Another day of a broken promise

LABOR’S $6 billion carbon tax reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by less than 0.1 per cent.

As PM Tony Abbott ratchets up the pressure on Labor’s Bill Shorten to axe the carbon tax by Christmas, the new figures will be released this week by Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

They reveal that the introduction of the carbon tax coincided with a reduction of greenhouse gases of around 300,000 tonnes in the first full financial year of operation.

While the carbon tax is now $24 a tonne, the effective cost of the emissions reduction on the basis of revenue raised is $21,000 per tonne.

Wow – $21,000 per tonne.

The new figures reveal NSW produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other state. But Queensland has the most companies paying the tax upfront. The cost of the carbon tax on electricity generators and other polluters is then passed on to consumers through higher electricity prices. Victoria is closely behind Queensland in total emissions.

In NSW and the ACT, there were 72 companies paying the carbon tax and overall the state produced 78.6 million tonnes of emissions. WA produced 42.2 million tonnes with 63 companies forced to pay the carbon tax. In SA just 11 companies paid the carbon tax, producing a modest 4.4 million tonnes of liable emissions. Tasmania produced just 1.7 million tonnes.

Let’s be clear, this policy is a disaster for Australia. For exactly the reasons those of us who opposed it said. The Coalitions direct action policy is no better. Different dog, different fleas.

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

27 Responses to Another day of a broken promise

  1. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    To be in any way impressed by the ‘tonnes of emissions’ figures you have to believe that they somehow matter. In the great scheme of climate variability, that is by no means certain, in fact it seems to be a complete falsehood, so all that we are looking at in reality is a great big tax for no useful purpose and a very great waste of public funds.

    I dislike even beginning to engage with Greenfilth terminology. Just say loud and clear that this is a waste of money world-wide such as we have never witnessed before.

  2. H B Bear

    Don’t forget – the greatest moral challenge of our times.

  3. Carpe Jugulum

    What will Little Gracie think?

    Nah – it’s just a scam for the cabon carpetbaggers.

  4. entropy

    Leaving aside the [lack of] measurement accuracy limitations behind that statistically insignificant figure of 300,000 tonnes reduction, imagine what the emissions would have been if winter had not been warm reducing demand for heating?

  5. RelativelySober

    You’re really not comparing like-for-like there.

    If you want an accurate representation of the impact of the Carbon Tax, look at the growth rate over the last 10 years and compare it to the (now negative) growth rate for the last financial year.

    There’s also a pretty strong argument that the revenue from the Carbon Tax would be much more effective if it were acting as a true Pigouvian Tax and funding carbon pollution reduction projects exclusively rather than – primarily – a wealth redistribution mechanism.

  6. Baldrick

    A $6 billion carbon tax that decreased emissions by 0.1% and the temperature of the Earth by effectively 0°C.
    Tough love from the former Labor/Green coalition of teeth-gnashers and hand-wringers.

  7. Gab

    Wonder how much of that 0.1% is the result of Rio and Alcoa closing down their aluminium smelters.

  8. Keith

    Different dog, different fleas

    No it’s a different dog and same fleas.

    …..the effective cost of the emissions reduction on the basis of revenue raised is $21,000 per tonne

    So, excluding all the compliance costs, overseas junkets of governmental delegations, never-ending interdepartmental committees and reports, reports, reports. Oh, and the direct budgets of the DCC, the climate commission, “science” grants, and all the other quangos and statutory obligations and public servants extending all the way down to local government level with associated PR costs to tell everyone how good they are. And then add on the whole opportunity cost. I reckon that figure would be $100000 easy.
    This country has suicidal tendencies.

  9. .

    Remember it snowed in Oberon in October and last Thirsday (5th December).

    Clearly the carbon tax works. I’m just wondering how the climate carpetbaggers keep on saying we have record high temperatures?

  10. .

    I’m pretty sure it snowed at Cabramurra on Thursday-Saturday (5th -7th) in the last few days as well.

    These carbon taxes could launch us into a new era of prosperity, Australia to be a year round ski capital of the world. Sochii eat your heart out!

  11. Popular Front

    Watch who gets the money and how they spend it on ludicrous schemes which will never work, like that wave-powered thingy on an Illawarra beach somewhere, rusty and broken.

  12. Gab

    Didn’t Labor say before the last election the carbon tax was gone? Yeah, no. Gone back on their promise again.

  13. Leo G

    Considering that the typical long-term horizon for stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gases is a half-century, and the notional half-life of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about a quarter-century, the real undiscounted abatement cost is at least $84,000 per tonne of CO2 abated.

  14. C.L.

    Julia Gillard promised to change the earth’s weather.

    She lied.

  15. gabrianga

    “Where Eagles Dare Not”

    Yet another Obammie “executive decision” grants ” licence to kill” to buddies who run the wind power industry,

    Obammie tells his wind farm buddies they can continue to kill off American eagles (and presumably other species) for the next 30 years without any punitive action being taken

  16. Robert O.

    It would be enlightening for a supporter of the Carbon Taxes etc. to demonstrate the evidence that a restriction in carbon dioxide levels will reduce global temperature. Measurements over the past 15+ years have shown no significant correlation whatsoever, so what is the real agenda of the AGW industry and their followers?
    Since animals are dependent on carbohydrate synthesised by plants from carbon dioxide and water, isn’t it counter-productive to mankind, as well as a complete nonsense?

  17. candy

    The thing with the “another broken promise” idea though is that you can’t have it both ways.

    One can’t expect Tony Abbott to ditch Direct Action because you think it’s poor policy and not call that a “broken promise”, because it would be just that.

  18. Rabz

    The Coalitions direct action policy is no better. Different dog, different fleas.

    BTW, when are the softcocked numpties going to scrap the RET?

    Oh, that’s right – they’re not.

    Incandescent light bulbs, anyone?


  19. Andrew

    Let’s be clear, this policy is a disaster for Australia. For exactly the reasons those of us who opposed it said. The Coalitions direct action policy is no better. Different dog, different fleas.

    No, the only thing that is better about Direct Action is that it is less costly for the same result.

  20. boy on a bike

    From the BOM:

    Issued 25 September 2013

    The chances of the October to December maximum temperature exceeding the long-term median maximum temperature are greater than 60% over most of the continent excluding interior parts of WA and the NT. Odds increase to greater than 70% over northwest WA, parts of the southeast coast and Tasmania. Such odds mean that for every ten years with similar climate patterns to those currently observed, about six to seven October to December periods would be expected to be warmer than average over these areas, while about three to four years would be cooler.

    The chance that the average minimum temperature for the October to December period will exceed the long-term median minimum temperature are greater than 60% over most of the continent excluding southwest parts of the NT, southwest parts of WA and the northeast coast of Queensland. Probabilities exceed 70% across southeast NSW and Tasmania.

    Probably explains why we’ve been fricking freezing in Sydney.

  21. Louis Hissink

    Got nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions or the weather – it’s all to do with wealth redistribution from the developed to the less developed world. The IPCC leadership states so explicitly. It’s blindingly obvious the global temperature isn’t increasing and that’s the point.

    The direct action policy is but a Potemkin Policy.

    If you really want to understand what’s going on, read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s essay “America in the Technetronic Age”, and a larger work, “Between Two Ages”. Written during the late 1960′s and early 1970.

    Then look at today’s situation, globally, and see whether ZB was right in his interpretation of history.

    One point is that ZB seems to believe in political and technological evolution as a given.

  22. nic

    $6 billion spent. What’s the bet that total world CO2 emissions increased with temperatures not changing in a direct relationship with the level of gas created? Thus, what was the point?

  23. sabrina

    Who received all the money?

  24. Toiling Mass

    You just know that, if and when the tax is ditched, that Fearfacts journalists will insist the decrease of the tax burden on Qantas etc is a subsidy.

  25. Andrew

    Of course. Just like having roads is a “subsidy” to Big Oil, and having power lines to the home (even when sold, and priced to return a regulated WACC) is a “subsidy” to Big Coal. (Although never the other way around – waiving tolls for hybrids is not a “subsidy” to Toyota, and building new lines to a deserted windfarm is NEVER a subsidy for Big Green.)

  26. Fred Lenin

    The alp/green/communist/ untidy nayshunist pollution taxes are really would only cost $600,000 ,ooo,ooo to reduce emissions of this beneficial gas by 10% ! Cheap at half the price ! Just think of the good that could be done for alp/ green / communist/ untidy nayshunist aparatchiks? Never to see poverty again !

  27. Fred Lenin

    I support Direct Action ! Does that mean eliminating the whole green un bullshit ? i support that Direct Action,planting trees is however a good idea if its on marginal land ,saves imports later if you are allowed to harvest them!

Comments are closed.