatement. But perhaps the ability of their target audience to accept and absorb these numbers is finally reaching capacity.
The newly formed Australian Trade Industry Alliance has taken a leaf out of the Tony Abbott political handbook, and something from the climate deniers’ bag of tricks, and decided not to let facts get in the way of a good scare campaign.
Its newly launched TV advertisements latch on to two numbers that seem shocking enough: the $4.9 billion supposedly raised by the EU emissions trading scheme over the last six years, and the $71 billion to be raised by the Australian version over the coming six years.
It’s certainly true that the Australian scheme seeks to be more robust than the soft-starting and error-ridden EU scheme, but you need to compare apples with apples. The ATIA number for the EU does not include the permits that were handed out for free, while the Australian number includes all permits, including those handed back to emitters and used to compensate consumers and industry elsewhere.
The labor government could well stand accused of recycling, but not for going for the sort of money grab described by this coalition of manufacturing companies, miners and small businesses. And, as the Climate Institute points out, if ATIA wanted to use a number for future revenue from the EU scheme to compare with Australia, then it would need to choose a number between $143 and $296 billion – and that still does not include the permits given out for free. But that presumably would be less effective.
But even as this campaign is launched, the government will take some comfort from the latest Newspoll results, which show that sentiment towards the carbon pricing package may finally be turning. Support for a carbon price, after sitting at just 30 per cent for three months, has jumped to 36 per cent. Opposition has fallen from 59 per cent to 53 per cent.
Labor would not want to go to an election with those sort of numbers, but that’s not the plan. It merely has to sit tight. The Labor government has made it clear that it was not expecting any sort of miraculous recovery in the polls once the details had been unveiled, but it was important that the policy package at least stemmed the slide. The strategy is to get to the point of implementation, in July next year, when it is hoped it will be such a non-event (as it has been in New Zealand and Europe), that voters will wonder what the fuss was all about it.
The first part of that strategy appears to have been achieved. The government will also take some comfort from polls such as that conducted by Essential Media a week ago, which suggests that much of the opposition to the carbon price is based around either ignorance of the scheme, or a simple repetition of the slogans from those that oppose it.
The Essential Media poll, conducted a week after the release of the carbon pricing details, showed 39 per cent support for carbon pricing (up from 35 per cent a week earlier), and 49 per cent opposition (down from 53 per cent).
However, only 17 per cent considered themselves to be well informed about the scheme, and 68 per cent thought it would lead to a big rise in the cost of living.
That is something for the government to play with. Little by little, as government ministers criss-cross the country trying to explain it in detail, Labor may start to get some traction – even if it does mean that climate change minister Greg Combet, who appears to be the most effective in the role, might have to talk to everyone in the country in person.
Still, the best communicator on the subject remains Malcolm Turnbull, who is not burdened with having to sell the details of a policy, but whose oratory skills means he is the most effective when talking about the need to have one. Certainly, he appears to be regarded as the most potent threat by the anti-carbon price brigade, judging by the comments on talk-back radio and the blogosphere which forms the rump of the climate denier movement that Abbott has been so keen to exploit.
That leads to another interesting bit of data from the Essential Media poll, which found that 59 per cent agreed with the proposition that “politicians should just get on with taking action on climate change.” That is the response that will give the Coalition most cause for angst in the future.
The tenor of the government advertising – and its focus on clean energy and a green economy – is also interesting. The Green Economy is often dismissed in some quarters as a mirage, or little more than pleasing jargon, but it’s worth remembering the conclusions from the 500-page Green Economy report produced by the UN earlier this year.
Broadly, it suggested that an investment of 1-2 per cent of GDP, would deliver more economic growth and employment compared to the business-as-usual scenario, and would yield significantly more environmental and social benefits.
The biggest risk to global economies is maintaining the status quo, and not taking action. And that risk appears to be broadly understood.
Comments on this article
Yes, it's not about the Numbers- they are just a distraction
Christine Sutherland @12:28, you are quite right of course, though don't forget the Govt. doesn't really care about the numbers ( which it cann't get right even if it tried), or about emissions reduction globally. It is all about establishing the principle of a price on carbon, in practise. Once charging is established the actual price can be hiked almost at will, to suit any unexpected oversight , of which there are bound to be many, in the setting up of the bureaucratic structures to administer & control us as the UN and it's willing cohorts in National Govts are so keen to do.
A price on Carbon is already having devastating effects on industry in the EEU while accelerating the shift in economic production to the Far East & China, where they can burn all they like.
Our politician's loyalties are now well & truly divided , if not lost to the Nation entirely, by the temptation ( or is it fear of not having one) of a place in the emerging Global structures of Government, which the UN so deftly tried & failed to introduce at Copenhagen in Dec.2009. Bureaucracies can never be defeated though, and most of these same bureaucracies were brought in by stealth a year later, in the smallprint of their annual jolly, this time at Cancun.
Carbon Numbers Game
Christine Sutherland - agree with your sentiments entirely. It is very hard to assess this Governments proposals objectively on anything, against their background of abysmal economic mismanagement.
Unfortunately Giles continues to give his biased views referring to the Oppositions "scare campaign" and "bag of tricks". The only scare campaign is from the Government elevating this issue to top priority by making it an urgent problem so they can push their futile solution ( for ulterior motives I suspect).
The most scary statement that Abbott can be accused of is reminding us that in the time we reduce our emissions by 5% China's will be going thru the roof - which is a fact that should scare and which the Government should attempt to comprehend.
I expect Climate Spectator to give a balanced and objective view and it is failing to deliver dismally. At least the Comments section is still worth reading and proves that journos have very little influence on the common sense of the public.
Carbon Numbers Game
A carbon tax is a non-solution to a non-problem but some people cannot see the wood for the trees.
One thing is certain, $23 per tonne is just to get the legislation in place and may or may not be burdensome. However, this is only the thin end of the wedge, when the legislation is in place future increases will be by regulation and there will be no control by Parliament or anyone else. This could well mean $150 per tonne or twice that by 2050. The sky is the limit. The Greens already want $40 to $50 per tonne and according to Bob Brown they are the Government, all 14% of them. There will be no compensation then.
playing th carbon numbers game
The best time to something is when there is enough money to do it. Now is the time. We are lucky in that regard.
when times get tougher for others, we will already have embarked on new strategies and business ventures as some companies in different countries have already started (IE: germany and their renewable energy companies...Note announcements from CFU and DYE on the stock exchange)
We are already leading in many areas because we are a country that CAN do a lot with sun and wind.
Queensland is upset that their royalties may be diminished by the cost that companies must pay for their carbon tax. The miners too. But then....they are the polluters....and it is time they did something about it ...instead of just talking about it. The coal industry put up 1 billion dollars for research and development for cleaner output....and have spent very little in the last 4 years of that money. Now they must do something with the money....to cut their costs in carbon emissions....
And remember that is what this is all about....getting industries to change their attitudes....and do something about it....and now is the time...now is the time they are making heaps of money...and can do something for OUR country.
Playing the numbers game
Numbers can say anything depending on how the questions are asked. Yes the majority of people want to decrease carbon but Julia has lost touch with her power base and her plans with the help of Abbot are striking fear into the heart of Australians. Australians are being told they are wealthy and can afford to pay more for things and those who aren't rich will get a tax break. We are in a two speed economy. Manufacturing is almost dead. The cattle industry is in trouble. Retail and small business are hurting. Small business is the biggest employer in Australia. There are a large number of labor voters and those in lower paid jobs who know their jobs are on the line. What is a tax break if you have no job; especially for those already struggling with the present increases in electricity and food prices. Then to know that the great green plan while is is good to try to do something, will do little in the overall situation, does not engender enthusiasm for the idea.
Andrew , you need a holiday !
Pardon me but at no time have I claimed to be an ethicist !
I seem to remember Gillard 'promising to govern for all Australians ' during her campaigning. If that doesn't create a MORAL obligation then I don't know what does.Of course,she also promised NOT to introduce a carbon tax , so perhaps she doesn't feel a moral obligation to anybody or anything.Nevertheless,she still has a LEGAL obligation as PM to govern equitably.
As for the use of uppercase.......I like to stress some points because I have found that some people fail to read or comprehend what I have written & then choose to misquote me. ( YOU would think YOU would choose a better source wouldn't you. )
I am sure that I am not confused at all. Tribalism is the basic human trait that causes one to act in the best interests of ones own , & if you don't possess it yourself then that says more about you being confused than me.
A moral obligation allows society to function with a sense of right & wrong ( perhaps even justice ! ? )
The Numbers Game
The numbers game indeed. One thing this government is notorious for is consistently getting the numbers wrong - their track record in this is appalling. It's no wonder that the electorate views their prognostications with abject horror.
Fact: yes we need to clean up.
Fact: there is not a shred of evidence that a carbon tax will achieve this
Fact: there is strong evidence that our economy, with retail, manufacturing, tourism, and real estate practically "belly up", cannot bear one more assault
This government is actively attempting not only to stifle debate, but to punish it. This is a government which took over the news hour of our national broadcaster to deliver a propaganda festival on the carbon tax, presenting exclusively positive viewpoints.
This government is a despotic disgrace to democracy.
Australia's moral obligations - An ethics expert as well??
Now Trev's an EXPERT on ETHICS and typing in UPPER CASE in lieu of an argument - but it doesn't make any difference Trev, it's all still specious nonsense (that's NONSENSE Trev).
Which ethical framework or theorist would you be basing your totally unargued claims on (I don't recall Plimer getting into this territory so you can't use him this time). I had a look at the major players in the ethical traditions and couldn't find anything that came close. Way down at the shallowest end of the pool I thought maybe Ayn Rand came close but her egomaniacal narcissism couldn't find a moral obligation to anything other than self so even she couldn't supply a rationale. You sure you're not confusing moral obligations with tribalism?
Ignorance & concealing continues
Bill Koutalianos says the carbon numbers game relies on ignorance and concealing as many numbers as possible. He then quotes Paul Sheehan's article in the smh which has cost figures which show wind and solar is massively more expensive than coal and gas. A brief look at the Productivity Commission report from which those figures were obtained indicates that while Sheehan managed to get the figures right for coal and gas, he mysteriously overstates by a factor of 10 for the costs for wind and solar. Funny that.
See Box 4.1 of http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109830/carbon-prices.pdf
Responsible Use of Statistics
Giles, agree with your point about those ads comparing $4.9 billion in European emission trading scheme revenues vs the $71 billion for Australia. You pointed out that the comparison was not 'apples to apples' as, very significantly, the credits were not done on a comparative basis. What is more, the comparison should be on the same time scale over the next six years: Australia compared to Europe.
In my opinion, the comparison was quite amateur and I believe too often those in opposition/government use statistics in an irresponsible way to prove a point; perhaps thinking that the populace won't pick up on the exaggeration. Those in elected offices are miscalculating.
This is what they should have done: comapred next six years on a per capita basis. Europe has 300 odd million people compared to 22 million for Australia. So using per capita emissions scheme revenues - even if the Australia emissions revenues are the same as in Europe - the Australians would be extracting from polluters more than 10 times as much than the Europeans on a per capita basis. That is doing our share!
Playing the carbon numbers game .Australia's moral obligation.
The government of Australia has a primary MORAL OBLIGATION to it's own citizens. Once THEY are taken care of there is then an implied obligation to others based on purely altuistic human relations.
BUT NOT UNTIL the Australian's problems are resolved & that usually takes some insight & skill & , often , time & money.
There are many obvious problems here but we find that most of these are proving too difficult for the 'bureaucrats' to engage with , or better still , solve. It is far easier to distract people with side-issues ( like climate change & 'carbon pollution' & 'clean energy' solutions & a 'carbon tax' ) than to face up to the enormous failures of most long-standing problems. The whole 'carbon pollution' etc.has NOT been proven to be a problem & yet we are being presented with 'the solution' as a tax ! Not a single molecule of CO2 will be prevented from being released by this scheme................so it is obvious that the agenda is not ecological BUT financial. (Hence all the support from 'economists-cum-climate-scientists' for this insane tax ! )
Chris Cooper : The 'equally wonderful standard of living' in Europe has been financed on borrowed funds.Now that many countries are being asked to pay back their loans their standard of living is rapidly deteriorating & in some economies 'a cave' will probably become a luxury !
And as for Australia being the 'clever country'.........a joke !
It goes together with Hawke's "No child will be living in poverty by 1990 " failure.
Let's hope this tax-attempt fails too.
Australia has a moral obligation
Peter Lang: How can Australia bargain to reduce world emissions if we - one of the world's richest countries - simply do nothing? India or China would laugh at our requests!!!
I'm currently in Europe and find myself having to explain the selfish and slobby views of my fellow countrymen. No longer the Clever Country - no we're the selfish country!
Emissions per capita in most European countries are less than half of an Australian's - they have an equally wonderful standard of living, and actually don't live in caves!
Bring It On!!!
Greg Combet won't need to talk to me. I'm 100% persuaded!!
Here's an excellent link explaining the Government's pricing mechanism on CO2 equivalent pollution: http://www.carbontax.net.au/
Simple Answers to Peter Lang's Questions
Q1. Exactly the same amount as the coallition's policy - only cheaper and with the ability to scale up if required.
Q2. Exactly the same amount as the coallition's policy - only cheaper and with the ability to scale up if required.
Q3. Exactly the same amount as the coallition's policy - only cheaper and with the ability to scale up if required.
Q4. Less than the ridiculous assumption that underpin the coallition policy.
Q5. Nuclear is NOT the least cost option when all real costs are taken into account (storage, security, insurance etc.). This is a lie that Peter Lang chooses to continue to push time and time again.
Answers to Questions remain Unanswered!
Peggy Balfour - The link you offered does not work.
David Edmunds - Your attempt to answer Peter Lang's quite valid and straight forward questions failed spectacularly.
Glen Merrett - Logic dictates that the development of any form of power generation technology (including other forms of renewable technology) will, by necessity, create initial construction effort and consequences.
Some 80% of France's power is already generated reliably & safely by nuclear technology and, (not with standing the recent difficulties in Japan & Russia years ago - those killed, hurt or maimed pale into insignifficance by the numbers killed/injured globally on our roads each year - what would you do, ban all cars? It's all about risk) it is used extensively by many other countries.
The old bogey of having to store radioactive waste for 'thousands of years' is changing with development of new nuclear technology based upon Thorium power generation - see here http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 for more information. It may even use spent nuclear rods as a fuel source!
I think this is where we should also be directing our reasearch dollars so we can compare the reliability and cost effectiveness of all renewable energy options.
In the meantime, let's not panic about coal fired power stations. They are markedly cleaner nowadays than their predecessors. We've no shortage of the best heat generating coal in the world that can readily provide Australia with reliable, cost effective power until the nuclear alternative based upon Thorium is developed.
Facts? The Govt TVC! On average people will be better off!
The information campaign TVCs ... Images and emotional manipulation .. not one fact .. all done well in advance of the so called final deal. Plus researched well in advance as well!!
Using averages to lie or distort the truth about impact on people's household budgets. If half are better off .. half are worse off. If 90% are not worse off on average then some households are going to get a real whammy.
Having Treasury Model the impacts at $20 a tonne instead of $23 just says to me that some of the cost curves must have a serious exponential kicker at over $20 a tonne!!!
Anyone get the sheer lunacy of claiming that the proof of no impact on the coal industry in Australia is billions being invested to ship coal offshore to be burnt to the advantage of some other economy .. because coal fired power is so cheap!
Plus if the UN idea is so great doesn't this suggest that the best solution is simply to invest 1 to 2% of GDP directly in the new energy economy? If it is so important add 2% to the GST ... and you will have $8billion a year to invest without the money merry-go-round and all of the nonsense that is currently peddaled as economic rationalism!
Or linking the crazy convoluted Gillard/Swann/Brown carbon tax with creating a new green energy future for Australia.
Coal $79 per megawatt hour, solar $4004
The carbon numbers game relies on ignorance and concealing as many numbers as possible from public view. The CSIRO snapshot focussed on a misleading block diagram of 5 decades with each decade warmer than the previous. This diagram concealed the cyclical nature of temperature movements over that time frame. Looking back further we see a similar pattern of concealment, with the obliteration of the medieval warming period which had appeared in the IPCC's 1995 report. It was replaced by the infamous "hockey stick" graph of their 2001 report. That report projected temperatures shooting up to the top right hand corner of the graph and yet the past decade's satellite temperature data indicate a flat trend, perhaps with a slight cooling. This hardly fits with the CO2 causes warming theory. In earlier times this would have been deemed a failed theory. In the name of leading the world into following a failed theory, we are encouraged to ignore the minuscule or negligible effect of Australia's proposed 5% reductions in emissions. We ignore our minor global contribution, in the context of mankind's minor contribution to annual CO2 production. We ignore the benefits of a theoretical increase in temperatures and increase in atmospheric CO2 to increasing world food crop production. We're asked to accept rising power costs as identified by the Productivity Commission which "show the cost of electricity generation last year broke down this way: coal power $79 per megawatt hour; gas $97; wind $1502; solar $4004." (quoted from today's SMHarticle "Labor all tied up in red and green tape").
Claims the Coalition's Direct Action No Cost to Taxpayers
Funding for the Coalition's direct action proposal we are told will come from government spending cuts. Tony Abbott has to tell us what government spending will be cut. Schools, universities, hospitals and roads are the usual soft targets for Government razor gangs.
How many jobs will be lost in the sectors with reduced government spending? If government spending on these services is cut the taxpayer will have to take up the slack directly.
In response to: The questions
In response to:
The questions that should be askedSubmitted by Peter Lang on Mon, 2011-07-25 11:39.
Nuclear power is not a reduced emission way to produce electricity.
There is construction, maintenance and waste.
Waste from Nuclear power high-level wastes (such as spent nuclear fuel or by-products of nuclear reprocessing) must be stored for thousands of years.
You may like to live with wastes from nuclear power but I don't even want it on my planet not to mention my continant.
In case you weren't aware.
Thanks,
Glen
The questions that shold be asked
In response to Peter Lang:
1 and 2: I presume that Mr Lang is one of those who believe that it is pointless putting a bit of change into the Salvo’s bucket, on the grounds that a dollar or so can hardly make a difference.
Any reduction we make will reduce the impact on the climate disproportionately. When other countries, particularly Canada and the US see that the world does not come to an end when a carbon price is introduced, the incentive for them to act is hugely increased. That assumes that we do not elect Tony Abbott. That would have exactly the opposite effect.
3: A carbon tax will have an effect on Kakadu. It can hardly be isolated from the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
4: Those who have looked claim the cost will be very small. We have all sorts of government expenditure that we deem necessary to guard against threats, for example, defence, quarantine and immigration controls without considering opportunit cost.
5: Nuclear power is one of the very few available power technologies that just gets more expensive. Claims for “power too cheap to meter” have been around since WW2, and the price still rises. In the mean time, all forms of renewables just get cheaper, including those with base-load capability such as solar thermal. It is a bit perverse to argue on the one hand that we should precisely know the price of everything, and then advocate for the one power source that is most difficult to cost.
The questions that should be asked
If the government cannot answer these questions it would be irresponsible and incompetent to proceed with its carbon pricing scheme:
1. will the proposed Australian carbon pricing scheme reduce world emissions? If so by how much?
2. will the carbon pricing scheme change the climate? By how much?
3. will the carbon pricing scheme have any impact whatsoever on the ecology of Kakadu or the Great Barrier Reef? How much?
4. What will be the real cost to Australia (using realistic assumptions as opposed to the ridiculously optimistic assumptions used so far)?
5. Does it make sense to implement the proposed policies before the impediments have been removed from the least cost way to reduce emissions from electricity (i.e. nuclear power)?
Playing the carbon numbers game
This explains the carbon tax the most easy to understand and detailed.
http://kzoo.co/VyQHed