Monday 9 March 2009

AUSSIE GOVERNMENT BACK-PEDALLING ON EMISSIONS LAW

This report in the Australian explains how the recession is atarting to hurt down under. This is causing the Rudd government to think again about bringing in, unilaterally, a scheme to coerce business into cutting CO2 emissions with financial penalties. Also see this article in the Sydney Herald, and this one from the Canberra Times. It looks as though the financial climate has forced a dramatic re-think, thank goodness.
at

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous10 March 2009 at 04:53

    Oh goody! We've been saved from losing jobs by losing jobs! Blue skies ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Derek Tipp10 March 2009 at 15:57

    No, it's a case of you having been saved from government imposed bureaucracy putting up costs which would have cost you even more jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11 March 2009 at 02:28

    That's hard to imagine. An ETS only transfers capital from polluters to someone else, so jobs are likely to be created in less polluting industries. There may be some unproductive activity involved with the bureaucracy, but this creates employment itself.

    A general economic contraction means output is falling along with the absolute number of jobs available.

    Where was the dramatic rise in prices and unemployment when the European ETS was introduced? Commentators are saying that this is the worst financial and economic crisis since WW2. I don't remember that being said about the European ETS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Derek Tipp12 March 2009 at 23:34

    The EU ETS has been a failure (thank goodness). It started out by issuing far too many permits. The price of carbon has now dropped to such a low level that it is simply ineffective. If they tighten it up to make it effective, then we will see how damaging it can be.

    What must be remembered is that every product and service relies on energy to make it or transport it, so an ETS will cost us all, just like a tax.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous15 March 2009 at 02:07

    I see, so there's no evidence for your assertion from the European model. What about the Californian system?

    Yes, products cost energy to make, and since the forms of energy we now depend on are limited we must make the most effective use them and avoid their use for daily needs. An ETS or any rationing system won't decrease the total amount of fossil resource available, besides that wasted in administration. In fact, it may encourage the development and use of otherwise unexploited renewable resources, benefiting us into the future. Making fossil fuels as cheap as possible can only allow it to be wasted on frivolous luxuries and idiotic practices. Now _that_ will cost us dearly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Derek Tipp16 March 2009 at 16:53

    You forget one important point - we have no world-wide agreement! Unilateral action will simply punish those who push up the price of their own goods.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous17 March 2009 at 05:50

    I didn't forget it. You don't need world-wide agreement to benefit.

    You must believe that Europe has punished itself by taxing its fuel relatively more than other countries, such as the US. The reality is that it has adapted well, and is a popular and enjoyable place to live and work. It even maintains a healthy level of export. Meanwhile, the US languishes with fuel vulnerability, excessive traffic congestion, depressing concrete and ashphalt landscape, and lifestyle diseases. Its manufacturing base has declined, and its auto industry has lost market share to exporters who make more fuel efficient cars [1]. You must ignore reality to believe your view.

    [1] http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/04/us_automakers_continue_to_lose.html

    ReplyDelete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)