That's right secong.

They just don't fkn get it.

Well said ... @ Jez

This is going to have a massive impact on the economy, on families, on the cost of living and on jobs and the fkn insult - the environment reaps NO benefits whatsoever, NO benefit to the environment WHATSOEVER - and I can already envisage the pathetic excuses that the likes of wombleoz will dribble once it all goes pear shaped - pathetic. 

If I were the Julia Gillard I would heed the people's revolt that is stirring within the community (12 point behind on 2PP) and tread very carefully on the planning/introduction of a carbon dioxide tax.

Why is New Zealand power consumption across the board still trending upwards? 

They introduced a carbon dioxide tax in 2007.

The only change that has occurred in New Zealand since its implementation, is economic pain, coupled with crippling rises in the cost of living, for example petrol at over $2 a litre.

Same mantra, no facts to match your claims.
No details from Gillard Labor.
Just the threat of pain to our economy, families, cost of living and jobs.

Maybe wombleoz and AFL didn't hear?

Or they're avoiding the thread.....

Why is New Zealand power consumption across the board still trending upwards? 

They introduced a carbon dioxide tax in 2007.

The only change that has occurred in New Zealand since its implementation, is economic pain, coupled with crippling rises in the cost of living, for example petrol at over $2 a litre.

Same mantra, no facts to match your claims.
No details from Gillard Labor.
Just the threat of pain to our economy, families, cost of living and jobs.

it wont reduce pollution womble as the kiwis have found out,

i've said it before and i'll say it again reducing pollution isnt a bad thing but price triggers do not work, REAL ACTION does ,

developing new energy forms are the way to go
BUT THERE ARENT ANY VIABLE ONES OUT THERE YET,
power companies wont delevelop new forms of energy whilst multi billions are wrapped up in coal energy sources and they fyi wont hurt from carbon tax one cent!!

the consumer will carry the cost with little viable alternative, solar very expensive still and what hope for renters? (spend 1000's on the landlords' house?)

maybe some fax about NZ's scheme would help - the key, only 10% of emissions from power, here it's over 70% - nothing like comparing apples with oranges Jez [smiley:crazy]

from - http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Greg-Combet-National-Press-Club-carbon-tax-pd20110413-FUSSF?opendocument&src=rss


Is New Zealand's carbon price right?

Rob Burgess

Published 7:25 AM, 13 Apr 2011 Last update 10:27 AM, 13 Apr 2011


    The Gillard government will today strike back against the Coalition on the carbon tax, with Climate Change Minister Greg Combet set to announce that more than half of the revenue raised through the tax, from July 2012, will be shovelled back into the pockets of low and middle-income Australians.

    No surprises there. The Multi Party Climate Change Committee is unequivocal in its desire to see the carbon tax legislated (which is why the Coalition refused to join the committee), and hence was always going to rubber stamp a compensation package that made it politically sellable.

    What we will still not know after Combet's speech at the National Press Club today is the per-tonne price of the carbon tax. That will determine the size of the pool of revenue from which compensation will be drawn.

    Indeed, much of the political fighting over compensation stems from business fears that the per-tonne price will be too high.

    A similar debate is gripping New Zealand, with the big difference being that their fixed carbon price is already in place – and the question they are asking is whether they can afford to allow it to rise.

    John Carnegie, manager for energy, the environment and infrastructure at peak business body Business New Zealand, is watching the debate closely – as he has been doing since his nation launched its ETS scheme in July last year, based heavily on the CPRS that brought down Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.

    The scheme is currently undergoing a review that will report when the scheme is one year old (though the forestry part of the scheme launched in 2008).

    However, while New Zealand business is lobbying for a raft of improvements to the scheme, Carnegie says the national debate is not about whether or not an ETS is desirable, but how to fine-tune what they've got.

    It's enlightening to see how carbon politics works on the other side of the Tasman – neither side of politics thinks a market-based approach to pricing carbon can be replaced, more efficiently, with a government-run tendering process, as the Coalition does in Australia. Neither did we until December 2009, when Tony Abbott won the Liberal leadership spill on the issue.

    As I wrote earlier in the week both the ALP and Coalition intend to cut Australia's emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020 – a mammoth task – which is why the current debate over whether we 'can make a difference', or if we're 'leading the world', or if 'CO2 is really the villain' is so ludicrous.

    The slightly embarrassing thing for New Zealand is that a key motivation for following the EU's lead and creating a source of tradeable carbon permits was that it expected to have a "deep and liquid" carbon market in which to trade. Australia was supposed to be part of that, and every indication in 2008 and 2009 was that it would be. As in New Zealand, both the conservative and Labor sides of politics supported an ETS.

    But then Rudd and Turnbull were deposed, Australia's carbon debate jumped back 20 years, and New Zealand found itself going it alone with some of the best and worst aspects of the CPRS.

    The New Zealand ETS impost on businesses is, for the most part, far from crushing. A review conducted in the early days of the scheme lead to a number of 'moderating features' and the effect is a price on carbon that many businesses take in their stride.

    For one thing, every two tonnes of carbon emitted requires the polluter to pay for only one 'New Zealand Unit', which until 2012 is sold at a fixed price – or, for many business areas, given away free. So that's halved the $NZ25/tonne price for the first few years.

    Free permits are in three bands. Businesses, depending on their type of work, get zero, 60 per cent or 90 per cent of their permits at no charge. How long this arrangement will stay in place is a major question being asked by the current review – the general mood is for this, and other moderating features of the scheme, to be extended for as long as possible until the carbon market starts to improve.

    Because of the current fixed-price, companies face some restrictions in buying and selling carbon permits internationally. Emitters generally can't sell their NZUs offshore, though foresters are able to convert the NZUs they generate into 'Assigned Amount Units' (AAUs) and sell those in international markets. Emitters can also buy 'Certified Emission Reduction' units (CERs), but will only do so if the price is less than the cost of NZUs.

    However, when the price cap is removed – currently slated for the end of 2012 – there will be a shock for companies suddenly able to buy and sell permits at a price that harmonises with the CER price set by the EU ETS market.

    The European market, which has struggled since its creation in 2005 due to over-allocations of free permits and recent fraud cases, is now pricing carbon at €17 per tonne ($NZ31.50 or $A23.50). That's a big hike for New Zealand companies paying $NZ12.50 – which is why post-review, many of the 'moderating features' will most likely be preserved.

    One thing that makes New Zealand's scheme very different from the CPRS – and likely from the ETS the Gillard government plans to create after three to five years of carbon tax – is the non-exemption of agriculture.

    A full 48 per cent of New Zealand's emissions are from agriculture, which is why it could not easily be excluded. After that, NZ emissions come from transport (19 per cent), electricity generation (10 per cent), other stationary energy (16 per cent) industrial processes (6 per cent) and a few other bits and pieces.

    Dairy giant Fonterra's operations mostly fall within the agriculture area, so most of its permits must be bought. It does some food processing, and so gets a small slice of its permits free, but overall is being hit $12.50 per tonne equivalent for its millions of cows' methane emissions.

    Back in Australia, agriculture has been exempted from the carbon tax, though at this stage it's unclear if the government will try to include it in the eventual ETS. Our agriculture is responsible for only around 15 per cent of emissions. Stationary energy including electricity generation accounts for 51 per cent, and transport is 14 per cent.

    So New Zealand's ETS experience offers some lessons, but its quite different emission profile makes direct comparison difficult.

    What is obvious, however, is how different the ETS debate is in New Zealand. Australia's unnecessary war over carbon pricing is producing some dramatic distortions in policy – and huge compensation to households may prove to be one of these. But then we won't have the full picture until the MPCCC finally names its carbon price.

and what a great source that is..........

did you forget the mining percentage not included in the figures womble which distorts the figures somewhat MASSIVE

and the great big (wealth redistribution)tax will fix it all up within a couple of years..............[;)][;)][;)][;)][;)]

not very smart is our foolya [smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy]

surely if the govt was serious about CC,GW et al, solar power should be MANDATORY on every new house rooftop and very heavily subsidised for old ones, lets hope when they bring in the bods breakfast TAX it uses its brains,hardly likely seeing as they pi55 $$ up everywhere wont be none left [smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy]

and surely if the govt was serious about CC,GW et al, then LPG (as well as petrol) would be PRE-FITTED to
every NEW car allowed to be sold in australia (and the LPG rebate available to the purchaser)

but the govt ain't serious ... they have already agreed to PAY a planned co2 levy to the UN ... and the carbon tax
is earmarked for that purpose

foolya wants it three ways....no rebates,carbon tax and send rest OS

how are they paying rebates on lpg now .... i mean BEFORE the carbon tax lol

consolidated revenue only goes so far Thebas - i.e. our taxes, the same ones Abbott will use to pay for his dud scheme

Your hopeless wombleoz

Abbotts scheme is a dud?

What because it ACTUALLY ACHIEVES SOMETHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

And DOESN'T MEET YOUR SOCIALIST IDEALS OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION?



Nice try wombleoz, but none of us buy your nonsense.

You and AFL can't speak for yourselves, you resort to Gillard sympathisers within the media to peddle your pathetic claims.

Thankfully, this government couldn't sell heaters to the eskimos, so as a person vehemently against a carbon dioxide tax that will attack the economy, families, jobs and the cost of living and achieve nothing for the environment - I'm pretty happy being on the Coalition side of things at the moment.

Goodluck buddy, you'll need it.

fact ... the IMF have told all western nations to start stockpiling cash now ... ie there is more sh!t to come for western economies

the IMF has warned the US about the ridiculous level of their debt

the IMF are cash-strapped themselves ... after bailing out europe from the recent GFC (well the banks exactly ... they paid in the IMF money to save europe)

now i wish our govt was honest enough to tell us the following ...

a memo from julia - dear nation ... we are pretty well fcked in the western world ... won't be long till the 'deck of cards' that is the 'western democracies linked economies' starts to fail again

so nation ... we need a new tax on all our citizens now ... all the monies we raise thru this new tax will go into an 'untouched' australia fund called the 'to get us out of the next round of fiscal sh!t fund' ... this fund will ultimately save our nation from ruin ... end memo

and our nation embraces the concept ... and our prime minister ... well she is hailed as a hero

(ps footnote aftermath ... the US and europe are fiscally fcked ... china is going ahead in leaps and bounds ... australia has formed terrific trade ties with our neighbour china ... and we look like forging ahead in a mini mining boom era ... the UN and IPCC hear about all this potential for australia and ... trick our govt through deception and/or stand-over tactics ... to hand over part of our hard-earned natural resources in wealth to them ... to give to un-named countries under the pre-text that the world is warming uncontrollably ... and we fall for it hook line & sinker ... this will be called the carbon tax)

I'm 100% behind Paul Howes and the Australian Workers Union - I'd like to see Julia Gillard guarantee that NOT ONE JOB WILL BE LOST.

We hear future speculative "20 years down the track" numbers on "green jobs" but as usual no further details.  Thats because its a sham.

There will be job losses and lots of them.

The Coalition on this occasion stands shoulder to shoulder with the Union Movement, standing up for families, standing up for workers and importantly, standing up FOR REAL ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

.....not a great big new fundamentally flawed tax...ffs

considering almost everybody is a Centrelink client these days that 50% is right the rest won't be

what do you think of Thebas's agenda 21 stuff Jez???

one world government conspiracy theory for mine but fair enough it gets a mention, tiny piece of the puzzle though