UN Calls For Carbon Taxes To Be Increased Are They Taking The Piss?

mikeym · 06-10-2014 7:51pm #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1006/650464-climate/

the Co-Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Report on Mitigating Climate Change, has said Minister for Finance Michael Noonan should focus on raising carbon taxes in next week’s Budget, and use the monies raised to reduce taxes elsewhere in the economy.

Professor Ottmar Edenhofer said that if the world is to achieve any meaningful target for limiting climate then it cannot be a case of business as usual.

Mr Edenhoffer is in Dublin to deliver a major public lecture on what needs to be done to mitigate climate change this evening at the Mansion House in Dublin.

Watch: UN says Ireland should raise carbon taxes
The bad news he says is that despite worldwide efforts to contain greenhouse gases, and despite the impact of the global economic collapse since 2008, global emissions continue to rise and rise.

The reason is that coal has become very cheap in places like China, India and the United States, and as a result there is a major global resurgence in coal use worldwide.

He says we cannot go on like this if we hope to limit the rise in global temperature.

The growth in emissions has to be brought to a halt in the next decade and the carbon in the atmosphere has to be rapidly immediately after that.

The good news he said is that it can be done without sacrificing economic growth.

It should not cost the world to save the planet, he said.

However, it will require major investments in a broad portfolio of technologies including nuclear energy, renewable energy, and carbon capture.

However, it will also require an effective carbon pricing scheme, which he warned would prove difficult for politicians to implement.

The biggest problem the world faces is not that we are running out of fossil fuels, rather it is the limiting disposal space of the atmosphere which matters most in the 21st century.

However, this scarcity of atmosphere is not reflected anywhere in the pricing systems.

He said we need a carbon price that investors and industry can understand.

Mr Edenhofer said he would advise Minister Noonan to focus on increasing carbon taxes in next week's Budget, and use the monies raised to reduce taxes elsewhere in the economy and to improve public infrastructure.

I dont normally post in this forum but Ireland isn't a big polluting country and if Mr.Noonan was to raise the carbon tax it would lead to increased fuel poverty.

BoJack Horseman · 06-10-2014 9:13pm

When environmental zeal meets government lack of imagination.

"Punish the people!" is their clarion call.

For all the carbon tax collected,the government has rewarded us with very little is reducing carbon.

ascophere · 06-10-2014 9:40pm

I dont normally post in this forum but Ireland isn't a big polluting country and if Mr.Noonan was to raise the carbon tax it would lead to increased fuel poverty.

Ireland is one of the worst polluters in the EU relative to population size. (If only we had experienced some sort of economic boom in the last couple of decades that might have allowed our government to bring our public transport up to average EU levels.) Action needs to be taken to curb carbon emissions and encourage sustainable alternative energy sources. Although carbon taxes will ultimately hit the ordinary citizen in his/her pocket what other options are there? The point about reducing other taxes helps but will the Government do that?

Do Fine Gael have the nerve to introduce another tax right now? Could they get away with anymore squeezing of lower and middle income families?

Cookie_Monster · 06-10-2014 9:46pm

Unless massive economies like US, China, India and Australia are going to start taking it seriously then there's very little point in punishing average people with higher taxation on carbon with Irelands net effect is tiny.

BoJack Horseman · 06-10-2014 10:27pm

ascophere wrote: »

Although carbon taxes will ultimately hit the ordinary citizen in his/her pocket what other options are there?

The alternate option is 'don't do it'.

Attacking people for having the temerity of living in a home with a solid fuel back-boiler, isn't going to have thorium reactors spring up out of the ground.

Penal taxation has failed.
Reverse them.
If a government is interested in reducing carbon (and no government on the planet really is), they will simply act.

BoJack Horseman · 06-10-2014 10:28pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Unless massive economies like US, China, India and Australia are going to start taking it seriously then there's very little point in punishing average people with higher taxation on carbon with Irelands net effect is tiny.

The Indians & Chinese just want prosperity.
Who are we to tell 2billion of them: "no, you can't match pur standard of living. Think of the environment!"

oscarBravo · 06-10-2014 10:46pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

...Irelands net effect is tiny.

The net effect of me dumping a can of paint in the river behind my house is tiny. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If a government is interested in reducing carbon (and no government on the planet really is), they will simply act.

How?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Indians & Chinese just want prosperity.
Who are we to tell 2billion of them: "no, you can't match pur standard of living. Think of the environment!"

If we're not prepared to do anything ourselves, then we have no right to tell them anything of the sort.

If your argument is that we should allow India and China to destroy the environment so that we can avoid feeling hypocritical, I'd venture to suggest that there's another approach we could try.

That's assuming we care about the environment.

ascophere · 06-10-2014 11:06pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The alternate option is 'don't do it'.

Attacking people for having the temerity of living in a home with a solid fuel back-boiler, isn't going to have thorium reactors spring up out of the ground.

Penal taxation has failed.
Reverse them.
If a government is interested in reducing carbon (and no government on the planet really is), they will simply act.

Don't do it isn't really an option though is it? Either emissions are cut and the 2020 target is more or less achieved or it's disaster. We have to change our way of life or it will be changed for us and the latter will be much worse. The initiative is going to have to come from governments. I see carbon tax as somewhat of a necessary evil in that sense though it should come with clean energy subsidies. That is admittedly simplistic though.

As for India and China. Of course they will feel an injustice at being asked to stop industrializing just like the west has done in the past decades but that's the boat we are all in. It probably should be the responsibility of those most responsible for the current climate crisis to shoulder the majority of the financial burden to fund clean energy initiatives. But when you have a small country like Ecuador (A government who was interested in reducing carbon) asking the international community for $3 Billion to preserve their rainforest and not drill it for oil and only getting a few million then I think it's reasonable to be fatalistic. We're all screwed but at least we'll have central heating.

Manach · 06-10-2014 11:22pm

The UN is involved with making numerous declarations on the Climate and has done so since the 70s*. What it has not have is the power to direct impose taxes, hence the call for other bodies to impose. However what has not changed is the use by heavy industrial countries (China / India) to leverge such calls to both seek tech and money transfers to them and as a side effect to diminish traditional competitive industrial areas by numerous regulations and taxes.

Even with the taxes that have remained within the imposing state, these are in part diverted to green industries, which while offering plenty of photo-opportunities for politicians have not really impacted climate change targets nor have any realistic chance of doing so in the short-medium term. Thus using taxes as a means to reduce Carbon emissions will benefit the exchequer but do little to effect the global climate.

*AFAIR from "Carbon Crunch" -Helm.

sin_city · 07-10-2014 12:10am

Anytime you see "CALL FOR...." ON rte's site....that means It's something not good or wanted by the people of Ireland

Cookie_Monster · 07-10-2014 12:18am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Indians & Chinese just want prosperity.
Who are we to tell 2billion of them: "no, you can't match pur standard of living. Think of the environment!"

why shouldn't we, they're taking little or no responsibility for having such large populations in the first place...

BoJack Horseman · 07-10-2014 7:39am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why shouldn't we, they're taking little or no responsibility for having such large populations in the first place...

So, enshrined poverty & forced pregnancy control?

No, Cookie.
You don't have the right to tell a person that they must remain poor, while you remain comparatively wealthy just because it saves some carbon.

What folk here forget, the best way to slowdown population growth is prosperity.
However if posters here wish to deny the poor the chance of that because it creates more pollution, then it becomes self defeating as populations continue to rise.

Its stark that the only solutions proffered are;further confiscation of peoples money, forced poverty for entire races & forced population controls.

Pretty dystopian.

zulutango · 07-10-2014 2:10pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Unless massive economies like US, China, India and Australia are going to start taking it seriously then there's very little point in punishing average people with higher taxation on carbon with Irelands net effect is tiny.

I don't see where that attitude will get us. Let's not do anything because nobody else is? Seriously? Anyway, you'll be glad to know that China is starting to make huge leaps in reducing its carbon output.

Akrasia · 07-10-2014 2:14pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, enshrined poverty & forced pregnancy control?

No, Cookie.
You don't have the right to tell a person that they must remain poor, while you remain comparatively wealthy just because it saves some carbon.

What folk here forget, the best way to slowdown population growth is prosperity.
However if posters here wish to deny the poor the chance of that because it creates more pollution, then it becomes self defeating as populations continue to rise.

Its stark that the only solutions proffered are;further confiscation of peoples money, forced poverty for entire races & forced population controls.

Pretty dystopian.

You're completely missing the point of a carbon tax. It's not to reduce people's standard of living, it's to push people towards more efficient and less polluting alternatives. If there's a 10% carbon tax, but people are using 50% less fuel because their homes are better insulated and they are using more efficient heating systems, then the environment and the individual consumer are both better off.

A solid fuel stove for example, is about 90% efficient while an open fireplace is 15 to 30% efficient. It's much cheaper (and if you burn wood briquettes, it can be carbon neutral) to run a solid fuel stove than an open fireplace, put people are put off by the initial investment.

A carbon tax accompanied by a grant system to upgrade heating systems can actually save people money, make their homes warmer and reduce pollution all in one go.

Similarly with old inefficient oil burners. Modern Condensing boilers are much more efficient than older systems. Solar panels for hot water are even better still and the cost is coming down all the time.

The point of carbon taxes is to change behaviour and promote investment in newer greener technology.

By making it expensive to use old fossil fuel technology, it allows people to invest in alternative fuel sources and make them more competitive and economical for the mass market.

Zubeneschamali · 07-10-2014 2:30pm

The UN isn't calling for increased tax take: they are suggesting moving other taxes to Carbon, keeping the total tax take the same.

BoJack Horseman · 07-10-2014 2:45pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You're completely missing the point of a carbon tax. It's not to reduce people's standard of living, it's to push people towards more efficient and less polluting alternatives. If there's a 10% carbon tax, but people are using 50% less fuel because their homes are better insulated and they are using more efficient heating systems, then the environment and the individual consumer are both better off.

A solid fuel stove for example, is about 90% efficient while an open fireplace is 15 to 30% efficient. It's much cheaper (and if you burn wood briquettes, it can be carbon neutral) to run a solid fuel stove than an open fireplace, put people are put off by the initial investment.

A carbon tax accompanied by a grant system to upgrade heating systems can actually save people money, make their homes warmer and reduce pollution all in one go.

Similarly with old inefficient oil burners. Modern Condensing boilers are much more efficient than older systems. Solar panels for hot water are even better still and the cost is coming down all the time.

The point of carbon taxes is to change behaviour and promote investment in newer greener technology.

By making it expensive to use old fossil fuel technology, it allows people to invest in alternative fuel sources and make them more competitive and economical for the mass market.

Great.....

Except.....none of that has happened..... So why continue with failure?

what has happened is that fuel has become much more expensive, especially coal for the poorest people.

Taking my wonderful grandmother as an example.
Her coal is now €4 a bag dearer just this year alone, mostly thanks to the last tranch of carbon tax earlier in the year.

So that works out around €220 or more for the year she has to eek out of her state & widows pension because she doesn't have the cash to do any different.

Sorry Gran.
You have to pay more tax to incentivise you to purchase a system you can never afford anyway.

So she gets poorer, carbon stays the same
Lose - lose...... Terrific.

zulutango · 07-10-2014 2:55pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Great.....

Except.....none of that has happened..... So why continue with failure?

what has happened is that fuel has become much more expensive, especially coal for the poorest people.

Taking my wonderful grandmother as an example.
Her coal is now €4 a bag dearer just this year alone, mostly thanks to the last tranch of carbon tax earlier in the year.

So that works out around €220 or more for the year she has to eek out of her state & widows pension because she doesn't have the cash to do any different.

Sorry Gran.
You have to pay more tax to incentivise you to purchase a system you can never afford anyway.

So she gets poorer, carbon stays the same
Lose - lose...... Terrific.

Obviously if the coal is costing her so much she must be thinking about using a less polluting fuel. The whole point is to push people away from carbon-instensive fuels and I haven't seen any evidence that that's not working.

BoJack Horseman · 07-10-2014 2:58pm

zulutango wrote: »

Obviously if the coal is costing her so much she must be thinking about using a less polluting fuel.

Well, she can't afford the alternatives.....
What would you have her do?

Akrasia · 07-10-2014 3:13pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Great.....

Except.....none of that has happened..... So why continue with failure?

what has happened is that fuel has become much more expensive, especially coal for the poorest people.

Taking my wonderful grandmother as an example.
Her coal is now €4 a bag dearer just this year alone, mostly thanks to the last tranch of carbon tax earlier in the year.

So that works out around €220 or more for the year she has to eek out of her state & widows pension because she doesn't have the cash to do any different.

Sorry Gran.
You have to pay more tax to incentivise you to purchase a system you can never afford anyway.

So she gets poorer, carbon stays the same
Lose - lose...... Terrific.

[/quote]
For the poorest people in ireland, there is a scheme called the 'warmer homes scheme' where elderly people and those on social welfare can get their homes insulated for free
http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Warmer_Homes_Scheme/Click-here-to-download-an-Information-Leaflet-on-BEWH.pdf

There are also grants available for the installation of solar panels, upgrading of boilers etc

If your granny lives in a poorly insulated home then she can save more than 220 euros a year by getting her insulation upgraded at zero cost to herself.

If your granny is using an open fireplace, she should consider investing in a solid fuel stove which would be warmer and much cheaper to run. And if she fuels the stove with wood briquettes, she wouldn't be paying any carbon tax.

BoJack Horseman · 07-10-2014 3:31pm

Akrasia wrote: »

For the poorest people in ireland, there is a scheme called the 'warmer homes scheme' where elderly people and those on social welfare can get their homes insulated for free
http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Warmer_Homes_Scheme/Click-here-to-download-an-Information-Leaflet-on-BEWH.pdf

There are also grants available for the installation of solar panels, upgrading of boilers etc

Closed to new applicants I think & the 50% required is out of reach.

Thanks though..... But all already done to the best of our ability.
We put about 300mm fibreglass in the attic & insulated the walls with reflective insulated plasterboard..... (There is no gov support for this)
The house like most old cpuncil houses in the town is mass-concrete & external insulation was best quoted at €5,000 incl seai grant aid.

If your granny is using an open fireplace, she should consider investing in a solid fuel stove which would be warmer and much cheaper to run. And if she fuels the stove with wood briquettes, she wouldn't be paying any carbon tax.

She looked into it, getting one to integrate into the existing back boiler & it was still way out of reach cost wise.

Perhaps if she wasn't punished year after year with this punitive tax she could afford to get one?

And that's the point, we've done our bit.
We've put a lot of work in getting the place cosy.

However the government gave her thanks with a single year €200 tax increase.

Akrasia · 07-10-2014 3:48pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Closed to new applicants I think & the 50% required is out of reach.

Thanks though..... But all already done to the best of our ability.
We put about 300mm fibreglass in the attic & insulated the walls with reflective insulated plasterboard..... (There is no gov support for this)
The house like most old cpuncil houses in the town is mass-concrete & external insulation was best quoted at €5,000 incl seai grant aid.

She looked into it, getting one to integrate into the existing back boiler & it was still way out of reach cost wise.

Perhaps if she wasn't punished year after year with this punitive tax she could afford to get one?

And that's the point, we've done our bit.
We've put a lot of work in getting the place cosy.

However the government gave her thanks with a single year €200 tax increase.

I didn't see anything about these schemes being closed to new applicants. They're still being promoted on the relevant websites.

These schemes come and go with budgets and governments. Usually if they announce an increase in the carbon tax, they'll also announce a new scheme to help people cut their energy use. Fingers crossed that the budget next week will include a grant system for solid fuel boilers or some other initiative that would help your grandmother.

djpbarry · 09-10-2014 1:49pm

Manach wrote: »

Even with the taxes that have remained within the imposing state, these are in part diverted to green industries, which while offering plenty of photo-opportunities for politicians have not really impacted climate change targets nor have any realistic chance of doing so in the short-medium term.

The technologies necessary to effect major cuts in carbon emissions already exist and these reductions can be achieved without substantially raising the cost of energy. All that’s lacking is political will.

djpbarry · 09-10-2014 1:50pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What folk here forget, the best way to slowdown population growth is prosperity.
However if posters here wish to deny the poor the chance of that because it creates more pollution, then it becomes self defeating as populations continue to rise.

The obvious solution is to change what prosperity is. Ours is the lifestyle that people in less developed countries aspire to, so we need to change our lifestyle.

The excuse that Ireland is too small to matter is utter bollocks.

djpbarry · 09-10-2014 1:50pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Taking my wonderful grandmother as an example.
Her coal is now €4 a bag dearer just this year alone, mostly thanks to the last tranch of carbon tax earlier in the year.
So that works out around €220 or more for the year …

Carbon tax is applied to coal at a rate of €52.67 per tonne, so you’re telling us that your wonderful granny is getting through over four tonnes of coal per year? That’s an 80kg bag EVERY WEEK?!?

Manach · 09-10-2014 2:00pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The technologies necessary to effect major cuts in carbon emissions already exist and these reductions can be achieved without substantially raising the cost of energy. All that’s lacking is political will.

Do you mean Nuclear power? In the book I mentioned, (AFAIR) the author had done through various other alternative power sources and pointed out some of the various economic issues (less power for more money) and technological issues (for instance issues with wear in tidal power). Political will was mentioned, but more coming from BRIC countries who were very protective of their industrial base.

BoJack Horseman · 09-10-2014 2:28pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Carbon tax is applied to coal at a rate of €52.67 per tonne, so you’re telling us that your wonderful granny is getting through over four tonnes of coal per year? That’s an 80kg bag EVERY WEEK?!?

Near enough yes, between coal & briquettes.
3-4 40kg bags, every fortnight.

Up until 2 years ago when my own home changed to oil, we were going through 2x40kg bags per week in the coldest months.

For this old lady, its always cold.

BoJack Horseman · 09-10-2014 2:30pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The obvious solution is to change what prosperity is. Ours is the lifestyle that people in less developed countries aspire to, so we need to change our lifestyle.

Is that code for "be less prosperous"?

If so, you first.

zulutango · 09-10-2014 2:40pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Near enough yes, between coal & briquettes.
3-4 40kg bags, every fortnight.

Up until 2 years ago when my own home changed to oil, we were going through 2x40kg bags per week in the coldest months.

Jesus, that's a lot.

You and she would save a lot of money if you invested in good insulation and windows/doors. Even with oil you're effectively burning money.

Need any (free) advice, send me a pm. I used to work in this area.

djpbarry · 09-10-2014 2:51pm

Manach wrote: »

Do you mean Nuclear power?

Actually I'm talking about really simple things like demand reduction, achieved through increased efficiency:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102641n

djpbarry · 09-10-2014 3:00pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Near enough yes, between coal & briquettes.
3-4 40kg bags, every fortnight.

That's an absolutely crazy amount of fuel. She's paying, what, €350 per month? That's several multiples of what I pay for gas every month and I live in a badly-insulated Victorian flat. There's something very wrong with your granny's property.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is that code for "be less prosperous"?

Nope - see my post above.

BoJack Horseman · 09-10-2014 3:19pm

djpbarry wrote: »

That's an absolutely crazy amount of fuel. She's paying, what, €350 per month? That's several multiples of what I pay for gas every month and I live in a badly-insulated Victorian flat.

She was advised by her coal man, €20 per 40kg bag vs €16 last year.
So €40 per week minus the €20pw fuel allowance. €80-100 pm depending on how well she feels.

Not much wrong with the house, we have put in as much as we can to the best of our ability.
But you still need to create heat in the first place.

zulutango · 09-10-2014 3:25pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

She was advised by her coal man, €20 per 40kg bag vs €16 last year.
So €40 per week minus the €20pw fuel allowance. €80-100 pm depending on how well she feels.

Not much wrong with the house, we have put in as much as we can to the best of our ability.
But you still need to create heat in the first place.

That's a bit misleading. You're currently generating far more heat than you need to be. Most of it is going up the chimney or out the windows/doors.

BoJack Horseman · 09-10-2014 3:31pm

zulutango wrote: »

That's a bit misleading. You're currently generating far more heat than you need to be. Most of it is going up the chimney or out the windows/doors.

Well, if you like I can pm you her address & you can tell her how she is failing.

Be sure to tell her the €200 odd in extra tax she will fork out this year is what's needed to keep the polar bears & the smug happy.

zulutango · 09-10-2014 3:37pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, if you like I can pm you her address & you can tell her how she is failing.

Be sure to tell her the €200 odd in extra tax she will fork out this year is what's needed to keep the polar bears & the smug happy.

Why are you so defensive? We're just pointing out that there is another, better way for everybody. But you seem to want you and your granny to spend money on coal to spite yourself. There's no reasoning with some people.

Are you saying your granny is paying €200 extra per year in carbon taxes?

Zubeneschamali · 09-10-2014 4:05pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

She was advised by her coal man, €20 per 40kg bag vs €16 last year.

Her coal man is telling porkies: the actual Carbon Tax is €52.67 per tonne, and a year ago it was half that, so there has been a €1 rise per bag due to Carbon tax since last year.

The coalman is pocketing the other €3.

UN Calls For Carbon Taxes To Be Increased Are They Taking The Piss?

Comments