Understanding the Ruddy ETS. (It’s a lot more than a Great Big New Tax!)
Let’s try to understand this Ruddy ETS.
To simplify things, let’s look at just the electricity industry.
If Rudd’s ETS ever rules Australia, companies producing electricity from carbon fuels must beg, buy or borrow a permit to burn coal, gas or diesel.
They can beg a free permit from some mate in Canberra; they can buy a permit from some lucky sod who managed to get more permits than he needs; they can borrow a permit by entering into some tricky derivative trade with a speculator in Chicago; or they can pay carbon credit penance to a shifty land owner in some foreign land who promises solemnly not to clear his trees. No matter which option is chosen, power costs will go up and companies must pass the extra cost (plus GST) onto their customers or go broke.
There will be no effect on climate.
Now look at consumers.
The ETS must push up the cost of all goods and services using carbon fuel. It will boost the cost of electricity, food, transport and travel. When this happens, consumers will suddenly understand the ETS Tax and politicians who voted for it will feel their anger.
But there is a plan: “Let’s compensate all those likely to vote for us”.
If these subsidies work properly, the lucky consumers will be in the same position as they were before ETS, except for the extra bureaucracy. For these consumers, there is no signal to reduce their consumption of carbon fuels. The ETS will do nothing except create a tangle of red tape which consumes and redistributes wealth.
But for the unsubsidised consumers, the ETS is an extra tax on everything.
And for the power companies, the ETS will produce nothing except a heap of angry customers, and lots of red tape.
Tony Abbott is wrong about the Ruddy ETS.
It is not just a Great Big Tax.
It’s a Great Big Tax PLUS a mountain of Red Tape.
And it will have absolutely no effect on world climate.
Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian organisation which opposes pollution and waste of energy, and promotes rational carbon energy policies.
Has anyone been tracking the cost/price of carbon offsets? It seems they have fallen to a level that borders on worthless. So why invest in them? Also, last night, Kevin Rudd claimed that many of over 600 initiatives announced during his election campaign were being met or on track to do so. Has anyone been following this, and able to justify such a claim?
David: I refer you to http://www.cecaust.com.au on their index or archives
seek out “Goldman Sachs’ Turnbull dances to British carbon trading tune.
dated 28th October 2009
That’s for starters. Implicating Malcolm Turnbull ‘why’ he supports ETS taxes and the CPRS. And why he told his party that if they didn’t support it (with amendments that most people don’t even know about – accepting agriculture has been excused – for now anyway) he wouldn’t lead a party that is not committed to effective action on climate change?”
Then tune into the India Times report on how CCT’s have dropped in
value, that was back in 2008.
And also Sen.B.Joyce announcement on the losses that people have
invested in solar panels will have if the ETS tax (with amendments) will
lose out financially.
And that the BBC (UK) have invested their pension fund in CCT investments.
No ETS taxes, then no dividends in fact millions possible billions of
pounds/dollars/Euros will be lost. Talk about a South sea bubble, how about the climate change scam bubble.
The fall-back position for the Labor Party, and left of centre politics, who also realise the fraud of a go-it-alone ETS (and many the fraud of AGW), is that is serves as a great new means of redistributing enormous amounts of wealth.
Regardless of the fact an ETS will do nothing for Co2 emissions or climate change, it gives a green means to effect the principle purpose of progressive politics: That the Government should intervene through taxation and welfare to achieve a “fairer” and more “socially just” distribution of wealth.
For them it is win-win: Achieve something for the environment, or (more likely) at least redistribute enourmous amounts of wealth.
This is why Labour constituents receive 120% compensation under an ETS supposedly designed to limit and reduce the energy (and economic) consumption of all.
It is also why the progressives inside the Liberal Party, like Turnbull and Hockey, supported the ETS. Despite their ‘free market’ fig leaves they share the same progressive principle: Government exists to tax, spend and spread the wealth around.
The ETS is the perfect convergence of fraudulent green politics (based on cargo cult science) with progressive redistribution policy, and every Conservative of any principle should see right through it. Shame a third to half of the Liberal Party could not (though the party as a whole came through in the end).
Spot on TQS: Maybe we should print T-Shirts with the warning.
“One way to cut CO2 emissions’ and save the planet?.
And on the back ‘Stop breathing!”
Or another “A picture of a pile of coal” and on the back “BURN BABY BURN!”
I AM ONLY JOKING!
This government is trying to achieve what every government has always dreamed of doing. That is to tax the every air that we breath. I am waiting for when he tells us that we are only allowed a limited number of breaths of air and if we exceed it than we will have to pay a tax.
What next, the tax to stop the earth from spinning out of it orbit….
Tango well thought out! What’s driving the climate change scam is money. And following the global financial crash, I don’t think any government wants to admit they have believed people like Al Gore and his advisers, the UN IPCC, UEA, NASA or any organisation who has been paid well to enforce the belief in AGW on others.
I’ve been in related studies for over 10 years and if anything we are very
over due for another mini ice age or even a full blown glacial period that could continue until we humans are reduced in numbers because we can’t grow enough food. The Northern Hemisphere will be harder hit than the Southern Hemisphere, possibly why Mr Rudd has commented we can expect a population of 35 million by 2050? God forbid!
Politics is ruling this. The Greens E5 Global governance, tax farmers
who own cattle and sheep for methane emissions. (Like CO2, methane
is a trace element in the structure of Greenhouse gases). Eat veggies
not meat and save the planet BS.
However I feel a bit sorry, of those individuals who believed they would
make some money by investing in CCT investments. And doing their
bit to save the planet? However, even the Greens didn’t believe in it
as they believed the bigger Carbon emissions producers would be compensated for their CO2 emissions by the CCT schemes.
There are a lot that having knowingly contrived reports to prove AGW is contributing to enhance investment in CCT investments, and governments, that deserve to be brought up on charges of obtaining monies under false pretenses.
So far the UK, USA and other European countries are not pursueing
any legislation that will endorse any form of ETS. Doesn’t mean we
should not pursue ‘Sustainability’ in Australia. Or try to cut down pollution
that seems to blight the bigger urban developments around the world
where there are larger more congested populations.