Skip to content

Developments on carbon price

November 15, 2010

Now the OECD has weighed in to the debate I’ve been covering on these pages.  It recommends an Australian price on carbon “sooner rather than later” as the best option for cutting emissions.

This chimes with the position of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

It supports the position taken by Rod Sims, Chair of the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (see below).

It strengthens the case against having a whole raft of subsidies for solar and wind, roof panels, insulation and cash for clunkers and such diverse policy tools on climate.

A simple price on carbon should take their place and get us to lower emissions faster and more economically.

Yes, Christine Milne (Green Deputy Leader) it does put Tony Abbot’s position to shame.  But the bigger challenge is for the Greens to quickly reach an agreement with Labor and get legislation passed.

  1. November 15, 2010 1:23 pm

    A simple price on Carbon just like the simple Carbon Tax does not deliver investment nor does it address the key issues. Smart countries with a Carbon Price have a properly designed FIT, approrpiate Third Party Access to the Grid, a policy to fix the grid backbone, a financial banking mechanism that drives investment (such as Carbon Bonds, Green Bonds, Envrionment Bonds & Infrastructre Bonds). This policy is underpinned by appropriate EPA regulatory mechanisms that put a price on pollution and not just carbon. In additon, the governments in question have regulatory anti-competitive and anti monopoly measures in place that foster community energy ownership, desentralized generation and co-generation coupled with appropriate energy efficiency measures that include investments in public transport, energy parks, replacement of street lights and the list goes on. There is nothing simple about a Carbon Price. A Carbon Price values the EPA liability. It does not create the climate to invest in the 21st century. A simple Carbon Tax creates energy poverty among those who can least afford the price rises. A simple carbon price does the same thing unless appropriate mechanisms are put in place first. I wish that Labor politicians would actually read the Policy Paper on the Green Bank proposal that has been sitting with the Dept of Climate Change for more than 6 month instead making false and misleading statements that simply do not even begin to address the issues. If you want a simple Carbon Price without listening to people who know what they are talking about when it comes to properly designed legisltive and regulatory frameworks then you are not true to Labor’s values because you are allowing the existing Utility monopolies to continue to rip off the battlers. The only good thing about what you are saying Bob is that NSW was the only state not stupid enough to privatise the grid. That gives NSW an advantage in implementating 3rd aprty access and distributed generation ownership. Every other state is basically cactus on that issue alone. That’s why we need a Carbon Price that Funds A GREEN BANK through an EPA regulatory mechanism. The solution is budget neutral, caps utitlity prices rises, targets investment, delivers jobs and regional employment security and mops up the overheated mining sector. Stop taliking about simple and actually get to grips with the issues Bob. Australia can not afford for its politicians to remain behind the times.

  2. Simpleton permalink
    November 25, 2010 2:08 pm

    Siegfried – you seem to have a problem in considering a carbon price in a simplistic manner. I find simplicity can often clarify an issue to an extent that one can actually see the forest. One less charitable than me might even say that complexities and statistics are heaped upon an issue to actually muddy the waters so the basic premise is lost in the mire for all eternity. Try this for simplicity – (and allow for a little slippage in the figures, but the basic argument still holds) The CO2 component of the global atmosphere is 0.038%. The anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is about 4%. Australia’s share of this global contribution is about 1.35%. If the global atmosphere is represented by a swarm of 10 million bees then a simple sum (10,000,000 x .038%
    x 4% x 1.35%) = 2 bees. So in a global atmosphere of 10,000,000 bees, the CO2 contribution by Australia is 2 bees. If we reduce our global emissions by 20% we are then responsible for only 1.6 bees. In all your fancy references to Policy papers, carbon bonds, environment bonds, Green banks, EPA regulatory mechanisms and the like – a simpleton like me justs asks – why??

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: