Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
Jason Croker
Posts: 4337
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.


Papa the government should invest in technology.

Unfortunately this current administration has no clothes in terms of R&D in energy technology. To wield same as the cornerstone of the "plan" is high farce.
Up The Milk
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.
I agree with you - accuracy in words is better then ****.

That said I disagree that the government shouldn't invest in technology like renewables that moves the country and human race forward in a positive more sustainable fashion.

The right market frame work may work, the difficulty I see right now, is if that market framework is a different way of saying a carbon market or carbon tax. Nobody actually wants to buy CO2 or carbon. The only reason people will purchase credits is to avoid punitive enforcement measures. Thus, it isnt a market in the normal market sense, just like paying license fees or passport fees or rego is not really a market.

A market is the free transfer of goods / services / products between willing buyers and sellers... a carbon tax isnt that.

That said maybe a global carbon tax could in assisting to reduce climate change and have a better more breathable sustainable planet. Do I see that as an outcome happening any time soon... no, would I call it a market framework. No but strong arguments could be made for it, just like strong arguments could be made re how we tax companies who make a lot of plastic products...
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: December 20, 2020, 1:19 pm The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
electric cars isnt picking winners at this point.

It is clear as day that is the trend of the future, I say this as someone who owns and drives petrol cars but will be moving to electric when the time comes.

Whether we get on the electric bus now or when the oil runs out, electric cars have picked themselves as they operate on power that can be sourced renewably.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:20 am
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.


Papa the government should invest in technology.

Unfortunately this current administration has no clothes in terms of R&D in energy technology. To wield same as the cornerstone of the "plan" is high farce.
Great graph.

but I would like to know if in the about us section of the australian institutes website it says:-
We barrack for ideas,
not political parties.

Ben Oquist, Executive Director

When they say that do they mean it or is that just spin?
User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7593
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: Climate change

Post by BadnMean »

...
Last edited by BadnMean on November 5, 2021, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
Jason Croker
Posts: 4337
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:56 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:20 am
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.


Papa the government should invest in technology.

Unfortunately this current administration has no clothes in terms of R&D in energy technology. To wield same as the cornerstone of the "plan" is high farce.
Great graph.

but I would like to know if in the about us section of the australian institutes website it says:-
We barrack for ideas,
not political parties.

Ben Oquist, Executive Director

When they say that do they mean it or is that just spin?
The data is sourced from the IEA.

Perhaps try engaging on the substantive point.
Up The Milk
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12611
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

papabear wrote:
gergreg wrote: December 19, 2020, 3:34 pm Well maybe if countries actually paid any level of attention to the science... what 30 ... 40 + years ago ? We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Politicians in many countries, including our own were denying that climate change was occurring up until quite recently, with our current PM using a lump of coal as a prop in parliament.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I am part of the world. I took notice of climate change when my teacher put on saving heironymus in the 4th grade.

You are also part of the world and you took notice.

Just for the record, what is it that you have done re climate change and what is it that you are advocating to be done in addition to a ban on the coal trade?
Not sure how old that post you're quoting is.

I don't drive a car. Ever. Where possible I run or ride a bike to get around, otherwise catch a bus. I propagate a large amount of plants / trees each year and give them away (free) to friends and colleagues. Japanese maple mostly but have recently propagated a few hundred alocasuarina seeds, again to share with neighbours - to rejuvenate the local area and attract native birds.. I recycle a lot of stuff, ie cardboard and veggie scraps go to the worms.

I would like to be able to afford solar power and an electric vehicle but I'm not in a financial position to do so, but when I am, I will do these things. Of course I'd like to do more.

Thank you for showing an interest in my personal life.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

There are questions about whether fuel excise is a "good tax". It is often portrayed a tax that "pays for roads", but it raises much more revenue than that. It is a tax that raises a lot of revenue - and sometimes, that is what you need. A tax base that is easy to tax and generates revenue for public goods. But if it is supposed to be a user charge for roads, it would be structured differently. If it is supposed to be a tax that corrects for the market failure associated with carbon and other pollution, it would be structured differently. So as it is not really aimed at either of those things, it is probably best to consider it as simply a tax that is just designed to raise revenue. And in that context the fuel tax credit scheme - which has the rationale of giving a rebate for off road fuel use (as that activity doesn't require the use of roads) - is best considered as an economic subsidy to the activity that is effectively exempt from the tax. That's because it is a tax that just raises money, all of it goes into consolidated revenue and can be used for any purpose.

An economic subsidy need not involve government spending. It can take the form of a tax concession. In this case, the fuel tax credit scheme is just that.

All that said, the whole tax is hardly ideal.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:54 am
greeneyed wrote: December 20, 2020, 1:19 pm The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
electric cars isnt picking winners at this point.

It is clear as day that is the trend of the future, I say this as someone who owns and drives petrol cars but will be moving to electric when the time comes.

Whether we get on the electric bus now or when the oil runs out, electric cars have picked themselves as they operate on power that can be sourced renewably.
If the government decides that electric cars are the bees knees and "invests" tax payers' money into the industry... then that is "picking winners". Market mechanisms and private decisions are always going to be better at choosing the least cost, most effective form of carbon abatement. Governments have shown over a very long time that they very poor in making these sorts of decisions.
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
Jason Croker
Posts: 4337
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:34 pm It is often portrayed a tax that "pays for roads", but it raises much more revenue than that. It is a tax that raises a lot of revenue - and sometimes, that is what you need.
I think the term you're looking for is a "hypothecated" tax. Any hypothecated taxes which exist in Australia are purely nominal. If there was at any time a shortfall/surplus in the account which collects (for example) the Medicare levy; in practical terms it would impose precisely zero constraint on Treasury funding whatever Medicare service it needed to.
Up The Milk
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 2:22 pm
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:34 pm It is often portrayed a tax that "pays for roads", but it raises much more revenue than that. It is a tax that raises a lot of revenue - and sometimes, that is what you need.
I think the term you're looking for is a "hypothecated" tax. Any hypothecated taxes which exist in Australia are purely nominal. If there was at any time a shortfall/surplus in the account which collects (for example) the Medicare levy; in practical terms it would impose precisely zero constraint on Treasury funding whatever Medicare service it needed to.
I wasn’t looking for that term, as fuel excises aren’t hypothecated… but it is still presented as a tax that “pays for roads”, when it doesn’t really. It funds public goods more generally through consolidated revenue.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16584
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote: The right market frame work may work, the difficulty I see right now, is if that market framework is a different way of saying a carbon market or carbon tax. Nobody actually wants to buy CO2 or carbon. The only reason people will purchase credits is to avoid punitive enforcement measures. Thus, it isnt a market in the normal market sense, just like paying license fees or passport fees or rego is not really a market.
The point is that within the economy carbon emissions are not appropriately costed in the goods we buy - that’s the market failure. So the government needs to establish a framework that does include that cost in the pricing.

Whether you want to call that part of the framework a market or not seems to be fairly uninteresting and inconsequential semantics to me.
Last edited by gangrenous on November 6, 2021, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16584
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote: A "tax break" / tax deduction is not a subsidy. The government is not subsidising office works / stationary industry. Same as is not subsidising the accounting / insurance or any other cost to your business that is legally a tax deduction.
If you have a specific tax imposed on an area that you reduce then you could argue that’s not a subsidy.

When you have a universal tax that is refunded or adjusted for a particular area then that would be a subsidy.

So I’d argue that tax accountants are subsidised.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:16 pm
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:56 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:20 am
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 9:29 am
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.


Papa the government should invest in technology.

Unfortunately this current administration has no clothes in terms of R&D in energy technology. To wield same as the cornerstone of the "plan" is high farce.
Great graph.

but I would like to know if in the about us section of the australian institutes website it says:-
We barrack for ideas,
not political parties.

Ben Oquist, Executive Director

When they say that do they mean it or is that just spin?
The data is sourced from the IEA.

Perhaps try engaging on the substantive point.
I agreed with the substantive point - see comment saying great graph.

That all said for me, if someone says they are not about political parties - they should live up to that. Or don’t go with the faux neutrality.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 8:03 am
papabear wrote: The right market frame work may work, the difficulty I see right now, is if that market framework is a different way of saying a carbon market or carbon tax. Nobody actually wants to buy CO2 or carbon. The only reason people will purchase credits is to avoid punitive enforcement measures. Thus, it isnt a market in the normal market sense, just like paying license fees or passport fees or rego is not really a market.
The point is that within the economy carbon emissions are not appropriately costed in the goods we buy - that’s the market failure. So the government needs to establish a framework that does include that cost in the pricing.

Whether you want to call that part of the framework a market or not seems to be fairly uninteresting and inconsequential semantics to me.
Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.

When you fart, you didn’t contract something with someone to pay for the benefit of releasing your fart.

Imo the government should only establish a price for carbon if us / China / India / Europe are all on board so we don’t just pay more taxes making ourselves more uncompetitive achieving nothing substantive towards climate change.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 8:18 am
papabear wrote: A "tax break" / tax deduction is not a subsidy. The government is not subsidising office works / stationary industry. Same as is not subsidising the accounting / insurance or any other cost to your business that is legally a tax deduction.
If you have a specific tax imposed on an area that you reduce then you could argue that’s not a subsidy.

When you have a universal tax that is refunded or adjusted for a particular area then that would be a subsidy.

So I’d argue that tax accountants are subsidised.
You could argue it, but it would not be persuasive.

When you are taxing profit, deductions are just the costs incurred that were incurred in getting to that profit.

Those deductions are global insurance / accountants / labor / rent all industries renewable or not can claim them.

Is the govt subsidising rent now??

The govt pretty clearly subsidises health, education, roads, policing and justice as they should.

It generally shouldn’t subsidise private situations fossil fuels industries included, however tax deductions allowed economy wide aren’t subsidies.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:44 pm
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:54 am
greeneyed wrote: December 20, 2020, 1:19 pm The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
electric cars isnt picking winners at this point.

It is clear as day that is the trend of the future, I say this as someone who owns and drives petrol cars but will be moving to electric when the time comes.

Whether we get on the electric bus now or when the oil runs out, electric cars have picked themselves as they operate on power that can be sourced renewably.
If the government decides that electric cars are the bees knees and "invests" tax payers' money into the industry... then that is "picking winners". Market mechanisms and private decisions are always going to be better at choosing the least cost, most effective form of carbon abatement. Governments have shown over a very long time that they very poor in making these sorts of decisions.
I am not one that is persuaded by slogans like govt picking winners.

For me it’s important to look at what they are doing.

With electric vehicles - I think the govt should definitely be sinking my tax payers money (I say this as a non public servant - person who runs a business and pays a phenomenal amount to the ATO in any given year) in paying for the infrastructure (charging stations / r and d ) to help the country move to electric vehicles.

The world is going that way - the govt should be able to sniff the direction the wind is blowing and sink our money into public goods that make our lives easier…
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gergreg wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:27 pm
papabear wrote:
gergreg wrote: December 19, 2020, 3:34 pm Well maybe if countries actually paid any level of attention to the science... what 30 ... 40 + years ago ? We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Politicians in many countries, including our own were denying that climate change was occurring up until quite recently, with our current PM using a lump of coal as a prop in parliament.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I am part of the world. I took notice of climate change when my teacher put on saving heironymus in the 4th grade.

You are also part of the world and you took notice.

Just for the record, what is it that you have done re climate change and what is it that you are advocating to be done in addition to a ban on the coal trade?
Not sure how old that post you're quoting is.

I don't drive a car. Ever. Where possible I run or ride a bike to get around, otherwise catch a bus. I propagate a large amount of plants / trees each year and give them away (free) to friends and colleagues. Japanese maple mostly but have recently propagated a few hundred alocasuarina seeds, again to share with neighbours - to rejuvenate the local area and attract native birds.. I recycle a lot of stuff, ie cardboard and veggie scraps go to the worms.

I would like to be able to afford solar power and an electric vehicle but I'm not in a financial position to do so, but when I am, I will do these things. Of course I'd like to do more.

Thank you for showing an interest in my personal life.
Thank you for sharing
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

You don’t seem to understand what a subsidy is in economic terms. You just have to look up Wikipedia. Yes, sure Wikipedia isn’t always correct. But this definition is widely accepted by economists.

“Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).”

I do agree, by the way, that a tax on income, would generally, sensibly, allow deductions for the costs of generating the income. Some may argue that deductions of that type add to complexity, add to compliance costs and are subject to evasion activity. But I don’t think those arguments are strong enough to undermine the fundamental principle that should apply.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

papabear wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:10 am
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:44 pm
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:54 am
greeneyed wrote: December 20, 2020, 1:19 pm The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
electric cars isnt picking winners at this point.

It is clear as day that is the trend of the future, I say this as someone who owns and drives petrol cars but will be moving to electric when the time comes.

Whether we get on the electric bus now or when the oil runs out, electric cars have picked themselves as they operate on power that can be sourced renewably.
If the government decides that electric cars are the bees knees and "invests" tax payers' money into the industry... then that is "picking winners". Market mechanisms and private decisions are always going to be better at choosing the least cost, most effective form of carbon abatement. Governments have shown over a very long time that they very poor in making these sorts of decisions.
I am not one that is persuaded by slogans like govt picking winners.

For me it’s important to look at what they are doing.

With electric vehicles - I think the govt should definitely be sinking my tax payers money (I say this as a non public servant - person who runs a business and pays a phenomenal amount to the ATO in any given year) in paying for the infrastructure (charging stations / r and d ) to help the country move to electric vehicles.

The world is going that way - the govt should be able to sniff the direction the wind is blowing and sink our money into public goods that make our lives easier…
Why? Do you think governments subsidised the building of petrol stations across the country? Recharging stations for electric vehicles are not in any way, shape or form, a public good. Governments are there to provide for public goods, not “things that make our lives easier”. If that were the test of the need for government intervention, they’d buy everyone their morning coffee. And goodness knows what else.

The demands from the electric vehicle industry for government subsidies is brazen rent seeking.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16584
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 12:16 pm
papabear wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:56 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: November 5, 2021, 11:20 am
greeneyed wrote: November 5, 2021, 10:35 am Actually yes, I am. If the government establishes the right market framework to achieve the outcome required (to correct the market failures) it doesn’t need to spend any money “investing” in technology. What the present government is doing is more costly and less effective. Lose-lose approach.


Papa the government should invest in technology.

Unfortunately this current administration has no clothes in terms of R&D in energy technology. To wield same as the cornerstone of the "plan" is high farce.
Great graph.

but I would like to know if in the about us section of the australian institutes website it says:-
We barrack for ideas,
not political parties.

Ben Oquist, Executive Director

When they say that do they mean it or is that just spin?
The data is sourced from the IEA.

Perhaps try engaging on the substantive point.
I agreed with the substantive point - see comment saying great graph.

That all said for me, if someone says they are not about political parties - they should live up to that. Or don’t go with the faux neutrality.
In this case the political parties are effectively proxies for the ideas.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16584
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote: Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Of course it does. It has costs in terms of bushfires, environmental impacts on farming, lost land, eco-system, health impacts from heatwaves and smoke inhalation, and so on.

Just like no one is buying lung cancer, but smoking has costs so the government adjusts the pricing with taxes.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

papabear wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:00 am Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Indeed release of carbon emissions doesn’t cost anything. But there are clear negative externalities from the carbon pollution. And that’s the market failure which governments should be intervening to correct. Governments can intervene in ways that are highly costly… or try to find the least cost way of achieving the objective (the carbon abatement target). The least cost approach is for governments to work with the market and minimise the intervention needed. They just need to ensure the market structures are right, and let private participants take the decisions, given the proper price signals.

It’s ironic that the political parties that normally espouse enterprise, the private sector, markets, small government and lower taxes and spending have somehow ended up implementing policies that are most heavy handed in terms of government intervention, most costly for consumers/taxpayers.

The reason for that? Fundamentally it’s because they actually reject the need to reduce carbon emissions… and the government spending/regulation is a ruse. It permits the pretence that something is being done while waving arms around and releasing pamphlets. And it’s business as usual for those emitting carbon.
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:54 am
papabear wrote: Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Of course it does. It has costs in terms of bushfires, environmental impacts on farming, lost land, eco-system, health impacts from heatwaves and smoke inhalation, and so on.

Just like no one is buying lung cancer, but smoking has costs so the government adjusts the pricing with taxes.
Cost as in costs money.

Not cost as in evironmental / health costs.

I thought that was pretty clear from the context, imo to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 6, 2021, 10:15 am
papabear wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:00 am Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Indeed release of carbon emissions doesn’t cost anything. But there are clear negative externalities from the carbon pollution. And that’s the market failure which governments should be intervening to correct. Governments can intervene in ways that are highly costly… or try to find the least cost way of achieving the objective (the carbon abatement target). The least cost approach is for governments to work with the market and minimise the intervention needed. They just need to ensure the market structures are right, and let private participants take the decisions, given the proper price signals.

It’s ironic that the political parties that normally espouse enterprise, the private sector, markets, small government and lower taxes and spending have somehow ended up implementing policies that are most heavy handed in terms of government intervention, most costly for consumers/taxpayers.

The reason for that? Fundamentally it’s because they actually reject the need to reduce carbon emissions… and the government spending/regulation is a ruse. It permits the pretence that something is being done while waving arms around and releasing pamphlets. And it’s business as usual for those emitting carbon.
I understand your point.

Again if the major carbon emitters start fining / taxing carbon emissions and humanity is all in then I am all with you.

I just don’t think using the word like carbon market is accurate for what people think of when they think of a market, and tbh it’s the same horseradish spin that you complained of in the lnp environmental policy explanations.

I don’t think that you should just pursue a carbon tax/fine at the exclusion of other environmentally friendly policies though. The environment should be protected, renewed wherever through whichever mechanism that works.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:19 am You don’t seem to understand what a subsidy is in economic terms. You just have to look up Wikipedia. Yes, sure Wikipedia isn’t always correct. But this definition is widely accepted by economists.

“Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).”

I do agree, by the way, that a tax on income, would generally, sensibly, allow deductions for the costs of generating the income. Some may argue that deductions of that type add to complexity, add to compliance costs and are subject to evasion activity. But I don’t think those arguments are strong enough to undermine the fundamental principle that should apply.
I posted my definition of subsidy previously.

In this particular case I don’t think fuel tax credits qualifies and I think my case is persuasive.

I think the word is used to suggest fossil fuels producers are getting 7b from the government or paying 7b less tax then like for like other companies such as renewables aren’t getting or are having to pay tax wise. Which in the case of fuel tax credits isn’t actually true.

I am happy to go through how fuel tax credits work but I’m presuming you also know and don’t want to be condescending (anymore then usual ;))
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16584
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:54 am
papabear wrote: Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Of course it does. It has costs in terms of bushfires, environmental impacts on farming, lost land, eco-system, health impacts from heatwaves and smoke inhalation, and so on.

Just like no one is buying lung cancer, but smoking has costs so the government adjusts the pricing with taxes.
Cost as in costs money.

Not cost as in evironmental / health costs.

I thought that was pretty clear from the context, imo to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Environmental and health costs ultimately cost cash.

Money replaces burnt down houses. Money pays for healthcare.

It costs money.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

As I posted earlier, the situation involved in the fuel tax credit scheme is not straight forward. There are competing arguments, but on balance most economists would conclude the fuel tax credit scheme is, in effect, a subsidy. Fuel producers don’t get the subsidy involved in the fuel tax credit scheme. The users of the fuel do. The producers benefit to the extent there’s more consumption of the fuels, generating more turnover and profit.
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 12:10 pm
papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: November 6, 2021, 9:54 am
papabear wrote: Carbon isn’t costed precisely because it doesn’t cost anything.
Of course it does. It has costs in terms of bushfires, environmental impacts on farming, lost land, eco-system, health impacts from heatwaves and smoke inhalation, and so on.

Just like no one is buying lung cancer, but smoking has costs so the government adjusts the pricing with taxes.
Cost as in costs money.

Not cost as in evironmental / health costs.

I thought that was pretty clear from the context, imo to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Environmental and health costs ultimately cost cash.

Money replaces burnt down houses. Money pays for healthcare.

It costs money.
No I am not being obtuse. I am just being direct and you read far to much into my other comment to make a point you wanted to make and have a conversation you wanted to have which just wasn’t there from there original post.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 6, 2021, 12:22 pm As I posted earlier, the situation involved in the fuel tax credit scheme is not straight forward. There are competing arguments, but on balance most economists would conclude the fuel tax credit scheme is, in effect, a subsidy. Fuel producers don’t get the subsidy involved in the fuel tax credit scheme. The users of the fuel do. The producers benefit to the extent there’s more consumption of the fuels, generating more turnover and profit.
1 - I am not sure what your basis for saying most economists would argue such a fashion is?
2 - if they did they would be wrong…

Ok - let’s look at this in a logical fashion as opposed to appealing to a non existent authority.

1 - take away fuel taxes all together. That way there is no fuel tax credit. And you have fuel
Competing on the same level playing field as everyone else. Only thing is you have just missed out on billions of revenue from retail fuel users… which was a relatively effective way of raising said revenue.

2 - leave fuel taxes - take away fuel tax credit. That way fuel in business that require it is being penalised - say mining and farming - in countries where fuel isn’t taxed on business have a competitive advantage. Or alternatively, you look at other alternatives worse or better for the environment not because they are more efficient at base level but because they are cheaper because fuel
Is being taxed…

I don’t actually mind this. But the reality is then you are just tanking an industry (that needs to be yanked) by government intervention instead of via the market. The market wouldn’t die due to the removal of a subsidy it dies due to a penalty and tbh global trends..

Market tanks then no revenue anywhere from fuel taxes.

3 - and this one offends me the most, I have already posted on it.

As we shift to ev - govts look to pick up the revenue on ev vehicles taxing them on a km travelled or some other bs basis.. if it’s a state tax your going to struggle To get a rebate through a traditional system.. either way the whole thing because a mess and garbage..

To reiterate - the removal of fuel tax credits does not offend me, calling them a subsidy is just dishonest Bull or not understanding that or you are getting back is the tax that you have paid on the fuel.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I've explained why it is reasonable to argue that the fuel tax credit scheme subsidises the exempt activities above. It is certainly not dishonest. I don't think there's much to be said for fuel excise as a tax... other than it raises a lot of revenue and it is simple. It'd be better to have proper road use charges and a carbon/pollution price directed at environmental concerns. But if you have fuel excise... and exclude a class of economic activity from the revenue base... then that's a subsidy for the excluded activity right there. The history makes things blurred... as we've pretended fuel excise "pays for roads" and that's justified the fuel tax credit system. But those justifications for the tax and exemption are specious.
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 8, 2021, 12:33 pm I've explained why it is reasonable to argue that the fuel tax credit scheme subsidises the exempt activities above. It is certainly not dishonest. I don't think there's much to be said for fuel excise as a tax... other than it raises a lot of revenue and it is simple. It'd be better to have proper road use charges and a carbon/pollution price directed at environmental concerns. But if you have fuel excise... and exclude a class of economic activity from the revenue base... then that's a subsidy for the excluded activity right there. The history makes things blurred... as we've pretended fuel excise "pays for roads" and that's justified the fuel tax credit system. But those justifications for the tax and exemption are specious.
To be fair depending on where you live, we already have road use charges ask anyone in the north west of sydney and they will argue that the road use charges they pay on any given year is more then proper.

But look, I don't mind reforming inefficient / ineffective or punitive taxes, in fact I am all for it. When I say reform, I mean get rid of one system and put in another. Unfortunately we have a history in this country we have a system of just putting in more taxes on top of eachother.

IMO you could make an honest argument (that I disagree with) the fuel tax credit scheme subsidies the industries that participate in FTC claiming(i.e. Mining / farming and other business that claim fuel tax credits).

It is another thing entirely, to assert that the fuel tax credit scheme is subsidising the fossil fuel industry (or petroleum company) which is what the original report that I argued against where this whole conversation came from.

For example - If you tax bananas and not tax apples, then you add a monkey banana tax credits, whereby all monkeys that eat bananas can get that tax money back. It is illogical to argue that the govt is subsidising bananas at the expense of apples. Which again, is what this report was arguing for fuel tax credits which is illogical.

Keep in mind, I am all for EV and renewables, what am I not for is dishonest Bull. We can build a better world without lieing, schemeing and marketeering. If you have to Bull to promote your world / agenda, I would make an argument that you arent really building something better.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145093
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I did already say above that it is not a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. (It may result in more fuel use than otherwise and more revenue and income for fuel producers. But given fuel use is relatively inelastic, it wouldn't be huge.)
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 8, 2021, 3:57 pm I did already say above that it is not a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. (It may result in more fuel use than otherwise and more revenue and income for fuel producers. But given fuel use is relatively inelastic, it wouldn't be huge.)
its nice when we can come together around the camp fire.

For a QLDer your not to bad ;)
Post Reply