[*Spikey*]

So, the 'other' ETS thread disappeared after it got a little um, off topic.

I thought the original questions were reasonable in one sense - it reflected the lack of information reaching the non-economist set. I am also very sad that my lovely explanation of why grapes grow in Britain, why there used to be agriculture in Greenland and why the River Thames froze in the 1600's was underserving of being deleted. But hey, it was brief and beautiful.

Here is Ross Gittin's excellent article from this mornings SMH:

ETS - economics and the COST to Australian Taxpayers

I guess what Ross is saying is that the beat up about the increased costs is pretty much a beat up - much like the beat up on the GST increasing costs.

[KT1978]

I Ross Gittins but I still have misgivings about the economics of the ETS.

I still think it is not the best scheme to achieve an emissions reduction. I think the best way is for the owners of utilities (ie the GOVERNMENT) to set a goal to phase out coal fired power....which LA has just done. This is one of the biggest and easily substituted sources of emissions and a great place to start.... they probably would if the Government didn't own the utilities.

The second thing Government should do is look at every piece of legislation from tax-breaks (FBT concessions on company cars) to infrastructure spending and make sure it is complimenting their goals of reducing emissions. After all, Government activity/structure contributes to carbon emissions too - no point legislating an ETS then building a heap of underutilised infrastructure to "save" the industries they are trying to scale back.

There is no point targetting industries with no alternatives and no point in giving consumers compensation (such as petrol). This is creating an ineffective scheme which does not reduce emissions.

I can just see it now, the Government office for Climate Change - a massive bureaucracy administering the ETS.... another brightly lit office in the middle of Government land.

[Sybilla]

Spikey 8 - Your discussion topic is too high brow and hence only one response in 4 hours.

I am going to bring down the tone.

The bottom line in the community is: people are just tight arses and don't want to pay more for anything - except unproductive debt for residential property - even if we are all going to hell in a man made climate change hand-basket.

As long as pensioners and very low income earners have some assistance in facing increased costs - my care factor for others potentially having to pay more for consuming carbon emitting products is pretty close to zero.

Businesses and consumers should pay for the negative externalities their consumption imposes on the rest of the community - locally and globally.

That this limp watered down ETS has failed to make it through parliament just means that down the track when our kids are adults something a whole lot more brutal will need to be imposed to make up for us fuffing about and whinging about increases in costs that as Gittin's points out are not likely to be that big in the scheme of things.

But the bottom line for governments and what matters most is being re-elected now for another term. You don't get re-elected by making things more expensive for the majority voters.

So we remain, like frogs in a pot of water slowly coming to the boil - in denial.

[*Spikey*]

You can do what you like, I don't mind. Its Ross' article!

I've only parked it here because its one of the few explanations of why the hype about cost exists. Of course the opposition know we're all tight wads. We were during the great GST debate too (a whole 10 years ago).

It also looks like it will bring on a DD - if the coalition don't change their position in January. Interesting times.

[writestuff]

As long as pensioners and very low income earners have some assistance in facing increased costs - my care factor for others potentially having to pay more for consuming carbon emitting products is pretty close to zero.

Businesses and consumers should pay for the negative externalities their consumption imposes on the rest of the community - locally and globally.

Well put. I agree that it's not a beautifully designed system, but something is better than nothing. I am astonished that people are more worried abou the economy than the planet. I get that no country wants to go first and sacrifice their own economy for no reason (assuming others don't get on board), but the change has to start somewhere and we can afford it (and we've had a pretty good run).

[~Sally]

As long as pensioners and very low income earners have some assistance in facing increased costs - my care factor for others potentially having to pay more for consuming carbon emitting products is pretty close to zero.

Businesses and consumers should pay for the negative externalities their consumption imposes on the rest of the community - locally and globally.

I also agree with this. Really well said.

Well put. I agree that it's not a beautifully designed system, but something is better than nothing. I am astonished that people are more worried abou the economy than the planet. I get that no country wants to go first and sacrifice their own economy for no reason (assuming others don't get on board), but the change has to start somewhere and we can afford it (and we've had a pretty good run).

And this.

I do wonder if what Labor should come back with next year is a simple carbon tax. Forget the ETS, just tax polluters.

[rachellle]

The first question that needs to be answered by the current government on the issue of ETS is:


As a consequence of introducing an ETS, by what percentage will global temperatures be reduced?


So far, no answers have been given by the government. Reason? The ETS will have no effect on global temperatures.

So, why are we going to introduce a "scheme" aka "tax" into our economy when it will not have an effect on global temperatures?

I implore everyone to write to your MP and ask the same question. See if you're lucky enough to get an answer.

[steppy]

Exactly. I think most people will be willing to pay if there is an outcome. At this point, nobody can guarantee an outcome.

People are being bombarded with totally conflicting messages by the climate change people themselves. They are saying "Adopt the ETS it will be gr8!" At the same time they're saying "There will be no actual reduction for the first 20 years so it's not good enough" at the same time they're saying "We only have 30 years and then it will be too late and mass species extinction will occur". At the same time they're saying "Hey, we don't recommend nuclear though, even though that would cut emissions quite quickly".

I mean - it's just a mess. Why would any rational person want to pump money into that schmozzle for no actual benefit? In the meantime, people are noticing right now that they've cut electricity use but their quarterly bill has gone up by $60 and that's before there is even an ETS - which gives us a pretty good idea about power companies are planning to handle the new tax. I would predict at least another $60 on top of that. Do we actually have the money to compensate pensioners to that degree?

This post has been edited by steppy: 03/12/2009, 10:08 AM

[niggles]

So far, no answers have been given by the government. Reason? The ETS will have no effect on global temperatures.

Our scheme is part of a collective which has an overall aim to halt global temperature rises. Of course the scheme of one country alone will not cause global temperatures to drop.

[steppy]

I read the article. It's a fairly good analysis of the scare mongering and makes it's case for the economic burden being smaller than thought, though it ignores the fact that as the liberals did have a similar scheme, they are likely to be well aware of the downsides of the scheme also.

It also talks about the scaremongering on one side of the debate, but ignores the scaremongering on the other - that the ETS doesn't go far enough and we are all going to die if we don't cut emissions by 45% in the next ten years.

It also doesn't even begin to approach the fact that we are talking about massive companies handling the whole thing and that what they consider consumers need to pay for these changes might be quite different to what consumers actually need to pay.

That's the 'climate' they're dealing with.