Carbon tax news

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports there were 10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1 – averaging 886 a month – with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis.

While the high Australian dollar is seen as the main factor behind manufacturing closures, experts say the carbon tax is adding to increasing cost burdens for many firms struggling to stay afloat.

Peter Macks, principal of Adelaide-based insolvency firm Macks Advisory, said the carbon tax was “quite debilitating” for a number of hotel operators who he said had been “struggling for a long time”.

“It is very tough operating at a profit,” Mr Macks said.

Todd Gammel, a partner with HLB Mann Judd, likened the carbon tax to pulling a leg out from underneath a chair.

“For companies which have exposure to energy, and other factors which are affected by the carbon tax in a significant way, the carbon tax and the costs related to it are having a significant impact on the ability of these companies to continue,” Mr Gammel said.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief economist Greg Evans said: “Rapidly escalating energy prices caused by the carbon tax and other green programs are taking their toll on many Australian businesses.

“In energy reliant industries it is already showing up in job losses, deferred investment and in the worst cases, business closures,” Mr Evans said.

“These are the enterprises that are energy reliant, face competition from larger players or overseas, yet received zero compensation from government when the onerous tax was introduced.

“We accept business is under pressure a number of fronts including the impact of a high exchange rate, however what business operators find hard to deal with is deliberate policy actions of government designed to increase the cost of doing business,” Mr Evans said.

“It defies logic to adopt a policy which even the Treasury acknowledge will lower our standard of living and be harmful to national productivity.

AMP Capital chief economist Dr Shane Oliver said the carbon tax was contributing to the demise of firms across the economy.

Source. HT: Grace Collier via Twitter.

This entry was posted in Economics and economy, Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to Carbon tax news

  1. “It defies logic to adopt a policy which even the Treasury acknowledge will lower our standard of living and be harmful to national productivity.

    And yet the Unions seem quite OK with this policy. Why would that be?

  2. Louis Hissink

    For what? A confected temperature record to force us to live a more “sustainable”life style. As liberty quotes puts it, equality under national poverty.

  3. cohenite

    The CO2 tax was designed to make fossil energy prohibitively expensive so renewable energy would slip right in like shagger at a knock-shop.

    But like shagger there is not a good root in renewables; so with fossils more expensive and new useless renewables being built left, right and up the fucking clacker is it no wonder Australia is going down the gurgler quicker than a used condom.

  4. m0nty

    This is the same Peter Macks who was dumped as administrator of one of SA Liberal president Grant Chapman’s failed businesses amid a shareholder revolt. Hardly a lilywhite source. Yet another beat up.

  5. Fred Furkenburger

    “And yet the Unions seem quite OK with this policy. Why would that be?”

    Because the unions and the left in general never could figure out the nexus between successful business’s and jobs. They could only see business as a milch cow to get greater money “for the workers” from the evil bosses. I think now is coming a time when they might hopefully come to realise that “some pay” is better than “no pay”!

  6. Captain Crab

    The way to alleviate poverty is through the provision of the cheapest energy possible. Why do the Left hate the poor so much?
    The cynic would say that without poor people the Left would lose their voting base.

  7. Skuter

    Nothing to say about the ASIC statistics then mUnty? The Peter Macks statement is a minor part of the story.
    The ASIC data are not ‘proof’ in and of themselves, but do you have a better explanation? If not, piss off.

    Because the unions and the left in general never could figure out the nexus between successful business’s and jobs. They could only see business as a milch cow to get greater money “for the workers” from the evil bosses. I think now is coming a time when they might hopefully come to realise that “some pay” is better than “no pay”!

    The union’s prefer more pay for less workers to lower pay for more workers. Above all, they prefer more influence for union leaders above everyone else…

  8. thefrollickingmole

    m0nty

    The Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports there were 10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1 – averaging 886 a month – with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis.

    Be careful monty, hes managed to cause an increase in the actual statistics as well you wingnut.

  9. Pingback: Record Company Closures Due To Carbon Tax | Australian Taxpayers' Alliance

  10. Louis Hissink

    And how many jobs did Gillard and company create? Are they not aiming for the magic million?

  11. ugh

    Hate to sound cold-hearted, but isn’t this exactly what the Carbon Tax is supposed to do – get rid of energy-intensive industries that can’t lower their emissions?

    All it seems for nothing:

    The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

  12. Gab

    The “angry summer” that wasn’t, according to satellite data from the UAH.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_not_our_hottest_summer/

    And since when did the scamming warmerists decide that a few weeks of weather was climate? Oh yeah, when it suited their false narrative.

  13. C.L.

    So the Climate Commission – soon to be abolished – was lying?

    News at 10.

    Film at 11.

  14. C.L.

    Should be funny watching Steve arm-wave away the reliability of satellites.

  15. Empire Strikes Back

    The union’s prefer more pay for less workers to lower pay for more workers. Above all, they prefer more influence for union leaders above everyone else…

    Which also explains the unsusbstantiated 457 hysteria. It’s a calculated cynical ploy. Exacerbate skills shortages to create a bargaining lever to push up wage rates. Nil concern for the national interest or the 87% of us not in with da boyz.

    Vandals one and all.

  16. Rob

    The way to alleviate poverty is through the provision of the cheapest energy possible. Why do the Left hate the poor so much?

    Captain, the Left love the poor that’s why they want to create so many more of them.

  17. m0nty

    The ASIC data are not ‘proof’ in and of themselves, but do you have a better explanation?

    While the high Australian dollar is seen as the main factor behind manufacturing closures

  18. Louis Hissink

    Even the high Australian dollar is the result of market interference, so it’s the hampering of the market that is the problem – and as all the world’s governments are of the central planning hue, this existing mess can be laid at their feet.

    And remember m0nty, poverty is the normal state for humanity – people don’t become poor, they instead become rich. Your problem, along with your mates, is that you want the wealth without the work – the something for nothing belief that motivates your whole existence.

  19. Gab

    The high AUD has been around since 2011. The carbon dioxide tax was introduced mid 2012. It’s another added cost that achieves nothing in the way of lowering global CO2 emissions, from a country that emits <1.4% of global emissions.

  20. Bruce

    m0nty – You have never heard of this thing in business called the ‘margin’ have you. Or the thing called ‘fixed costs’? Or ‘rate of return’?

    Suffice to say if there was no carbon tax and no RET making power costs unnecessarily higher there would be a whole lot more people working and paying taxes to your glorious ALP government. Unfortunately the ALP does not understand this, therefore they manage somehow always to emasculate themselves. Which Swannie is about to find when he does the budget.

    Ditto the Greens. The only countries who do environmental stuff are those rich enough to afford it. Which the Greens are trying to make poor so they no longer can afford it. They make Vandals look like geniuses.

  21. Steve of Glasshouse

    Of course, the AWU President Paul Howes will now commit seppuku for all of those jobs lost to the carbon tax. It was an iron clad pledge wasn’t it Paul…

  22. Louis Hissink

    Paul Howes was a Trotskite originally? Same tribe as Gillard and both have changed cloth colour to become more politically acceptable, so I would not expect PH to anything honourable apart from lining his own pockets a bit more before the fans stops rotating.

  23. stackja

    the something for nothing belief

    As long as union bosses keep their jobs.

  24. stackja

    the something for nothing belief

    As long as union bosses keep their jobs.

  25. cohenite

    The only ‘reason’ for introducing the CO2 tax was to stop AGW.

    But AGW is bullshit so the CO2 tax is a straight out impost on the cost of everything.

    That cost is exacerbated by debt and waste to do with building renewable energy installations; those installations do not work.

    So we have huge funds moving away from productive enterprise and into black holes at the same time as energy is being priced out of the reach of business and citizens.

    Anyone who supports the CO2 tax is either ideologically driven or a moron, or both.

  26. m0nty

    Anyone who supports the CO2 tax is either ideologically driven or a moron, or both.

    So what’s this guy then?

  27. Gab

    So what’s this guy then?

    A recipient of government churn.

    A dollar for dollar $6.2 million grant from the government’s clean technology food and foundries investment program has put AJ?Bush well on the way to slashing emissions, with the company confident its rendering operation will eventually be removed from the ‘top 500 polluters’ list.

  28. cohenite

    You beat me Gab; but so the comment isn’t wasted: you a fucking idiot monty.

  29. cohenite

    But to be fair, monty has raised a 3rd category: the recipient of government handouts.

    For instance I know many people who have prospered under the various FIT schemes whereby people are given money to put ugly, useless solar panels on their roof; and none of these people subscribe to AGW.

  30. MiltonG

    Solar PV can be useful at current panel prices Cohenite particularly where demand peaks & transmission/distribution limits correlate with sunny days.

    However, nothing can forgive the various FIT rorts set up by idiot politicians at the behest of enviro-poseurs.

  31. Bruce

    m0nty – He is no different than me. I do climate work and take Caesar’s coin. I do so because I was asked to do it and a case was made that they needed my help. And the work would have no relation to the real world except as a drain on public coffers. Which I hope to rectify using my cherished voting pencil come September or sooner. Though it will be a hard ask as Combet the MP for Charlton is on 16%.

    If the government in its wisdom wants to paint rocks white, should we not tender?

    So I will be cheerfully voting to put myself out of work in September. Provided of course that Abbott does the right thing, but I am hopeful that he will.

  32. Steve of Glasshouse

    I’ve been thinking about making a sacrifice for the country and and bowing my head to the Gods of AGW. It’s been a tough decision, but if the government gives me the dosh for a new Tesla, I will reluctantly take it. Which fund will shower me with money?

  33. Bill

    I see a ray of hope for Charlton, Bruce.

    Combet wrote a letter to Macdonald (NSW Mines Mobster) reccomending a very lucrative coal mine be awarded to John Maitland’s company. (Combet claims he didnt know it was Maitland’s company).

    ICAC hearing on the matter starts soon.

  34. Craig Mc

    Though it will be a hard ask as Combet the MP for Charlton is on 16%.

    That might not seem so big a margin after a soon-to-be starring appearance at ICAC.

  35. cohenite

    Hi Milton; I have no problem with anyone, at their own expense, setting up a solar hot water service; provided you can live within the restraints of that you can save some money; or at least have the satisfaction of knowing the power companies are not screwing you completely.

    But grid power from FIT arrays or solar/wind installations is grotesque. Quirk explains why.

    Looking at Table 1 we can see the usual suspects; if we use Cullerin range we can see that the installed capacity is 30MW and their capacity factor [cf] is 34% or 10.2 MW.

    That 10MW is the actual power produced as an average over a period, usally at least a 1/4.

    What the reliability point shows is the probability at any one moment of that cf occuring; for Cullerin it is 3%; so what I take from that is that at any moment the odds of the Cullerin installation producing power is 34/100 X 3/100 = 0.0102 or negligible.

    Wind/solar come in surges; a refurbishment of the whole infrastructure would be required to accommodate those surges, at a cost of 10’s of $billions. As it is now, when solar/wind does produce power it is bled up a pole.

    This is a scandal which the pricks in government and by and large in the press do not want to touch.

  36. Tom

    Released today (no link):

    The Gillard Government’s commitment to support greater levels of investment in the tourism industry has been smashed by a new report that found the carbon tax had led to a 12 per cent reduction in profit for the sector, the Shadow Minister for Tourism, Bob Baldwin, said today.

    “Labor’s Tourism 2020 strategy says the Government will increase the attractiveness of investment in tourism assets, but you don’t do that by making those assets less profitable,” Mr Baldwin said.

    A report released today by Tourism Accommodation Australia found the carbon tax is impacting heavily on accommodation businesses, with profit reductions of up to 12 per cent attributable to the tax.

    “Tourism investment in Australia is lagging and the industry needs a Government that wants to support it, not one that just wants to tax it,” Mr Baldwin said.

    “The problem with the Gillard Government is they just don’t understand the impact their new taxes have on the business model of tourism operators.

    “It’s simple – if you make accommodation businesses less profitable, fewer people will be willing to invest in them.

    “At a time when the Gillard Government is promising to ‘work with industry to invest in the products and infrastructure consumers are seeking’, Labor’s carbon tax is hitting the tourism business model for a six.

    “The Gillard Government is divided and dysfunctional – clearly the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.

    “The Coalition will immediately introduce legislation to scrap the Gillard Government’s carbon tax, and that’s good news for investors in the tourism industry,” Mr Baldwin said.

  37. SteveC

    So is there any actual analysis of the data behind those statements in the OP or just opinion?

    The ASIC data are not ‘proof’ in and of themselves, but do you have a better explanation? If not, piss off.

    That’s totally hilarious. Carbon tax is in, business failures up. Must be a cause/effect. Isn’t that exactly what the AGW deniers say is wrong with AGW theory?

  38. cohenite

    Isn’t that exactly what the AGW deniers say is wrong with AGW theory?

    No numbnuts it is not. Firstly what sceptics point to is the manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature and climate over any period.

    Secondly, sceptics look at the conditions today and note the lack of a creditable proof that today’s conditions are exceptional; see, for instance, the latest debacle purporting to show current exceptionalism in the form of the Marcott monstrosity.

    Thirdly sceptics look at the overwhelming scientific evidence against AGW; for instance Beers law, Hottel’s principles, a constant Optical Density, Maximum Entropy production theory.

    Fourthly sceptics look at the overwhelming evidence to support physical processes other than CO2 which can explain climate such as solar variation, natural variation, condensation and water phase changes, cloud variation etc.

    Fifthly, sceptics look at the range of motivations and purposes behind AGW: ideology, misanthropy, money and reasonably conclude that AGW is merely a device to implement those base motives.

  39. Huckleberry Chunkwot

    SteveC, I reckon that might be your first post of the year.
    Welcome back!
    Please, hang around a little longer so that cohenite can bitch slap you some more.

  40. Bruce

    SteveC – Power bills are up. They are up because of RET and the carbon tax. The day the carbon tax came in wholesale power prices on AEMO more than doubled. They have not gone down. Businesses have high power usage even if a corner shop – lights, refrigeration etc. And refrigerants have leapt by factors of ten or twenty because of their poorly quantified, but apparently ginormous, effect on global warming.

    If you increase power costs dramatically without compensation you will have more bankruptcies. Cause and effect.

    If climate sensitivity is low, as the empirical measurements say it is then the carbon tax, the RET and the refrigerant imposts are all fraudulent. Especially RET which is the worst of the three.

  41. ugh

    “While the high Australian dollar is seen as the main factor behind manufacturing closures”

    Pretty transparent cherry picking @Monty – how about the entire REST of the Australian economy? Its not just manufacturing that is going down the tubes.

  42. SteveC

    Your concept of overwhelming is unusual. You sound so much like the the Black Knight.
    AGW deniers point to a “manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature and climate over any period.”. AGW skeptics propose that the contribution of CO2 is insufficient to explain the amount of increase. Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.

  43. Gab

    Stevec is like a man blindfolded, stumbling around saying “Blindfolded? Who me?”.

  44. Empire Strikes Back

    And thermageddonists propose that that the Earth’s atmosphere is equivalent to a high school science experiment.

    Try again son.

  45. MattR

    Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.

    Complete fuckwits accept the notion, despite the evidence, that an increase in a trace gas, that is required for life on earth, that only represents a few parts per MILLION in the atmosphere, that has been found in much higher quantities than today, that plants require in order to live, is going to have any noticable effect on the climate, despite all the evidence saying that the sun is the main driver of climate (honestly that the last part even needs to be said is a testament to how dumb some people truly are).

  46. cohenite

    Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.

    Let’s take baby steps; look at The Beer-Lambert law (also called the Beer-Lambert-Bouguer law or simply Beer’s law); this law describes the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorber of electromagnetic radiation. The general Beer-Lambert law is usually written as:

    A = a x b x c

    Where A is the measured absorbance, a is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
    So as c decreases b increases.

    The result of this is that CO2 emissivity, the measure of how much radiation the concentration of CO2 absorbs, DECLINES as the concentration increases.

    This is basic scientific principle and is expressed graphically.

    Note this graph is prepared from Modtrans, the ‘official’ measure of radiative process; another way of looking at it is that emissivity of CO2 is like layers of paint; the first coat covers most and succeeding layers cover proportionally less and less.

    The point is, extra CO2 has a rapidly declining effect.

  47. Tom

    Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.

    Complete fuckwits may not, but climate sceptics do. However, in the absence of any causal evidence, they don’t accept junk science — complete with giveaway hysteria designed to scare complete fuckwits through the media — that CO2, a trace gas, is the primary driver of global temperature.

  48. ella

    Grain Products Australia, the Company that went into liquidation recently, and is mentioned in the Telegraph regarding the carbon tax, is located in the center of Tamworth. This is right on Tony Windsor’s doorstep.

    The Old Lezzo must be popular now.

  49. Bruce

    SteveC has shown willingness in the past to look at the actual evidence, especially the solar magnetic link (ie the correlation between pSCL and temperature). So he should be treated with courtesy, guys and gals. Try to be a bit more polite. This is a discussion that sceptics want to have, it occurs rarely or not at all on CAGW blogs.

    On the other hand it may be that when Sinc sent Grey to the naughty corner last week that Steve had to come out of retirement.

  50. blogstrop

    SteveC back from the long uni holiday?

  51. cohenite

    You are good guy Bruce but steve’s numeracy makes his comments more culpable. He said:

    AGW skeptics propose that the contribution of CO2 is insufficient to explain the amount of increase. Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.

    I gave him a response, just one explanation as to why CO2 increases don’t rate, that is beyond “insufficiency”.

    Personally I think believers in AGW simply cannot accept the science; a good example is Nick Stokes, one of the smartest guys going around who can twist himself in knots defending the indefensible.

    Anyway steve is a big boy; he’s set the standard, all sCeptics are “fuckwits”; fuck him.

  52. Raven

    If one job is lost due to the carbon tax …….. Paul Howes , oxygen thief and spineless, grovelling, boot kissing ,ass licking little dipshit ! If I think of anything bad to say ill post it .

  53. SteveC

    No cohenite, people who don’t understand basic physics and the effect of C02 on warming aren’t sceptics, or even deniers, they are simply fuckwits. Bruce can give you a great deal of detail on how CO2 explains some (but not all) increase in temperature.

    “manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature “ is complete bollocks, and you know it.

    And as soon as someone says “trace gas” I know they are in the fuckwit category.

  54. SteveC

    Bruce,

    The day the carbon tax came in wholesale power prices on AEMO more than doubled. They have not gone down.

    The data does not support that assertion:
    http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Data/Price-and-Demand/Average-Price-Tables/Average-Price-Tables-Annual

  55. wreckage

    People who are not in business, or who work as a professional and call it a business, do not understand margins. They have no idea about marginal anything and when you explain it to them they still don’t understand and in fact often start regarding you with some suspicion – as though you’d tried to pull a fast one on them.

  56. SteveC

    I’ll go back to my original question, is the data that shows “10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1 ” available anywhere except in the Daily Telegraph i.e. is there any actual analysis attached to the opinions above?

  57. wreckage

    SteveC you need to look up the short run prices to see the spike. It was sudden and clear. Meanwhile, year-by-year numbers that round to 37, 30, 55 for NSW and 31, 30, 69 for Vic do not support your case very well. The last spike like that was in ….. 2007 😛

  58. wreckage

    SteveC it gives you ASIC and it gives you the month, go do your own legowrk.

  59. wreckage

    And that would be DATA attached to the analysis or opinion, not analysis attached to the opinion, that you’re asking for.

  60. wreckage

    legWORK, it’s almost as much fun as legowrk.

  61. JC

    StevesC

    What reason do you ascribe to energy prices rising 45% odd in the past few years on the Eastern seaboard.

    Do you think that such a move would have consequences to industry…. None?

  62. This is the government of unintended consequences, remember. Getting them to admit the things they’re about to do (or have done) might be misguided is (and always has been) like trying to get Ahmadinejad to dance naked at a Bar Mitzvah while reciting from the Torah.

    Meanwhile, the anal rape of Australia with a cast-iron dildo continues. Election now. Resist the Grunreich.

  63. SteveC

    JC, look at the table I posted. The price was actually higher in 06/07.

    No wreckage, I’m asking for analysis (of the data) which is clearly lacking from the Telegraph article.

  64. Bruce of Newcastle

    I am rather surprised SteveC that the table you link proves what I said and disproves what you said.

    The only state where the wholesale price has not effectively doubled is Tassie, which is hydro heaven, relatively speaking.

    But lets do sums. The simple average for the 5 states, including Tassie without a weighted average, is $29.77/MWh last year and $58.51/MWh this year. Which is Tassie-dammed close to double even before you look at weighted averages or overall price per MWh. Exclude Tassie and the averages are $29.08 and $60.85, a 109% rise year on year.

    Why do you do this? I stated a simple fact which is well known and is a feature not a bug of the carbon tax. Should you not be celebrating it if you are a carbon tax supporter?

    Perhaps it is because what I said is all true? If you hike power costs without compo them weaker businesses with high power bills will go to the wall. Taking the jobs and taxes with them.

    And we have discussed, you and I, the data which show conclusively that net 2XCO2 is around 0.7 C and is therefore harmless. Since we last discussed this the UK Met Office has acknowledged one of the two significant varables I’ve talked about, the ocean cycles, which they now say will cause global temperature to be pretty flat for the next 4 years. They do not yet include solar indirect forcing in their models. When they do it will be the end of the CAGW scare.

  65. SteveC

    Bruce, you looked at 2 years AEMO data. That’s not sufficient data to determine a change from trend. Why was 11/12 so much lower than the previous 10 years?

  66. JC

    JC, look at the table I posted. The price was actually higher in 06/07

    No it’s not you idiot.

    Go look at your own table again. Prices were up for the three states that count on the eastern seaboard.

    Furthermore a good gauge of what could be going on domestically are via Victorian prices as we use brown coal and its essentially free as it doesn’t carry world price.

    You’re a first rate idiot steves

  67. Bruce of Newcastle

    SteveC – Did you read what I wrote? I said “The day the carbon tax came in wholesale power prices on AEMO more than doubled. They have not gone down”. You then quoted these words back to me.

    The carbon tax came in on 1 July 2012. I looked at the AEMO that day and the week that followed curiously to see what it would do. It more than doubled overnight in NSW and tripled in Vic.

    What I said is factually correct. The carbon tax did not come in a decade ago so why would you trend it?

    As with the global temperature data you have to consider what else is happening. In this case there had been a wave of privatisation and efficiency work in the power generation sector over the decade. Competition is the probably reason that power prices fell up to June 30 2012. Lord knows I still am rung up every other week by Indians wanting me to switch providers. And skimping on maintenance and capital replacement, yes that too.

    Then Gillard undid all that (mostly) good work with one stroke. Businesses are now going bankrupt as a result, having tried to struggle for a while to cover the extra cost without success. This is not too hard to understand. Why can’t you?

  68. brc

    I’m not sure what is going on here. Do we have people arguing that the carbon tax is good policy? That it’s a good idea?

    Surely not. This idiotic policy is not only bad for the country, bad for the environment, and bad for living standards, it is also going to destroy their beloved labor party for a while

    If you think the infighting is bad now, wait until after the election.

  69. cohenite

    Australians pay the highest electricity prices in the world.

    The CO2 tax has contributed greatly to that and will contribute much more along with the impact of renewable energy investment.

    That is what the tax was designed to do; it will also cause power shortages and you can’t really put a cost on that.

    As to steve’s link to AMEO prices since 1998 another analysis of electricity prices was done here by Sinclair.

    Then steve said:

    I assume the model factors in reduction in the CO2 intensity of electricity production, which after all is the whole point of the carbon price.

    Translated: higher prices.

    Getting back to steve’s comment about fuckwits. He quotes me:

    manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature

    The full quote was:

    Firstly what sceptics point to is the manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature and climate over any period.

    I offered an explanation; Beers Law. So before I offer further evidence the potential king of fuckwits should indicate whether he stands by his description:

    people who don’t understand basic physics and the effect of C02 on warming aren’t sceptics, or even deniers, they are simply fuckwits

    Is Beers Law real or not steve; your answer will determine whether you claim the crown as King of fuckwits. Over to you.

  70. Mk50 of Brisbane

    SteveC:

    No cohenite, people who don’t understand basic physics and the effect of C02 on warming aren’t sceptics, or even deniers, they are simply fuckwits. Bruce can give you a great deal of detail on how CO2 explains some (but not all) increase in temperature.

    “manifest LACK of a cause and effect between CO2 levels and temperature “ is complete bollocks, and you know it.

    And as soon as someone says “trace gas” I know they are in the fuckwit category.

    SteveC, you have just proven to the Cat that you are a scientific illiterate and that your opinion is valueless.

    Oh, and you think James Hansens a ‘f**kwit’, too!

    Well, at least we agree on that, if not for the same reasons

    Let’s unpack this spectacular idiocy you have posted.

    According to Pidwirny, M. (2006). “Atmospheric Composition”. Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition, the composition of the atmosphere is this:

    Nitrogen N2 78.08%
    Oxygen O2 20.95%
    *Water H2O 0 to 4%

    [Tracegases are those below 1%]

    Argon Ar 0.93%
    *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
    Neon Ne 0.0018%
    Helium He 0.0005%
    *Methane CH4 0.00017%
    Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
    *Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
    *Ozone O3 0.000004%

    * variable gases

    OK, now, that little self-proclaimed tin god and leading con-man of the AGW scam, James Hansen, in his paper Climate change and trace gases (BY JAMES HANSEN, MAKIKO SATO, PUSHKER KHARECHA, GARY RUSSELL, DAVID W. LEA, AND MARK SIDDALL) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925–1954 doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052 Published online 18 May 2007 says this:

    The empirical data, abetted by appropriate calculations, imply that control of trace gases must play a critical role in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.

    And then goes on to ‘study’ CO2 (see Figure 3 on p. 1932), CH4 and N2O (see Figure 5 on p.1937) and during the ‘scientific’ article bangs on endlessly about CO2 and just how evil a trace gas it is until p.1941, where he looks at OTHER trace gas forcings (CH4 etc).

    Of course, the capering little con-man nowhere mentions Beers law in his ‘scientific’ article.

    And even those bedwetters of the ecopalypse and doyens of cli-fi envirodoomscreaming over at The Climate Change Blog, define ‘trace gas’ as follows:

    Trace Gas and Climate Change

    When discussing climate change, trace gas refers to any of the less common gases found in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Essentially, nitrogen and oxygen are the most common gases representing about 78.1% and 20.9% of the Earth’s atmosphere respectively.

    Hence, every other gas is considered a trace gas.

    These include:
    •carbon dioxide
    •methane
    •oxides of nitrogen
    •ozone
    •water vapor
    •ammonia
    •argon (the most abundant trace gas representing about 0.934% of the Earth’s atmosphere

    So, you pathetic nitwit, not only have you self-beclowned on an epic scale, you ahve also (correctly if for the wrong reasons) noted that James hansen is a “f**kwit” in your vewi.

    Do your fails get any more epic than this, SteveC, or can you do even better?

  71. JC

    Do your fails get any more epic than this, SteveC, or can you do even better?

    In a word yes be can. Easily in fact.

    Steves was trying to tell us energy prices haven’t risen since 2007 and they clearly have. He couldn’t even read his own link. The twit.

  72. ugh

    “Complete fuckwits don’t accept the basic physics that increasing CO2 will increase temperature.”

    Even bigger fuckwits think that CO2 is the only thing that affects the climate, and that man can control the weather just by shutting down coal plants SteveC.

    Skeptics accept that CO2 is a warming agent. Skeptics are also aware that many, many factors combine to affect climate, and that we don’t understand a lot of them – hence the climate models alarmists base their end of the world scenarios on have proven to be ineffectual in forecasting future climate..

  73. ugh

    “The data does not support that assertion:
    http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Data/Price-and-Demand/Average-Price-Tables/Average-Price-Tables-Annual

    You are delusional SetveC. From your own table (Qld):

    2011-2012 29.07
    2012-2013 68.92

    Did you fail primary school maths, or were you just hoping no one would look at the link? *slaps forehead*

  74. ugh

    “Bruce, you looked at 2 years AEMO data. That’s not sufficient data to determine a change from trend”

    What are you on about SteveC? The original statement was that prices doubled when the carbon tax came in, and the AEMO data that you helpfully provided confirms that.

    No amount of backpedalling, or pointing out drought years nearly a decade earlier will remove that egg from your face

  75. Gab

    hence the climate models alarmists base their end of the world scenarios on have proven to be ineffectual in forecasting future climate..

    Heh. Their models cannot even hindcast with any accuracy using their own data.

  76. brc

    I say, the carbon tax boosters are getting rather shrill these days, are they not?

    To see their belief system collapsing, public support slipped away, and the plain bare truth of the idiocy of their policies there for rational people to poke fun at, well, that’s just a joy to behold.

  77. Mk50 of Brisbane

    And brc, do not forget what is THE most important thing for these bedwetters of eh ecopalypse!

    The public money they rake in is going away

  78. mct

    What I *still* fail to understand is why, given the Tele report, the taxers aren’t out in the streets celebrating.

    The whole idea of taxing CO2 was surely to lower economic output, was it not? And it – in what might just be a first for this ‘government’ – appears to be having the intended effect. Surely worth the raising of the odd jar, at the very least?

  79. ugh

    “The whole idea of taxing CO2 was surely to lower economic output, was it not?”

    That was the effect anyone with eyes could see @mct

    However, the Greens et al stated that it would create an entirely new Green sector of the economy, with sustainable growth and lots of green jobs that would cancel out the job losses in fossil fuel industries.

    This spin of course totally ignored the fact that similar programs in Europe ended with all those massive subsidies supporting massive job creation in China building “sustainable” tech (and ironically devastating parts of the Chinese environment in the process…)

  80. brc

    The sad part about the carbon tax boosters is they always scarper from an argument.

    I still have my glossy ” carbon tax is wonderful ” booklet, still wrapped in plastic. I plan to use it I the future to scare kiddies from believing anything that is printed to support a tax.

  81. SteveC

    If you’re interested, here’s the actual analysis of the insolvency figures. Good luck finding a “carbon tax spike” in here

  82. SteveC

    Better still, here is the insolvency rate per 1,000 registered companies. Almost identical (in fact slightly below) the previous 12 months.
    A rather different picture to the Telegraph article and the commentary in this thread.

  83. SteveC

    Just for you cohenite, maybe you might learn something about Beer-Lambert law, from people who actually know.
    With all that brilliant physics in your head, why are you wasting your time as regional town solicitor and organiser of a two-bob political party?

  84. cohenite

    Yeah, thanks king; the sylas comment I presume you are referring to? It’s called pressure broadening whereby saturation of the absorptivity of CO2 is mitigated by transfer of the absorption to the wider frequencies, or wings, of the absorption range of the CO2 molecule.

    It’s a product of higher temperatures which do not occur on Earth; a number of papers note this including Lu, Harde, Petschauer.

    Co2 has done about all the heating it is going to do at about 100ppm and falls off Logarithmically.

    I did say there is no connection between CO2 and temperature at any time scale; I’ll link to the situation this caentury in the next post.

  85. cohenite

    Connection between Co2 and temperature this century.

  86. SteveC

    Is Roger Taguchi one of your other names?

  87. JC

    StevesC

    You said the following:

    JC, look at the table I posted. The price was actually higher in 06/07

    I relation to electricity prices. That’s a lie. Please acknowledge it before we move on to other people here lining up to kick you backside from east to west.

  88. Jarrah

    “why are you wasting your time as regional town solicitor and organiser of a two-bob political party?”

    It’s because he has presidential hair. 😉

  89. SteveC

    here you go JC:
    2006-2007 58.72 52.14 51.61 55.19 49.56 54.80
    2007-2008 41.66 52.34 73.50 45.49 54.68 46.79
    2008-2009 38.85 34.00 50.98 58.48 41.82
    2009-2010 44.19 33.30 55.31 29.37 36.28
    2010-2011 36.74 30.97 32.58 29.45 27.09
    2011-2012 29.67 29.07 30.28 32.58 27.28
    2012-2013 55.23 68.92 60.43 49.17 58.81

    58.72 > 55.23

    11/12 was a particularly low year.
    I guess that means the insolvency rate in 06/07 was also due to electricity prices.

  90. JC

    Better still, here is the insolvency rate per 1,000 registered companies. Almost identical (in fact slightly below) the previous 12 months.
    A rather different picture to the Telegraph article and the commentary in this thread.

    Lol… if your “analysis” is equal to the your bullshit about electricity prices not going up, there’s no point going to the link as I know that like all the other lefties who link stuff, you’ve fucked it up and will say the opposite of what you think it says, you moron.

    Here’s a question for you StevesC

    If you adversely impact the cost structure of the traded goods sector, does that have any negative effects on our own domestic industries.

    If you say it doesn’t I congratulate you on being the next Nobel Prize winner in economics as you’ve proved demand curves don’t slope downwards.

  91. Louis Hissink

    Actually it is back to front – the warming temperature causes an increase in the mass of the biosphere, which then pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere. Human beings are part of the biosphere.

    Ice ages reverse the process.

    CO2 is an effect of metabolism, and more CO2 means more biosphere, everything else being equal.

  92. JC

    Better still, here is the insolvency rate per 1,000 registered companies. Almost identical (in fact slightly below) the previous 12 months.
    A rather different picture to the Telegraph article and the commentary in this thread.

    Lol… if your “analysis” is equal to the your bullshit about electricity prices not going up, there’s no point going to the link as I know that like all the other lefties who link stuff, you’ve fucked it up and will say the opposite of what you think it says, you moron.

    Here’s a question for you StevesC

    If you adversely impact the cost structure of the traded goods sector, does that have any negative effects on our own domestic industries.

    If you say it doesn’t I congratulate you on being the next Nobel Prize winner in economics as you’ve proved demand curves don’t slope downwards. You stark raving lunatic, StevesC.

  93. JC

    StevesC

    Yea and? The only one state of consequence that fell was NSW because it’s supplied with black coal and back in o6/o7 the price of black coal was surging on the world market.

    On the other hand the price for Victoria has risen which is supplied with brown coal that doesn’t carry a world price.

    Queensland went up too

    Like I said earlier.

    Fuck you’re a dishonest turd, StevesC. The absolute worst here.

  94. JC

    God you’re a disgusting piece of steaming turd, StevesC.

    You tried to use 06/07 because they were the years when commodity prices boomed and you thought there wouldn’t be anyone here that would notice your dishonesty.

    Fair dinkum, is there an honest leftie in all of Australia?

  95. SteveC

    It’s a simple chart JC. You should be able to read it. Here’s the raw data if you want to do the chart yourself.
    http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Insolvencies%2C+teminations+%26+new+reg+stats+portal+page?openDocument#other years

    a simple example
    registered companies
    in Dec 07 – 1.6 million
    in Dec 12 – 1.9 million

    You do the maths, if you are able.

  96. SteveC

    Yea and?
    The price went down, that’s all. Thanks for the apology, it was along time coming.

  97. JC

    I’m not referring to your likely dishonesty over the bankruptcies, StevesC, you douchebag. I’m referring to your rank dishonesty over energy prices.

    You’re slimier than squid.

  98. JC

    Yea and?
    The price went down, that’s all. Thanks for the apology, it was along time coming.

    The price did not go down in Vic nor Queensland you dishonest douchebag. They’re up for these two! NSW uses black coal and the price skyrocketed in 06 07.

  99. JC

    The price of black coal rose 40% in 06/07! That’s why this Public service arsewipe is using that period. That dishonest douchebag.

  100. Gab

    2004-2005: 4,648

    2005-2006: 5,785

    2006-2007: 6,865

    2007-2008: 6,933

    2008-2009: 7,733

    2009-2010: 7,903

    2010-2011: 8,054

    2011-2012: 10,074

    http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/2004-2012%20ASIC-Insolvency-statistics-series3.3.pdf/$file/2004-2012%20ASIC-Insolvency-statistics-series3.3.pdf

  101. wreckage

    “Other market shocks have been bigger, so why worry about this one, even if it is purely a government imposition?”

    If a person uses that argument, it’s over. Shake the dust from your sandals and move on. It’s like the total muppets who can’t understand margins at even the most basic level.

  102. wreckage

    So Gab, 2011-2012 shows a worse jump than the GFC, right?

  103. Gab

    That’s how I read it too, wreck. Also, for 2012-13 numbers are at 5200-odd and that’s just for six months but it’s the period when the carbon dioxide tax came into effect.

  104. Bruce

    Don’t forget that RET is worse and has been in operation for longer than the carbon tax.

    20% of power generation from solar PV and wind is catastrophic, especially when it doesn’t even reduce CO2 emissions by much at all, as the actual data says over and over when anyone looks. They may even increase net CO2 production system wide, due to the spinning reserve and efficiency problems.

  105. cohenite

    You’re a funny guy king steve. I don’t know any Roger Taguchi.

    Sylas is righ about the decline being an exponential one but he has got the main absorption band for CO2 wrong at 12 microns, it is 14.7 microns.

    Sylas’s discussion about about the full spectrum and how the transmission or emission varies across the spectrum for the absorbing gas is correct but he doesn’t mention one thing; that is the total energy of the radiation being absorbed doesn’t change. If less is being absorbed by the strong or main absorption band or frequency, which is not in dispute, then more will be absorbed by the weak or wing frequencies but ultimately they too are subject to the same decline and the capacity of the gas to absorb is saturated at Earth conditions.

    That is why there has been no runnaway of heating in the past when CO2 levels were greater than today’s levels by a factor of 10.

    I have posted about no connection between CO2 and temperature in this century; so here is last century.

  106. brc

    The carbon tax is more than electricity prices. It’s also refrigerant gases which are very widely used by industry.

    A temporary spike in energy prices can be weathered by industry. That is a totally different proposition to a mandated increase in energy and other input costs, one that is scheduled to go up, year on year, on purpose.

    It’s the prospect of prices going up forever and never coming back that is the final straw for companies. There is no storm to weather, no other state to seek lower costs.

    Tell us all, stevec

  107. brc

    Didn’t finish my post. Tell us all, SteveC, do you think the carbon tax is good policy?

    Yes/No

    I can confidently predict a withering non answer or the end of appearances on this thread, just let every other time these weaseling lefties are asked for a direct opinion.

  108. SteveC

    Try again Gab, you are looking at the Appointment of External administrators reports, which is not the same as companies entering administration. The number you want (which is also the number reported by the Telegraph is here:
    http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Insolvency+statistics+-+Series+1+Companies+entering+external+administration?openDocument
    and instructions on how to interpret the data are here:
    http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/How+to+interpret+ASIC+insolvency+statistics?openDocument

  109. SteveC

    brc,
    Didn’t finish my post. Tell us all, SteveC, do you think the carbon tax is good policy?

    Yes

    Which is an opinion I have expressed regularly in the past.

  110. Bruce

    Steve – I am curious…would you say the same thing if (or when) CAGW is officially shown to be false?

  111. brc

    Ok, so you support the carbon tax.

    On what basis?

    -it will have zero impact on the global climate
    -it will force closure of Australian businesses, raising unemployment and lowering tax revenue
    – it will lead to industry relocating to non-taxed locales with fewer environmental laws, leading to worse environmental outcomes
    – it will not have any effect on any other countries willingness to impose their own taxes

    What is it about this policy that you support?

  112. JC

    StevesC.

    As I said you’re greasier than a squid .

    You lied about energy prices and you need to apologise

  113. Gab

    from your link stevec:

    Annual external administrator reports statistics (Series 3)

    We release statistical reports (Series 3) compiled from the estimates and opinions contained in statutory reports lodged with ASIC by liquidators, administrators and receivers (external administrators) in the format of Schedule B to Regulatory Guide 16 External administrators: Reporting and lodging (RG 16) (Schedule B report) by financial year.

    As an adjunct to these reports, from financial year 2009–10, the following additional external administrator reports statistics can be downloaded from our website in a number of spreadsheets:

    Series 3.1 External administrators’ reports for Australia: selected tables are provided for the current financial year, by region and all industries.
    Series 3.2 External administrators’ reports for selected industries: selected tables for the five industries with the highest number of external administrators’ reports lodged are provided by region for the current financial year.
    Series 3.3 External administrators’ reports time series: a comparison of the totals for selected tables are provided as a time series by financial year, from 1 July 2004 to current.

  114. Token

    Try again Gab, you are looking at the Appointment of External administrators reports, which is not the same as companies entering administration.

    Looking at report you linked to SteveC, voluntary admininstration has dropped while external windups have risen.

    From experience this is due to events outside of the control of management increasing (and tighter laws on voluntary admin to limit the number of Phoenix companies).

  115. From the peanut gallery, that looked like a right royal arse kicking.
    Congratulations all.
    The Arsekikometer shows a resounding 8.3.

  116. SteveC

    Gab, why do you start reading half way down the page?

    We prefer the use of Series 1 when explaining trends in insolvency because it is a more accurate measure of corporate insolvency and comparison, avoiding the double-counting of Series 2 (explained below).

    .

    Conditions/limitations of the Series 3 data
    When interpreting the statistics in external administrator reports, a number of conditions and limitations should be kept in mind, a summary of which includes:
    the use of the Schedule B format by external administrators is voluntary, not statutory
    the statistics will not directly correlate with other insolvency statistics (Series 1 and Series 2)

    The data you want, and which was referred to by the Telegraph, is series 1. As I have shown the number of insolvencies is DOWN on the previous year measured as a proportion of total companies. The carbon tax could well have caused additional insolvency, which was hidden by a decrease elsewhere. But the data referred to by the Tele does not show that. The people quoted in the article may well have additional data on which their statements are made, but it is not referenced anywhere.

    This of course has not stopped Catallaxians theorising in the thread above from non-existent data,or Catallfacts as I call them. This is par for the course for the Cat.

  117. SteveC

    Bruce at 1.06.
    No I would not say the same thing, as the objective of the carbon tax – reducing CO2 emmissions – would not be necessary.

  118. JC

    Here we go, when some numbnut leftwinger hits the wall, they always go for the collective… Caltaxians.. without fail. Sure enough the slippery squid is back attempting to steal victory when his head has been handed to him on a platter.

    Just to recap… StevesC, the plastic sex doll owner was attempting to peddle the lie that energy prices in Australia had actually fallen since 2006/2007.

    He chose that period because black coal (which is exportable therefore carrying an international price and mainly used in NSW to produce energy) rose 40% that year.

    Meanwhile, the state that would show what really has been going on and could be used as a good marker is Victoria because it uses brown coal and brown coal doesn’t carry a world price. It’s essentially a free raw material. Energy prices rose

    2006 07 2012

    NSW 59.72 / 55.21

    QLD 55.12 / 60.87

    SA 51.61 /60.38

    Vic 54.38 / 58.77

    Tas doesn’t count as it’s hydro

    Kimberly the plastic sex dolls boyfriend (StevesC) says prices in Aus have gone down.

  119. Bruce

    Thanks Steve. Some people advocate it as a revenue raising option. I would have no moral or ethical problem with a government who went into an election with this as a platform (of course they would not then get elected).

    As you know I think, with some expertise in the area and with some justification, that CAGW is not possible due to CO2’s logarithmic response and low empirical sensitivity. OK, you give me more impetus then to convince unlucky victims of this. Sorry. 🙂

  120. brc

    Bruce at 1.06.
    No I would not say the same thing, as the objective of the carbon tax – reducing CO2 emmissions – would not be necessary.

    But the carbon tax does not reduce co2 emissions in any meaningful way, so why do you support it?

  121. JC

    But the carbon tax does not reduce co2 emissions in any meaningful way, so why do you support it?

    Kimberly his sex doll told him to. It’s a sort of hairshirt. She likes him scratching and itching all over.

  122. cohenite

    King steve; CO2 and temperature back 450000 years.

  123. SteveC

    I’ve seen that picture before cohenite, with a different explanation.

  124. cohenite

    King steve: shitscience says:

    Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles


    CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone


    CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

    Crap.

    Try and make a sensible response to the Frank paper; linking to shitscience really is irritating.

  125. SteveC

    Really , you complain about skeptical science after linking to a “paper” by your uncle Frank on icecrap? You really are a joker, king tony.

  126. SteveC

    Here you go, I see your nature paper, and raise you.

  127. cohenite

    Lansner used the same ice core proxies as the Shakum paper you linked to king steve and Lansner’s point is missed by you; that point is that over the time period of the last interglacial temperature not only precedes CO2 when temperature is rising but precedes it when temperature is falling.

    That’s the point Lansner makes and which is not contradicted by Shakum; CO2 is still high when temperature has fallen; all the attention by the AGW liars is to fudge the data to prove that CO2 rises before temperature; they do not look at the other side of the coin which is that temperature FALLS before CO2.

    How could that be you fucking idiot if CO2 is what is causing temperature to increase.

    Now, before I point out to the interested onlookers why the fucking Shakum paper is a pile of steaming shit I want to look in more detail at the Frank paper which I linked to above.

    The importance of the Frank paper is even if CO2 does rise before temperature, which it doesn’t, as the Frank paper and Lansner and a myriad of other research shows, the climate sensitivity of CO2 increase is NOT sufficient in itself to explain the temperature increase.

    Frank says:

    Our results are incompatibly lower (p less than 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40?p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.

    Back to Shakum which is an egregrious paper. Shakum removes from his graphs Co2 data from the last 6000 years, a period where CO2 started to rise markedly but which featured a temperature decline which had began 2000 years previously.

    So Shakum does not include that data in his paper which most tellingly contradicts his point but which also vindicates Lansner’s point.

    Willis Eschenbach has done an exhaustive analysis of EVERY one of the CO2 and temperature proxies used in Shakum’s paper. Eschenbach shows that Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 precedes temperature from the last interglacial is not only not supported by his data but is impossible to be supported by that data.

    Shakum wrote most of his paper in his PhD thesis at oregan under the auspices of Mann.

    King is wasted on you steve; you’re just a dickhead who mindlessly links to crap.

  128. SteveC

    A nice summary of the Pacnik post at WUWT, king Tony. (you should acknowledge your sources). Curiously, Lasner in his “paper” (since when was an article published on WUWT a “paper”?), comes to a different conclusion to the accredited author of the chart. And discusses a completely different topic to your post about 450,000 years. jumping about a bit aren’t you king tony? How’s the ADHD medication going?

  129. cohenite

    steve, you are my medicine; dealing with fuckwits like you keeps my unbounded optimism at maneageable levels.

    Not only do I acknowledge my sources I give my take on them; unlike you.

    Now you say Lansner’s paper reaches a different conclusion to the accredited author of the chart.

    This chart says “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2, with a lag of around 800 years.”

    As I said earlier AGW spruikers focus on temperature rise not temperature decline; this is what Lansner focuses on, temperature decline; and because of this 800 year lag, what often happens is that temperature is FALLING while CO2 is RISING!

    Now even a dyed in the wool acolyte of the scam of AGW can see that; whether you admit that is another point and goes to your intellectual honesty, which appears to be non-existent.

    But let’s test it; do the proxies which Lansner uses [and Tom Rees’s graph also] show that temperature often rises while CO2 is falling and vice-versa.

Comments are closed.