Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme

Craig's picture
Craig started the topic in Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 7:29am

What's everyone's thoughts on the carbon pollution reduction scheme that's just been bought in?

Personally I think i's a step in the right direction as it will make the top polluters think more carefully about how much they output by making them accountable in the form of a $23 per ton tax.

The market will probably work out if this is too less an amount (ie the polluters won't change their output) and if I'm correct it will be increased accordingly until polluters start changing their ways and invest in cleaner energy.

I still think there needs to be more investment in renewable energy in this country as we've got so much land/wind/heat to become a leader in this area.

Only time will tell really but something has to change as we're currently heading down the wrong path regarding consumption of fossil fuels.

benski's picture
benski's picture
benski Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 8:19am


I haven't followed the details too much as I've found the whole political debate pretty depressing.

Just to clarify what you said, my understanding is that the price on carbon is the basis of an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price of $23 for three years. After that, it becomes a floating price as the market sees fit. What that means is that for the next three years, polluters have to purchase the rights to emit carbon dioxide at $23/ton but they can sell the right at any time if they don't need it (also for $23/ton). So Company A might buy the rights to emit 100 tonnes of CO2 for $2300 but only emit 80 tons, in which case they can sell the rights to the unused 20 tons to Company B for $460.

After three years the price can move about with supply and demand so it may actually fall rather than rise.

But from then, companies can make money buying and selling carbon emission permits in the same way we buy shares in companies.

I also think it's a step in the right direction, but I don't like the chances of it surviving. From what I can see, people have decided it's going to bring hell to Australia and they want it gone.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 10:46am

Ah, thanks for clearing that up Benski, I was wondering how the market would set the price and your explanation is perfect.

Whether you believe in Global Warming or not we have to move away from finite resources such as fossil fuels and move to greener renewable energy so hopefully this stays in place to help push the major polluters in another direction.

rattle's picture
rattle's picture
rattle Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 10:48am

I have been waiting for action on pollution like this for a very very long time.

I strongly support our government's Carbon ETS and associated actions like money to invest in clean energy initiatives.

While I should be happy beyond belief I remain concerned about the devisive nature and level of political debate. No side of politics has ownership on honesty. I don't think our Prime Minister "lied" at all rather she changed her position on an ETS as a reaction to a changed political landscape (i.e. the election result that we the people gave the paliament). That is precisely what we should expect our politicans to do. Lets not forget that Mr Abbott is on record as saying he would have done anything to become PM. Further, the liberal party under Mr Howard and Mr Turnbull supported an ETS very similar to the one now legislated but all this was dumped when Mr Abbott became opposition leader. Why? again, there is film of Mr Abbott supporting a price on carbon. Again, Greg Hunt, opposition spokesman on the environment once supported an ETS to the point that he wrote his honours paper at university on the subject. Now he is opposed to the government's ETS when as recently as when Mr Turnbull was oppostion leader he supported one.

Now the Liberal Party's policy on Carbon reduction centres on direct action focusing paying the biggest pollutors like power stations to reduce pollution, on planting trees and putting carbon back into the soil. Very little detail is known but it is estimated that the tree planting would need to cover an area the size of Tasmania and Victoria combined to meet their stated carbon reduction target (combined with the other measures). I also understand that returning carbon to the soil will firstly require farmers everywhere to agree to it and currently this process is not included in international actions under which all other ETS credits schemes work.

Finally, and this is very important its funded from consolidated revenue (TAX PAYERS MONEY) and is it the Department of Treasury and Finance modelling estimates the all up cost at $48 Billion ..... that amount, if it were ever spent is staggering more exepnsive to the economy that the ETS that is now legislated.

So who is being honest here and who is telling the lie? Like I said no side owns honesty.

We are all entitled to our views and we are entitled and deserve a genuine and honest debate on this issue here-on-end so we have all the facts before the next election. So how about it Mr Abbott, get rid of those silly safety hats and vests and expose yourself to a true, open and honest debate. Let the facts speak for themselves afterall honesty is apparently very important to you.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 11:42am

it's just another TAX from vermin politicians invented by vermin banksters.

the leg-humpers and parasites have run out of things to exploit.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 11:44am

Genuine and honest debate??

Not likely. Not now that the Libs can blame every cost of living increase on the ETS.

rattle's picture
rattle's picture
rattle Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 1:28pm

While I sadly agree with you stunet lets examine this cost of living pressure debate.

We hear alot from media shock jocks and politicans about the cost of living pressures families are under but as a country we are:

1. gambling billions a dollars a year on pokies, horses, football, lotto;
2. drinking at levels that cause health care professionals everywhere to say we have a problem of epidemic proportions;
3. scrambling to buy ever bigger and grander over valued houses that are on average now bigger than American houses;
4. buying imported cars, mostly SUVs, in record numbers;
5. send our kids to private schools in record numbers even when there are good public schools freely available
6. buying the latest phones, ipads, computers and TVs in record numbers and at over inflated prices ........... need I go on?

Then we hear about power bills going up so much because of the ETS. Its been accounted for in the government hang outs and anything else is as a result of power companies (many privatised like here in Victoria) neglecting to upgrade poles and power lines over the last 10, 20, 30 years.

Then there is that recent poll where a majority of respndants said they were struggling, but get this, of those that said they were struggling 19% had been on an overseas holiday in the last year.

We used to be a country of a "fair go for all" and we looked after our mates. Perhaps we are now so asprirational (to use a John Howard line) we can't see past the nose on our face. This is the part that scares me most of all.

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 1:52pm

What that means is that for the next three years, polluters have to purchase the rights to emit carbon dioxide at $23/ton but they can sell the right at any time if they don't need it (also for $23/ton). So Company A might buy the rights to emit 100 tonnes of CO2 for $2300 but only emit 80 tons, in which case they can sell the rights to the unused 20 tons to Company B for $460.

By: "benski"

This might seem a silly question, but who's auditing each company for its CO2 emmissions? How do we know for sure that Company A emitted precisely 80 tonnes, and can therefore sell their pre-purchased, unused 20 tonnes? Will this be audited by a government agency, or are there independent contractors who will do this on behalf of each company? (ie perhaps in the same way an accountant does the tax for a business)

benski's picture
benski's picture
benski Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 3:03pm

ben, yeah I was thinking about that as I wrote that and I don't know the answer. But I do remember meeting a bloke at an environmental law seminar in Bris a few years back who ran a company that was basically a greenhouse accounting consultancy. I can't remember the details so I probably shouldn't be trying to answer that question but I think it's going to be a new industry (or branch of accounting/consulting at least) that will appear out of this. I imagine there'll be a govt department in there too.

Thinking a bit further, maybe this is why they're mainly targeting electricity generation at the moment because they can probably get a better handle on CO2 emissions associated with that.

And thinking about it even further, perhaps it won't be pre-purchased initially, maybe it'll be charged after the fact.

I think it's clear that I should probably just back away slowly cos I'm really not sure of the specifics of this system, only the general principles. craig, you better get a second explanation from someone else!

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 4:18pm

What is annoying the piss out of me at the moment is there are no longer any real incentives, except personal ones, to adopt renewable energy for the everyday Joe. They have now (or about to) scap the solar rebate. Even when the rebate ends, due to lack of funds at the moment, I was going to watch and see what happens whilst researching and saving the 10's of thousands of dollars to set up.

I was seriously looking at a big solar setup and wind generator (I am on a rural property)so that I could be basically neautral or even pump a fair few KW's back into the grid. But now they are saying that they are going to buy back what you pump in from a measly 44cents/KWHR to a piss week 8 cents! Why would anyone want to spend big to set up and pump back into the grid for the companies that benefit from and charge us. They will profit with what WE are putting back in. They will charge someone else (or even you) to profit from something they didn't even supply. This will then in turn reduce their tax because they are not producing the carbon. Double dipping.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Another term for Politics

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 5:22pm

Hey fitzroy-21 if you want to see how governments can get all that right investigate what the Germans do ....... low interest state loans to communities to fund wind, water, solar or methane power projects. Once the loans are repaid the power project is owned by the local community (not the State or Private foreign owned companies) and they receive the on-going financial benefit (profits).

Even the English are setting up mini electricity generating power plants attached to small and large manufacturing plants. In this way the manufacturing plant generates electricity as a by-product from say an internal process that generates heat (heat into electricity) and then sells the power to the local neighbourhood.

Of course we couldn't have anything like these policies here when we don't have agreement across the political spectrum (like they do in the UK and in Germany) and too many vested interests (coal and mining industries) have our politicans in their back pocket.

Australia the Lucky Country ........... What a fucking joke.

nick3's picture
nick3's picture
nick3 Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 6:58pm

Here we go again. The science on carbon dioxide causing negative enviromental impact has been defunct by even people that were advocates of man made global warming.Floyd can you tell me how the average global temperature has changed in the last 15 years whislt the output between China and India has increased atleast 10 fold. Since global warming is driven holly by carbon dioxide. You dumb arses need to get a brain and a job.

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 7:48pm

It must be such a disappointment for you nick3 living in a country like Australia, where despite their hotly debated differences on how to tackle climate change, both the government and the Liberals (apparently) agree on the existance of climate change and the need to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

With your blind denial of climate change, abhorrence to welfare benefits and total belligerence towards anyone who doesn't work as hard as you supposedly do you would be much happier living in a place like the deep south of the USA where you could polish your guns in your spare time while discussing the latest conspiracy theory with your fellow tea party patriots.

For other readers of this forum topic if you think I am being a little hard on nick3 you are welcome to read his mostly incoherent contributions to previous forum topics on the Carbon ETS.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Tuesday, 3 Jul 2012 at 8:48pm

Nick, any time someone has to resort to name calling and insults to get their point across doesn't help their cause.

Have a quick look at these graphs.

First one is the global increase in temperature while the second shows the increase in carbon concentration in the atmosphere over the same time.



While carbon dioxide isn't the only contributor to rising global air temperatures it plays a big part and you can't deny the matching trends.

As I stated earlier "Whether you believe in Global Warming or not we have to move away from finite resources such as fossil fuels and move to greener renewable energy." The emissions trading scheme is one step in the right direction.

shortenm's picture
shortenm's picture
shortenm Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 10:34am

Yeah, good debate crew. Its a complex issue and something that is always going to attract opinion often influenced by shallow information produced by the mainstream media. Reality is all the debate, graphs, charts and info in the world should not detract from the fact that it makes good sense to look after your patch / planet. And given the state of play, businesses talk in $ terms, so yeah it would be nice for everyone to just say yep lets change and a lot of change has happened voluntarily over the years, but reality is step change has to be driven by hits to the hip pocket.

Sure no-one likes a tax, I can think of hundreds of others though that are far worse. And yeah no-one likes being lied to, especially by our PM, supposed leader (ps she aint my kids roll model)... But yeahhh this aint that bad.. Did this much debate happen over the GST??

THe other side of this carbon price mechanism is the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), which allows land owners/managers to generate a revenue stream from rehabilitating their lands through re-veg, managing soils etc. Bloody awesome! What a turn around. We have spent the last 150yrs clearing, fertilising, over stocking (not all I might ad) and now farmers are being incentivised to change practice and rehabilitate through real $$. The carbon units they create are then sold to the 300 polluting businesses covered under the carbon price mechanism. So big polluters will essentially be making investments in real on-ground outcomes across Australia via the carbon price mechanism.

Neat hey!? Yeah pretty exciting I reckon. ANd yeah probably not perfect, but gotta start somewhere.


angrybrigade's picture
angrybrigade's picture
angrybrigade Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 11:14am

apropos of nothing (well, kinda), check this bloke:

& he surfs!

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 12:49pm

the CT is yet another compulsory aquisition of the nations' productivity.

don't for one minute think it's loaded onto the 300 biggest poluters , it will be paid directly and indirectly by everyone.

some of the biggest organisations will absorb it easier than others. small indy supermarkets eg: IGA will will cop it harder than Coles/Woolies.

ultimately, the costs will be passed on and everyone will pay, especially the individual.

CT on petrol ? 30 odd % is already a TAX. CT on electricity ? 10% of your bill is already GSTAX.

there are 101 ways to reduce carbon, and I'm all for them.

This is simply another way for the vermin, parasites, scumbags and leg-humpers to get there tentacles into your wallet.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 1:08pm

ps. Got a wood fired heater/fireplace ?

expect to pay a levy/permit, or the similar, from your local council, soon.

(how dare you run a carbon polluting apparatus without paying TAX.)

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 3:32pm

Councils aren't even recognised under the Aust Constitution Sid, so they legally can't impose taxes and levy's on you anyway. On the next constitutional vote, don't get sucked into voting for councils to be given recognition. You will pay. But that is a totally other subject altogether.

I have improved wildlife corridors on my property and, as stated earlier, want to do solar and wind generation as well. It is purely personal, but where is the incentive for the average Joe to do the same??

I'm not sure I fully believe in the tax yet, only because it possibly won't greatly effect the target its aimed at. I agree with the theory behind it, but the execution is yet to be fully understood. I agree though with Craig and others that something has to be done and we need to start somewhere. Problem is, I couldn't trust a polly as deep as I could drown them.

nick3's picture
nick3's picture
nick3 Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 3:40pm

Floyd. Now I will let you in on a secret. THE CLIMATE IS NEVER STATIC AND CHANGES ALL THE TIME. Don't go calling people that don't believe in a carbon tax a climate change dennier. And please stop peddling that doctored science like the ice core samples.
There are alot more drivers to the point .8 of a degree warming in the last couple of hundred years.
Lets start with a couple such as solar activity, our position and angle to the sun which changes(galatic positioning),warming of the ocean's due to thermal venting and good old water vapour in tha atmosphere just to name a few. So out of that very slight change there really is not much influence due to carbon dioxide. As I think you will find if you look at the proper science these are a much bigger driver of global average temperature.
Floyd you didn't answer my question.Please tell me why the average global temperature has not really changed in the last 15 years whilst the carbon dioxide has increased world wide and in particular China and India it has increased nearly ten times.Answer this or shut the fuck up. As far as welfare bludgers go,you only get what you do because of people like me. So a big thank you would be nice.
I have no problems with the worthy welfare recipients.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 5:19pm

---Councils aren't even recognised under the Aust Constitution Sid, so they legally can't impose taxes and levy's on you anyway.---

Floyd, then what the fuck do you call rates ?

Rates/Levies/Rego's/Taxes/Permits... call it what you like... it's ALL fucken taxes to me.

Have a look at your next rates notice, then get back to me.

Fireplace levy... coming your way.

(Department of Lands already wanna put meters on water Bores on your own land. your Land, your Bore, THEIR water. And tanks will be next.)

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 6:27pm

---Councils aren't even recognised under the Aust Constitution Sid, so they legally can't impose taxes and levy's on you anyway.---

solly, Fitzy***...

(not Floyd.)

nick3's picture
nick3's picture
nick3 Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 7:13pm

I hate to tell you Sidthefish these people do not understand the how economics work. Tax any company and they will pass it on or they will shut there doors. Every one passes there cost on till they get to the end user(that is us).
Floyd thinks the only thing that we will see a cost rise is in electricity and it will be only minimal. Dumb fuck.
Floyd answer my question and while you are there tell me out of all the influences to the 0.8 of a degree warming(which is good) how much is contributed to carbon dioxide ( allowing it would be less than 5 % of the 0.8 of a degree). Then what amount is man made( 0.5 per cent because over 95 % is natural) then work out how much out of the 0.5 % is from Australia ( around 1.5 % of the 100 % of the 0.5 % ).
So Floyd and you other mindless idiots then tell me what are we achievieng and don't tell it is about stopping pollution as carbon dioxide is not a pollutent

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012 at 7:36pm

nick3, you are obviously wasting your scientific brain trying to convince complete knuckle-heads like me that climate change doesn't exist and there is no need for the Carbon ETS.

Suggest you wonder down the road to the Institute of Public Affairs Australia. I'm sure they could do with your superior intellect to mount feeble agruments against good public policy. Joining the IPA woulld be far easier for you than relocating to the USA to be with your fellow tea party patriots.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 6:41am

I have no problem with the science.

what I have a problem with is governments/bankers who's only solution is to make the people bleed.

Take building a new house. Most people borrow to build new houses. Every new dwelling will now have an additional carbon cost built in to the construction costs, in addition to the GST. So... borrow money off the banksters, to give it straight to the government (TAX), then pay interest on those funds for 25/30 years.


Thats just one example.

If they were fair dinkum about CO2 reduction, they could make solar set up tax free, and the feedback rebate equal to reatil power charges. Create the incentive. Make 4 cyl/hybrid cars pay 30% norm rego. etc etc etc.

Nah, something like that ain't gunna happen.

Lets sting pensioners trying to eat and stay warm, instead.

And don't for one moment think either side of politics are much different.

This shit is a done deal, globally. Fully orchestrated by the banksters, who, as always, produce nothing but control everything.

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 6:52am


First up, I'm not a lawyer. Whaaat or one of his mates might be able to shed light on constitutional law etc and its to big an issue to write up here, but the Aust public are hoodwinked into believing their power.

I would love to fight the councils on rates etc but I'm yet to find/afford a lawyer/barrister that would take it on and can you imagine the ramifications if a magistrate/judge gave the ruling in your favour! I'm doubtful that this would happen.

I have successfully fought everything from parking fines to dog registration with councils and won on the limited knoweledge I have. They don't even bother with me now after the first letter.

Like I said, this is not the thread and it is too massive a topic to delve into here. Do your own research and you will be surprised at what you find.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 6:52am

Hi Sid, check this graph out.

It compares the Carbon Tax to other taxes and it doesn't even rate compared to GST.

Also once the Government Compensation runs through most people/households will be better off by 0.20c a week.


And Nick to say Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant is just plain stupid.

Any chemical or substance which becomes excessive in an environment is classed as a pollutant.

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 6:56am

BTW Sid,

Good game last night, you guys were lucky !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nick3's picture
nick3's picture
nick3 Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 7:15am

Holy shit Floyd. Do you read my posts. I believe that the climate changes and no one with half a brain would say it doesn't.That's why all scientist will say that climate change is real. The climate has always changed since the birth of earth.
Now answer my question's and tell me what a carbon tax is going to do.
Graig do you really believe that graph. I will bet my left testicle that give a good 12 months the average household/Family will be at least $2000 - $3000 worse off once you add it all up. Just remember that electricity has already gone up now close to a 100% since Labor goverment came to power in 2007 to pay for there green scheme's.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 7:32am

Craig, nice try, wrong guy. Like I said, using the construction example, pay it off 25/30 years. Add it onto EVERYTHING, every move you make.

that bar chart doesn't mention power or petrol ? how convenient.? sorry mate, you can stick it.

FYI the saw I operate draws 3000amps, under load. Run that sucker 24hrs/6 days/week, and you reckon it ain't gunna be passed on to the consumer.?

fitz, NSW are one year closer to winning SOO.

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 8:26am

Holy shit Sid. 3kA under load. What the hell does it cut, countries in half?

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 10:11am

Hey Sid,
You are right to distrust banks. Pretty much caused the GFC and how many Bank CEOs are in jail right now? Look what is happening in the UK with Barclays bank right now. If you want to really get your blood boiling read Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who stole the world. All about banks running the worlds biggest tax havens.

On solar power its a combination of State Governments and power companies that determine the rebate returned to people with solar panels on their roofs. The power company sets the power charge to the consumer but that rate must be agreed to by again Government. I have solar panels on my roof and I am paid 0.66 cents a kwh for the power I generate while I am charged 30.34 cents per kwh for peak use and 11.50 cents per kwh for off-peak use. Since installing my panels I haven't had to pay the power company any $$$ in fact they are paying me a cheque each quarter. I have done this by also reducing my power use inside the house to under 5 kwh per day with low power use lighting and appliances. The Commonwealth Governments only invlovement for me was their upfront subsidy to install the panels. [[ note: since installing my panels there seems to have been lots of changes to the rebates and upfront subsidies so maybe I am on a great deal nolonger available]].

I love your idea on 4cyl/hybrid cars. I have long thought this sort of idea could also be extended to 4WDs (you sound like a tradie so you will probably hate this idea then). Its not just about the fuel used in running cars its also about the energy used to make them ..... bigger cars = more energy. So to combine both your idea and extending it to 4WDs .... 50% rego costs for 4cl/hybrid/highly efficient cars and 150% rego costs for 4WDs. This could all be introduced into the community at 5% per year change in costs. I can hear the free-marketers screaming now about letting the market decide these things (e.g. mining tax debate) so like you Sid I can see it never happening.

I also have a wood heater. I reckon the only additional charge given the Carbon ETS will come in slightly dearer fire wood because of the fuel costs (but that should happen until deisel is included in 2015.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Thursday, 5 Jul 2012 at 6:33pm

Floyd, it's rotten to the core. Barclays/LIBOR is just the tip of the iceberg, the BoE is fully implicated as are all other TBTF banks and all central banks. Interest rates, currencies, commodities - all rigged and manipulated. these mutherfuckas should be put in pound-their-ass jails for the rest of their life.

fireplace levy - coming your way... take it to the bank. I repeat, how dare you run a carbon producing apparatus, and not pay tax.

pensky's picture
pensky's picture
pensky Friday, 6 Jul 2012 at 4:57pm

extremely suspect on the likelihood that this will achieve anything other than work for new "experts", accountants and other boffins in public sector - this all means more cost down the line. The whole thing is so politically compromised I just can't see it working. Haven't a lot of the largest polluters effectively been given exemptions? Then there is the political sham of the handouts which a) cost money and b) will ultimately be used by people to consume (spend) more on goods and/or services that will pollute more.

I'm all for action which addresses the problem which has to cost money - that's a given. But I can't see this scheme actually impacting the environment. I don't accept that our actions are seen as setting an example that large polluting countries will follow.

sidthefish's picture
sidthefish's picture
sidthefish Wednesday, 11 Jul 2012 at 6:34am

"owning" the air you breathe, and the water you drink...

the "securitization" of water... only banksters could be behind the wheel...