Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Psyber]

A rocket has just lifted off from florida to study the reason why the planet mars went from an apparent water covered surface, to its current state of dry dust.

There is no need to spend that amount as I already know the reason why! THEY DIDNT HAVE A CARBON TAX !!

I think Al Gore was involved too mate.

He was probably running the space boats they used to migrate here after wrecking their own planet!

[bulldogproud2]

Well, at least we know what the experts think re the debate over Direct Action versus an Emissions Trading Scheme:

Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott's direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.

A Fairfax Media survey of 35 prominent university and business economists found only two believed direct action was the better way to limit Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty - or 86 per cent - favoured the existing carbon price scheme. Three rejected both schemes.




Internationally renowned Australian economist Justin Wolfers, of the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the University of Michigan, said he was surprised that any economists would opt for direct action, under which the government will pay for emissions cuts by businesses and farmers from a budget worth $2.88 billion over four years.



Professor Wolfers said direct action would involve more economic disruption but have a lesser environmental pay-off than an emissions trading scheme, under which big emitters must pay for their pollution.

BT Financial's Dr Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for emissions trading "should hand his degree back


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2lKcqSd81

[bulldogproud2]

and this:

Economists remain convinced carbon tax or ETS is the way forward






Matt Wade

Senior writer








Years of bitter political combat over climate change policy has left the economics profession unmoved.


The crowd most attuned to free markets is least attuned to the free market solution

Despite Prime Minister Tony Abbott's plans to rid Australia of what he calls the "toxic" carbon tax, the poll by Fairfax Media shows there is near-unanimity among economists that a market-based solution, such as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, is the best policy option to reduce carbon pollution. This echoes similar surveys taken in past years.

Economists are convinced that carbon pricing will yield the greatest environmental bang-for-buck at the lowest economic cost.



Justin Wolfers, an Australian professor at the University of Michigan, says: "Abbott's plan doesn't effectively harness market forces; it relies instead on the government handing out cheques.

''One problem is that we'll end up subsidising a lot of abatement that would have occurred anyway. Another is that the plan imposes extra costs because it uses scarce tax dollars . . . All told, Direct Action involves more economic disruption for less of an environmental payoff."

Melbourne University professor John Freebairn said he favoured a carbon price because it encouraged millions of businesses and households to shift their production and consumption choices to lower pollution, lower price alternatives.

Under the Direct Action plan, however, the government will have to choose just some of the millions of different possible ways to reduce pollution while households and businesses will ''receive no signals or incentives to change their decisions''.

The apparent ideological role reversals evident in Australian climate change policy also caught the attention of the economists surveyed. Some expressed surprise at the prominent role bureaucrats will have in the Direct Action plan.

''The crowd most attuned to free markets is least attuned to the free market solution. It's a rather odd contradiction,'' AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver said.

Professor Wolfers said there was an odd irony in Australian climate change politics.

''Historically, it was left-wing parties that were in favour of direct government intervention, while right-wing parties were suspicious that governments could pick winners, and so they preferred to rely on market forces. At least these were the old political dividing lines.

''Over time, the left has learned to harness market forces to meet their policy goals. What's happening on the right is that Abbott is confounding pro-market policies with pro-business policies. Pro-market policies are about using market pressures to enlarge our economic pie; pro-business policies are about grabbing a bigger slice of that pie for friends in the business community.''

The overwhelming support for carbon pricing among the independent economists surveyed by Fairfax Media raises an intriguing question: how many policy experts inside government still prefer carbon pricing to Abbott's alternative?

with Gareth Hutchens


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2lKeIR9vS

[tipper]

now, correct me if im wrong, but i thought that the whole point of an ets, or direct action was to have an effect on pollution, and therefore climate change? if so, why are economists being asked their opinion on which is the better model? shouldnt climatologists or scientists or something be asked their opinion? rather than money men? or is the whole point of either model more about money than the environment.....

[bulldogproud2]

now, correct me if im wrong, but i thought that the whole point of an ets, or direct action was to have an effect on pollution, and therefore climate change? if so, why are economists being asked their opinion on which is the better model? shouldnt climatologists or scientists or something be asked their opinion? rather than money men? or is the whole point of either model more about money than the environment.....

Tipper, if you read the articles the key thing that the economists were saying is that the ETS would have more of an impact on lowering pollution levels, as well as being at a cheaper cost.

''One problem is that we'll end up subsidising a lot of abatement that would have occurred anyway. Another is that the plan imposes extra costs because it uses scarce tax dollars . . . All told, Direct Action involves more economic disruption for less of an environmental payoff."

Melbourne University professor John Freebairn said he favoured a carbon price because it encouraged millions of businesses and households to shift their production and consumption choices to lower pollution, lower price alternatives.

Btw, you will not find one climatologist in the world who would support the Direct Action scheme over the ETS.

Cheers

[Psyber]

I still can't see any reduction in pollution coming from an ETS unless the cost forces a large section of the public to cut their consumption significantly and live a much more meagre life. Those most likely to do that will be the less well off, under any scheme where costs are passed on to the consumer.
( Under an ETS I'll pay for the energy I require, and if forced to I'll economise elsewhere, perhaps in my donations to charity.)

If a levy were raised on the polluting industries, and they could not pass it on to the consumer, but they could get it back to make genuine production changes something may happen. But the Economists wouldn't like that option...

[tipper]

now, correct me if im wrong, but i thought that the whole point of an ets, or direct action was to have an effect on pollution, and therefore climate change? if so, why are economists being asked their opinion on which is the better model? shouldnt climatologists or scientists or something be asked their opinion? rather than money men? or is the whole point of either model more about money than the environment.....

Tipper, if you read the articles the key thing that the economists were saying is that the ETS would have more of an impact on lowering pollution levels, as well as being at a cheaper cost.

''One problem is that we'll end up subsidising a lot of abatement that would have occurred anyway. Another is that the plan imposes extra costs because it uses scarce tax dollars . . . All told, Direct Action involves more economic disruption for less of an environmental payoff."

Melbourne University professor John Freebairn said he favoured a carbon price because it encouraged millions of businesses and households to shift their production and consumption choices to lower pollution, lower price alternatives.

Btw, you will not find one climatologist in the world who would support the Direct Action scheme over the ETS.

Cheers

thats my point, wtf would an economist know about the environment or climate change?? might as well ask the girl at the maccas window what she thinks is the better scheme!

[bulldogproud2]

An economist would know a fair bit about the environment and climate change, if they are a good economist. Economics is the study of how to best manage a nation's resources. The environment is one of Australia's best and most important resources. Economic feasibility studies always look at the potential impact of a proposed project on the environment.
I think you are confusing an economist with an accountant, Tipper.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

I still can't see any reduction in pollution coming from an ETS unless the cost forces a large section of the public to cut their consumption significantly and live a much more meagre life. Those most likely to do that will be the less well off, under any scheme where costs are passed on to the consumer.
( Under an ETS I'll pay for the energy I require, and if forced to I'll economise elsewhere, perhaps in my donations to charity.)

If a levy were raised on the polluting industries, and they could not pass it on to the consumer, but they could get it back to make genuine production changes something may happen. But the Economists wouldn't like that option...

Psyber, although you may not have realised it, your statement actually completely supported an ETS. The ETS acts as a levy on the polluting industries by making businesses have to pay for their carbon emissions. This will result in them trying to find more 'greener' forms of production so as to reduce their emission levels. They won't be able to pass their added 'pollution costs' back to the consumer as this will make them more expensive than their 'greener' competition.

As for the need for the public to cut their consumption, you will find that businesses account for a much larger slice of carbon emissions than the general public. Thus, the changes to business behaviour will have the greater impact.

Cheers

[tipper]

An economist would know a fair bit about the environment and climate change, if they are a good economist. Economics is the study of how to best manage a nation's resources. The environment is one of Australia's best and most important resources. Economic feasibility studies always look at the potential impact of a proposed project on the environment.
I think you are confusing an economist with an accountant, Tipper.

Cheers

not sure that i am. typing in "economics" or "economist" into google didnt bring back any results that mentioned the environment, let alone climate change. it seems they do what i thought they did.

anyway, im not advocating one scheme over the other, im happy to admit i dont know anywhere near enough about the subject to make a call. it just struck me as odd that you would ask a specialist in the economy which scheme would have greater benefit to the environment.

ill go back in my box now and just read about the debate

[bulldogproud2]

An economist would know a fair bit about the environment and climate change, if they are a good economist. Economics is the study of how to best manage a nation's resources. The environment is one of Australia's best and most important resources. Economic feasibility studies always look at the potential impact of a proposed project on the environment.
I think you are confusing an economist with an accountant, Tipper.

Cheers

not sure that i am. typing in "economics" or "economist" into google didnt bring back any results that mentioned the environment, let alone climate change. it seems they do what i thought they did.

anyway, im not advocating one scheme over the other, im happy to admit i dont know anywhere near enough about the subject to make a call. it just struck me as odd that you would ask a specialist in the economy which scheme would have greater benefit to the environment.

ill go back in my box now and just read about the debate

Tipper, as an Economics teacher, I can assure you that economists do take into account the environment when making judgements. Here I quote from an Economics Discussion Paper issued by Resources for the Future:

This is not to suggest, however, that economists are concerned only with the financial
value of things. Far from it. The financial flows that make up the gross national product
represent only a fraction of all economic flows. The scope of accounting may be defined by
that which is financial, but the scope of economics is much broader. It encompasses the
allocation and utilization of all scarce resources. For example, the economic value of the
human-health damages of environmental pollution is greater than the sum of health-care costs
and lost wages (or lost productivity). It includes what lawyers would call "pain and
suffering." Economists might use a market price indirectly to measure revealed preferences
rather than stated preferences, but the goal is to measure the total value of the loss that
individuals incur.
For another example, the economic value of some parcel of the Amazon rain forest is
not limited to its financial value as a repository of future pharmaceutical products or as a
location for eco-tourism. That so-called "use value" may only be a small part of the properlydefined
economic valuation. For decades, economists have recognized the importance of
"non-use value" of environmental amenities such as wilderness areas or endangered species.
Indeed, these may be public goods, like the light from the lighthouse, since they can be
enjoyed by additional individuals at no cost to society, and because those who benefit can
"free ride" without paying. The market failures for these goods make it particularly difficult
to quantify these values empirically, since we cannot use market prices! But the point is that
benefit-cost analysis of environmental policies, virtually by definition, cannot rely exclusively
on market prices (Arrow et al., 1996).

Cheers

[tipper]

and there we have it, you feel i insulted your chosen profession? lol. i still dont see how getting the opinion of an economist on which scheme is better for the environment should carry any more weight than asking some random in the street. if i wanted to know which was best for the environment i would ask a climatologist. however if i wanted to know which scheme would have the least negative impact on the economy you will be the first person ill call.

[Psyber]

Psyber, although you may not have realised it, your statement actually completely supported an ETS. The ETS acts as a levy on the polluting industries by making businesses have to pay for their carbon emissions. This will result in them trying to find more 'greener' forms of production so as to reduce their emission levels. They won't be able to pass their added 'pollution costs' back to the consumer as this will make them more expensive than their 'greener' competition.

As for the need for the public to cut their consumption, you will find that businesses account for a much larger slice of carbon emissions than the general public. Thus, the changes to business behaviour will have the greater impact.
Cheers

I'm not convinced that works while the power companies, and the businesses using most of the power as you say, can simply pass those extra ETS costs on to the public (and with a profit margin calculated on their increased costs).

There is no pressure on the companies in that, only on the end users.

[bulldogproud2]

Psyber, although you may not have realised it, your statement actually completely supported an ETS. The ETS acts as a levy on the polluting industries by making businesses have to pay for their carbon emissions. This will result in them trying to find more 'greener' forms of production so as to reduce their emission levels. They won't be able to pass their added 'pollution costs' back to the consumer as this will make them more expensive than their 'greener' competition.

As for the need for the public to cut their consumption, you will find that businesses account for a much larger slice of carbon emissions than the general public. Thus, the changes to business behaviour will have the greater impact.
Cheers

I'm not convinced that works while the power companies, and the businesses using most of the power as you say, can simply pass those extra ETS costs on to the public (and with a profit margin calculated on their increased costs).

There is no pressure on the companies in that, only on the end users.

Hopefully, the level of competition in the market would provide pressure on the businesses. Those who are taking steps to lesson their level of carbon emissions will be paying less in taxes. This would be the ideal solution, and hopefully one that will work.
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

and there we have it, you feel i insulted your chosen profession? lol. i still dont see how getting the opinion of an economist on which scheme is better for the environment should carry any more weight than asking some random in the street. if i wanted to know which was best for the environment i would ask a climatologist. however if i wanted to know which scheme would have the least negative impact on the economy you will be the first person ill call.

Tipper, not at all worried about the 'insult' to my profession. After all, I will always be more an accountant than an economics teacher. I just happen to do both. My point is that economists do look at environmental aspects when making decisions. Admittedly, they would do this based on discussions with climatologists. Yes, there is no doubt that a climatologist would be the one to advise which scheme would be the most effective. However, they would not be looking at costs or impacts on the economy. An economist, taking the viewpoints of climatologists on board, can then discern which method would be the most effective and cost-efficient for society.

Abbott's Direct Action policy has no support whatsoever from climatologists. There would not be a single climatologist in Australia who believes the Direct Action policy would be more effective than an Emissions Trading Scheme. His decision for Direct Action was based simply on what he thought would cause less disruption to the economy. Do you not find it interesting therefore that economists also overwhelmingly support the ETS? This pretty much means that the Direct Action policy has no support from anyone, and no reason to have any support from anyone. I believe that even Abbott knows the ETS is the better scheme. He has given many speeches supporting the ETS. He only came up with Direct Action so as to have a point of difference with the Labor Party's policy.

Cheers

Cheers

[Psyber]

Psyber, although you may not have realised it, your statement actually completely supported an ETS. The ETS acts as a levy on the polluting industries by making businesses have to pay for their carbon emissions. This will result in them trying to find more 'greener' forms of production so as to reduce their emission levels. They won't be able to pass their added 'pollution costs' back to the consumer as this will make them more expensive than their 'greener' competition.

As for the need for the public to cut their consumption, you will find that businesses account for a much larger slice of carbon emissions than the general public. Thus, the changes to business behaviour will have the greater impact.
Cheers

I'm not convinced that works while the power companies, and the businesses using most of the power as you say, can simply pass those extra ETS costs on to the public (and with a profit margin calculated on their increased costs).

There is no pressure on the companies in that, only on the end users.

Hopefully, the level of competition in the market would provide pressure on the businesses. Those who are taking steps to lesson their level of carbon emissions will be paying less in taxes. This would be the ideal solution, and hopefully one that will work.
Cheers

Yes, but unfortunately I don't think we have enough competition to achieve that in our size of market, rather like the situation with supermarkets.
Nor do I think their is enough potential gain in market number to provide incentive to go to the expense when they can just go on slugging the end user.

[bulldogproud2]

I think that you will find that there is indeed sufficient competition in the market. Businesses will certainly try to lower their costs. If emitting carbon results in them having to pay for it, they will soon decrease their emissions.

Cheers

[tipper]

and there we have it, you feel i insulted your chosen profession? lol. i still dont see how getting the opinion of an economist on which scheme is better for the environment should carry any more weight than asking some random in the street. if i wanted to know which was best for the environment i would ask a climatologist. however if i wanted to know which scheme would have the least negative impact on the economy you will be the first person ill call.

Tipper, not at all worried about the 'insult' to my profession. After all, I will always be more an accountant than an economics teacher. I just happen to do both. My point is that economists do look at environmental aspects when making decisions. Admittedly, they would do this based on discussions with climatologists. Yes, there is no doubt that a climatologist would be the one to advise which scheme would be the most effective. However, they would not be looking at costs or impacts on the economy. An economist, taking the viewpoints of climatologists on board, can then discern which method would be the most effective and cost-efficient for society.

Abbott's Direct Action policy has no support whatsoever from climatologists. There would not be a single climatologist in Australia who believes the Direct Action policy would be more effective than an Emissions Trading Scheme. His decision for Direct Action was based simply on what he thought would cause less disruption to the economy. Do you not find it interesting therefore that economists also overwhelmingly support the ETS? This pretty much means that the Direct Action policy has no support from anyone, and no reason to have any support from anyone. I believe that even Abbott knows the ETS is the better scheme. He has given many speeches supporting the ETS. He only came up with Direct Action so as to have a point of difference with the Labor Party's policy.

Cheers

Cheers

i do find it very interesting that economists disagree with direct action, and it supports what i was saying. ask each field their proffessional opinion in regards to their specialty. if economists were championing one method, and climatolgists another, then someone would have to weigh up each field against the other to determine the "best" course of action.

however it is irrelevant, as both fields are agreeing on which is better. in case you missed it, i am not trying to promote one or the other, i dont know anywhere near enough about the topic to make a call. i just found it odd that you would ask an economist about the impact of either one on the climate. if as you say they would have consulted with climatologists, wouldnt it have been better to go straight to the source?

ask the economists about the economic impact, ask the climatologists about the environmental impacts, and make the judgement from there? thats kind of irrelevant anyway, i doubt our esteemed leader actually listened to any experts whatsoever before deciding on his policy, or if he did he seemingly completely ignored what they told him as all of the experts are pointing towards the "other" plan.

[bulldogproud2]

and there we have it, you feel i insulted your chosen profession? lol. i still dont see how getting the opinion of an economist on which scheme is better for the environment should carry any more weight than asking some random in the street. if i wanted to know which was best for the environment i would ask a climatologist. however if i wanted to know which scheme would have the least negative impact on the economy you will be the first person ill call.

Tipper, not at all worried about the 'insult' to my profession. After all, I will always be more an accountant than an economics teacher. I just happen to do both. My point is that economists do look at environmental aspects when making decisions. Admittedly, they would do this based on discussions with climatologists. Yes, there is no doubt that a climatologist would be the one to advise which scheme would be the most effective. However, they would not be looking at costs or impacts on the economy. An economist, taking the viewpoints of climatologists on board, can then discern which method would be the most effective and cost-efficient for society.

Abbott's Direct Action policy has no support whatsoever from climatologists. There would not be a single climatologist in Australia who believes the Direct Action policy would be more effective than an Emissions Trading Scheme. His decision for Direct Action was based simply on what he thought would cause less disruption to the economy. Do you not find it interesting therefore that economists also overwhelmingly support the ETS? This pretty much means that the Direct Action policy has no support from anyone, and no reason to have any support from anyone. I believe that even Abbott knows the ETS is the better scheme. He has given many speeches supporting the ETS. He only came up with Direct Action so as to have a point of difference with the Labor Party's policy.

Cheers

Cheers

i do find it very interesting that economists disagree with direct action, and it supports what i was saying. ask each field their proffessional opinion in regards to their specialty. if economists were championing one method, and climatolgists another, then someone would have to weigh up each field against the other to determine the "best" course of action. however it is irrelevant, as both fields are agreeing on which is better. in case you missed it, i am not trying to promote one or the other, i dont know anywhere near enough about the topic to make a call. i just found it odd that you would ask an economist about the impact of either one on the climate. if as you say they would have consulted with climatologists, wouldnt it have been better to go straight to the source?

ask the economists about the economic impact, ask the climatologists about the environmental impacts, and make the judgement from there? thats kind of irrelevant anyway, i doubt our esteemed leader actually listened to any experts whatsoever before deciding on his policy, or if he did he seemingly completely ignored what they told him as all of the experts are pointing towards the "other" plan.

Hi Tipper,
That is pretty much the point I was trying to make. Economists have the role of weighing up options and coming up with the best alternative, after discussing matters with all parties concerned. They have pretty much unanimously decided that an ETS is the most effective and cost-efficient method, having taken into account both the financial costs and environmental impact. This is the role of economists: cost-benefit analysis. They are not simply accountants and consider more than financial impacts.
As you say though, there seems to be pretty much total agreement by all parties that an ETS is favourable to Direct Action.
Cheers

[Psyber]

I'm pleased to see these guys coming out for rationality over emotion: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world ... index.html

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.