Is the rest of the world moving towards pricing carbon?

I’m watching two politicians talking to David Speers on Sky News talking about Clive Palmer’s news conference that is expected in a few minutes time.

The ALP pollie keeps saying that the whole world is moving to pricing carbon using markets. He first said every planet has an ETS – but quickly corrected himself.

The only problem is that the whole world is not going to pricing carbon. Don’t take my word – here is the IEA:

… 15% of global CO2 emissions receive an incentive of $110 per tonne in the form of fossil-fuel subsidies while only 8% are subject to a carbon price.

Just 8% of CO2 emissions are subject to a carbon price.

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

74 Responses to Is the rest of the world moving towards pricing carbon?

  1. 2dogs

    Just 8% of CO2 emissions are subject to a carbon price.

    Depends on how it’s defined. Virtually all fossil fuels are subject to royalties/taxes at the point of extraction, which could be regarded as a carbon price.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    The other way to look at it is which countries would benefit should the EU, USA and us emasculate ourselves by taxing the most important input to production.

    “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

  3. cohenite

    Putting a price on carbon is putting a price on life.

  4. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    This is true on the other planets the comrade spoke of,I am always amazed and astounded by the depth of knowlege the comrades in the alp/green/fascists have ! I mean they contact other planets ! Knew a guy who did that at one time,he used to get over it when he took his medication.

  5. PeterF

    Have just had the displeasure of witnessing two of the worlds greatest fraudsters to ever hold a press conference.Once it was over,both morons ran out of the room,refusing to answer questions.Typical of Gore,tho,he has never answered questions on anything.

  6. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    PS the voices in his head used to stop too!

  7. 3d1k

    Palmer is a lunatic and a fraud.

  8. Senile Old Guy

    Clive Palmer has announced that his party will vote in the Senate to abolish the carbon tax but will demand legislative changes in a bid to lock in falling power prices. The Fairfax MP and leader of the Palmer United Party is also planning to propose an emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change – similar to the one proposed by the Labor Party.

    A PUP source told the ABC the party is confident his ETS proposal will be passed by the Senate, which would require support from the Labor Party.

    Mr Palmer is set to also reveal that his party will demand the Renewable Energy Target and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are also retained.

  9. Hendrix

    That was a bizarre 20 minutes on my car radio. Clive Palmer, Al Gore and Glenn Lazaraus. FMD.

  10. JMH

    How could Palmer be so utterly stupid as to countenance the likes of the discredited Gore. Too bad most of our MSM fail to report the facts. An utterly disgraceful situation. I had zero regard for Palmer before today. My Care Factor Meter needle has just gone into minus territory.

    What’s much worse is their ABC will be milking this for the next 24 hours, wheeling out every possible idiot with an entirely incorrect, inaccurate and fanciful opinion dressed up as the gospel according to their ABC. I despair. I really do.

  11. Squirrel

    I imagine the rest of the world (the bits that matter, anyway) will, in truth, do whatever suits them – as usual. They may take the trouble to dress it up to look nice, and thus appeal to the delicate sensibilities of domestic voters who care about such things, but national self-interest will be the guiding principle.

  12. manalive

    Mr Creosote just spewed on his fellow Australians.
    I agree with Palmer on one think though, the people who voted for him are morons.

  13. Baldrick

    A PUP source told the ABC the party is confident his ETS proposal will be passed by the Senate, which would require support from the Labor Party.

    In theory, it shouldn’t even get to the Senate because it won’t pass the House of Reps. In theory.

  14. jupes

    The world hasn’t warmed for 17 years and 9 months and still the people in power are banging on about this shit.

    Dumbest generation ever. That’s us.

  15. Anon

    Who got in his ear? How’s been advising him?

  16. 3d1k

    Libs should refrain from re-tabling the carbon tax repeal bill entirely. Sit on it until budget prior to the next election, dust it down, and table then.

    In the interim they need get a whole lot smarter in the sales department; educate the electorate of the need for various structural reforms; stay on top of the climate change data not proven; woo the media; become deliberately small target and at all times present as capable, competent, methodical and governing in the national interest.

    If they get this right (and they mostly have not thus far) they just may be in a position in a couple of years time, to set the trigger for a double dissolution and blow the Greens and PUP out of contention.

    Restraint. Statesmanship. Patience. And superlative PR.

    It can be done.

  17. Tintarella di Luna

    In short Mr Baggy-Pantaloons showed the world exactly what Al Gore is, setting the price is the only variable.

  18. Rabz

    Dumbest generation ever. That’s us.

    Speak for yourself, pal. I was onto this preposterous fact and evidence free anti scientific fraud from day one.

  19. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’m fine with Palmer’s (and Gore’s) ETS. All Abbott has to do is keep the issue of emission certificates in his hands, then issue twice as many as Australia needs.

    Then the price will rapidly drop to 0.01c/tonne, just like before.

    Oh was CCX Gore’s idea? Bummer.

  20. The rest of the world is moving towards something?!?! http://bit.ly/UIy7OO

  21. Alfonso

    CAGWarming is a bright, shining lie….. so who gives a rat’s.

  22. mareeS

    Ditto, Rabz. And called it BS loudly from day one, which tended to scare the cattle.

  23. jupes

    Speak for yourself, pal. I was onto this preposterous fact and evidence free anti scientific fraud from day one.

    Sure. Too bad the people representing you in parliament “believe in the science”.

    When historians of the future look back to this era, I think they are more likely to research the ABC than your posts here.

    Our legacy has been set in stone.

  24. Tintarella di Luna

    Ditto, Rabz. And called it BS loudly from day one, which tended to scare the cattle.

    My reference has always been Cnut the Great and his observations of ten centuries ago.

  25. Tel

    Our current Carbon Tax is already designed to evolve into an ETS, so replacing it with an ETS would just be everything going to plan in the first place. The mind boggles at this.

    A simple, plain Carbon Tax (which the current system certainly is not) would have made sense back in 2006 when there was at least some reason to believe the world was warming. The whole idea being that a simple tax is easy to remove again (or increase if necessary) when new information comes to light. An ETS is a stupid way to do it, because it creates property rights, and potentially binding legal obligations on behalf of the government. Not even sensible property rights like, “You own this tangible piece of land” but nutty and vague property rights that are unmeasurable and easy to defraud (as the EU discovered).

    Anyhow, new information did come to light, the world has not been warming, and a good fraction of the so called “climate science” turned out to be cooked, as the famous emails, and other evidence has demonstrated. The conclusion is that we no longer need to consider any sort of carbon taxation, throw the lot away before it gets worse.

    You would think Clive would at least do the right thing by the mining industry.

  26. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    Perhaps palmer wants to buy all the air in Australia using money from the Chinese account.I hope they Screw the Fat Bastard ,they will if he has made them lose “face”, and I think he has.

  27. MemoryVault

    Our current Carbon Tax is already designed to evolve into an ETS, so replacing it with an ETS would just be everything going to plan in the first place.

    Funny how things almost always work out this way.
    Must be a ginormous coincidence – otherwise we’d have to start entertaining the idea of conspiracy.

  28. Andrew

    My reference has always been Cnut the Great and his observations of ten centuries ago.

    Yes, he was a smart Cnut indeed.

    Speaking of which, has the Skywhale outsmarted the Senior Labor Figures and Qatari billionaire al-Gore? Labor want the WBCT mutating into an Enormous Trading Scam. Skywhale wants the WBCT abolished, to become an ETS when everyone incl China and US have one. That’s a different ball game – 95/0 against carbon pricing in the US Sen8.

    Skywhale might ensure no carbon price in his lifetime, while the scum cheer him.

  29. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Is the rest of the world moving towards carbon pricing?

    No.

    Simple answer.

  30. brc

    What I want to know – is the CEFC Dead or not? When do those tax eating embezzlers have to march out the door and the padlock placed behind them?

  31. cohenite

    What renewable investments does fatboy have? Possibly some. But he definitely does have an investment in another election. How can the coalition put up with the conditions fatboy has declared will be sought for his support in abolishing the carbon tax? They can’t but obviously fatboy obviously thinks he will do well out of a fresh election. Will the coalition accept the collateral of more Palmer for getting a mandate for getting rid of the carbon tax?

  32. MemoryVault

    Is the rest of the world moving towards carbon pricing?
    No.
    Simple answer.

    Wrong question. Correct question –
    Are the economies of the western industrial nations being systematically fucked over and destroyed by the CAGW/”renewable” energy/carbon “pricing” scams of which an ETS is simply one tool?

    Yes.

    Simple answer.

  33. JohnA

    3d1k #1360050, posted on June 25, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Libs should refrain from re-tabling the carbon tax repeal bill entirely. Sit on it until budget prior to the next election, dust it down, and table then.

    Stupidest idea outside of the press conference. We mugs would still be paying the tax through our power bills. And don’t think that 1c/tonne would ever get to us – we would be stuck with that ridiculous $23/tonne.

    0/10 – try for a new career, sunshine! :-)

  34. Ripper

    Anon
    #1360046, posted on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    Who got in his ear? How’s been advising him?

    Who did He have a well reported dinner with the other night?

  35. evcricket

    I would have though he was trying to say “all those that have limited emissions did it with a market” but still butchered that. But yeah it’s patently untrue to suggest the whole world is pricing carbon or moving towards it.

  36. evcricket

    15% get a $110 incentive. What’s that thing people say about renewables and “if they were profitable they wouldn’t need an incentive”?

  37. Ditto, Rabz. And called it BS loudly from day one, which tended to scare the cattle.

    I smelled a rat from day one. Then again, the sheer enthusiasm with which the lefty showed it to me sort of gave the game away. It reeked of opportunity.

  38. Bruce of Newcastle

    Evcricket, its not happening. Eighteen years now of zip, as of todays date.

    The models are wrong. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is low. Therefore the only morally appropriate carbon price is $0.00 per tonne.

    When you can give good data why this conclusion is wrong we might be prepared to listen to you. You hitherto have not provided such data.

  39. Lem

    Clive has his eye on avoiding a DD, and then the next election, when he can say “We ended the carbon tax!”

    He has gob smacked all sides I would say.

    Gore has demonstrated superb contortionist skills. He’s sidling out the doors with his millions, now the ice caps aren’t melting .

  40. JC

    Is the rest of the world moving towards pricing carbon?

    No, more and more the world is moving away from pudding a pwice on carbon and dealing with it through regulatory means.

    Only the Liars party and their greenscum coalition partners think that a high tax could have any short term impact on the technology in this sector…. a sector where technological change has occurred three times in human history. Degenerate malicious fools.

  41. .

    evcricket
    #1360253, posted on June 25, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    15% get a $110 incentive. What’s that thing people say about renewables and “if they were profitable they wouldn’t need an incentive”?

    Christ you’re an idiot.

  42. AP

    Every planet? Ha ha ha. Is the ABC mocking him? Thought not. Only conservatives get mocked for slips of the tongue.

  43. walking through the tulips

    Hypothetically speaking, if commenters here accepted that global warming was occurring, it was caused by human-produced CO2, and it was going to have some pretty undesirable consequences down the track, what policy would they advocate to deal with it?

  44. Anne

    Indoctrination 101. This is from an A Level French Text Book.

    Nobody can deny it, scientists are unanimous and we see it every day: never in the history of hu- manity have the dangers been so great. . . We are in the course of meticulously destroying the air, the water, the climate. . . and the animals.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/04/Education-reducedportrait-5.pdf

  45. .

    It’s not. Shove your hypotheticals where the sun don’t shine.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/

    Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.

    Science blogger Steven Goddard at Real Science has posted temperature comparison charts (available here, and here) showing just how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades. As the before-and-after temperature charts show, government bureaucrats with power and funding at stake have turned a striking long-term temperature decline (as revealed by the real-world data), into a striking long-term temperature increase.

  46. brc

    Hypothetically speaking, if commenters here accepted that global warming was occurring, it was caused by human-produced CO2, and it was going to have some pretty undesirable consequences down the track, what policy would they advocate to deal with it?

    Do nothing and wait for technology to fix or alleviate symptoms. Which requires no policy at all.

    But it’s not occurring and the money grab is sputtering to a dead end. Tough business to be in right now. Sucks to be a rent seeker I guess.

  47. .

    brc – it is utter madness we have “climate change policies” and aren’t building nuke or hyrdo or letting through public finance or otherwise, allowing the private sector do so.

  48. MemoryVault

    Hypothetically speaking, if commenters here accepted that global warming was occurring, it was caused by human-produced CO2, and it was going to have some pretty undesirable consequences down the track, what policy would they advocate to deal with it?

    Hypothetically speaking, if commenters here accepted that Neverland was real, it was caused by the interaction of Peter Pan’s beliefs and Tinkerbelle’s pixiedust,, and it was going to have some pretty undesirable consequences down the track, what policy would they advocate to deal with it?

    Probably none.
    Mind you, it would probably pay to stay away from crocodiles that ticked.

  49. walking through the tulips

    brc
    #1360415, posted on June 25, 2014 at 11:12 pm
    [...]

    Do nothing and wait for technology to fix or alleviate symptoms. Which requires no policy at all.

    OK.

    So why are people like you so desperate to prove that climate science is false? After all, as you admit, it doesn’t matter whether or not climate science is false, your policy perspective would be precisely the same.

  50. wreckage

    Hypothetically?

    Nukes and hydro.

    Start scoping out PNG for hydro sites, and signing up binding treaties to get the job done without inter-tribal politics. Meantime move all coal power to bigger, newer, lower-emission-per-kwh plants, as China is doing, providing for lower carbon intensity and cheaper power; the cheaper power will make electric cars economical AND be a much-needed vitamin pill for the manufacturing and tech sectors, which is where any solutions are going to come from.

    Fracking has reduced the US carbon intensity by making gas very, very cheap. Gas turbines are an obvious enabler for intermittent “green” energy. Any polity that pushes for green energy but restricts gas exploration is incoherent; and let’s not forget Australia’s various floor-price and other market buggering schemes WRT petroleum and natural gas.

    Let’s be perfectly clear here: the number one enemy of an actual low-emission economy is the green movement. The quickest green power move is better coal plants – which they will block. Then, gas turbines run from fracked gas – again, blocked. Next up we move to major hydro projects – which they will block, before transitioning to an entirely atomic power source, which they will block with their own and their children’s corpses if they have to.

    If AGW is going to kill us, the green movement is going to tie us to the altar first.

  51. wreckage

    Desperate? I don’t give a fuck. True, false, what difference does it make? Nobody will seriously condone any measure that might address it. Might as well ignore it and pray it’s a horrible mistake.

  52. MemoryVault

    So why are people like you so desperate to prove that climate science is false?

    Because people like you are responsible for billions of dollars being spent on a non-problem.
    Based on bullshit.
    If we had our druthers, we’d rather you didn’t take the money from us in the first place.
    If we are forced to fork over the money, we’d rather it was spent on meaningful items, like roads, rail, hospitals, schools etc, rather than on a non-problem which never existed in the first place.

  53. wreckage

    Better yet, MV, the money is spent in such a way as to make the problem worse.

    If we’re really facing climate risk, the last thing we need is a centralised, command economy, running off unreliable energy sources…

  54. walking through the tulips

    MemoryVault
    #1360471, posted on June 26, 2014 at 12:25 am
    So why are people like you so desperate to prove that climate science is false?

    Because people like you are responsible for billions of dollars being spent on a non-problem.
    Based on bullshit.

    But of course you can’t show, in a way that stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, that it’s bullshit.

    So I’m guessing that you’re engaging in a sort of circular reasoning, where the spending of “billions of dollars” is abhorrent enough that you easily dismiss the reason that apparently justifies the spending in the first place.

    The market correction “solution” never seems to be advocated in broader public discussion, and advocates of nukes have pretty feeble voices compared to climate contrarians. It seems that the PR coming from the climate contrarian camp is quite centralised.

  55. walking through the tulips

    wreckage
    #1360467, posted on June 26, 2014 at 12:22 am
    [...]

    If AGW is going to kill us, the green movement is going to tie us to the altar first.

    The green movement is heavily fractured, but I think you will find that there are a lot of greens whose views are roughly in line with your hypothetical ones, particularly regarding nuclear power.

  56. wreckage

    It seems that the PR coming from the climate contrarian camp is quite centralised.

    No, it is made very simple, and thereby very effective, by the simple fact that the proposals for action are transparently stupid. It’s not far from “everything you’ve proposed is stupid” to “your reasons are also stupid”.

    It’s really not my task to force the green movement to get its arse into gear and present a plan that isn’t a command-and-control stalinist fantasy predicated on notions of economics that’d embarrass a cave-man. It’s yours, assuming you’re a member of the green movement; and I know greens who agree with me on nukes.

    But even they are not willing to face up to the fact that the movement has been co-opted by Marxists, and for all that I know and respect a couple of Marxists, it’s as anti-scientific and counter-rational an economic theory as has ever existed. You can’t convince people that you’re coolly rational and focused on facts when you then go on to defend, and indeed propose to enforce, a model of economics that is so wholly and thoroughly falsified at every possible level from logical coherence through to practical application.

  57. wreckage

    But of course you can’t show, in a way that stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, that it’s bullshit.

    Just as it can’t be shown that a runaway greenhouse effect can actually happen. GHG induced warming? Sure. A tipping point beyond which Earth becomes Venus? Ah, no. Not even slightly credible.

  58. Robert O.

    Australia may have been the lucky country, but unfortunately we are unlucky in our choice of politicians who haven’t the intellect to even understand that climate science is really not based on science but religious belief. What will a carbon tax do if there is no significant correlation between CO2 and global
    temperature? Keeping up with the Jones is not always that smart, particularly when they are lemmings in disguise.

  59. Bruce of Newcastle

    But of course you can’t show, in a way that stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, that it’s bullshit.

    WTTT – Well I can. My model works, the IPCC ensemble models do not. All the details are available in the first link for you to replicate the analysis:

    2010
    at end 2012
    at end 2013

    There are no linear trendlines on the latter two graphs because I’ve extended the prediction out to the estimated end of the current solar cycle.

    When I derived ECS from the model (which is exactly how the IPCC modellers do it) I got 0.7 C/doubling. That is harmless.

    The balance of warming last century was roughly half from the Sun, one third from the ocean cycle and one sixth from everything else. CAGW cannot occur with such a low ECS, if you do your sums.

    My quals are PhD chemistry and over 30 years R&D science. I am using just the same sort of methods as I’ve used successfully over that time.

  60. evcricket

    I can see JC is still in the Anger stage of denial. Don’t worry champ, you’ll work through it.

    And Bruce, I gave up talking to you when you told me that you disregarded everything the CSIRO said because you worked with them in the 80s and something something I stopped listening. Submit your research to some proper scientists and see how it goes. Also do a bit of reading on what Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity actually is. Both you and the hilariously stupid Jo Nova completely misunderstand it.

  61. 2dogs

    Hypothetically speaking, if commenters here accepted that global warming was occurring, it was caused by human-produced CO2, and it was going to have some pretty undesirable consequences down the track, what policy would they advocate to deal with it?

    Nuclear. It will be the next technology adopted anyway, when scarcity of fossil fuel sources makes their use too expensive (but there is a strong likelihood that by then, nuclear fusion will be available).

  62. Bruce of Newcastle

    Evcricket – I see you have pulled out the ad hominem card again without addressing data and science.

    Why do you think that will win you an argument? Or convince people that we’re all going fry, so they gratefully give you all their money and freedom? All you are doing is showing that the IPCC position is based on handwaving and hot air.

    Patent medicine rackets are all characterised by such handwaving, until the townsfolk run you out of town with pitchforks.

  63. 2dogs

    a lot of greens whose views are roughly in line with your hypothetical ones, particularly regarding nuclear power

    It’s everyone’s second choice.

    A referendum on our response to climate change which:

    (a) includes nuclear as a third option; and,
    (b) gets counted via the condorcet method;

    might be just what the debate needs right now.

  64. MT Isa Miner

    Bruce of Newcastle

    #1360569, posted on June 26, 2014 at 7:05 am

    Evcricket – I see you have pulled out the ad hominem card again without addressing data and science.

    Why do you think that will win you an argument? Or convince people that we’re all going fry, so they gratefully give you all their money and freedom? All you are doing is showing that the IPCC position is based on handwaving and hot air.

    Patent medicine rackets are all characterised by such handwaving, until the townsfolk run you out of town with pitchforks.

    See, Bruce, you try and try. I have learnt heaps when I could understand the stuff. But I wanted to play. Evecricket and WTTT don’t want to play they just want to throw stones and run away. You are playing one game- with rules and logic and he and the greens and the girls are playing another game- where only FEELINGS count.

    The only way out is to just play the real game the best you can.

  65. Spider

    Clive Palmer is a genius. The perfect solution for him because he knows it will never happen. Win Win.

  66. Spider

    And Al Gore the reason why I and I’m sure millions of others tuned off on the whole global warming debate

  67. boy on a bike

    15% get a $110 incentive. What’s that thing people say about renewables and “if they were profitable they wouldn’t need an incentive”?

    Most of that is Venezuela, Iran, Saudi etc subsidising petrol. Or India, Indonesia and other poor countries subsidising gas for their poorest citizens.

  68. 2dogs

    Question: is the CEFC likely to remain profitable if the RET is scrapped?

    To what extent are the CEFC’s profits merely the result of government self-cronyism?

  69. incoherent rambler

    Are Clive and Al getting together for a new movie?

    If it is in a movie it must be true!

  70. .

    evcricket
    #1360564, posted on June 26, 2014 at 6:57 am
    I can see JC is still in the Anger stage of denial. Don’t worry champ, you’ll work through it.

    And Bruce, I gave up talking to you when you told me that you disregarded everything the CSIRO said because you worked with them in the 80s and something something I stopped listening. Submit your research to some proper scientists and see how it goes. Also do a bit of reading on what Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity actually is. Both you and the hilariously stupid Jo Nova completely misunderstand it.

    Christ you’re a fucking idiot.

  71. Viva

    Are Clive and Al getting together for a new movie?

    Al Gorezilla? Cliverfield?

  72. MemoryVault

    But of course you can’t show, in a way that stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, that it’s bullshit.

    CO2 CAGW “theory” states that – CO2 UP = atmospheric temperature UP.
    Observation shows CO2 UP = atmospheric temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

    Therefore CO2 CAGW “theory” FALSIFIED by observation.
    QED

    And please, Tulips, spare me the tip-toe through the “natural factors”, “volcanoes”, “El-Ninas”, heat “hiding in the ocean deeps” and other just as easily falsifiable fantasies you scientific illiterates trot out to justify the abject failure of your discredited “theory”.

  73. wreckage

    And please, Tulips, spare me the tip-toe through the “natural factors”, “volcanoes”, “El-Ninas”, heat “hiding in the ocean deeps”

    All of which, to be true, MUST disprove the idea that CO2 is the main driver of climate.

Comments are closed.