Carbon tax and the economic modelling

Here is Richard Denniss crapping on about the carbon tax:

And then there are the economic modellers who pretended that a small carbon price would wreck the economy and then stayed silent about the costs to local industry of the doubling of domestic gas prices caused by new investments in gas export facilities.

I wonder if he’s talking about Treasury?

The fact is the carbon tax was a dog of a policy.

According to Treasury modelling – yes, even Treasury’s modelling – the tax was going to damage the economy.

Carbon tax - economy

This policy alone was going to reduce gross national income per person by almost 5% compared to a business as usual scenario (remember at this time Treasury also thought we were on track to quickly reduce the economic costs of debt and deficit).

Then according to the modelling it wasn’t going to actually work. Here is whate we were meant to believe:

Carbon tax - what we were told

But let’s decompose that figure into the domestic abatement and international abatement and the target:

Carbon tax - what we were told 1

See? The domestic abatement line never hits the 2020 target even by 2050. The whole story revolved around so-called international abatement. Just to remind ourselves how that international abatement was to operate:

The modelling assumes an eventual shift to a lower cost coordinated international policy framework, recognising that this is ultimately in all countries’ best interests. By 2016, a more coordinated international policy regime allows countries to trade either bilaterally or through a common central market. As a result, a harmonised world carbon price emerges in 2016.

To sum up – the carbon tax was a dog of a policy and the damage it did and would have done, for no actual benefit, was large.

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

27 Responses to Carbon tax and the economic modelling

  1. When people are serious about carbon abatement, we will see nuclear plants being proposed rather than solar farms.

    Until then, no one is serious.

  2. H B Bear

    The Ponds Institute and Treasury carbon modelling.

    Two steaming contributions to what laughably passes as Australian public policy.

  3. stackja

    Who repealed the tax?

    This site can’t be reached

    The connection was reset.
    Try:
    Checking the connection
    Checking the proxy and the firewall
    ERR_CONNECTION_RESET

  4. Driftforge
    #2139315, posted on September 6, 2016 at 10:50 am
    When people are serious about carbon abatement, we will see nuclear plants being proposed rather than solar farms.

    Until then, no one is serious.

    Exactly. It is a crock of shit.

    Action plan:

    1. Do nothing until 2030.
    2. Catastrophic warming? No? Do nothing.
    3. Yes? Put up nuke plants.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    then stayed silent about the costs to local industry of the doubling of domestic gas prices caused by new investments in gas export facilities.

    That’s a ripper. The reason why domestic gas prices have doubled is because demand is up and supply isn’t.

    Demand is up because all those effing windmills must have fast response backup generation, which means gas turbines.

    Supply isn’t up because the greenies have enforced their will upon pollies too ‘shut the gate’. Otherwise we’d have heaps of gas and the price would not’ve risen.

    Furthermore most if not all of the Qld gas export industry he’s alluding to are CSG projects. Which the Greens would ban if they could.

    I highly impressed which the amount of wrongology Dr Denniss can fit into one statement like this.

  6. Delta

    To sum up – the carbon tax was a dog of a policy and the damage it did and would have done, for no actual benefit, was large.

    Except that the damage being done with the insane “renewables” policies continues and the damage will be huge. As if the 20% renewables target by 2020 by the Commonwealth was not enough, other states have adopted crazier policies: SA – 33% by 2020, 50% by 2025 with a 60% emissions reduction target below 1990 levels by 2050! ACT have committed to 90% renewables by 2020, a 40% emissions reduction target by 2020, a 60% reduction by 2050 and (wait for it) carbon neutrality by 2060!

    Then there is Victoria with a 25% renewable energy target by 2020 and a 40% target by 2025. Mind you Queensland has committed to the Commonwealth’s 20% renewable target by 2020 (as has NSW and WA) but now has committed to a 50% renewables target by 2030. Hmm – linking the Victorian power grid to SA with that level of renewable energy would be next to useless.

    Then to add to the mix, we have a gas supply shortage in all Eastern states as a result of world gas prices and lock out policies by State governments.

    It’s all insane and suicidal!

  7. Rabz

    the carbon tax was a dog of a policy

    Any so called policy designed (and implemented) with gerbil worming abatement as its goal invariably is. It cannot be anything else.

  8. H B Bear

    I highly impressed which the amount of wrongology Dr Denniss can fit into one statement like this.

    One of The Ponds Institute’s finest thinkers.

  9. Faye

    How do the governments of the world get away with the biggest lying crap of all time using our money? These were once decent words, now they are dirty words: climate change, environmentalism, sustainability, renewable, green, etc. We are being led by crooks. I don’t know about anyone else, but this whole con act of being used, lied to and spat upon, is debilitating. I want it to end.

  10. jupes

    To sum up – the carbon tax was a dog of a policy and the damage it did and would have done, for no actual benefit, was large.

    This is the point. There is nothing Australia can do to effect global temperature. Nothing.

    So it is the national interest to make electricity as cheap as possible.

    That means coal.

  11. Andrew

    What kind of wrongologist would you have to be to promote a carbon tax??

  12. Sinclair Davidson

    How so? If you think global warming is a problem and that something should and could be done about it, a tax is a better solution to an ETS.

  13. jupes

    If you think global warming is a problem and that something should and could be done about it, a tax is a better solution to an ETS.

    However because global warming is not a problem, and there is precisely NOTHING Australia could do about even if it was, then arguing whether a tax or an ETS is the better solution is utterly pointless.

    Seriously, it only encourages the climate change fuckwits.

    Far better to put our energies into slapping them down.

  14. Chris

    if

    With you there. If we could just get a figure for how much abatement in C degrees we get per billion ripped off the public or borrowed from the future, we could assess the benefits and costs.

  15. Beachside

    jupes
    #2139524, posted on September 6, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    To sum up – the carbon tax was a dog of a policy and the damage it did and would have done, for no actual benefit, was large.

    This is the point. There is nothing Australia can do to effect global temperature. Nothing.

    So it is the national interest to make electricity as cheap as possible.

    That means coal.

    ….not according to these propagandists Link

  16. incoherent rambler

    However because global warming is not a problem, and there is precisely NOTHING Australia could do about even if it was, then arguing whether a tax or an ETS is the better solution is utterly pointless.

    +100 It is akin to arguing about the best fence to corral the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

    it is the national interest to make electricity as cheap as possible.

    +101 No downsides to cheap energy.

  17. rebel with cause

    These guys don’t know when to quit. Climate change is dead as a dodo electorally. When economic growth is in the toilet, nobody gives a shit.

  18. Sinclair Davidson

    The big problem the warmenists made was to conflate global warming with the drought. Once the drought broke people didn’t care anymore.

  19. Nerblnob

    Is this guy saying that the carbon tax meant to dissuade people from using hydrocarbons for energy is so small that it wouldn’t dissuade anyone from using hydrocarbons for energy?

  20. cohenite

    A carbon, really CO2, tax is justified on the lie of man-made global warming. There is no science or empirical evidence to support global warming, therefore a CO2 tax is just another revenue raising measure which has the unfortunate result of reducing the availability of cheap, reliable electricity from fossils, and replacing that electricity with no electricity from renewables, which are more of a scam and impost than global warming.

  21. AP

    Does Dennisss realise there is no gas pipeline between NSW/Vic and Qld?

    How exactly do CSG / LNG projects in Qld drive up NSW and Vic prices?

  22. Andrew

    How so? If you think global warming is a problem and that something should and could be done about it, a tax is a better solution to an ETS.

    Try to keep up. We’re in a thread that begins by arguing that the WBCT was a dog of a policy and had almost no current or future effect on the emissions it sought to prevent. Maybe re-reading it will help.

    Once you’ve done so, the following facts are relevant:
    – Gerbil worming is NOT a problem. Virtually all peer-reviewed academic work holds that the first 2C are net positive because cold is worse than hot for plant and human life. And this ignores the positive externality of CO2 being plant food. If you returned the world to 280ppm, 1bn people would die over the next 12 months.
    – Nothing can or should be done about it. All carbon policy had, by design, moved emitting activity to improved jurisdictions. That’s terrible policy even if you believe that the ECS is 4-6C which would group you with loons like Sarah Sea-Patrol.
    – A tax is no solution at all. It’s slightly less destructive than an ETS solely because it can’t be paid to overseas. But it is just another deadweight tax with zero positive effects other than revenue.

    The first and second point should be self evident to any educated person.

  23. Bad Samaritan

    Andrew (11.32pm). What’s being got at is the following………

    My mate’s 6 foot six inches tall. Now, if you accept that being over six foot is a serious problem then there are two main methods available to reduce his height…..either cut off his feet at the ankles, or his head at the neck. In each case this serious problem of being overly tall will be solved.

    However, many academic studies have shown that the feet-removal option is more acceptable to all concerned, and therefore much easier to implement. Therefore foot-amputation is the logical way to go.

    ong>This is what Sinc is getting at. And here you are, probably also trying to claim that being over six foot tall is not a major societal issue in need of rectifying? WTF kinda clown are you, eh?

    Get with the good perfessor and feel the vibe. Learn to Love Big Brother Sinc!

  24. Tel

    The big problem the warmenists made was to conflate global warming with the drought. Once the drought broke people didn’t care anymore.

    They conflated global warming with every imaginable thing, regardless of how nonsensical and contradictory it might happen to be. With a wide enough spread something will come out right for sure… but quite a lot will come out wrong.

  25. Combine Dave

    his is the point. There is nothing Australia can do to effect global temperature. Nothing.

    So it is the national interest to make electricity as cheap as possible.

    That means coal.

    Exactly!

  26. Diogenes

    There is nothing Australia can do to effect global temperature.

    Didn’t the OCO-2 satellite determine Australia as a continent was a nett carbon sink , and therefore any emissions we make are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,

    Ah found it … NASA …
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

  27. RobK

    Australia could benefit greatly by developing a fully vertically integrated nuclear power industry to service the world and diversify power source, extending all resources. This is true even without the climate caper. The climate caper is likely the main easily recifiable cause of crippling social dissatisfaction facing the world, it needs to stop. They have tugged away at it for so long now without comming up with convincing evidence.

Comments are closed.