A price on carbon

A price on carbon.  A price on carbon.

If TAFKAS hears another expert or commentator advocate for a price on carbon, his head will explode.  TAFKAS is not interested in WHETHER there is a price on carbon.  TAFKAS is interested in WHAT that price is.

Is is zero – as in the price of carbon in China, India, Russia and the United States?  Or is it something high, economy destroying, unilateral and stupid as is desired by the ALP, LNP and the Greens.

What’s the price son?  What’s the price?

And if TAFKAS also hears about the science is settled crap and we should listen to the experts ….  Ok.  There may be scientific consensus on the impact on carbon.  That does not mean we should blindly follow.  There is scientific consensus on the virtue of vaccination.  Does this mean that every child, person should be tied down and vaccinated?

These are issues of trade-offs and of collective action.  There is no point being the only person vaccinated if no one else is.  Much as there is no point “decarbonising” if no-one else is.  And let’s remember, the total increase in global carbon emissions last year is more than the total emissions of Australia.  That is, Australia can completely decarbonise and it won’t make a cracker of a difference.

So if they want a prices of carbon, sure.  The price is the same price as in China, India, Russia and the United States – Nil.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to A price on carbon

  1. Ubique

    We’re still waiting to hear what effect the trillions spent so far on renewables and making our energy supplies unreliable and unaffordable has had on the climate, sea levels, extreme weather or the mating habits of wildebeest.
    Why would anyone want to spend another dollar on the scam when there have been benefits reported from all of the resources wasted so far?

  2. Ubique

    … no benefits reported..

  3. the sting

    I also get tired of Shorten and others saying we cannot afford the cost of doing nothing . The cost of doing nothing is …. zero .

  4. teamv

    Luckily for us, scientific fact isn’t determined on consensus.

    Otherwise we would still use geocentrism, misama theory, shrinking earth theory and phlogiston.

  5. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    There may be scientific consensus on the impact on carbon

    Nup. Not even on that. Troposphere heating is still a live issue as well as many issues to do with measurement in global terms, the foundation of such science: see re underwater volcanos and ocean temperatures and CO2 absorption, the state of the sunspots, the non-melting poles and historic periods of climatic variation not varying directly with levels of atmospheric CO2. And I presume you mean the impact of CO2, i.e. carbon dioxide, not ‘carbon’.

    It shows great ignorance to speak of ‘carbon’ to carbon-based lifeforms such as ourselves even if some CO2 emitting fools amongst us are prone to think that science works by ‘consensus’ when it patently does not, especially when Childe Joan the Saviour Savant thinks she can actually see and smell this colourless, odorless gas. 🙂

    “Putting a price” on something as nebulous as ‘carbon science’ is a clear pathway to avoidable ruin.

  6. AH

    It’s very simple. Make renewable energy a free choice.

    All forms of carbon pricing, carbon taxes, etc work on the same assumption: People will choose fossil fuel if it is cheaper, so make it more expensive and people will choose renewable energy. It is therefore impossible for any carbon pricing scheme to be overall cheaper, because it fundamentally relies on increasing prices in order to work.

    The problem with carbon pricing is that it is trying to control people’s behaviour. Why should a democratically elected government control people’s behaviour? This is a fundamental contradiction of democratic principles. If I want my behaviour to be X, why would I vote for a government to force me to adopt behavior X? Why would I not change my behaviour to be X voluntarily? If I wish for government to control me, is this because I believe the government will be more effective at controlling me than I would myself? Do I suspect that I would resist this change, therefore I need government force to compel me to make the change? But it is a change that I want, so why would I resist? Or do I not really want the change?

    Let’s say 51% of voters want to pay extra and have renewable energy. If those 51% of voters voluntarily do that then carbon emissions can be reduced significantly through their own voluntary action. Let’s say the majority of voters do not want to pay extra for renewable energy, in that case it should not be government policy because it goes against the wishes of the electorate.

    And if people complain that 51% might reduce their emissions but 49% might increase their emissions. Remember, this is supposed to be an end of humanity scenario, right? Therefore, when members of that minority are given a proper explanation about what the problem is, they should voluntarily adopt renewable energy, assuming the arguments in favour are strong enough. People concerned about this problem can pay for advertising, or go door to door if they need to. They could also finance support funds for disadvantaged people so that they can afford for renewable energy. All this would rapidly bring down carbon dioxide emissions. No need for government intervention or coercion at all.

  7. Percy Popinjay

    price on carbon

    Two utterly illogical idiocies contained in a three word phrase. Magnificent work.

  8. Anthony

    There is no point being the only person vaccinated if no one else is.

    Actually, in the short term there absolutely is a point. The vaccine can shorten your T cell response time to a pathogen from a couple of weeks down to 12 hours. You will likely already have prophylactic antibodies in circulation from the vaccine that will help neutralise the pathogen.

    The reason why herd immunity is important is that some people can’t get vaccines, or not everyone responds well to the vaccine. (Vaccines are a one-size-fits-all product, people have vastly varying immune systems). Over time, if you are the only person vaccinated, it is likely the pathogen you are vaccinated against will mutate and genetically drift away from the original strain. This is because the pathogen will have lots more hosts to replicate and spread in, increasing the probability of it evolving and diversifying.

    A better example might be the influenza vaccine. It’s usually only 70% effective and very useful for a few months. But it costs $10-20, so the cost is minimal. However, if it cost $1000 and no-one else gets it, then it’s probably not a good trade-off for you to get it.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle

    Humans breathe out about a kilogram of CO2 every day. According to the tome of record produced by St Julia the CO2 price in 2030 should be between $50 and $110 per tonne of ebil gas (chart).

    Let’s average that to $80 per tonne. That means every person each day will be emitting one thousandth of a tonne of CO2, at $80 per tonne. So each person should be taxed 8c a day.

    Hey I’ve worked out how to run the ABC on CO2!

  10. max

    people who think that co2 is bad should stop immediately breathing.

  11. Pyrmonter

    Before subjecting a carbon tax to withering scrutiny, perhaps TAFKAS could consider what are the optimal levels of:

    – property sales duty
    – taxation on personal exertion income
    – payroll tax
    – monopoly rents farmed out to various grifters under
    – indirect ‘climate’ policy measures

    Neither tax policy nor ‘climate’ policy can be approached as a tabula rasa; in both cases, there are low hanging fruit in the form of very expensive, very inefficient, and very unfair policies by way of taxes and mandates, that could be removed with the introduction of a single, general, low and universal CO2 consumption tax. A tax at, say, USD15 per tonne of CO2 output would likely raise sufficient revenue to fund the abolition of stamp duty and reductions in the other onerous taxes referred to above; if so, it would almost definitely be welfare-enhancing.

  12. Pyrmonter

    ‘… under state government ‘privatisation’ exercises that have seen the capitalisation and sale, with anti-competitive terms, of the ports of the eastern seaboard’

  13. RobK

    The Hidden Subsidy of Fossil Fuels
    From The Atlantic. This is what we are up against.
    Sample:

    SCIENCE
    The Hidden Subsidy of Fossil Fuels
    A new report says that the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion in just one year. But that calculation is less tidy than it seems.

    ROBINSON MEYER
    11:20 AM ET

    HAZIR REKA / REUTERS
    Governments around the world spend an enormous amount of money every year making it cheaper for fossil-fuel companies to exhaust the planet. But they’re not spending nearly as much as a recent report may make it seem.

    And on, and on it goes……

    Which sharpens the point: The burning of fossil fuels demands the grant of something valuable not from one equal to another, but from the poor to the rich, from the weak to the powerful. The wealthy can and do burn more fuels, after all. A remarkable study published this year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that black and Hispanic Americans experience about 55 percent more air pollution than they cause. White Americans, meanwhile, suffer 17 percent less air pollution than they cause. No wonder black children are four times as likely to die from asthma as white children.

    Does that represent a subsidy? The IMF report hopes to treat it like one. So it assigns a dollar amount to every harm inflicted by fossil fuels. The cost of air pollution varies by country—poorer countries are more willing than rich countries to accept dirty air—but it comes out to $2.3 trillion worldwide. Then the report reviews three different ways of calculating the future cost of climate change, before deciding (somewhat arbitrarily) that each additional ton of carbon in the atmosphere imposes $40 of global costs. That comes to $1.1 trillion in costs overall. Another $735 billion comes from the estimated costs of traffic, of road upkeep, and of car fatalities.

    No mention of any benefit.

  14. jupes

    TAFKAS you should refrain from repeating leftist propaganda.

    CO2 is not carbon.

  15. RobK

    Here’s a dopey analogy from the above link:

    They’re sort of like a grant of something valuable exchanged among ourselves: If the air pollution from my gas stove causes you to have a fatal heart attack, then I reaped most of the excess benefits of that arrangement (I didn’t have to go chop wood to cook dinner), my gas company earned a smaller share (collected via my monthly bill), and you paid for the difference. Every year, 70,000 to 107,000 Americans subsidize air pollution with their life. Of course, before you were stricken, you were on the “winning” side of that deal many times—the exact number dependent on how often you burned fossil fuels during your life.

    What about the increased plant growth? Wood stoves would have killed more, by far. Even just collecting the wood.

  16. Rob MW

    people who think that co2 is bad should stop immediately breathing.

    You don’t have to worry Max, once the tax reduces CO2 & global temps the price of Tofu will go through the roof and they will all perish by hyperventilating whilst arguing with a malnourished Bean.

  17. John A

    If TAFKAS hears another expert or commentator advocate for a price on carbon, his head will explode. TAFKAS is not interested in WHETHER there is a price on carbon. TAFKAS is interested in WHAT that price is.

    No, no, a thousand times No!, TAFKAS.

    We must hold the line on WHETHER there is a “price on carbon”: the point at which we answer the question “Price?” with a Yes or a No. And we must be uncompromisingly for the “No” answer.

    If we ask “How much?” we have already conceded the answer “Yes” to the previous question.

    Thus, we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

  18. MACK

    Here’s some peer-reviewed science showing that there have been temperature increases of about 8 degrees over a decade or so in the past. The climate has always been volatile, and all the talk about CO2 and climate emergency is baseless hysteria.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/

    “The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).

    For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval ≈11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning ≈5 years and in total covering ≈40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less”

  19. David Brewer

    Does that represent a subsidy? The IMF report hopes to treat it like one. So it assigns a dollar amount to every harm inflicted by fossil fuels. The cost of air pollution varies by country—poorer countries are more willing than rich countries to accept dirty air—but it comes out to $2.3 trillion worldwide. Then the report reviews three different ways of calculating the future cost of climate change…That comes to $1.1 trillion in costs overall. Another $735 billion comes from the estimated costs of traffic, of road upkeep, and of car fatalities.

    The IMF figures are sheer rubbish, from several angles. First, the cost of externalities is not a subsidy, according to accepted international definitions. If it were, “subsidies” could easily exceed global GDP.

    Second, notice that climate change isn’t even the major factor. Instead, it’s air pollution. That bit comes from WHO’s disgraceful distortion of the impact of outdoor air pollution, according to which roughly 5% of people in the developed world, even in Australia, die of air pollution. In fact, hardly anyone dies of air pollution in the West. Beijing’s air pollution is 10 or 20 times as bad as in Western cities, and the life expectancy in Beijing is still 83.

    Third, the IMF even adds in externalities that don’t come from fossil fuels in the first place. Traffic costs, road upkeep and road deaths would still happen even if every vehicle was electric.

    Fourth, they haven’t costed the externalities of their externalities. If there were no cars and roads, and no fossil fuels for electricity, air and sea transport etc., there would be no world economy as we know it and per capita GDP would crash to pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

    The IMF work is a disgrace, and if believed will be one of the most damaging frauds ever to come out of an international organisation.

  20. Tel

    There is no point being the only person vaccinated if no one else is.

    WTF?!? Where do you get that from?

    Does the vaccine reduce your chance of getting sick? If yes, then the above statement is false.

  21. Matt

    There is no point being the only person vaccinated if no one else is.

    Bahahahaha – it’s always amusing when people rant well outside there area of expertise. If no-one else was vaccinated, that’s exactly the time I would want to be vaccinated.

  22. nb

    Nuclear energy – 3rd or fourth generation – is the answer. Dangerous nuclear is ancient technology.
    https://futurism.com/the-byte/bill-gates-nuclear-energy

  23. RobK

    From the link that MACK gave above, comes this quote:

     Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. 

    Natural variability is large. It isnt wise to base your energy requirements on the prevailing weather with long term infrastructure.

  24. Neville

    Sorry, TAFKAS. Your analogy re vaccination is invalid. Yes, your point about “decarbonisation” is quite correct, but saying that there’s no point in vaccination in one is the only person to do so, is simply not the case. One would, vaccinated, be quite immune to the diseases targeted, while many around one would cop those diseases; verily, one would still be immune.

  25. Mullumhillbilly

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #3009098, posted on May 10, 2019 at 12:00 pm
    Humans breathe out about a kilogram of CO2 every day.

    Hence annual industrial emissions from Oz (550m t CO2e) are just a little more than what the Chinese people (pop’n 1.42bn) exhale each year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.