If global warming is caused by man, which I have never believed for a single second, wealth redistribution in the long term
will make everyone worse off and do didley squat for the planet.

If global warming is caused by natural climate change, which is the only causation that rings true, the myriad of government solutions to control
the climate is delusional.

Better to adapt to the changes and live in harmony with nature.

The high income earners, high profit companies that are slugged with extra taxes and levies have for eons been able to mitigate these charges
by moving offshore, laying workers off, increasing prices and many other tax dodges. This in turn leaves the poor even poorer and the country
as a whole worse off.

It is a bit like Betfairs premium charges. Betfair decides to charge winners a tax to make more profit, the winners will use methods to escape
these extra charges. Some will bet elsewhere, some will increase activity and size of bets on break even chances and some will arb. This in turn makes the losers lose more. The ones who know how to win will still keep winning, any extra profits resulting from the PC will be mostly borne by the losers and
they won't even know it.

Party on

Womble: I know you have some smarts but in this case ..Are you delusional? Hoseholds get charged by being connected to the grid...and then their usage.
What do you propose to make the electricity suppliers less profitable?

You get charged even if you went fully solar for eg. The fact the grid "can be connected" if chosen you get slugged.

What alternative does the average household have ?

Yeah definitely....I started a year ago switching power off at walls etc. and estimate this has resulted in a 15% reduction in power costs.Add in returning power back to grid ...could get to about 35%.All good stuff...I have noticed the Govt is cutting back the Solar schemes.

I suppose depending on how and where the cost falls in Accounting terms will decide things.

Qld electricity rises in Dec/Jan announced were due/blamed to renewable targets and just tacked on price rise. They will always find a way to profiteer and keep their margins as Compound alluded too.

Only way Legislation outlawing production of Coal over time and lead by example and resticting sales to overseas countries.

Do you know if the science/technology is their to store solar energy to power a average house? . I know the trial phase was pretty close 6 months ago. If the breakthrough happened ...how hard would the Gov't get behind it.

A whole city can be run on renewables...China have proved it...they have one

wombleoz says:
of course the cost will be passed onto householders, well in most cases - there might be a brave business out there that wears the impact on the bottom  line but i doubt it. Lower income households will be compensated - from there, people will change what they do and as a result reduce the incomes of the dirtier businesses who will then look at cheaper cleaner alternatives

In other words what wombleoz wants is a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scheme, under the guise of "global warming" or "climate change.

Wombleoz loves taxes, its devious and brazen.  This is about the ideology of socialism not the over-exaggerated warming thats ALLEGED.  If it was about climate change, we'd be going gang busters on renewables and clean energy.

Carbon tax = ineffective tax on everything.
You pay and the environment?  No fkn change.

easiest path to less pollution is taxing it - it ain't rocket science

Yeah, heaven forbid we take real action on greening up.

Australian's get slugged with MORE tax, wealth is redistributed, the pollution continues to flow - and we're all saved from the earth's ever changing weather cycles.

If you had a brain wombleoz, you'd be dangerous.

Fair dinkum.

"sh!t happens"

global warming is caused mainly by you skippy shaggers.

your full of hot air and methane.

All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you know .....that bogus god you worship of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" ......well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of some bad news.

The recent volcanic eruption going on in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash , in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

I'm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government is trying to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bullshit artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that now the same government is in control, you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It certainly won't stop any volcanoes from erupting.

This isn't about climate change for wombleoz.

This is a tax that goes to heart of wombloez's ideology.

Its all about wealth re-distribution.

A carbon tax does nothing to reduce pollution on the environment.

Taking real action like investing in renewable/clean green energy and initiatives (you know like the ones the Prime Minister axed a few weeks ago) and taking practical Green measures is just far too hard.

A cleaner planet , a better planet Womble ... but Carbon tax is a rip on all of us.....legislate green technology /renewables only way

total BS womble, give the people ALTERNATIVES not tax

the alternatives are there already but don't get picked up because they aren't price competitive - i guess it's the carrot or the stick to encourage people to switch. mind you, there has been plenty of incentives out there already but most ignored them so i'd suggest a tax will be more effective

stupid move to suspend some of the incentives they did but the greens will step up and keep them going, either way they've been in place for a while and the numbers taking them aren't huge


i notice you ignored my post about the conservatives in NZ introducing an ETS

the alternatives are already there, sure womble?
and how does the average renter out there manage this?
will he/she spend 1000's on solar energy for someone elses house? i dont think so!
please tell me what alternatives available womble for the renter?
and please dont tell me the renter should move to a more green friendly landlord there is a housing/rental shortage

jez hits the nail the govt doesnt care about so called global warming they just want more revenue stream and to stay in power WHATEVER THE COST, wake up andsmell the roses womble cant you see you have been brainwashed ffs

secong a lot of renters will be compensated for the changes and a lot of landlords will see value in attracting tenants to cheaper greener accommodation

compensation should only go to the most in need, there is too much middle class welfare already

Effectively doing nothing will be worse for electricity prices than doing something


From The Australian

Carbon vacuum fuels cost of power

    * Annabel Hepworth and Sid Maher
    * From: The Australian
    * February 21, 2011 12:00AM


THE Gillard government's renewable energy scheme will saddle consumers with more than $1 billion in extra electricity costs this year, and uncertainty created by its failure to implement a carbon pricing regime is forcing power bills higher than they would otherwise be.

Research to be released today by the Australian Industry Group finds that a "well-designed" carbon price would ease some of the pressure on energy prices, which are forecast to rise over the next decade.

However, a carbon price of $26 a tonne is still estimated to increase electricity costs for households by 17.6 per cent in 2012-13, taking an annual bill for a Sydney home to $2000 from $1700.

But the report warns that a failure to implement a well-designed climate change policy could entrench higher power prices.

"Without decisions in this area over the next couple of years, damaging uncertainty is likely to lead to sub-optimal investments that leave both prices and emissions higher than they need be - with serious and uncompensated impacts on trade-exposed firms," the report says.

The research attacks the government's renewable energy scheme - particularly subsidies for household solar photovoltaics panels - as not offering value for money in terms of either emissions abatement or support for innovation.

The report comes as the government's multi-party climate change committee is locked in negotiations over the shape of a carbon pricing scheme, with the government preferring a fixed carbon price beginning from July 1 next year with an emissions trading scheme beginning three or four years later.

But the Greens and the government are on a collision course over compensation for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries. Julia Gillard argues that she will not throw out the "good work" on compensation in her predecessor Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Greens have declared the levels negotiated in that regime unacceptable.

The AIGroup research concludes that a decision on carbon pricing could reduce the reliance on the government's "high-cost" renewable energy target scheme - which aims to source 20 per cent of the nation's power from renewable sources by 2020 - and break an "investment drought" in new electricity generation.

AIGroup chief executive Heather Ridout said the government's renewable schemes were splurging on the most expensive renewables instead of the cheapest and warned that the nation could "get stuck with the equivalent of a Rolls when a hatchback would do". The report - based on a survey of more than 150 companies - warns that consumers would be forced to pay $1.12bn in 2011 just to cover the cost of household-level renewable systems, particularly rooftop solar photovoltaic panels.

The government's scheme for small-scale generators such as household solar panels was "not offering value for money in terms either of emissions abatement or support for innovation", the report warns. If the same funds were invested in big wind farms, four times as much renewable energy could be produced each year. Investing the money in large-scale solar plants would produce twice as much energy, the report finds.

On top of this, the future costs of the government's scheme to encourage commercial-scale renewables would be "substantially higher" than forecast if a price was not eventually put on carbon.

The government last December moved to wind back subsidies to households installing solar schemes as it sought to lower pressure on electricity prices. The move followed a decision early last year to reform how renewable energy certificates were issued to deal with a glut caused by a flood of solar panel installations.

Under the new scheme, renewable energy certificates generated from solar panels and solar hotwater schemes were separated into a discrete market from those generated by large-scale enterprises, such as wind farms, in a bid to drive up the price of RECs to encourage investment in large-scale renewables.

And last month, in a bid to deal with the glut, the renewable energy regulator increased the number of certificates that power retailers had to buy - a move that would lift electricity prices by an estimated $5 a household each year.

The AIGroup research finds that while renewable-related costs have been "higher than necessary", they are only a "relatively small" driver of price rises because other factors are so significant. These include the need to fund tens of billions of dollars worth of investments in network infrastructure, as well as likely rising coal prices, and escalating labour and materials costs that would make new electricity supplies more expensive.

The AIGroup report urges the government to address climate policy and carbon pricing, and to use the introduction of a national policy to "trim the thicket" of inefficient green programs that are "adding somewhat to energy prices for insufficient benefit".

It also says that the government's energy white paper - which was promised in 2008, but delayed after Mr Rudd shelved his ETS last March - should be completed as soon as possible.

Ms Ridout said there was "no end in sight" to rising electricity and gas prices over the next decade.

"Australian industry is already grappling with the challenges of a strong dollar and an economy nearing capacity."

She said it was crucial a carbon price was well-designed because a badly-designed carbon price "will put even more pressure on energy costs" .

She stressed her group was anxious to work with the government to ensure its carbon policy protected the ability of manufacturers to compete with offshore rivals. While a well-designed climate change policy would "soften the blow" of a carbon price, it "would be a big hit on business".

As well as the findings on renewables schemes, the report warns that bankers are baulking at supporting coal-fired power stations because of the uncertainty around carbon policy. The problem with this is that there could eventually be a rush of open-cycle gas turbine generators rather than more cost-efficient baseload combined-cycle gas plants.

According to the survey, most companies were expecting electricity price rises of between 11 and 20 per cent over the next two years.

fire up secong

the reason electricity prices didn't go up as fast in the past was no one was spending money on the infrastructure, they have to now - the only we have of cheap electricity again is alternatives

ask yourself why some are doing it tough secong, the MacMansion, 2 or 3 cars, 4 or 5 tvs probably play a part

just reflecting the views of those left of the Liberal moderate onwards - i.e. the majority of us

Exactly Secong ,  all consolidated revenue up here now ...