topic Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails in Community Spirit

Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

silverfaun — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:14:55 GMT

An interesting piece that debunks all the hysteria around Tax Or Direct Action by someone who knows about it rather than those with a political agenda to push.

Direct action may succeed where tax fails

TWO years ago, in my book Clean Energy, Climate and Carbon, I posed the question: "Will putting a price on carbon drive deployment of clean energy technologies?

My answer then was: "Probably no, unless the price is much higher than that proposed by Australia or by most other countries."

Two years on, the experience in Australia, Europe and North America has reinforced that view.In Europe, the emissions trading scheme provided some companies with the opportunity to use their allocation of free carbon credits to profit by carbon gaming and might have resulted in a modest level of uptake of gas in lieu of coal, but there is no evidence that it has produced any significant decrease in emissions.

In Australia, any decrease in emissions because of wind and solar has had nothing whatsoever to do with a carbon tax and everything to do with the renewable energy target scheme.

Although the National Greenhouse and Energy Report for 2012-13 has yet to be released, recent statements suggest that any decrease in emissions attributable to the carbon tax is minute, but it will be interesting to see the actual data.

In the US, there has been a significant drop in emissions, not because of a price on carbon, for there is no nationwide price on carbon (there are some state schemes), but because of a decrease in manufacturing activity and particularly because of the widespread switch from coal to cleaner and cheaper shale gas: a good example of how a new technology can decrease emissions.

Those with an unshakeable faith in the market will still claim that a price on carbon is the most effective way of developing and deploying clean energy technologies.

The flaw in that philosophy is that for a market to work, there has to be real choice and a clear basis for making that choice now.

But there is no level playing field for determining the real cost of many existing, let alone future, technologies, for many quoted costs are distorted by subsidies, regulations or mandated targets focused on particular technologies.

The excellent 2011 report of the Productivity Commission on Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies is one of the few studies that does attempt to get at the real cost of a range of technologies.

The costs of some quite widely deployed technologies, such as solar, are staggeringly high and certainly far more than any carbon price.

The future cost of clean energy technologies still under development but crucial to decreasing emissions is, of course, even more uncertain, which is why research is needed.

But a price on carbon, whether a carbon tax or an ETS, does not encourage the long-term R&D needed to take forward some of the critical large-scale mitigation options, such as geothermal or solar thermal or carbon capture and storage.

A price on carbon or a carbon tax could be used to directly support the research needed to develop and deploy emission-reducing technologies, and that would perhaps provide a stronger case for a carbon price. But the reality is that no such linkage was established under Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme, which was targeted at broader budgetary issues and at social engineering rather than what its target should have been, namely clean energy engineering.

Without a clear and strong policy linking a carbon price to clean energy technology development, there is no meaningful emission-reduction policy, just another speculative market in the case of an ETS or just another tax.

It could be argued that an ETS could, of course, provide scope for purchasing cheap overseas carbon credits.

Many of the players who brought you the global financial crisis would be happy to assist, no doubt using ever more exotic and complex financial instruments, this time based not on real estate but on carbon.

A price on carbon does not and will not reduce emissions until some of the key technologies are further advanced and fully costed, and until the carbon price is much higher than any government is willing to contemplate at present.

That leads us to the alternative of direct action.

Critics will argue that there is no clear definition of what direct action involves, and that may be so. But there is a different view, namely that this present lack of definition provides the opportunity to help to define what it should be. In fact direct action has been in place for several years in Australia and other countries.

For example, having a renewable energy target clearly constitutes direct action that has directly encouraged (and, in effect, subsidised) the uptake of particular technologies, primarily wind and solar.

So what would be needed to make a success of direct action?

In summary, getting rid of the carbon tax is the right thing to do at this time.

It has proved ineffective as a mechanism for decreasing emissions.

Direct action may well be more effective.

Peter J. Cook is a professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne. He is a former chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies and an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-ordinating lead author.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

lakeland27 — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:24:34 GMT

thanks for the laugh. the carbon tax is a success, a proven success. direct action is an election platform, designed to hoodwink not actually work.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

icyfroth — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:26:54 GMT

A good article thanks, Faun!

I particulary agreed with this:

"In the US, there has been a significant drop in emissions, not because of a price on carbon, for there is no nationwide price on carbon (there are some state schemes), but because of a decrease in manufacturing activity and particularly because of the widespread switch from coal to cleaner and cheaper shale gas: a good example of how a new technology can decrease emissions."

and this:

"It could be argued that an ETS could, of course, provide scope for purchasing cheap overseas carbon credits.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

lakeland27 — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:31:03 GMT

name a successful carbon capture scheme. research in australia was abandoned as it yielded O result.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

lakeland27 — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:32:29 GMT

i agree with cook when he says renewables need to be funded. someone tell abbott, he's cut the lot .

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

silverfaun — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:38:35 GMT

kudos icy, you got it quickly without all the (hyperbowl)

I have known about the "carbon credit" con for many years but the rantings from Labor to push their failed tax has been deafening & ably assisted by The ABC & their "Global Warming" agenda.

Personally, trying to control the planet's weather is ludicrous & only a madman would try to push such an insane policy but taking responsibility for polluting & waste has always been a good thing.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

lakeland27 — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:40:13 GMT

misinformed for many years that ought to be.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

lakeland27 — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:41:49 GMT

only mad persons or blind partisan types would actively work to prevent the only thing proven to work so far

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

polksaladallie — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:45:40 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z1QGpTZSo&list=TLseddL2Xqui0YzXzewqvaVbFNFgvvEhK8

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

donnashuggy — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:13:54 GMT

The problem is the government fudges statistics. Greg Hunt cannot be trusted to give accuracy.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

izabsmiling — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:23:47 GMT

Carbon pricing most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions, says OECD

Study finds cost of alternatives such as feed-in tariffs, industry regulation and subsidies can be ‘substantially higher’

Carbon taxes and emissions trading systems are the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions and should be “at the centre of government efforts to tackle climate change”, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

An OECD study, called Effective Carbon Prices, found that other policies, such as feed-in tariffs, industry regulation and subsidies, are far less economically preferable than carbon pricing.

The findings are the latest evidence-based blow to the Coalition government’s climate policy, which involves dismantling carbon pricing and replacing it with its Direct Action system of financial handouts to businesses that want to reduce their emissions.

Previous analysis has shown that Direct Action will fail to meet Australia’s bipartisan goal of a 5% emissions cut by 2020 based on 2000 levels. Earlier this week, former treasury secretary Ken Henry ridiculed the Coalition policy as “bizarre”.

The OECD’s ringing endorsement of carbon pricing follows the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have both recently backed the system as the best way to slash emissions.

The OECD study looked at climate change policies in 15 countries, including Australia, China and Germany, and their impact on areas including electricity generatiion, household energy use, road transport and cement manufacturing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/05/carbon-pricing-best-way-to-reduce-carbon-emissions

Carbon tax succeeded in doing what it was intended to do....it reduced emmissions.It did not fail

Who wrote the opening post and why is it that they TELL us that it failed ?

Ken Henry referred to Direct Action as Bizarre

If people want to keep making our environment about political parties rather than our environment and an issue our Government is responsible for management of...Ken Henry was on the Right

My envirironment is too important to me to make a political plaything out of it .The wrong info could cause native animals to be wiped out,harm us and future generations of Australians. ..

and it's our money too isn't it ?

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

spotweldersfriend — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:29:13 GMT

Carbon capture.File under Lasseter's reef, el Dorado,time travel.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

silverfaun — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:29:16 GMT

Carbon trading & carbon credits have been proved as a vehicle for mass rorting & criminal cartels. If Australia is forced to keep the carbon tax how much money will be we be liable for to send overseas to entities that are wholly based on dishonest rorts & massive criminal cartels?? How much?? does anyone know? all I know is it is in the billions.

If we go the Direct Action route our money will be spent in our country on schemes we can see benefit from not the shady carbon trading deals that have proved so false & a massive failure in reducing any emissions at all, in fact no discernible reduction at all.

If Labor continue to go the ETS or Carbon tax route it will see them out of government for decades. People will not be conned any longer, they are seeing it for what it was, a wholly socialist Green agenda Gillard fell for to form Government when she didn't have to.

This is another massive fail by Gillard, no wonder she's gone.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

izabsmiling — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:33:15 GMT

Direct Action will give charitable hand outs of our money to big businesses who might decide to do the right thing by Australian people and their environment.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

spotweldersfriend — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:38:37 GMT

Mexican and Colombian carbon cartels 🙂

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

izabsmiling — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:42:49 GMT

the concept is as bizarre to me as removing road rules ....and rewarding drivers with charity IF they do the right thing rather than making them accountable for doing the wrong thing ..

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

donnashuggy — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:48:54 GMT

How are people being conned when it is proven to work and get results?

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

izabsmiling — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:25:51 GMT

Silverfaun wrote:

where is this proof you mention that we have been involved (through the carbon tax) in mass ,dishonest rorting and massive criminal cartels ?

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

spotweldersfriend — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:36:08 GMT

If anything's criminal it'll be the billions of taxpayer dollars handed out without any positive outcomes.The carbon tax has been such a burden yet Australians managed to hand over $30 billion in shopping over the Christmas. period.

Re: Direct action may succeed where carbontax fails

silverfaun — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:38:28 GMT

There has been no positive outcome from the carbon tax no reductions in the temperature of the planet. All the carbon tax has done is hurt Australian business, drive power prices through the roof & sent many small time businesses to the wall.

All for what may I ask?? no reduction in the climate of the Planet.

One bushfire season in Australia negates all the efforts put into schemes & the billions wasted on taxes, is all for nothing.