nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Carbon Pricing

[Deleted User]

demonspawn wrote: »

What ever happened to those leaked emails anyway? The story seemed to have just died after the Copenhagen thing was finished. Did anyone bother to keep track? I didn't, because I know it was just a media smokescreen.

True or false, the leaking achieved its aim of disrupting the Copenhagen conferance sufficiently to prevent any worthwhile treaty coming out of it.

Still think the whole carbon trading scam is wrong though!
It's a bit like telling farmers to reduce the amount of bullshít accumulating in their fields, rather than reducing the number of cattle they farm.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

demonspawn

Deleted User wrote: »

True or false, the leaking achieved its aim of disrupting the Copenhagen conferance sufficiently to prevent any worthwhile treaty coming out of it.

Well, I hope the scientists that were accused of falsifying scientific evidence bring a libel case against "Lord" Monckton and anyone else who was slinging accusations around.

Edit: I agree completely that the carbon trading thing is a scam. Either that or it was brought to the table knowing people would reject it, and subsequently the entire treaty, outright. Politicians need to be seen to be doing something, when in reality they do nothing.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

What ever happened to those leaked emails anyway? The story seemed to have just died after the Copenhagen thing was finished. Did anyone bother to keep track? I didn't, because I know it was just a media smokescreen.

Please read the thread to find out the results of investigations into leaked emails.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: I agree completely that the carbon trading thing is a scam. Either that or it was brought to the table knowing people would reject it, and subsequently the entire treaty, outright. Politicians need to be seen to be doing something, when in reality they do nothing.

Why is it a scam?

[Deleted User]

taconnol wrote: »

Why is it a scam?

Do you honestly believe that all any the money raised by the "carbon tax" will actually be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

By the time the banks have had their share (goverrnment debt & bailouts), the extra expenditure on social welfare payments, replacing lost income from reduced nationa wealth etc, there will be sod all left for energy reduction projects!

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that all any the money raised by the "carbon tax" will actually be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

By the time the banks have had their share (goverrnment debt & bailouts), the extra expenditure on social welfare payments, replacing lost income from reduced nationa wealth etc, there will be sod all left for energy reduction projects!

I think you are conflating the EU ETS and the Irish carbon tax.

meglome

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that all any the money raised by the "carbon tax" will actually be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

By the time the banks have had their share (goverrnment debt & bailouts), the extra expenditure on social welfare payments, replacing lost income from reduced nationa wealth etc, there will be sod all left for energy reduction projects!

There's some evidence for this? or just your opinion?

I don't want to call anyone arrogant here but it worries me greatly that people can be so dismissive of something that could potentially destroy the planet for a long long time. I'm trying to understand what we lose if we lower our carbon omissions. If we tackle our omissions and it turns out man made climate change isn't happening we really have lost little and cleaned up our environment in the process. However if we do nothing and it turns out to be happening we could lose everything. I don't need to be a scientist to understand that. You'll forgive me for not wanting to take the chance no matter how much some of you believe you're right.

[Deleted User]

As I said earlier

It's a bit like telling farmers to reduce the amount of bullshít accumulating in their fields, rather than reducing the number of cattle they farm.

Carbon taxation is all stick and no carrot, the real issue is the fact that governments (particurlary the Irish one in the mid naughties) are the architects of the societies that live in their countries. In Ireland's case, doing the exact opposite to what was required to reduce wasteful energy useage, things like allowing houses to be built in the middle of nowhere, shopping centres miles away from the consumers etc. Do you trust these people with your taxes.

The only thing carbon taxes & trading have achieved is the creation of a new commodity (carbon) that can be traded, thus making a number of city types rich as well as allowing big business to export jobs to the far east!

Carbon taxation impoverishes people, particurlary those who were unable to find local work and are forced to travel long distanced to work in a place that there is no alternative to a car.

I'm all for protecting the planet as anyone else is, it needs lifestyle changes to reduce the fuel required to run it. for example mixed residential, industrial & commercial buildings just like it was before the advent of cheap oil products that made motoring affordable to all.

The current economic model goes against all these principles as it requires an ever increasing flow of money (debt) and infinite growth! The world governments are committed to this model, with peak oil also on the horizon, the next great depression will do more to reduce carbon emmissions than any amount of "greenwash" taxes will ever achieve.

demonspawn

taconnol wrote: »

Why is it a scam?

The whole premise of carbon trading is that it will help developing countries who have very low carbon emissions, when the reality is that any money received will go straight into the pocket of whatever corrupt puppet government is in charge of a particular third world nation.

It will do absolutely nothing for those who suffer the most from pollution, the poor. All the while the wealthiest nations will continue to spew out filth like it was the industrial revolution all over again. Nothing will change.

That is why carbon trading is a scam.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

The whole premise of carbon trading is that it will help developing countries who have very low carbon emissions, when the reality is that any money received will go straight into the pocket of whatever corrupt puppet government is in charge of a particular third world nation.

It will do absolutely nothing for those who suffer the most from pollution, the poor. All the while the wealthiest nations will continue to spew out filth like it was the industrial revolution all over again. Nothing will change.

That is why carbon trading is a scam.

Moved to a new thread

Firstly, the premise of carbon trading is not to "help developing countries" in any direct way, but rather to internalise the cost of carbon by creating a price for it. None of the money goes into a corrupt puppet government and you have given zero evidence to back up your opinion.

I think you are very confused about how the ETS system works.

[Deleted User]

Yep, it makes sense to start a new thread, not exactly climategate, more like first cousin.

One of the problems with any kind of carbon pricing is the fact that it forces those near the bottom of the pile to do without, while the wealty find some tax dodge to avoid paying it at all while still consuming as much as before.

demonspawn

taconnol wrote: »

Moved to a new thread

Firstly, the premise of carbon trading is not to "help developing countries" in any direct way, but rather to internalise the cost of carbon by creating a price for it. None of the money goes into a corrupt puppet government and you have given zero evidence to back up your opinion.

I think you are very confused about how the ETS system works.

There is more than enough evidence to show that many corrupt third-world leaders use international aid and investment to buy weapons and diamond-encrusted Y-fronts. Africa is still a mess because the west just throws money at whoever is in power and hopes for the best.

One of the main arguments used by the pro-credits side is that it will help developing nations. It won't.

You're right though, I'm not exactly sure how the ETS works. Maybe you'd care to share a link that explains it without having to troll through pages of legal mumbo jumbo. Seems to me that the ETS is only in place for governments to be able to tax people for emissions, even though no actual monetary transaction occurs.

"Origin: France
References: Article 4(5) and Article 9
Subject: Greenhouse gas emission allowances
(Document TAXUD/1625/04 Rev.1 - Working paper n° 443 Rev.1)
The delegations agreed unanimously that the transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances as described in Article 12 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, when made for consideration by a taxable person is a taxable supply of services falling within the scope of Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 77/388/EEC. None of the exemptions provided for in Article 13 of Directive 77/388/EEC can be applied to these transfers of allowances.

Edit: Linky http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/vat_guidelines.pdf

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

There is more than enough evidence to show that many corrupt third-world leaders use international aid and investment to buy weapons and diamond-encrusted Y-fronts. Africa is still a mess because the west just throws money at whoever is in power and hopes for the best.

The EU ETS system does not involve any transfer of funds to third countries.

demonspawn wrote: »

One of the main arguments used by the pro-credits side is that it will help developing nations. It won't.

It will help developing nations insofar as it will help allocate more space for growth in their carbon emissions as a result of their development. I've never seen anyone argue that funding will be transferred to them because it won't.

demonspawn wrote: »

You're right though, I'm not exactly sure how the ETS works. Maybe you'd care to share a link that explains it without having to troll through pages of legal mumbo jumbo. Seems to me that the ETS is only in place for governments to be able to tax people for emissions, even though no actual monetary transaction occurs.

Yeah it's a bit confusing alright. For EU environmental stuff, I find this website really good:

http://euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-emissions-trading-scheme/article-133629

The ETS is a form of cap-and-trade, meaning that a cap is placed on emissions and then those emissions units or credits, are traded between companies that are involved in the scheme. At the moment there are over 10,000 large industrial installations included under the scheme with plans to include aviation in 2012. You can see more specific data on Ireland's participating installations on the relevant EPA pages.

One of the problems with previous phases of the scheme has been an overallocation of credits, which kept the carbon credit prices too low, and the fact that the credits were simply handed over to companies instead of auctioned off. This was like simply handing money over to companies and effectively rewarded them for being big polluters (the more polluting, the more credits they got)! This is why Eamon Ryan published the Carbon Revenue Levy Bill, that was passed earlier this year, in an attempt to clawback that extra revenue from the participating Irish companies

Ergh - I try not to read those EU 'decision', they're far to legalese-y for me.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems with any kind of carbon pricing is the fact that it forces those near the bottom of the pile to do without, while the wealty find some tax dodge to avoid paying it at all while still consuming as much as before.

The regressive elements of carbon pricing can be factored into the implementation of any such system. We do have a number of scheme to help with fuel poverty in Ireland, for example.

Also, I have yet to see any way in which the wealthy can avoid paying, for example, the carbon tax on their petrol. And the point (and joy) of pricing is that those who pollute the most pay the most. I cycle 99% of the time and therefore pay almost no carbon tax on transport fuels but the people who drive around in 4x4s pay for what they emit.

demonspawn

So what's to say that companies won't continue to pollute, pay any penalties incurred, then just pass that extra cost onto the consumer? Prices will go up, carbon levels will stay the same, big business continues as it always has. Nothing will change except that some EU department will have a bit more cash to spend on expenses. I know I'm very cynical but can you really blame me?

demonspawn

taconnol wrote: »

The EU ETS system does not involve any transfer of funds to third countries.

It will help developing nations insofar as it will help allocate more space for growth in their carbon emissions as a result of their development. I've never seen anyone argue that funding will be transferred to them because it won't.

I was talking about the global tax credit scheme that was discussed at the Copenhagen summit, though that may have been scrapped. I think the EU ETS only affects European countries.

I'm afraid I haven't really kept up with the subject as the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: As far as trading credits with developing countries. What are they gonna do with a surplus of carbon credits when they don't have the capital to build up their industry? Credits will have to be sold for cash if the scheme is to work and there's no guarantee where that cash will end up.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

So what's to say that companies won't continue to pollute, pay any penalties incurred, then just pass that extra cost onto the consumer? Prices will go up, carbon levels will stay the same, big business continues as it always has. Nothing will change except that some EU department will have a bit more cash to spend on expenses. I know I'm very cynical but can you really blame me?

The total amount that can be emitted is capped. The only way a company can pollute more is by obtaining credits. For each new scheme, the cap or total amount of credits that can be emitted will be lowered, thus reducing the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted and increasing the cost per unit.

This will therefore provide the necessary market signal for the private sector to invest in ghg reducing measures, including energy efficiency, retrofitting and adopting new technologies.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

I was talking about the global tax credit scheme that was discussed at the Copenhagen summit, though that may have been scrapped. I think the EU ETS only affects European countries.

The EU ETS scheme includes all EU member states. It is the EU's implementation of the Kyoto Agreement.

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm afraid I haven't really kept up with the subject as the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Fair enough but if you read my above post and the links, you will find yourself up-to-date pretty quickly.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: As far as trading credits with developing countries. What are they gonna do with a surplus of carbon credits when they don't have the capital to build up their industry? Credits will have to be sold for cash if the scheme is to work and there's no guarantee where that cash will end up.

Yes, the point of the trading system is for credits to be sold by companies in developing countries or for companies from developed countries to earn credits by investing in carbon reducing measures in developing countries. The whole point is that it does provide capital for exactly the type of projects that are necessary.

demonspawn

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, the point of the trading system is for credits to be sold by companies in developing countries or for companies from developed countries to earn credits by investing in carbon reducing measures in developing countries. The whole point is that it does provide capital for exactly the type of projects that are necessary.

But there's no guarantee that capital will be used for industrial projects, a bit like how millions of aid money in Ethiopia, and many other African countries, actually ended up being spent on weapons.

Inventing complex carbon credit schemes (I use that word in the most negative sense possible) will not improve our situation. Investment in clean, renewable energy to replace fossil fuels altogether will.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

But there's no guarantee that capital will be used for industrial projects, a bit like how millions of aid money in Ethiopia, and many other African countries, actually ended up being spent on weapons.

No, that isn't correct. Any funds spent on earning carbon credits has to be spent on projects that reduce carbon emissions to the equal weight of the amount of carbon credits cost. Under the EU ETS (and the Kyoto Protocol), companies take part in what is called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). All projects are inspected and certified before credits are authorised.

demonspawn wrote: »

Inventing complex carbon credit schemes (I use that word in the most negative sense possible) will not improve our situation. Investment in clean, renewable energy to replace fossil fuels altogether will.

You haven't really proven at all that cap-and-trade systems can't. Merely stating your opinion on the matter, without backing it up, doesn't make it the truth.

And the truth is that unless a price signal for carbon is introduced into the market, it will take a lot longer (if ever at all) for investment in clean energies to take place - and in particular to take place in the most market efficient manner.

[Deleted User]

taconnol wrote: »

And the truth is that unless a price signal for carbon is introduced into the market, it will take a lot longer (if ever at all) for investment in clean energies to take place - and in particular to take place in the most market efficient manner.

The instability in oil price has done more to wreck the economy, than any amount of carbon tax could. But I think the main issue is the fact that we have probably missed the boat as far as being able to invest heavily in renewable energy from existing taxes on the (previously) cheap fuel. Now with the economy flatlined and unlikely to expand ever again, the tax is just going to impoverish those least able to pay.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

The instability in oil price has done more to wreck the economy, than any amount of carbon tax could.

Where is your evidence that a price on carbon would "wreck the economy"?

Deleted User wrote: »

But I think the main issue is the fact that we have probably missed the boat as far as being able to invest heavily in renewable energy from existing taxes on the (previously) cheap fuel. Now with the economy flatlined and unlikely to expand ever again, the tax is just going to impoverish those least able to pay.

Er, the carbon tax on solid fuels has added 4c/litre to petrol. Given the amount of tax already on solid fuels, I'm not sure how you can say that they used to be cheap - or are you talking about the underlying oil & gas price?

Also, on what basis are you saying the economy is unlikely to ever expand again?

A carbon tax is necessary for people to pay for the pollution they are emitting - it's not rocket science and I have never seen any decent argument against a carbon tax.

demonspawn

Well, I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. It's not like we actually have a real say on anything that's going on so no point arguing I guess.

We won't have evidence of whether this is gonna work or not until it's actually underway, and that seems an inevitability now.

Macha

demonspawn wrote: »

Well, I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

The EU ETS has been underway for quite some time and the results of a review in 2006 showed that:

the ETS has proven successful so far, with the latest official data showing that the 15 EU members which originally signed up to Kyoto had achieved a 2% CO2 cut in 2005 compared to 1990 levels. Furthermore, projections imply that, based on existing policies alone, this figure should rise to 7.4% by 2012 – just short of the Kyoto target.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's not like we actually have a real say on anything that's going on so no point arguing I guess.

We do live in a democracy. I'm not sure what else you want.

demonspawn wrote: »

We won't have evidence of whether this is gonna work or not until it's actually underway, and that seems an inevitability now.

See above.

demonspawn

taconnol wrote: »

The EU ETS has been underway for quite some time and the results of a review in 2006 showed that:

"the ETS has proven successful so far, with the latest official data showing that the 15 EU members which originally signed up to Kyoto had achieved a 2% CO2 cut in 2005 compared to 1990 levels. Furthermore, projections imply that, based on existing policies alone, this figure should rise to 7.4% by 2012 – just short of the Kyoto target. "

What about the other EU countries? Those stats could easily amount to sweeping a pile of dirt from one end of the hallway to the other.

We do live in a democracy. I'm not sure what else you want.

I don't have much faith in our version of democracy, I'm sure you'll understand.

[Deleted User]

The instability in oil price has done more to wreck the economy, than any amount of carbon tax could.

taconnol wrote: »

Where is your evidence that a price on carbon would "wreck the economy"?

Please re-read my comment. The unstable oil price has already wrecked ithe economy a carbon taxy now will just stifle the (false) recovery.

taconnol wrote: »

Er, the carbon tax on solid fuels has added 4c/litre to petrol. Given the amount of tax already on solid fuels, I'm not sure how you can say that they used to be cheap - or are you talking about the underlying oil & gas price?

Also, on what basis are you saying the economy is unlikely to ever expand again?

I was referring to the underlying FF prices.
The economy primarily runs on oil, the supply of now has ceased to expand (since 2005), consumption has fallen as a result of the recession, other countries are buying up the slack. So when Ireland wants to expand again the (extra) oil won't be there! well not at a price we could afford.

taconnol wrote: »

A carbon tax is necessary for people to pay for the pollution they are emitting - it's not rocket science and I have never seen any decent argument against a carbon tax.

It's could be compared to an addicted junkie being forced to pay extra for his "fix" rather than trying to wean him off.

High consumption is as a direct result of government & commercial interests over the past half century, ghost estates and commuter towns being classic examples. Building "low carbon*" housing with "low carbon" transportation & living would be much more beneficial.

*I hate that term, it's so misleading - low fuel consumption, is more accurate

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Please re-read my comment. The unstable oil price has already wrecked ithe economy a carbon taxy now will just stifle the (false) recovery.

It will compel the private sector to innovate.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was referring to the underlying FF prices.
The economy primarily runs on oil, the supply of now has ceased to expand (since 2005), consumption has fallen as a result of the recession, other countries are buying up the slack. So when Ireland wants to expand again the (extra) oil won't be there! well not at a price we could afford.

Hence the need to promote other sources of energy through a carbon tax.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's could be compared to an addicted junkie being forced to pay extra for his "fix" rather than trying to wean him off.

Not really. Unlike drugs, we do actually need some form of energy. And while energy efficiency should be encouraged, the most important element of any future energy policy will be a transfer from an economy based on fossil fuels to one based on non-fossil fuel energies.

Deleted User wrote: »

High consumption is as a direct result of government & commercial interests over the past half century, ghost estates and commuter towns being classic examples. Building "low carbon*" housing with "low carbon" transportation & living would be much more beneficial.

I couldn't agree more. But how do you make it happen? That's where a price on carbon comes in.

Deleted User wrote: »

*I hate that term, it's so misleading - low fuel consumption, is more accurate

Well, they are two separate ideas. If you have low carbon energy sources, you can use a large amount of energy and still be low carbon. While using much smaller amounts of fossil fuel could still lead to higher carbon emissions.

[Deleted User]

*I hate that term, it's so misleading - low fuel consumption, is more accurate

I'll rephrase that
*I hate that term, it's so misleading - low fossil fuel consumption, is more accurate

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Please re-read my comment. The unstable oil price has already wrecked ithe economy a carbon taxy now will just stifle the (false) recovery.

I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration. If fuel prices were going to jump by 10 or 20% due to carbon taxation, you might have a point. As it is though, the increase will be barely noticeable to most people. And of course, there’s no reason why a carbon tax could not be revenue-neutral (in theory).

Deleted User wrote: »

High consumption is as a direct result of government & commercial interests over the past half century, ghost estates and commuter towns being classic examples. Building "low carbon*" housing with "low carbon" transportation & living would be much more beneficial.

But Irish people don’t want a ‘low carbon’ lifestyle. They want a semi-detached house with a nice big garden for their decking and at least one car on the driveway (generally speaking). You can criticise the government for fostering an environment in which the above lifestyle was championed (and I’m certainly not saying that they should not be criticised), but it’s not like the general populace were pushing for an alternative. Now that the Greens have come along and intimated that what we’ve been doing is unsustainable and we need to change our ways (and I’m certainly not saying I agree with everything the Greens propose), we’re told that they’re going to go the way of the PD’s at the next election.

[Deleted User]

But Irish people don’t want a ‘low carbon’ lifestyle.

True, we all want the best!
Another decade or two and "low carbon" will be the only way, tax or no tax.