The Case Against the Carbon Tax

I have a piece in the Australian Financial Review on solar and carbon emission reduction measures. It balances the article on Monday by Connie Hedegaard the EU Commissioner for Climate Action (these people are so close to Greenpeace they are even adopting their namebadges). It is reproduced here on the IPA site. 

I had not realised but the article is obviously part of the “massive assault” to undermine government policies to promote billions of dollars worth of investment in wind farms and other renewable energy technologies, that Greens senator Christine Milne was yesterday warning us about.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Case Against the Carbon Tax

  1. Sean

    Abolishing the MRET would be wonderful but unfortunately it looks as though it has bipartisan support. 10 nuclear powerplants would be a great start if we are ever going to really cut emissions.

  2. Ivan Denisovich

    I had not realised but the article is obviously part of the “massive assault” to undermine government policies to promote billions of dollars worth of investment in wind farms and other renewable energy technologies, that Greens senator Christine Milne was yesterday warning us about.

    Very harsh, Alan. Christine Milne is right to be concerned, as Jebediah Cole explains:

    http://www.thedailygrind.com.au/yourbusiness/story/1846/

  3. David Palmer

    Roger Pielke Jr’s “The Carbon Fix” should be compulsory reading for every policy advisor/politician in regards to what to do/not to do as a policy response to climate change (assuming the IPCC has got it right).

    Peter Lang’s work on bravenewclimate.com well and truly puts the skids under solar power/windfarm pretensions.

  4. Well I am doing my little bit to try to stop this carbon tax thing and yes I don’t like wasting money. I remember when the ABC did a campaign once saying how it only cost 4c per day in the 80s i think. So what am I currently getting for my $8 of extra debt per day as a tax payer? For those interested encourage you to read my submission to the Clean Energy Legislation (carbon tax) can be found via http://www.annoyedaussie.com Yes blatent self promotion once again but want to get my message out.

  5. Rafe Champion

    Alan, have you seen my detailed summary of Garth Paltridge The Climate Caper?

    I also urge people to read the Liddle and Liddle contribution which is a thoroughly researched study. I wish I could remember where I promoted it on Cat, I can find a post on the qskeptics email discussion group where I reproduced the conclusions, thought I did the same on Cat but can’t find it.

  6. Rafe

    Just read some of the detailed summary link above and interesting. I am surprised how many people have come out about the exaggerations but they rarely get air time. Also what is interesting is the comparison to nuclear power which although expensive is the safest base load power and empirically speaking caused by far the least number of deaths. It does not seem to be on the agenda. Seems those who promote the science promote the science they prefer.

  7. Rafe

    Kelly you need to go to another source to see the not entirely hidden hands that block the mining of uranium and cognate developments, like storing waste in Australia. Join the dots!

    BTW I kicked off debates about nuclear power here and on Troppo (another blog). This brought out the usual suspects in opposition, also the argument about cost which may be decisive at present but that is for the market to decide, not anti-nuclear activists.

  8. alan moran

    Rafe

    I actually chaired the launch of Gaarth Paltridge’s book which like those of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter convinces me about the slender nature of the scientific case that catastroophic warming is taking place. That said, I prefer to anchor my own scribblings on the economics and politics of the issue to avoid acccusations that I am addressing matters from an unqualified perspective (of course such restraits are absent from those like Garnaut and the Treasury who claim to know about all dimensions of the global warming and are rarely taken to task)

  9. Does anybody know where the 97% consensus number comes from? when used by the government to claim there is a consensus that “action must be taken now to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees celcius” I have found some consensus information relating to what happened between 10 and 60 years ago but this is not directly relevant as the future prediction is that changes will happen far more quickly.

  10. Does anybody know where the 97% consensus number comes from? when used by the government to claim there is a consensus that “action must be taken now to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees celcius by 2100” I have found some consensus information relating to what happened between 10 and 60 years ago but this is not directly relevant as the future prediction is that changes will happen far more quickly.

  11. JC

    Peter Lang’s work on bravenewclimate.com well and truly puts the skids under solar power/windfarm pretensions.

    He’s great , really first class stuff. He’s the best read about this in the country.

  12. Jim Rose

    I prefer to anchor my own scribblings on the economics and politics of the issue to avoid acccusations that I am addressing matters from an unqualified perspective

    alan moran,
    plenty of people have strong opinions of economic policy and they feel fully entitled to have so without any knowledge of economics or statistics.

    Indeed, they take pride in not knowing economics and attack the methodology of economics and the purported political biases of economists as their grounds for rejecting learning more economics and listening to expert opinion even on the most technical issues.

    Is climate science special?

    how does any lay audience deal with expert advice?

  13. Jarrah

    “Does anybody know where the 97% consensus number comes from?”

    They could be citing Doran 2009 or Anderegg 2010.

  14. Jarrah

    Thanks for that, it does seem that it is based on the Anderegg 2010 which as i said above is about history and if you are to use the 97% then the warming from 1950 to end 1999 can only be said to be 0.36 degrees (majority of warming caused by anthropogenic green house gas emissions and i think but not sure that the accepted amount of warming is 0.7 degrees) which has nothing to do with the future predictions of runaway warming.

Comments are closed.