Surge in US economists’ support for carbon tax to tackle emissions

US economists led by former US Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen are uniting in record numbers to back the idea of a carbon tax as the most effective and immediate way of tackling climate change.

At a time when Democrats including New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are pushing a sweeping “Green New Deal” programme to reduce greenhouse emissions, climate change is shaping up to be a major 2020 election issue. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind China.

But Ms Yellen told the Financial Times the Green New Deal was costly, whereas the carbon tax, which would plough proceeds back to the public in dividend payments, would be the “most efficient way” to reduce emissions.

Read the story from the Financial Times - “Surge in US economists’ support for carbon tax to tackle emissions.”

Greens seek to shame Labor by vowing to restore carbon tax

A new clash over a carbon tax will shape the next election as the Greens launch a campaign to reinstate a price on carbon, challenging Labor to embrace the policy as the strongest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greens climate change spokesman Adam
Bandt and Labor leader Bill Shorten.CREDIT:

The Greens will vow to restore the carbon price put into place in 2011 and scrapped in 2014, telling voters the Parliament can reinstate the policy as if the scheme had never been repealed by the Coalition.

But it will drop the fixed price in the first three years of the original carbon tax and instead promise a market price linked to overseas carbon schemes.

Read the story from The Age by David Crowe - “Greens seek to shame Labor by vowing to restore carbon tax.”

Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

Eleven teams participated in a recent Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) project, examining the economic and environmental impacts of a carbon tax. The studies included “revenue recycling,” in which the funds generated from a carbon tax are returned to taxpayers either through regular household rebate checks (similar to the Citizens’ Climate Lobby [CCL] and Climate Leadership Council [CLC] proposals) or by offsetting income taxes (similar to the approach in British Columbia).

View of the surface mining and the lignite-fired coal power
station on February 05, 2018 in Bogatynia, Poland. 

Among the eleven modeling teams the key findings were consistent. First, a carbon tax is effective at reducing carbon pollution, although the structure of the tax (the price and the rate at which it rises) are important. Second, this type of revenue-neutral carbon tax would have a very modest impact on the economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). In all likelihood it would slightly slow economic growth, but by an amount that would be more than offset by the benefits of cutting pollution and slowing global warming.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are again on the verge of introducing a Resolution denouncing a carbon tax as “detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Read the story by Dana Nucittelli from The Guardian - “Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy.”

But global warming will

The energy crisis is all about politics rather than supply

Australia relies more heavily on coal for its electricity than almost any other country in the world, yet we have some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Tony Abbott blamed the carbon tax for the rapid increase in the price of electricity, but its removal did nothing to stop the wholesale price of electricity from nearly doubling.

The May issue of The Monthly.

Australia is producing record amounts of gas, and soon we will become the world’s largest gas exporter. Yet the gas industry has told us that we have a “shortage” of gas. It assures us that the only solution is to allow even more fracking of coal seam gas on even more farmland. It’s the environmentalists who get the blame for high energy prices.

And despite the fact that the Turnbull government claims to be both short of cash and committed to tackling climate change, the Coalition plans to subsidise Adani’s enormous new export coalmine. Why are environmentalists opposed to it? You guessed it: because they are trying to ruin the economy.

It is often said that the Australian energy market is “broken”, but the market is working just as it was designed to. It’s not the market that is broken but the politics of energy.

Read the essay from The Monthly by Richard Denniss - “The energy crisis is all about politics rather than supply.”

‘Unfortunate’ the carbon tax coincided with soaring network costs, Rod Sims says

The timing of the carbon tax was “unfortunate” because it coincided with soaring electricity network costs that have underpinned increases to household bills, the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has told a forum in Brisbane.

 Sydney rally in 2011 against the planned carbon tax.
Rod Sims says it isn’t to blame for power price rises. 

The ACCC is next month due to hand to government its final report on the electricity market. The body’s chairman, Rod Sims, said on Monday he was unable to reveal specific details but gave some hints about the direction the inquiry had taken.

Unlike the interim report, which was released last year and which charted factors that had caused bills to increase over time, the next phase would outline a “tricky” path to ultimately bringing those prices down, Sims said.

Read Ben Smee’s story from The Guardian - “‘Unfortunate’ the carbon tax coincided with soaring network costs, Rod Sims says.”

Singapore will charge polluters a carbon tax from next year

Singapore has announced plans to introduce a new carbon tax from 2019.

Carbon tax in Singapore from 2019.

The tax will initially be levied at $5 Singapore dollars ($3.8 US) on all facilities which produce 25,000 tonnes, or more, of greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Heng Swee Keat, the country’s Minister of Finance, made the announcement on Monday in the yearly budget proposals.

Agence France-Presse reported Mr Heng saying: "Singapore produces less carbon emissions per dollar of GDP than most countries”

Read the ClimateAction story “Singapore will charge polluters a carbon tax from next year.”

Malcolm Turnbull's national energy guarantee plan masks a carbon price

The Turnbull government's new national energy guarantee could introduce a de facto carbon price, measuring the cost of emissions for the first time since the Abbott government scrapped the carbon tax in 2014.

Placing a price on carbon: One default outcome of a National Energy Guarantee.

The long-awaited energy plan, released by the government on Tuesday, requires electricity retailers to ensure improved reliability levels while also reducing carbon emissions in line with Australia's Paris Agreement commitments.

Buried in the detail of advice presented by the new Energy Security Board to state and federal governments is a mechanism to be added to the National Electricity Market in two stages in 2019 and 2020 that could produce a default carbon price.

"Some electricity retailers will not be able to meet the required emissions profile, while others will overachieve," it reads. "Therefore a secondary exchange will occur between retailers to balance their portfolios."

Read Peter Hannam’s story in the Melbourne Age - “Malcolm Turnbull's national energy guarantee plan masks a carbon price.”

It not the wind, it's the gas. Why power prices are going berserk

Prepare for a shock. On July 1 electricity prices jumped 15 to 20 per cent in NSW, 16 to 20 per cent in South Australia, 19 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory and 11 per cent in Western Australia.

All this, three years to the day since the Coalition axed the carbon tax.

Victoria gets six months' grace, with increases of about the same size due in January.

And those are just the retail prices. Wholesale prices and those charged to businesses that buy directly are up an extraordinary 60 to 70 per cent. It's renewables that are doing it, along with the closure of Victoria's giant Hazelwood coal-fired power generator, according to Tony Abbott.

Read Peter Martin’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “It not the wind, it's the gas. Why power prices are going berserk.”

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg says there will be no new 'carbon tax' on cars, but prices may still rise

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has sought to hose down reports the government is planning to introduce a new "carbon tax" on cars that will see the price of some popular vehicles soar by up to $5000.

New cars could face higher standards under
a proposal released for discussion.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has released proposed new fuel efficiency standards for consultation, which car sellers have slammed as "unrealistic and ill-considered".

Many of the country's most popular models – such as the Toyota HiLux, Corolla, Hyundai i30 and Ford Ranger – would not meet the new guidelines, which aim to reduce the average national fleet emissions to the equivalent of 105gCO2/km from around 335gCO2/km in 2015.

Read Matthew Knott’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg says there will be no new 'carbon tax' on cars, but prices may still rise.”

Carbon car push should surprise nobody

It should have come as no shock that rules on carbon emissions for new cars sold in this country are on the way.

Proposals for mandatory fuel emissions standards
have raised concerns among auto businesses.

While there have been loud headlines about an alarming "carbon tax", the truth is that standards, in one form or another, have been some time coming, and Australia is no trailblazer.

Eighty per cent of the world's car market – including the US, Canada, Europe and the UK – is already subject to carbon dioxide emissions standards, while Australia has no such rules at all.

So it can be little surprise that our cars are less efficient and worse polluters than many other countries.

Read Nick Toscano’s story on the Melbourne Age -  “Carbon car push should surprise nobody.”

Low emissions target: On carbon schemes, no one says the same thing for long

If you don't know the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, or a low emissions target and an emissions intensity scheme, it's time to wise up.

On Friday Malcolm Turnbull gets the report of the Finkel review of the electricity market and later this year the report of the official review of his government's climate change policies.

Read the comment in today’s Melbourne Age by Peter Martin - “Low emissions target: On carbon schemes, no one says the same thing for long.”

Direct Action doesn't motivate big carbon emitters

Australia’s largest listed, carbon intensive companies say management lost focus on carbon matters, abandoned energy projects and didn’t have the commercial imperative to produce long-term strategic action on reducing emissions after the carbon tax was repealed, new research finds.

Our research looked at the comparative views of emitters before and after the repeal of the carbon tax legislation, in interviews with 18 senior managers from nine carbon-intensive listed companies.

Two years have passed since Australia’s carbon tax was repealed. It was introduced by the Labor government and came into effect in 2012.

The carbon pricing scheme asked big emitters to pay for each tonne of emissions above a threshold of 25,000 tonnes, in carbon units, and these were at a fixed charge of: $23 a tonne in 2012, $24.15 a tonne in 2013 and $25.40 a tonne in 2014.

Read the piece on The Conversation - “Direct Action not as motivating as carbon tax say some of Australia’s biggest emitters.”

Spotting agreement behind the elephant in the room

Every so often elections matter. The last one mattered big-time for carbon emissions.

In 2013, we voted to end the carbon tax. In its two years of life, emissions from electricity generation fell an exceptional 10.6 per cent. We now know that in the 21 months since they've climbed 5.6 per cent.

The extraordinary turnaround is appallingly timed for a country which in April signed the Paris Accord agreeing to attempt to hold the increase in global temperatures to between 1.5 and 2 degrees.

Pitt&Sherry energy analyst Hugh Saddler, who compiled the figures, says they are the result of an abrupt change in the mix of electricity generation "away from hydro and back to brown and black coal as removal of the carbon price changed the relative costs".

And a change in attitudes. The political messages that we helped create assured us that saving energy was no longer that important.

Read Peter Martin’s piece in today’s Melbourne Age - “Election 2016: Behind the battlelines there's surprising agreement on climate change.”

Norwegian PM calls for global carbon price

E

Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg
  - calling for global carbon price.

rna Solberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, has called on the world to immediately set a global carbon price and phase out fossil fuel subsidies in order to better drive investment in low carbon technologies.

Speaking at a conference hosted by the Norwegian British Chamber of Commerce in London today, Solberg argued Norway's 26 year old carbon tax had been crucial in helping to drive development of "climate friendly" technologies.

Read the BusinessGreen story - “Norwegian Prime Minister demands global carbon price and end to fossil fuel subsidies”.

Lies, damned lies and then there is data

T

he Daily Telegraph yesterday published a set of Big Scary Numbers around ambitious action on climate change, leading to lower economic growth, lower wage growth and the winding down of the coal industry.

In response the federal environment minister Greg Hunt stated that “What Labor refuses to learn is that you can tackle climate change without a carbon tax. You can tackle climate change without a [A]$633 billion hit to the economy.”

Where do such numbers — and associated apocalyptic scenarios — come from, what do they mean, and is ambitious action a recipe for a significant hit to the economy and our living standards?

Read The Conversation story - “How to make sense of big, scary climate costs”.

A year on from the abolition of carbon price and emissions have rebounded

A

 year on from the abolition of the carbon price, greenhouse pollution from electricity generation has rebounded as Australia burns more brown coal to meet its power needs.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the national electricity grid jumped by 6.4 million tonnes in the financial year after the Abbott government repealed the scheme that required big industry to buy pollution permits, according to analysis by consultants Pitt & Sherry.

The 4.3 per cent increase unwound part of an 11 per cent fall in emissions across the grid in the two years the carbon price was in place.

Read Adam Morton’s story in The Age - “The climate one year on: exit carbon tax, enter brown coal”.

Michael considers machinations of carbon tax/Direct Action

M

ichael Harris delves into the machinations of the carbon tax and Direct Action.

The Senior Fellow in the School of Economics at University of Sydney explores the complexities on The Conversation asking, “Let’s consider what we’re measuring and why.”

Read his story - “The carbon tax wasn’t a ‘slug’ to the economy and Direct Action may be a waste of money”.

Tony Abbott deludes Australians and leads them the wrong way

D

eluded by the three word slogans of Tony Abbott, Australians voted to rid the country of its Labor Party inspired carbon tax.

The stance taken by Australians contradicts that of most others in the rest of the world,

Treehugger reports that “… a new survey commissioned by the French government is to be believed, however, over 87% of the world's population supports some form of carbon tax as a means to tackle climate change.

It said, “That's not the only sign that the world is ready—very ready—for nations to start taking the fight against climate change seriously.”

Read the Treehugger  story  - “87% of world citizens support carbon tax”.

Australia's 'carbon tax' goes, oil producers seek one

T

he Abbott Government scrapped the so-called “carbon tax” claiming a mandate to do so and now Europe’s oil producers are calling for exactly that.

BloombergBusiness reports, “The heads of Europe’s largest oil and gas companies have joined together for the first time to call for governments to agree to carbon pricing at a United Nations-led summit on climate change at the end of the year.

“Climate change is a critical challenge for our world,” the chief executive officers of six energy companies wrote to the top UN official in charge of climate talks. “We need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term ambitious policy frameworks.”

Read the BloombergBusiness story - “Europe’s Top Oil Producers Unite in Push on Climate Policy”.

GFC carbon dioxide falls being replicated in Australia

W

orld carbon dioxide emissions fell away during the global financial crisis of 2008.

Lisa Cox.

A drop off in production and consumption, and the subsequent lower use of fossil-based energy, by both producers and consumers is being replicated, in a sense, here in Australia.

Writing in today’s Melbourne Age, Lisa Cox tells us that if Australia meets its 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 it will be by "luck not design".

She reports that a leading economist has said, as the government published new figures showing the task ahead of Australia has almost halved.

“The Department of Environment projections show Australia's task of meeting its carbon reduction goals by 2020 has fallen from an estimate of 421 million tonnes in 2013 to 236 million tonnes due to a drop in electricity demand, lower than expected agricultural production and less activity from manufacturing and coal mining,” she reports.

Her story - “'Luck not design' will enable Australia to meet 2020 emissions targets” – quotes Environment Minister Greg Hunt who claims figures show Australia is on track to meet its 2020 target and it was, he said, "clear we can meet our targets without a destructive carbon tax".

Mr Hunt fails to acknowledge that the drop in emissions results from a slowing of Australia’s production and consumption.