This news was so boringly predictable I almost didn’t post it, but numbers like this of actual outcomes of visionary Big-Government Experiments are hard to come by.
Seven billion dollars works out to $350 per person, and $1,350 per household of four, for one year. If Bill Shorten (leader of the opposition) had to knock on doors to collect this tax, there would be a riot in the street tomorrow.
The Australian reports that the $1,350 from your house for the year to Sept 2013, produced an emissions fall from 543.9 million tons all the way down to 542.1 .
National greenhouse accounts to be released today show carbon emissions fell just 0.3 per cent in the year to September 2013. This was despite the carbon tax raising $7 billion over the period.
But I hear some cry that it did help reduce emission from electricity:
The Department of Environment figures, obtained by The Australian, show electricity emissions fell 5.5 per cent or about 11 million tonnes in the year to September.
However virtually none of the 11 million tonnes “saved” had much to do with the carbon tax. About 5 million tons was due to reduced economic activity (arguably, thanks to the effect the Australian Labor Party had on the GDP, perhaps the most effective form of carbon reduction they “arranged”). The rest of the reduction in emissions from electricity came from extra production from the Snowy Mountain Hydro Scheme, and less production at the Yallourn Coal Plant in Victoria thanks to industrial action and flooding.
In any case, while electricity produced less CO2, the rest of the economy, mostly did not:
The Environment Department said the lower electricity emissions were driven by lower demand and changes in the generation mix. The figures show that overall emissions of greenhouse gas are largely unchanged since 2010. While emissions from electricity generation fell, emissions from stationary energy such as on-site power generation from industrial plants rose 1.7 per cent, emissions from transport rose 2 per cent and so-called fugitive emissions from mining activities rose 8.3 per cent.
Australia has one of the most aggressive carbon reduction schemes in the world. If it achieved anything at all, it was an accident. Sucking $7billion out of the economy may have helped reduced CO2, not through people using “clean” energy, but because it lowered Australia’s GDP. Businesses gave up trying to produce useful things, and spent more time filling in bits of paper.
Keep these numbers up your sleeve, for the next time someone says:
i) Australia is doing something about CO2 emissions. (Obviously, we are not.)
ii) The EU should raise the price of carbon. (Is $24 per ton high enough?)
iii) Wayne Swan was an award winning treasurer.
iv)…anything at all about Julia Gillard. (She should pay back every cent.)
* * *
Also scary, how hard the government tried to conceal the tax.
260
What should scare you is that they made it illegal to tell your customers what impact the tax had on the price you charge them. That was a pure unadulterated intimidation tactic.
It’s a frightening development and one I hope Abbott is undoing at this very moment.
110
Could have used that $350 bucks.
170
We are seeing impacts from the relative costs of fuels though … Queensland shutting down a gas-fired plant in favour of cheaper coal-fired electricity:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/gas-prices-force-switch-to-coal-for-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#
Oh wait… was that not the intended outcome? Oh dear ….
350
I know Shorten isn’t worth “two bob”, Jo, but I think you meant Bill Shorten.
—-
Bill, Bob, It’s hard to take him seriously. But silly me. It’s Fixed. Thank you! – Jo
150
I agree Winston, but it is very easy to confuse Bill Shorten with a life size Bobble Head doll so Bob Shorten is understandable.
110
Maybe she was listening to AM this morning where Bill sounded a lot like Bob in his desperation to get the Accord/consensus momentum back from Howes.
50
Paul Howes just took a giant leap forward as a sensible negotiator of worker’s rights. He clearly appreciates that if the only achievement of the Australian Union movements is to price its workers out of the market then they have failed as an organisation. Good on him for growing a pair and just saying what everyone else already knows, but few are courageous enough to publicly acknowledge.
10
Don’t worry, Jo. Easy mistake. He’s the bluntest tool in a very dull shed.
140
Your comment about “the toolshed” reminded me of Bill and Ben the Flowerpot men (a children’s program I suspect many of you are too young to remember). On reflection your analogy is very apt.
50
Now, let me see.
Just what was it that was hiding between those two pots that held dear old Bill and Ben.
I remember.
It was, umm, a little weed!
See at the 2.09 mark.
The Flowerpot Men (Watch with Mother!)
Man, you just couldn’t get away with something like this today in our PC World.
Hmm, sorta reminds me of Bill and, umm Tanya!
Tony.
70
‘Round these parts most people call him “Bull Sh****n”.
60
Jo,
Very soon…You will really not have to worry about these petty things that are adding to the destruction of economies.
The US Federal Reserve has just about bought all those “toxic assets”.
Funny thing is they are just millions of land and house titles.
Who do you think will have the last laugh when economies start the default dominoes of both banks and countries…
The banking system never seems to be touched in revolts.
111
I doubt if 0.3% a measureable amount, or statistically valid, given the uncertainties in how CO2 is measured.
Did Australia’s CO2 monitors reflect this ‘dramatic’ decrease? I know I took deeper breaths last year.
Anyone have figures for the rest of the world?
190
Lank you are quite right. Sorry, did I convey any sense that I take the number 0.3% seriously? That was unintended. It’s not a number that would have any scientific consequence..
50
Would 3% or even 30% matter enough to talk about?
00
Spot on Lank.
The CSIRO measurement station at The aptly named Cape Grim in north west Tasmania showed a steady increase in CO2 levels throughout 2013.
More proof if you like that human contribution to CO2 levels is minimal.
50
Forgot the link.
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
00
This sounds a lot like third world economics.
If you make the money move around fast enough, you appear to have a vibrant economy.
But, for every ten dollars that comes around, you take a cent in tax.
Nobody notices until the money has gone around a few hundred times, by which time you have scarpered with the siphoned cash, and gone to live in a nice little villa in the Bahamas.
Not that I am accusing anybody, of course …
180
I would venture to suggest that for every dollar that you spend, somewhere in the region of 90+% will go to pay a tax of some kind.
Think on it a little. For any product or service for example you have to pay the taxes of all those that brought that product into existence plus all the government gougeing that you are compeled pay in your daily existance.
A hundred years ago a loaf of bread was around a farthing, the improvements in farming aside it still takes the same amount of corn to make the bread but it now costs £1.40+ for a loaf. The farmer and baker are still just as skint as back then, so where is the other £1.39.75 ??????????????????????????/
20
Bob. I know you can get a loaf of bread for 55p in Tesco and lidl. Its got fewer additives and less sugar than the branded variety, so as a Type 2 diabetic I eat it daily. As a skinflint it would be my bread of choice anyway. Allowing for inflation, I reckon my 50P loaf is cheaper than the 1/4p a century ago – and its free of chalk to make it whiter!
00
Indulgences, get your indulgences here.
Consensus sanctioned indulgences, be the envy of your cult..
Special IPCC gilt edged indulgences for those special people..
When does the taxer finally lose it?
Why work, only to see the fruits of your effort, burned up and thrown into your face, by a state sanctioned moron, who proudly tells you how much more you have to “contribute”.
Time for retroactive laws, those who waste the work of their fellow citizen, who mortgage the future efforts of taxpayers unborn and then expect a comfortable retirement at the further expense of persons yet to have a voice, need to be enslaved for the rest of their natural lives.
Stripped of all wealth they have managed to accumulate.
Think of it as retributive justice.
210
For the benefit of non-Australian readers,
‘ Industrial action ‘ = ‘Industrial in-action ‘ = Strike
120
Actually, I have a hypothesis that Industrial Action, is caused by Cricket Tests. There is a definite correlation, at least in Australia.
60
It actually depends on two things, firstly who we play and second if we win or lose. The two teams we hate to lose most to is English and of course our cricketing counsins the black caps.
I think you will find at the time of the sabotage we were flogging the English, from this we can deduce a number of things which may help in the investigations.
1, They are not cricket supporters
2, They are cricket supporters and are English
60
Ah.. but the union was on strike, all of them at the cricket.. so it obviously couldn’t have been them that dun it.
Maybe one of the barmy army got loose and wanted to destroy the broadcast back to the UK ?
30
Psssssst (Using homer simpson whispering voice) most union organisers in Australia speak with a funny accent and consider England as the “mother land”.
70
And No! you can’t send them back.
70
DOH!
40
I thought they were mainly Irish,
like that nonce, Cameroon, or whatever his name was.
30
For your information, “Cameron” is a Scottish name. In English English, “nonce” is slang for a paedophile. I’m no fan of David Cameron, but baseless accusations of deviant sex acts do not contribute much to this debate.
80
Nonce = Paedophile
I didn’t know that.
I obviously don’t move in the right circles.
20
RW. Au contraire, you do move in the right circles, which why you didn’t know it The blog, order-order.com, which keeps a scandal-ridden eye on the Mother of Parliaments, is a font of this and other outré knowledge.
20
I played cricket for 20 years and nonce = a duck. Fortunately I didn’t get many nonce’s.
20
Nonce is also a computer term for a bit string used only once, then useless.
I’m into computers.. sorry.
20
I was also thinking of the ALP ex-mp. Not the British one.
10
Darn . I meant Doug Cameron…. he’s an ALP senator still, unfortunately.. and totally useless, not sure he was ever useful even once.
Sang a little ditty or something iirc .. or was that someone else?
10
I do believe Cameroon is a country Griss
00
referring to Doug Cameron.. maybe “macaroon” is a better word?
after SHY, probably one of the biggest wastes of space in parliament.
20
Interesting how and where you can learn new things. I was a software engineer (programmer if you prefer) for 47 years and never heard the term. Now that I’m retired it pops up. Strange the way things work… 😉
00
Roy, this link describes it quite well. http://codex.wordpress.org/WordPress_Nonces
Now people can choose the definition they like when referring to Doug Cameron. 😉
00
Griss,
Thanks for that link. I guess I was in the wrong end of the computer game. My last 17 years have been all about computer controlled laboratory instruments — the wrong place to find a URL, much less a Nonce.
There’s another kind of “use once” number in computer science used for identification and authentication called a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). Here’s an example: {1EB8DD66-AC8D-43f9-A0D2-E74A43E4155A}. They look daunting don’t they? But they’re generated automatically for me at the click of a button. They can be used to uniquely identify a program, your computer on the Internet or anything you want. And they’ll always be unique, no two the same, even when generated on two completely unconnected computers. Microsoft unfortunately abuses these horribly and so do other software vendors, although the pressure of exposure by security specialists has caused them to clean up their act a little.
If you know enough about the Windows registry to know about and safely use regedt32 then you’ve probably seen thousands of these GUIDs in the registry. Don’t mess with regedt32 unless you know what you’re doing. A mistake can do a lot of harm, even disable your computer.
———————————-
Sounds like Cameron can be referred to by a whole selection of names, mostly unflattering if not worse.
00
Ah so that’s why the London Underground Train network has been on-strike for the last two days and No-one seemed to understand why .
I’m glad I can keep my finger on the pulse of the socioeconomic impact of sport here too 😉
00
Okay, so you admit that the carbon tax worked then? Let’s move along.
148
Yep.. help kill manufacturing and jobs and send production to China and India.. Twerp !
You do know what a job is, don’t you?
If we leave the RET and Carbon tax in place too much longer, you probably won’t.
420
If you think that $7b to make zero difference to the temperature is the carbon tax working, then you are deluded.
280
Yes but Heywood imagine how much our emissions would have risen without the carbon dioxide tax.
Note: You have zero chance of calculating the imaginary rise therefore cannot prove me wrong which means i win.
110
No, the null hypothesis is that there is no actual cause an effect either way. So now you have to disprove the null hypothesis, which puts you in the same boat as Heywood, so I win.
170
I would like to respond to your statement in a meaningful way however i would not know where to start………..i dibs my lid to your good sir.
120
If the goal of the carbon tax was to slow the economy, create red tape for business, potentially increase unemployment, not affect either the weather or the climate and to skew energy prices in favour of inefficient and uneconomical source of power generation. Then yes your right, it was brilliantly successful.
200
At -0.3% CO2e per year surely it would be more true to say the environmental effect of the carbon tax is indistinguishable from normal economic noise.
It was said several years ago that any carbon tax high enough to be effective would be destructive and any carbon price low enough to be harmless would be ineffective. Yeah, that’s what happened. How has the carbon tax “worked”?
In December the Silly reported:
Therefore in the first year of the carbon tax July 2012 to July 2013 the CO2 emissions changed by: 100×(545.9÷(545.9+0.3)) – 100 = -0.05% .
Now we’re being told in the year Sept 2012 to Sept 2013 it made a change of -0.3%. One wonders if immediate cutbacks were made in the 3 months after companies got their first bill. But there’s great news folks, look at the updated cost of reductions: $7000000000÷(1000000t×(543.9−542.1)) = $3888/t
Hey if this keeps up, the true economic cost of emissions reduction just might even get down to $23/t. (Keep dreaming.)
It seems extremely unlikely that the cost of CO2 reduction could change by a factor of 6 in just 3 months. More likely is that the carbon tax is not the main cause of the emissions reductions that occurred. The carbon tax didn’t “work”. A small switch from coal to natural gas in the electricity sector and a slump in economic activity is what “worked”.
Another bizarre figure I have just found is a report from the ClimateChange dept in April 2013 which concluded:
I had to check they hadn’t misquoted the original report. They hadn’t.
They’ve gotta be kidding me. In 23 years our national CO2 emissions only increased by 5%?? Why are we even attempting CO2 reductions? But the Kyoto carbon accounting jargon itself is misleading. Buried in that department’s 2008 report we find two apparently contradictory statements:
When they say “1990 levels”, it seems to be a synonym for “Kyoto Protocol Target”, meaning a forecast amount of growth above a consensus of emissions agreed to in 1990. As long as they can keep actuals no more than 8% above the agreed level then they have met the “emissions reduction target”. Let’s just check what the status is compared to real 1990 levels.
Take the 2013 report and add up the net emissions over the 5-year “commitment period” and divide by 5 years worth of 1990 actual emissions and what do you get? (584.3+576.1+568.6+563.3+576)÷(465×5) = 123% .
Right, so they are actually 23% above 1990 levels, but still on track for keeping under an 8% rise over 1990 levels. Doublethink activated!
If “success” is reducing CO2 emissions to 8% above 1990 levels then the carbon tax has failed.
But in Kyoto Accounting World the carbon tax has “worked”.
Was there ever a better indication that none of this has any connection with environmental conservation – not even for the people who believe the environment was in danger?
Don’t worry, they’re only playing with your money, not theirs.
110
Evcricket is correct.
Here is an example of how the carbon(sic) tax works:
Without Global Warming, It Would Be -32.7° In Fort Collins This Morning
50
So does a depression – are you advocating one of those next?
20
Brilliantly. If only we flushed $3tr (twice our GDP) we could have gone carbon neutral and offset a few weeks growth in Chinese emissions.
30
Yep it worked. Like the Battle of the Somme in 1916 was a success as after 5 months of fighting up to 10km of land had been gained. The cost of >1,000,000 (23,000 Australian) is an irrelevancy.
Australian GDP is about $1750bn
Marginal abatement costs rise the greater the cuts in emissions.
$7bn is 0.4% of GDP, achieving a 0.3% emissions cut.
If the government is daft enough to try for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 (like here in Britain) it will achieve it before Australian GDP gets to zero. But the human cost would be more lives lost than on the Somme.
60
Sure it worked so lets indeed move along to the bushfire catastrophes in the middle of summer (go figure) with extreme fuel loads as a result of unrealistic environmental expectations and ignition by arsonists – I suppose you could rightly claim man-made this time.
20
Leave him alone. He is taking the piss (I hope).
00
No he isn’t Vic. A repeat offender. Hasn’t been around here for a while though.
20
He’s been bothering the Cats.
00
Hannam’s spin is extraordinary. the usual suspects get to comment. sheer madness:
5 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Big fall in electricity sector emissions since carbon tax
John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, said companies in sectors with rising emissions, such as industrial processes, were often the recipients of free permits, particularly in trade-exposed industries.
For liquefied natural gas producers, the free permits covered about 65 per cent of their emissions, Mr Connor said.
‘‘We’re just at the dawn of their emissions profile, and they’ll be really starting to crank up particularly towards the end of this year,’’ he said. ‘‘They will be one of, if not the major headache for the Coalition which is why they are desperate to find ways to slice off growth of emissions in that sector.’’…
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the drop in emissions from the power sector was only ‘‘very slight’’ and was prompted by the renewable energy target and reduced economic activity.
‘‘The carbon tax is not cutting emissions in any meaningful or significant way,’’ Mr Hunt said, adding that it ‘‘does not work – plain and simple’’.
Fugitive emissions and those from industrial process and stationary power were rising even though they were covered by the carbon price, he said.
Greens leader Christine Milne, however, said emissions from the power sector had fallen each quarter since the carbon price had been introduced, and said Mr Hunt was ‘‘cherry picking’’ the data to ‘‘justify the Abbott government’s ideological opposition to effective action on global warming.’’
“Significant decreases in the electricity sector emissions have been neutralised by increasing fugitive emissions because of the Abbott government’s open slather rush to support the dangerous coal seam gas industry and coal mines,” Senator Milne said.
‘‘Reducing free permits and ending fossil fuel subsidies to coal and gas would help to drive down emissions but the Abbott government is keen to maintain the culture of entitlement in those industries,’’ she said…
The premise of the debate about changes in emissions from last year is wrong, said Frank Jotzo, an associate professor at Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy and deputy director, ANU Climate Change Institute.
“What matters is not the comparison with last years’ emissions levels, but with what emissions would be if it was not for the carbon price,” Professor Jotzo said. “Australia’s emissions have been on an increasing trajectory, projections without carbon pricing were for strong increases.”
“Now we’re seeing only very slight increases which is progress,” he said…
“To stop increasing emissions in transport and extractive industries like LNG would require a carbon price much, much higher than what is currently in place,” he said…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/big-fall-in-electricity-sector-emissions-since-carbon-tax-20140205-320a6.html
the following headline features prominently in the above article – infantile!
5 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Coalition feels ‘pain’ over carbon tax typo
Typo or Freudian slip?
Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s office went into damage control on Wednesday morning when its spin doctors spun the wrong way.
In a media release to accompany the latest greenhouse gas emission figures for Australia, Mr Hunt was quoted in the opening line as saying: “Emissions figures released today show the Carbon Tax is still inflicting plenty of gain, with no environmental pain”.
Within four minutes, the release was speedily amended to swap the offending nouns, to say that the tax was in fact “still inflicting plenty of pain, with no environmental gain”…
A spokesman for Mr Hunt wanted to be clear “it was my typo, not the Minister’s”.
The correction, though, did not go unnoticed on social media…
Nor did the gaffe go unnoticed in Canberra.
“Hooray, at last the truth on carbon pricing from Greg Hunt,” said Greens leader Christine Milne.
“Typos can happen to anyone. It’s a pity it takes one for the Environment Minister to get it right when it comes to global warming.”
Labor, too, couldn’t avoid a poke…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-feels-pain-over-carbon-tax-typo-20140205-320qz.html
50
Hannam the “Greenist” journo in Oz. And he works for Fairfax – “fair facts”? – I think not – if Oz took on board “the green garbage” Hannam writes about in his pitiful SMH columns we would be worse off than the dysfunctional EU – and you can’t any worse than that.
60
Meanwhile Australia and Indonesia share the honours as the world’s largest exporters of coal, with over 50% of total world coal exports between us and to countries which do not pay a carbon tax. We sell half of the coal we mine. Then we protest that people should not burn it and tax ourselves for doing so. The Clever Country. No wonder we cannot manufacture anything or even grow fruit profitably for our own consumption.
510
Brilliant comment;
The inmates were in charge briefly.
110
Does TdeF stand for Tour de Force? Because that comment is one. Brilliant.
90
But our previous Labor Government did increase green and sustainable departments, staffing and consultants exponentially in order to achieve that result then solicited union assistance to find a solution to increasing unemployment – cart, horse.
20
And then the unions decided that it was really all too difficult to employ more people and accept less money in the then sustainable culture and opted to accept less employees and push for more money so as not to make it unsustainable – goose, oven.
20
and vote for the most useless scumbags around.
00
***??
4 Feb: Reuters: UK greenhouse gas emissions rose 3.2 percent in 2012: government data
Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 3.2 percent in 2012 from a year earlier due to a move from natural gas to coal for power generation and increased use of heating during a cold winter, final government data showed on Tuesday.
Britain, the world’s ninth largest emitter in 2012, saw greenhouse gas emissions reach 581.2 million tons compared to 563.2 million tons in 2011…
In 2012, however, coal overtook natural gas to become the biggest single source of Britain’s electricity. This was mostly due to the U.S. shale gas boom, which made it less economical to burn coal there and instead it was exported to Europe.
A colder than average winter in 2012 also pushed up demand for energy for heating…
The budget put a limit on Britain’s emissions at 3.018 billion tons over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012.
“UK emissions (…) were 2.982 billion tons after taking account of emissions trading***, 36 million tons below the cap,” the spokesman said.
“UK emissions under the Kyoto Protocol were an average 22.5 percent below base-year levels over this period after taking account of emissions trading***,” he added.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/us-britain-emissions-idINBREA130LJ20140204
10
Let us put this in context.
The British Climate Change Act 2008 has a GHG reduction target reduction of 26% below the 1990 level (Page 3 Part 1 section 5(1)(a)).
The emissions figures (from the World Bank) in millions of tonnes CO2 equivalent are
1990 716
2008 614
2012 581 (Reuters)
2020 530 (target)
From 1990 to 2008 (with little or no policy and 2.9% pa ave growth) total carbon emissions reduced by 5.7 mt per year on average.
From 2008 to 2012 (when domestic fuel bills rose in real terms by >10% due to climate policies, & the economy shrank by 0.6% pa), carbon emissions reduced by 8 mt per year on average.
In Australia, you may have had an incompetent Labor Government that had loaded you with huge costs for no justifiable reason. But the figures show that in the UK we lead the World in policy incompetence. And in Australia you at least now have a Government who is starting to reverse the trend.
30
Well, all 3 major parties have had a few years in power. Who can you vote for? Tweedledee, Tweedledum or UKIP?
Cameron said of the only party with a sensible policy on electricity supply that they were “swivel eyed loons”. I note that the budgetary deficit is higher than it was under the last loon, and that blackouts are starting. Obviously Cameron isn’t swivel eyed, but other adjectives are available.
20
“But the figures show that in the UK we lead the World in policy incompetence.”
Don’t forget cricket incompetence too.
00
Judith Curry has started to dismantle the IPCC 5th report. It certainly weakens the case for CAGW and SLR is the star performer in my humble opinion.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
60
Thanks for the link.
I love the semantics of a ‘Pause’ in the warming, a ‘hiatus’. No one wants to actually say it has actually stopped for good and might go down. Both words carry the subliminal message that the stop is temporary, without any specific reason to think so. Now the debate will be on the length of the hiatus because a hiatus it surely is. If the temperatures in fact go down, will that be cooling or a temporary problem with maintaining the hiatus or pause or a short term reversal or a misstep? Of course we will need 30 years to be sure the hiatus is a hiatus when we only needed 10 years to be certain of catastrophic runaway Global Warming. Cue laughter.
290
I agree TdeF, although it might possibly be more accurately described as a cessation – a temporary or complete stopping. And a complete stopping could well signal this cessation to be a peak rather than a pause.
60
If we have an ‘hiatus’, and then a short period of warming, followed by a return to where temperatures were, is that a pause in the ‘hiatus’.
I get so confused with all this technical jargon. (sic.)
90
So at 30 years, can we get our money back from the shonksters who perpetrated this abomination on the world, having zero understand of statistics themselves, let alone science.
We need remuneration for this fraud. Apparently $1,350 just last year alone.
60
I suggest we start using the word, “cessation”, and really wind up the Believers. 🙂
40
Oh no , we must keep playing the game. It is a continuing ‘pause’ of unknown duration, just going on some 17 years now, and let that statement stand or fall by its own credibility.,
20
I wonder what they will call it when the temperatures start to decrease?
10
Sceptic lies.
30
A travesty.
Has become my favorite phrase.
10
Sounds almost operatic doesn’t it. A travesty of what though ?
00
La Traviesta
00
How about “mare fervens”. Isn’t that where the heat is going after all? No wonder shark attacks are on the up.
00
Hannam, this mistake is a little bit more serious than a “typo”!
5 Feb: TechWeekEurope: EU Carbon Trading Chokes On Data Centre Diesels
Data centres burn almost no diesel, but the EU’s carbon trading scheme is taxing them by mistake, says Peter Judge
Europe’s ETS is a “cap and trade” scheme where organisations have to buy allowances in advance for their “scope 1 emissons” – ie for the actual fuel they burn on site. It’s designed for heavy industries which burn a lot of fuel, You would expect data centres to fall outside the ETS because they use electricity generated elsewhere (in the ETS language, that’s scope 2). … but you’d be wrong.
What data centres burn in their diesels is scope 1 all right. They don’t burn much, giving them a quick regular test run, and maybe using them for an hour or two if there’s a power outage.
But entry to the ETS isn’t about how much fuel you burn. It’s based on the capacity. If you have generator capacity of more than 7MW, you may well have to register, even if you never use it. Whether you register or not depends on the exact nature of your diesel generator, Fryer told TechWeek…
Unintended consequences
This is where it gets screwy. Because you have a big set of generators, you have to register, but because you rarely use them, you don’t actually have to buy much in the way of allowances. And in any case carbon credits are actually pretty cheap.
So, data centres have to buy a few hundred pounds worth of allowances per site… and spend something like £10,000 registering for the scheme and administering it.
***That’s a pretty hefty unintended consequence. How did it get that way? Fryer told us data centres are “collateral” or innocent bystanders…
It’s a European law, which should be implemented the same way in countries across Europe but, as with other regulations such as the WEEE electronic waste directive, there are differences in interpretation. So the tech industry – in this case TechUK – has to deal with Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) as well as the EU’s machinery – both of which are trying to be helpful.
The problem will go before The European Commission’s Compliance Committee, and maybe some practical response can come out of this – perhaps allowing exemption for generators which are genuinely only for backup.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/comment/carbon-trading-data-centre-diesels-138293
to think people vote in politicians & pay for public servants to spend all their time on this rubbish.
40
for even more lunacy, read all:
4 Feb: EurActiv: France launches probe into EU carbon market reform plan
The European Commission’s proposed carbon price stabilisation mechanism is a “masterpiece of Brussels technocracy” that could fuel greater market volatility, says a group of academics on the proposed package of 2030 climate legislation, EurActiv.fr reports.
Jean-Michel Charpin, an expert of French government’s finances, has been tasked to lead a mission on European Commission’s proposed reform…
The stability of the carbon market is “essential”, Charpin said, stressing that the current CO2 prices of around €5 a tonne “are not satisfactory”.
“There is a consensus on the subject. And the solutions are not simple,” the official said.
Another team of academics lead by Christian de Perthuis from the Climate Economics Chair at Paris Dauphine University issued a “policy brief” on the Commission’s 2030 climate proposal.
But the proposal to create “reserve” quotas aimed at stabilising the carbon market was questioned by the researchers at Paris Dauphine University, who said it could generate “greater volatility” and prove “detrimental to a clear price signal”…
***‘Robot’ to regulate carbon prices
Thanks to an econometric model called Zephyr, the university researchers analysed in detail the proposals put forward by the EU executive.
***The good news is that the mechanism could push prices up – at least as of 2021…
The bad news is that the “stability” mechanism could be a source of further volatility, the researchers found…
**************Rather than entrusting the management of the carbon market to a robot, France is favourable to establishing a genuine “central bank for carbon” which could manage the carbon market like a currency.
“It’s been one of the topics of discussion but the mission continues and no conclusion is adopted at the time being,” Charpin cautioned.
http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/french-academic-question-eu-carb-news-533248
10
How much warming has there been since the introduction of the carbon price? You all say it’s zero. So, the carbon tax probably made a difference didn’t it?
035
The non-warming started over a decade before the carbon tax was introduced.
Another stupid argument from the ignorant …
280
Evcricket,
I think you will find that Australia’s contribution to global emissions is pretty irrelevant. You are confusing our output, as in the quoted article, with GLOBAL CO2 emissions which, by the way, have increased substantially but without the predicted increase in GLOBAL temperatures that was predicted by the models.
250
OMG, that like saying those early summer latest bushfire were after the carbon tax, therefore were caused by the carbon tax.
Its such a stupid, moronic comment.
The hole in the bottom of the barrel gets larger, it seems.
200
Ev cricket,
I will take your comment seriously and reply by saying rather than just reading the head line you should try reading the fine print………i know this is not a talent beholden to you and your kind but it is a very important talent.
For example if we assume the purpose of the carbon tax was to reduce the amount of electricity consumed by us then the tax has failed miserably.
Electrical generation reduced emissions by 11 million tonnes however half of that fall was do to less demand from less activity not due to sourcing electricity from some non emission source.
Then throw down time at Yallourn with a rise from on site generators and you can plainly see the CO2 tax played no part, see its the fine print or if you like the finer detail that holds the relevant information which as i said is something the warmbots do not have capacity to understand.
Cheers
160
Correlation does not imply causation. Coincidence is a valid alternative.
100
Hang a second here RW, i may have been a little rash, lets consider the proposition postulated by Ev cricket…….hang on cricket…….test matches correlating with industrial action……nah surely its just a coincidence.
90
Well, you got the joke in the end — with a little hint 😉
You had me worried, there, for a while.
20
My original thought before i got side tracked by test match cricket and yallourn was that cricket might be onto something, imagine if our 0.3% of emission reductions actually did stop the temps from rising then that would put the climate sensitivity at….oh i dont know……..really really high, ergo we dont need to reduce our emissions by much to bring the temp back down to a level specified by the man himself.
This of course flies in the face of Flim Flam Flappery who clearly stated even if we stop all emissions it would take a 1000 years before the temps started to drop but he is idiot, crickets the man of the hour now, so cricket just name the average global temp you would prefer and then we can get it sorted.
Looking forward to seeing the temp figure
Cheers
120
My understanding is that since the introduction of the carbon tax the number of squid caught by amateur fishermen has increased since pre carbon tax measurements. Therefore how do we know its not the removal of squid from the ocean that is causing the pause in warming?
Repeat the mantra grasshopper, correlation is not causation.
50
The Pirates correlation is far better. Joe will need to do a parrody article on the number of pirates being inversly proportional…. Oh I see the problem.
No Evcricket; It is not so just because you say it is, or just because you believe it is.
The tax was a huge waste of money, with no benifet to anybody except the lying politicians and the United Nations (the real winner from this fiasco).
60
Quote Evcricket: “You all say it’s zero. So, the carbon tax probably made a difference didn’t it?”
But carbon(sic) levels have continued to rise to 400ppm, 2014 hottest year eva, and 2014 is the last chance, so how does that carbon(sic) tax work again?
90
Thank you for a perfect example of a false cause fallacy!
90
It is good to see you around here again – getting more like old times …
40
+1
30
Hi Ed,
Hows it going mate.
10
I am well. How are you?
00
No.
00
***FINALLY, SANITY MIGHT PREVAIL:
6 Feb: ABC World Today: Prime Minister vows to revisit renewable energy target
ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister is vowing to look closely at changing Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), as Queensland’s biggest energy generator warns that the target is pushing up costs in the industry…
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell delivered a bombshell yesterday, announcing it will close its gas-fired power station west of Brisbane in favour of reopening one of its cheaper coal-fired power stations…
The bipartisan target is to source 20 per of Australia’s energy needs from renewal sources by 2020…
TONY ABBOTT: We’ve got a Renewable Energy Target review coming up soon and what it will be looking at, amongst other things is the impact of the RET on people’s power prices. Now plainly there is an impact and we want to moderate and reduce that impact and that’s what the review will be looking at.
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell also wants the carbon tax and uncapped solar feed-in tariffs dumped.
Mr Abbott agrees that Australia has become one of the world’s most expensive countries for energy.
He says the carbon tax needs to go and other energy policies might need tweaking…
***TONY ABBOTT: Australia has an abundance of coal, we have an abundance of gas. We should be the affordable energy capital of the world but instead, as this particular company has pointed out, we are becoming amongst the most expensive energy countries in the world and that’s wrong and its going to do everyone – our companies, our workers, our consumers – every household is going to be worse off if we don’t get power prices down and that means get rid of the carbon tax and get rid of it now.
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Kane Thornton from the Clean Energy Council says there’s no evidence to support claims the renewable energy target is to blame for soaring power prices…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3939181.htm
70
“TEPHANIE SMAIL: Kane Thornton from the Clean Energy Council says there’s no evidence to support claims the renewable energy target is to blame for soaring power prices…”
Do they really think people are stupid? It must be the Martians who have caused energy price to soar in those jurisdictions who were stupid enough to go the route of the carbon tax and clean energy. I’m just guessing but I think the Martians have a winner here and will soon take over this world.
70
–
The ‘target’ is simplistic thinkers like Evcricket.
40
More data fiddling from the experts.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/hit-the-motherlode-part-ii/#comments
60
TonyfromOz – over to you:
6 Feb: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: Swanbank shut-down a swan song for gas
Gas contracts are now being struck at prices of $9 per gigajoule rather than the $3.50 price of the past. There is also talk of gas shortages because of a huge surge in demand from a range of LNG plants coming online within short succession.
At the same time the Coalition intends to unwind the emissions trading scheme, and no one expects Direct Action to do much to help gas-fired power.
Yet, apparently, Queensland government-owned Stanwell will be complaining in a submission to government that this is not enough, and the Coalition should also wind back the Renewable Energy Target, complaining it and the carbon price were “implemented for ideological reasons with little analysis of the impact on electricity prices and economic growth”.
Strange, but I think I can recall several hundred pages of analyses undertaken to evaluate the price and economic impacts of these policies before they were implemented and in subsequent reviews. Some examples are available here, here, here, here and here, just to get started…
Gas is becoming exceedingly expensive, and it’s likely it will be replaced by higher emissions coal. The only thing stopping this from happening is a robust Renewable Energy Target.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/6/energy-markets/swanbank-shut-down-swan-song-gas
30
Up here in the US we now have everyone filling out “bits of paper” – insurance forms, medical stuff (doctors & patients), law suits, . . ., and tax forms. Real costs and lost productivity increasing, carbon dioxide emissions going down. I thought that was the plan. And it is working. We’re freezing our back ends off. Let’s declare victory and quit this —-.
60
***LOL.
6 Feb: Business Spectator: Andrew Herington: Where in Australia is Mark Butler?
(Andrew Herington is a former Labor adviser and freelance writer)
In an interesting move, Butler has decided to start the task of reviewing Labor’s policy via a road show to talk to people. In a series of local meetings over the coming weeks he is talking to local groups and getting feedback on the public mood on where the climate change debate should head next.
Butler told a recent Brisbane meeting: “The most valuable thing I found as a federal minister was to go out to forums and talk to people across Australia about what they thought we should be doing. So, in this very early part of being in opposition, I wanted to have forums like this to really understand this critically important portfolio.”
His first meetings were in Brisbane, Byron Bay and Newcastle last week with further meetings planned after the first sitting week of Parliament.
Butler highlighted key developments in the climate debate over the last six months including: the latest report from the IPCC; the conference of the parties in Poland; Australia’s ‘loss of international standing’; a new Parliament dominated by climate change politics; legislation to repeal virtually all Australia’s existing climate policies; and the hottest calendar year in Australia with frequent extreme weather events.
“It’s been rough, it’s been going fast and there have been lots of sharp turns,” he said.
“The IPCC’s last report shows that what they said was going to happen is already happening. The temperature is increased by about 0.9 per cent across the globe since industrialisation. Oceans are rising at twice the rate across the globe as they did in the 20th century, oceans are absorbing lots of the excess carbon dioxide so they’re becoming warmer, and polar ice is starting to melt which is causing oceans to rise and oceans are becoming more acidic, which we know is a particular problem for coral reefs, like the Great Barrier Reef. There is consensus about this. And it’s having a very real impact.”
The challenge for Labor is how to re-engage the public in the debate. Opinion has splintered between those fervently for and against taking action. The increasingly technical and vitriolic nature of the argument leaving a growing majority in the “confused middle” of voters.
***While there was a good turn-up for the Brisbane meeting, it mostly comprised people already committed to climate action. The disinformation campaign run by climate sceptics has successfully muddied the waters and exhausted the patience of many who want to “move on” to other issues…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/6/policy-politics/where-australia-mark-butler
40
Who-whoo.
100
What a beautiful set of numbers – A$7 billion down the gurgler to reduce CO2 emissions by 0.3% and zero impact on cooling Oz. This is what happens when the Greens have the ALP by the balls. The ALP deserted it’s blue collar vote to appease the “Greens”. When is this CT going to be terminated once and for all and allow the Oz Economy to prosper again. As I have repeatedly said “Green is Bad” – very very bad. Bring on July 1 when the CT/ETS can be torpedoed – ? hallelujah in 5-6 months time.
70
Where did the $7b go? Can I see the receipt?
70
Renewable promoters and charletans, climate scientists in quasi-government bodies such as CSIRO, BOM, probably to political and union figures as pay-offs, journalists.
Its one heck of a lot of money to spread around promoting an agenda !!
Some people will have got very rich out of this.
150
Lets not forget that a lot of Public Servants who work in the “climate area” are based in Canberra,.
If Climate Change is recognised as a non-event, a lot of them will be out of a job. If they can’t find an alternative Government job, they will be forced to move elsewhere to find work. If they own a home in Canberra, they will be forced to sell on a sinking market, so they can move to somewhere else where they can find a job.
Faced with that scenario, what do you reckon you would do?
That is a rhetorical question. I am not trying to put anybody on the spot. I was just thinking about the change in Margot’s attitude when the incoming Government axed the PR department, where I presumed she worked.
130
Not just Canberra; think of all the State bureaucracies and all those in local government. Should they all go, I don’t know what we could do with them; their only training is in being an obstruction.
We couldn’t station them on the beaches to repel illegal boat arrivals as they would wander off, especially around 4.30 p.m.
And we don’t want them causing traffic jams by wandering across the roads, even if we had enough kelpies.
What can we do with them? Has anybody any suggestions (Rereke has ruled out putting them on leaking boats and pointing them toward NZ).
20
Wouldn’t there also be serious repercussions in the de-caff soya latte industry? Many cafes would be closed and thousands would be put out of work.
20
RW,
There is currently an employment freeze across the board in the APS, so if you live in Canberra you work for the government and if your position is made redundant (no AGW anymore) then you have no other cushy job to parachute into.
Therefore departments that dont perform any meaningful function are running around like headless chickens trying to justify their own existence so as to be spared the razor gangs cuts.
Expect the cacophony of squeals about AGW to go up another notch as they desperately cling to the government feeding troughs.
Maybe Ev (jimminy) cricket is the first squealer to arrive
10
Well we could surmise that if that 7 Billion was divided up among Ford, Holden, Toyota, SPC, Cadbury TAS etc etc, we might still have a manufacturing industry in this country. But that’s ok Christine Milne will get all those people jobs in the Tasmanian eco tourism industry and the jobs that will be created in the “new economy”, like Unicorn $hit collector for example……
50
It costs money to be a tourist. Who’d got that any more?
30
The effects of CO2 tax in Oz are transmuted to other places on the globe. Just like heat teleporting to the deep oceans. Exhibit 1) Slovenian ice-storms
/sarc for the greens lurking amongst us.
70
Saw this – its all linked to pathological altruism as noted by Moonbattery I believe.
30
This really angers me, how the hell can anyone put forward a sane argument to support losing 7 billion dollars on pure bulls&%t ideals is beyond me, seriously anyone in this country has felt the effects of various diseases personally or through someone close and instead of using 7 billion dollars to try and make peoples lives better or even save them some complete and utter twats’ decide no we’ll use it to support a pseudo scientific cult that will not benefit people but actually make their lives harder!
Has anyone thought of what type of person you’d have to be to even think of these actions? I have and I keep coming back to a vicious callous con artist who’s psychopathic personality knows only one outcome, to get what they want at any cost, with no remorse or hesitation to committing act’s that would only be seen in times of extreme desperation.
For the rest of my days I’ll take any opportunity to point out how disgusting and selfish these actions were to anyone who raises the topic of the “Climate Hoax” whether they want to hear it or not, because the one thing that is certainly clear is that evil did triumph whilst good people did nothing.
200
Totally with you. That’s 7b from the economy at a time when it could least afford it.
The so called party of the workers combined with the party of…. I dunno what do they stand for?…. LSD consumption? have conspired to bring the economy to a standstill. Arguing on the one hand that the GFC sapped the economy at the same time as introducing a raft of new taxes (anchors) to growth, contributing to business closure and unemployment stretching out for the next 5 years at least.
If the coalition can get the budget back in shape in 1.5 terms, Abbott and Hockey will go down in history as a Howard/Costello level Lib. Gov. Only time will tell how it pans out but the combined effects of 10 years of LAB/GRN madness are only just washing through now.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/bolt-gillards-tax-is-a-load-of-hot-air/story-fn6br25t-1226093427046
No matter how this turns out, no matter how much time passes. That cartoon will always be true. Madness posing as policy, achieving nothing but economic self destruction and driven by ideology as broken as the characters of the people behind it.
160
The ecconomy WAS in great shape. Which is why it was believed we could afford this indulgence.
They sure gave us a wake up call didn’t they. Labor will forever be last on my ballot.
120
I’m still upset by this mostly because of a really nice bloke at work who’s wife is dying of cancer and there has been many fundraisers locally to help out with the cost of treatment’s etc…now his wife works in health care and is one of those legends who helps to save peoples lives every year, myself included 5 years ago.
So instead of investing say 7 billion dollars into research to cure such terrible diseases and potentially save the lives of essential service personnel such as this good man’s wife what Is done with it?
Sorry I can’t finish but at least good people here know the travesty of this evil grift, thanks.
90
Electricity Bill’s chances of election have been ‘SHORTED’ out because the ‘CURRENT’ policy is considered reVOLTing by the voting public. He’s had AMPle time to do the right thing but the Labor POWER brokers have ensured that there will be a FREQUENCY of the use of Electricity Bill and Labor’s hopes of re-election ultimately DISCHARGED. They can try all they like to deFUSE the RESISTANCE to their POLEicies but there is no POTENTIAL. Labor just aren’t SWITCHED on to the electorate. WATT is Labor thinking?!
70
OHM, That is a good question. Perhaps they are in a state of FLUX. You could ask HENRY. He is a bright SPARK, and he still has the CAPACITY for rational thought, since he hasn’t been through the official INDUCTANCE process, yet.
60
Ah, Physics units jokes.
Did you hear about Avogadro’s daughter?
She was a mole.
What did Michael Faraday say when he visited the inventor of the steam engine?
“Coulomb, Watt.”
30
So I’m getting ready to move down to Oz from the US so I decided, “Hey lets look at some blogs down there to see what things are like.”
What do I find? The same crazies as up north messing things up and wasting government money down south. Oh joy, I’ll have to fight more of them on a new continent yay! 😐
140
The difference is that our crazies are not as advanced, organised or sophisticated as your crazies. But then sensible folk here are mostly fast asleep. We need all the help we can get. You are most welcome… please.
150
We are a passive people, mostly. But when we get stirred up we are well able to put up the good fight.
You are most welcome.
90
BS is like a red rag to an Aussie Bull!
30
Ours were not organized until most of the people slept as well. Hopefully your people will wake up before you get to our point.
30
What comes of being so good natured if I may say. Harder to remain vigilant when not eternally suspicious but a good bullish!t detector serves Aussies well.
40
And the majority of our crazies aren’t armed with anything bigger than a litigation threat, all our weapons are in the hands of well trained and organised groups such as bikers and drug cartels.
20
I sure hope those muppets who were so vigilant on this very blog about the merits of this “tax that wasn’t a tax” have paid their share – and have no form of income now either. I hope it took bread off their table, I really, most sincerely do hope they go to bed hungry.
Anyone who swallowed the BS from the Labor government and the green econazis should be paying everyones share for this complete and utter rort.
$7,000,000,000 would have planted one heck of a lot of trees that could have been harvested 30 years from now. It could’ve done wonders for the great barrier reef or any number of worthy causes – even a fraction of this would have gone a long way to solving a real problem. Instead, where has the money gone to? the Beurocrats? the raft of dodgy parasite companies looking to make money for no work?
Instead it all went to an illegitimate government (with at least one MP who is still being brought before the courts due to his Union Credit card being used to pay for prostitutes), with a treasurer who needed to cover up the fact he was numerically incompetant and incapable of being a treasurer.
Honestly, just the memories of that government – seriously – how on earth could australia be so utterly stupid?
110
Hell, at that price you could have built a ****ing SPARE reef in case the GBR failed!
70
Andrew McRae got it right.
The only reason Oz’s CO2 emissions are anywhere near 550 Mtpa is because the Dept of Climate Change has ESTIMATED a reduction in emissions from land use and forestry of some 100 Mtpa due to them redefining farmland to grassland and forests to National Parks etc. It’s easy when you do what the gummint wants.
It’s so simple the IPCC suggests estimating so our Green friends estimate.
This had something to do with carbon credits which I understand has collapsed in a heap.
90
If anybody knocks on my door to collect anything at all, regardless of Co2 or whatever other fantasy they’ve dream’t up?.. Well they better bring force! No more theft with out my strongest objection! Enough!
50
I have a permanent policy in action at my home.
Whenever we get a cold call from a company flogging solar panels, we take a tire out the back and torch it.
80
Remember. . . this end of financial year. . . claim everything. EEEVERYTHING!
We all deserve our money back.
30
Some have seen the link, but maybe not made it as clear as it should be.
7 billion dollars spent must have an effect somewhere!
No climate change noticeable, in fact it seems to be getting hotter here in Victoria, and not just literally.
GMH Holden, closing
Ford, Closing
Toyota. Closing
Alcoa. Cutting back
SPC Ardmona. Closing
All because we have lost our competitive advantage. Cheap plentiful Brown Coal Power. And why? Not because there is not plenty of it left!
50
For a kid born in Sidney today, amortized over their life expectancy at 4.5% per year, it’s over 1/4 million dollars lost to the totalitarians of the Left.
40
I’m afraid John Cook is at it again.
https://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641
00
Forget the evidence (well as there isn’t any) . Apparently I’s all about the stickiness, from our Communications fellow.
Yeuch.
50
There is the evidence. A frank if witless admission that that supposed result was the starting point around which the whole debacle was constructed.
50
OMG – some people are desperate for funding:
“New research shows fish may spend more energy under climate change. Big waves are energetically costly for fish, and with changing climates big waves are expected to become more frequent and more intense.
Using a water chamber, scientists monitored how fish dealt with changing conditions and how much energy was consumed when swimming in waves. Results showed it is much more energetically demanding for fish to deal with fluctuations in wave speed and water height.
Though some fish showed signs of better dealing with waves than others, suggesting there is hope that fish will be able to adapt their swimming behaviour to changing environments.”
https://theconversation.com/big-waves-costly-for-fish-22751
30
The best way to put this $7,000m cost in context is against the social cost of carbon.
The Stern Review of 2006 gave a cost USD85/tCO2, the 2007 AR4 SPM gave USD12 (links here).
If policy is of net benefit 1.8 million tonnes “saved” should cost a maximum of $170m (Stern) or $24m per annum (IPCC consensus).
There is a huge conclusion here, which everyone should be able to agree with, regardless of their position on global warming. The Australian Government has implemented a policy that does not work. There has been a gross failure to devise and implement a cost effective policy for the net benefit of the Australian people by any measure.
70
While not a signatory to Kyoto, the US has more closely adhered to the goals of the accord than most any other nation. But not by design. A 6 year (going on 7) recession does wonders for reducing demand and CO2 output (it is NOT carbon, it is a carbon compound – but mostly Oxygen).
Apparently that is something Australia is learning. How to depress yourself into a CO2 free world.
60
This interview will get you mad.
Chris Horner is Captain America in my Book
The interview of Chris Horner is by AIM editor Roger Aronoff who just gets out of the way and lets Horner tell his explosive story of exposing the corruption in the US EPA and the administration of the Executive Branch.
Quote:
On my first or second day, I walked into a meeting where my boss was having a meeting with the Natural Resources Defense Council …
And they were supporting Green pressure groups—there was the Union of Concerned Scientists and others on my left, and then BP and the American Gas Association, Niagara Mohawk Power, and all sorts of industry groups on my right—and they were figuring out, in 1997, How can we get a global warming treaty?—there was no Kyoto yet—and How do we get the U.S. involved? and How do we make sure it has what we want?
I went back to my office and sent an E-mail. It wasn’t well received; …
And so, Chris Horner started his journey.
40
Branson hosts renewable energy summit at Necker Island
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Branson-hosts-renewable-energy-summit-at-Necker-Island_15948734
KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — Caribbean politicians and renewable power experts gathered Tuesday on British billionaire Richard Branson’s private isle to discuss ways of transitioning to clean energy in an effort to spur small island nations to slash their dependence on fossil fuels and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Branson, the CEO and founder of the Virgin Group of companies, is hosting a three-day meeting of political and business leaders at Necker Island, his home in the British Virgin Islands where he has developed an exclusive eco-resort showcasing renewable energy technology.
The event is organised by the Carbon War Room, a nonprofit company Branson co-founded to promote cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions through smart private enterprise. It hopes to help small islands become carbon-neutral by accelerating commercial investment. Political delegations from 13 countries and territories, including several heads of state, are attending along with representatives from dozens of companies and multinational organisations.
00
Why is it called Necker ?
30
Another brain dead air head!!!
30
All I can think about is ” Will my truck start this Morning? -31C
20
My hubby’s car manage a start at basically the same temperature. You should be good! His car is an ’87 Pontiac that was damaged in a wreck, so one side has the window siliconed shut. Guess it’s good he went to silicone and gave up on taping it this summer! Wind chill got down to -35 once during the night. Hopefully, you’re getting a forecast of warmer weather–at least a bit closer to 0 C.
30
Jo and most of the commenters show their basic misunderstanding of what the carbon price was meant to achieve.
Despite popular opinion it was not designed specifically to reduce emissions. If it were it would have included farming and land clearing activities.
The real purpose was to gradually reform the electricity sector, by making carbon intensive forms of generation less competitive. This changes the bidding order into the NEM and slowly renewables become more competitive and carbon intensive power becomes less competitive.
You can see that it achieved this aim very effectively.
Look at the emissions intensity in the first graph: http://www.pittsh.com.au/assets/files/Cedex/CEDEX%20Electricity%20Update%20February%202014.pdf It’s been trending down since Dec 11, more sharply than the decline in demand. Most of the demand reduction has come from NSW where they have been closing the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.
The carbon tax achieved its aim; reform the electricity sector. Direct Action will not achieve the same. What is better; a policy that works and costs a lot of money or one that doesn’t work and costs less?
123
Sorry Ev – it didn’t achieve anything, it makes the electricity sector unsustainable as proof by the reduced use of electricity and the need for companies to improve their bottom line by drastic price increases which leads to less use and higher prices. The solar/wind stuff is unreliable so industry shuts down and we become a third world economy begging for assistance while – wait for it – CO2 concentration increases – the definition of stupidity is an action from which no one benefits.
120
And the purpose of doing that is to reduce emissions yes? And reducing emissions is to counter AGW yes?
Also, you are confusing the Carbon Tax with the RET scheme.
The RET scheme is designed to “create a financial incentive for investment in renewable energy sources through the creation and sale of certificates.
The goal of the Carbon Tax is to reduce emissions across the board, not just in the electricity sector.
Neither, because option A doesn’t actually work, despite your claim that it has, and neither does option B. If forced to choose, I would choose B because it pi$$es less money against the wall.
100
You are perhaps unaware that many on this blog and others, have been watching this train wreck for 10 years or more. We were here when the tax was first proposed, and what it was meant to do.
You are correct. Coal electricity was around 23c per kW, while wind was about 74c per kW. Obviously not competitive. They couldn’t decrease the price of wind, so they increased the price of coal.
But it hasn’t done anything to reduce electricity generation. And they didn’t do anything useful with that $7 billion.
The total result was to kill off the economy and hurt just about everybody.
101
I have always thought that those greenies who work, do so in areas paid for by the various governments, quangos and authorities. They all believe that a reduction or elimination of industry is necessary and are unable to grasp that if this happened they would be unemployed, and probably permanently so.
71
They are already unemployed, they just turn up, get paid and wait for the government index-linked final salary pension.
They’re busily doing nothing,
Working the whole day through,
Trying so hard to find things not to do.
They’re busily going nowhere,
Isn’t it such a crime
They’d like to BEEEEEEEEEEEE unhappy but-
They never do have the time.
111
Evcricket Quote:
“Jo and most of the commenters show their basic misunderstanding of what the carbon price was meant to achieve.”
. . .
Isn’t the purpose of the carbon tax to stop extreme weather?
To stop sea level rise?
To stop the climate from changing?
( JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.)
Now you claim “The real purpose was to gradually reform the electricity sector, by making carbon intensive forms of generation less competitive.”
Here at Jonova, everyone is very aware of the deception of “what the carbon price was meant to achieve.”
Commentators here have ‘freed oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.’
Quote Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III:
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
. . .
What interesting times we live in, when people can freely admit to fraud and deception on a world-wide scale and not be held to account.
You, Evcricket, will be held to account at Jonova.
91
“where they have been closing the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.”
So where are we getting our aluminium from now?
Any closure of this sort of manufacturing is immediately transferred to India, China, where-ever…..
….and because the raw material has to now be shipped across and the finished good brought back, we get an increase in CO2 output on a Global basis.
If CO2 is a problem, which is really isn’t, then its a global one, and any tiny little effort down here is meaningless and counter-productive to our economy and jobs.
No, the only purpose of the CO2 tax was to make the Greens and Labor “feel good”.
It may have had a tiny effect on Australia’s CO2 output, but the net global effect is almost certainly upward. It is stupidity to the max, and needs to go so that we can at least have a decent chance of producing some of the things we need, here.
Producing here is the most CO2 efficient thing to do… if you want to worry about CO2 emissions.
The Carbon Tax increases global CO2 emissions… just DUMB !!!
40
If the short-term empirical data is irrelevant then some economics is required.
Even based on the most apocalyptic scenarios, climate change will not mean the end of the earth. Further, any policy is net costly. Successful policy is therefore a case of replacing the future estimated costs of climate change with the (lower) costs of policy. The measure of the future estimated costs is the social cost of carbon. As I said above, you can choose the Stern review at up to A$100/tCO2, or, more plausibly, AR4 SPM average of peer reviewed studies at A$15/tCO2 for the future cost of climate change. If you are a tad skeptical then it is approximately zero.
For a carbon tax to be net-beneficial there needs to be alternative non-carbon sources of electricity that have a cost per MWh only slightly above those from coal. How much? In the UK, a measure used by renewablesUK, the industry lobby group is that replacing a megawatt hour from fossil fuels with a wind turbine will save 430kg of CO2. In Australia you have a higher coal/gas ratio, so lets be generous and say renewables will save 600kg of CO2. So to even start talking about policy you need to look for renewables are less than A$60/MWh more expensive than a modern coal-fired power station. Or if you follow mainstream consensus less than A$9/MWh.
I have over 20 years experience in cost accounting. I cannot see any form of renewable that is capable of achieving those marginal cost increases on scale necessary to “save the planet”. In the UK onshore wind turbines receive a direct subsidy equivalent to A$180/tCO2 saved, and offshore A$350/tCO2 saved. (Source) Other costs can double that. If you know of a form of renewables that meets even the Stern benefit-cost criteria then you have an opportunity to become richer than Bill Gates in five years, and you will get a Nobel Peace Prize as a bonus. 🙂
50
Ev – You are quite correct about Kurri, but you forgot to mention a few things.
1. On the shutting of Kurri, many people here in Newcastle lost their jobs, as did the contractors who supported the plant.
2. The jobs and the aluminium production was immediately exported to China, who almost exclusively power their smelters using coal plants that are less efficient than ours. So net CO2 emissions went up.
3. The “saving” on CO2 here in Australia from the closure of Kurri and some other industrial production cutbacks was actually 5 million tonnes CO2/year, as Jo mentions.
The calculation is as follows:
Power “savings” were 3.5 TWh/yr. A tonne of coal produces 1,870 kWh of electricity. Therefore total CO2 emission reduction is:
(3.5 x 1000,000,000 / 1,870) x 0.75 x (44/12) = 5 million tonnes per year
So not only was all the CO2 reduction due entirely to the Kurri smelter and some others, but CO2 would have gone up in the period by 3.2 million tonnes/yr if not for those plants being closed or cut back.
The 0.3% reduction is a complete myth. Underlying CO2 emission has actually gone up by about 0.6%.
And this is total hypocrisy since none of the CO2 emissions were even saved, they were just moved to China.
And you say the carbon tax is working…?
Mate, you really need to tell your friend Mr Cubby to get out his calculator, do some arithmetic and look at real world data. The carbon tax is a complete self harming fraud on the Australian people. And CO2 has very little actual effect – which is why China now is happily making all that aluminium for us that we used to make before Gillard threw the Kurri workers out of work.
110
Bruce,
Your second point is an example of something that happens when not all countries pursue climate policies. Those that pursue carbon taxes put themselves at a comparative disadvantage to those that do. The economic costs to Australia are huge, with no benefit to the planet. If global warming is a problem, it needs a global solution. Otherwise it is just some governments sacrificing the welfare of the people of their country so they can be praised by some noisy environmentalists.
00
If, as I have long suspected, the idea of the carbon dioxide tax was to make the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, or, more concisely, wealth redistribution, then I’d say it’s working just fine. The Eurocrats in Brussels must love it.
10
Gaia knows enough time has been wasted on the ignorant Evcricket.
Quote: “Most of the demand reduction has come from NSW where they have been closing the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.”
Treasury reference modelling showed that without a carbon (sic) tax, manufacturing was expected to grow more slowly than the rest of the economy, by about half a per cent annually to 2020 in real terms.
. . .
So, the carbon(sic) tax failed to keep the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter open.
Maybe if they doubled the tax, but then again, the whole purpose of the tax was to close places like the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.
40
What is wrong with you people? I never mentioned anything about Kurri Kurri and emissions. All I was saying is that the drop in demand in NSW was because Kurri closed. I venture no reasons as to why it closed and lament the loss of jobs.
And, FTR, Australia has te most carbon intensive electricity in the world. If manufacturing goes off shore it MUST go to somewhere of lower emissions because THAT IS EVERYWHERE.
018
The stupidity of this is truly mind boggling.
If “emissions” go from place A to place B it is better because place B has lower “emissions”? Wow, basic maths escapes you doesn’t it.
Before move, A = 10, B = 5 so A + B = 15. After move, A – 1 = 9, B + 1 = 6 so A + B = 15. Much better.
Moron.
91
“What is wrong with you people?”
We ‘people’ are not the ones irrationally and fraudulently screaming its the end of the world.
Not so long ago people who stood on street corners screaming ‘the end of the world is nigh’ were considered mad.
90
Spare me your crocodile tears of “lamentation” regarding the loss of jobs predicted by those on the rationalist side of the debate, whose plight is ignored by those on the alarmist side of the debate, who not coincidentally are directly responsible for their plight but refuse to take ownership of the responsibility because that would require some kind of conscience, some self analysis and reflection, and a much needed perspective on accepting consequences of one’s actions, or those actions performed in your name.
Truth is, “Ev”, you don’t give a flying fig about those job losses. Doesn’t effect you, because no doubt you haven’t performed a productive day’s work in your life, that being particularly so if you are a journo, as I suspect from your condescending tone while delivering non-sequiturs presented as fact.
90
So Ev, a country of 25 million people with very little manufacturing industry remaining produces more CO2 than a country of 4 billion people with huge manufacturing industry – you come from some sort of Bizzarro World where you save humanity by destroying the necessities with which it survives.
40
“I never mentioned anything about Kurri Kurri and emissions”
Typical lying alarmist.. you mentioned them both in the one sentence
You said… quote
“Most of the demand reduction has come from NSW where they have been closing the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.”
So why don’t you read your own posts, you lying ****k!
80
So if the Aussie taxman took 100% of your money Australia could reduce co2 emmisions by 11% instead of 0.3%
110
“What is better; a policy that works and costs a lot of money or one that doesn’t work and costs less?”
The policy worked to arbitrarily hurt the electricity sector based on a non causal link to CO2.
Everyone in Oz could die tomorrow and the earth would still not notice vs. CO2 or temperature change.
Your CO2 cannot change anything climate related, unless you mean by putting you out of your house and into the climate.
130
Despite the tax and drop in emissions, didn’t we just have the hottest day, month, season and year – all in the past 12 months. Worked like a charm.
80
Anyone above who claims there is no link between temperature and CO2 is in explicit disagreement with Jo, the host of this blog.
Like many other deniers, Jo agrees with every major part of climate change theory, EXCEPT the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
She concedes that warming is and has occurred
She concedes that CO2 causes warming.
She concedes that man made CO2 causes extra warming.
But disagrees on the amount of warming per doubling of CO2, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/major-30-reduction-in-modelers-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity-skeptics-were-right/
So, any of you who disagree that there has been warming, that it was caused by CO2 and that it was caused by humans is a fringe dweller in explicit disagreement with Jo.
117
Ev – You still haven’t answered me that at a 2XCO2 of about 0.55 C/doubling, which is the sceptic’s position based on empirical data, CO2 is completely harmless.
I see that you are supporting Jo with this comment. So you now agree with me?
100
Ah Bruce! So glad you could join us. I was hoping to pick up this discussion. You see, you have made a very basic mistake in your calculation.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is based on the EQUILIBRIUM raise in temperature per doubling of CO2; we are not at thermodynamic equilibrium yet! If you hold a match under a piece of paper for an instant can you declare that paper is not flammable? Nope. You need to wait until the match and paper reach thermodynamic equilibrium.
Can you mark a point in time, the instant that CO2 doubles, and measure the temperature and declare that as the ECS? No you certainly can not. You must wait until the system reaches equilibrium before making that claim.
So yes, I agree that ECS can be calculated. I disagree with your method and findings.
115
Ev – That is why I used 250 years for my model (which I might add has been right on the money the last 2 years – I’m rather chuffed). The IPCC uses 100 years and are happy with that (but because they omit the two most significant forcings their models overestimate ECS by a factor of 6).
Since the oceanic ~60 year cycle has a trough to peak swing of about 0.3 C it means that the equilibration is less than 60 years.
Don’t be dim. It is a logarithmic calculation that is quite easy to do.
Here I’ll do it for you.
The IPCC gave the temperature rise from 1906 to 2005 as 0.74 C.
Of that:
0.33 C is due to the Sun
0.28 C is due to the ~60 year cycle
Which means the residual is 0.13 C. Lets assume that is all due to CO2. In 1906 pCO2 was about 290 ppmV. In 2005 it was 380 ppmV.
ECS = 0.13 x log 2 / (log 380 – log 290) = 0.33 C/doubling
That is a rough calc, but is in the ballpark. ‘Way lower than the IPCC gets.
100
Eh? A sinusoid has no trend over a whole number of cycles and has a linear trend diminishing to zero over time.
The ocean cycle’s contribution to the 20th century temperature trend was about +0.06° by my estimate.
The ocean cycle’s contribution to the 1975-2005 trend was about +0.28 degrees, which was most of the ascending portion of the 0.14 degrees amplitude sinusoid to which you refer.
00
If you had put a match under a piece of paper for 15 years, it would have burnt long ago. What an idiotic analogy. After 15 seconds we would be insisting on a very good explanation for the delay in the paper going up in flames (yes its flammable but we told you that it was wet!).
Fifteen years later and all we get is “don’t you understand equilibrium”. Don’t you understand that your excuse is spin of a very good point that was ignored long a go by warmists. A lot more heat energy is needed to warm the waters of the oceans by one degree than to warm the atmosphere by one degree. Settled science was once that it was insignificant because warm water rises. Now its used to explain the missing heat and it happens intermittently with the energy of 1 trillion cat sneezes coming back to haunt us after, 10, 15, maybe 25 years?
80
Ev – there may be a variable for humidity that affects the CO2/greenhouse relationship and your equilibrium.
20
Quote; “Anyone above who claims there is no link between temperature and CO2 is in explicit disagreement with Jo, the host of this blog.”
Evcricket needs to provide a link between a carbon(sic) tax and stopping Global Warming first, before pointing to unicorns & fairies.
Better still, an explanation for the pause in Global warming.
NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES
If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause.
60
But, but, but…..you don’t understand handjive.
Evcricket doesn’t have to prove anything, because the onus of proof is upon the we doubters and deniers. No evidence is necessary for the proponents of a theory that makes little or no sense to closer inspection, causes a “problem” that doesn’t exist except in the fevered imagination of two year olds, and with “solutions” which don’t actually work, and don’t even address the original non-problem anyway (as he admits) and even at times potentiates further that non-problem by transferring the problem to another country who can produce that problem with impugnity. So what’s your problem?
Now, just pay your tithe like a good little serf and leave the details to geniuses like the crickmeister.
70
So? Do you expect everyone to blindly follow Jo’s conclusions just because they post on this blog? Groupthink anyone?
Who deny what exactly? Jo’s opinion or your own?
80
You’re an idiot! The wheels in your head are grinding and you need some real expensive lubricating oil to correct the situation, perhaps…but I do believe it’s too late…too many shavings have destroyed the common sense nodes.
31
Evcricket,
Funny, is it not, that even as CO2 continues to increase the world continues to cool? The real world trumps all your theories, methods and calculations every time.
100
Ice core evidence would suggest that increased CO2 follows a warm period so that must mean we are heading into a cool period which would explain very neatly the ‘hiatus’.
10
Lifted this quote about the “reasons” for climate change scepticism (or at least agnosticism) rising in Australia, and the ranking of “Climate change” as such a low priority for mainstream Australians compared with real problems (as opposed to imagined ones) from Andrew Bolt’s site a couple of minutes ago.
Now, many an alarmist has got their hackles up over suggestions that the CSIRO is no longer the august scientific institution that it once was, having been white-anted by activists and veering away from rigid adherence to scientific principles and focussed on “hard” sciences that have practical and pragmatic application.
So, behold! Look no further than the fact that the CSIRO even HAS a “social psychologist”, let alone one who is allowed access to a microphone or a computer keyboard.
Saints preserve us. What next? A crystal healer? A Shaman? Entrails reader? Seriously.
50
Sorry that should be “….no longer focussed on hard sciences….”
10
Main Stream media has been ignoring the facts. This has been an ongoing problem not only at Massachusetts based South Coast today, but the Boston Globe as well. Here is an article done by my counterpart that appeared at:
http://dailybail.com/home/deval-patrick-paul-gaynor-crony-capitalism-at-first-wind.html
Now this is what South Coast Today has decided. I have added who is on the board of that paper after the article. (H/T Gail Combs).
Massachusetts Newspaper closes mind: will no longer print skeptical AGW opinions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/newspaper-closes-mind-will-no-longer-will-print-skeptical-agw-opinions/
Our View: There is no debate on climate change
The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.
One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.
Theories are debated. Facts are facts.
——————-
Okay, here are some FACTS:
The Board of Directors (Which I was looking for to start with) is HERE
These guys are no light weights! (What is it with bankers as news board of directors?)
Quoted from various pages within the site:
Wesley R. Edens
Co-Founder, Principal and Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors
Mr. Edens was formerly a partner and managing director of Lehman Brothers.
Peter L. Briger, Jr.
Principal and Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors
Prior to joining Fortress in March 2002, Mr. Briger spent fifteen years at Goldman, Sachs & Co., where he became a partner in 1996.
San Francisco
Randal A. Nardone
Chief Executive Officer, Co-Founder, Principal and Director
New York
Before joining UBS in 1997, Mr. Nardone was a principal of BlackRock Financial Management, Inc
Michael E. Novogratz
Principal and Director
New York
Mr. Novogratz joined Fortress in 2002 after spending 11 years at Goldman Sachs, where he was elected partner in 1998. Mr. Novogratz serves as a member of the New York Federal Reserve’s Investment Advisory Committee on Financial Markets.
Dr. Richard N. Haass
Director
Prior to his current position, Dr. Haass was director of policy planning for the U.S. Department of State, where he was a principal adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell on a broad range of foreign policy concerns, and acted as U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and the lead U.S. government official in support of the Northern Ireland peace process. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Haass was special assistant to President George Bush and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council. Previously, he served in various posts in the United States Departments of State and Defense.
George W. Wellde, Jr.
Director
Mr. Wellde joined Goldman Sachs in 1979, became a partner in 1992 and a managing director in 1996. In addition, he was branch manager of the Goldman Sachs Tokyo office and head of its Fixed Income Division from 1994 to 1999. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Mr. Wellde worked for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington from 1976 to 1979.
40
Such reputable company the warmists keep. Modern day economic Vikings who are destroying civilisation for profit.
30
A forensic accountant provided the authorities with evidence on a SILVER PLATTER regarding Bernie Madoff, THREE TIMES and it was ignored. Moving along, JP Morgan was involved and just has this settlement:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-jpmorgan-madoff-idUSBREA131HN20140205
I could go on but will mention Jon Corzine too (and write more if you wish especially Enron’s london operations).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-jpmorgan-madoff-idUSBREA131HN20140205
It seems that the UK (or whatever you prefer to call it) is tangled up in all this mess including offshore banking, in British territories, by it’s own doing. Maybe it is time to take a really serious look at that.
http://www.offshorealert.com/conference/2013/miami/speakers/#.UvQffVNnK1d.twitter
20
Pt Carbon’s up/down/up/down articles have been too boring to post in recent weeks, but compare this:
EU carbon surges to 13-mth high after parliament vote
LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – European carbon prices surged more than 9 percent to a 13-month high on Thursday after the European Parliament approved a proposal to fast-track efforts to prop up prices, but traders said the market may be over-heated and due for a correction.
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3975390
with this:
7 Feb: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Ex-Barclays Carbon Chief Trades From Home as Prices Surge
Louis Redshaw, the former head of carbon trading at Barclays Plc (BARC), returned to the market amid a jump in permit prices since he left the bank in April.
Redshaw, 41, who resigned from Barclays in London after more than eight years at the company, is buying and selling European Union permits for his own account from his home in the southeast of the capital, he said by phone, declining to provide further details. Allowances climbed 33 percent this year, the best performance of 80 commodities tracked by Bloomberg. They rose to their highest level in more than a year today, trading at 6.74 euros ($9.17) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
EU lawmakers are completing details of a plan to curb an unprecedented oversupply and boost prices, which fell to a record in April. Allowances may rise to as high as 15 euros by 2015, according to Patrick Hummel, an analyst at UBS AG.
“There’s no reason why the market shouldn’t double within the next 18 months,” said Redshaw, who also worked as a trader at Enron Corp. and Electricite de France SA. (EDF) “At 6 euros, it’s still cheap.” …
“If the EU manages to re-establish its emissions trading system as the central pillar of climate policy, that will create growing interest in carbon markets across the world,” Schoenberg, who previously worked at the Bonn-based United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat, said Feb. 4 by phone. Carbon prices may average about 40 euros a ton from 2019 to 2030, according to Climate Change Capital…
“The commission’s support from the parliament cemented that fact and the future of the market,” Redshaw said. “I’ve been watching developments and now is the right time to get back involved.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/ex-barclays-carbon-chief-redshaw-trades-from-home-as-prices-jump.html
00
Spot the Sea Level Rise.
Identify the next island to go underwater.
Sea and a supermodel in new Air New Zealand safety video
20
7 Feb: SMH: Paul Osborne/AAP: Carbon tax top priority for parliament
The coalition has called on Labor and the Greens in the Senate to pass the carbon tax repeal bills as a matter of priority, but it won’t attempt to force the issue when parliament resumes next week.
Continued debate on the package of bills will be the first item of business for the upper house when parliament returns for the year on Tuesday…
But it is understood the government is not yet prepared to seek support for a guillotine of the bills and the timing of the vote will depend on when Labor and Greens senators decide to finish speaking…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/carbon-tax-top-priority-for-parliament-20140207-325q8.html
more details from the Pt Carbon piece:
7 Feb: Business Spectator: Reuters: EU carbon surges to another high after vote
The front-month EU Allowance (EUA) contract soared as high as 6.74 euros/tonne in early afternoon business following the vote by lawmakers this morning.
The futures then drifted back down to 6.57 euros by 1535 GMT, up 41 cents or 6.7 per cent on the day. Volume was very strong with over 36 million units changing hands.
Lawmakers voted in support of a request from the European Commission to shorten the scrutiny period required before it can withhold the first of 900 million permits from the market.
While the motion must be formally signed off by EU ministers at a Feb. 24 meeting, Thursday’s vote effectively removed the final hurdle for the 28-nation bloc’s executive to begin market intervention and withdraw 400 million allowances from government-backed auctions in 2014…
EUAs are up by more than 30 per cent since the end of 2013, making them amongst the world’s top performing commodities so far this year.
However, Ferdinand added that prices could fall in the next few sessions as speculators take profits, a view echoed by one emissions trader.
“Long-term we’re going higher, but it’s tricky to say where we go in the short-term. It will be driven by speculator appetite to hold long positions … (so) we’re probably due a bit of a breather,” the trader said.
“We’ve also got at least another month of regular auctions, so that could weigh.”
EU governments are scheduled to sell a total 106.2 million allowances between Friday and mid-March, fresh supply that must be absorbed by the market…
A group of 25 member states on Thursday sold 4 million spot permits for 6.01 euros each, in an auction that attracted bids worth a total 16.8 million units.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/7/carbon-markets/eu-carbon-surges-another-high-after-vote
00
If you would like to know exactly why there will be zero effect, and how and why it is gravity trapping thermal energy throughout the universe I will give you a brief summary of what is in my new book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available soon on Amazon.
The original Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfers and also to non-radiative heat transfers in a horizontal plane where there is no change in gravitational potential energy. Physicists have realised that the Clausius statement is limited and the more general form of the law pertains to entropy. The law actually describes an evolving process whereby entropy will increase until it reaches a maximum determined by the constraints of the isolated system being considered. That state is thermodynamic equilibrium which is not necessarily an isothermal state. Rather it is a state of homogeneous total energy wherein there are thus no unbalanced energy potentials. In the absence of chemical reactions and any phase change, we need only consider the (gravitational) potential energy (PE) and the kinetic energy (KE) the mean of the latter enabling a temperature measurement. So at thermodynamic equilibrium (the state which the Second Law says will evolve spontaneously) there will be homogeneous (PE+KE) and this implies a temperature gradient equal to -g/Cp where g is the acceleration due to gravity and Cp the weighted mean specific heat. This temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) would be observed in a pure non-radiating gas, but inter-molecular radiation between so called greenhouse gas molecules has a temperature levelling effect (opposing the gravity gradient) and so the wet gradient is less steep, as is well known.
By the way, the attempts to disprove the above-mentioned Loschmidt gravity gradient are all flawed because they overlook the fact that the temperature gradient occurs in solids, liquids and gases, so a wire also has a gradient and no perpetual energy circulation happens.
Now all the above implies that an autonomous temperature gradient will be maintained in a planet’s atmosphere. But how, on Uranus for example, does the solar energy which is nearly all absorbed by the methane layer near its TOA move down into warmer regions? This “heat creep” process, as I call it in the book, is a direct corollary of the Second Law process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. When newly absorbed energy disturbs that equilibrium, that new energy will spread out in all accessible directions (like new rainwater in the middle of a lake) because that is how thermodynamic equilibrium will be restored. This process explains the temperature gradients observed in all planetary atmospheres, crusts and deeper sub-surface regions. That, in fact, is what keeps Earth’s core hot, and that of our Moon.
The temperature plot in the atmosphere thus has a pre-determined gradient, whilst its overall level is set by the need for radiative balance. Where the plot intersects Earth’s surface determines the “supporting” temperature which, as is observed, slows surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours. This means all climate change is caused, not by back radiation, but by natural variations in the overall level of the temperature plot. Local variations, such as those due to variable water vapour levels, are shown in a study in the Appendix to lead to cooler mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the more moist regions. Water vapour and all GH gases cause cooler surface temperatures because the temperature plot rotates in order to maintain radiative balance. However the total cooling effect of carbon dioxide is less than a tenth of a degree.
21
Now here’s an ironical situation: USA has achieved a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to the burning of natural gas (methane) instead of coal for electricity generation. This was brought about by massive price reduction of natural gas relative to coal and why did this happen?———-widespread application of nasty, nasty, nasty, EVIL FRACCING!/sarc.
On the other hand NOBLE GERMANY with its ENERGIEWENDE program is recording increased carbon dioxide emissions due to increased burning of lignite to help generate electricity. Why is this? Electricity generation from wind and solar is very sporadic and requires widespread backup from fossil fuel-powered generators. But that’s all right- the warm inner glow is what counts isn’t it?
20
??
6 Feb: eScienceNews: University of Montana research shows converting land to agriculture reduces carbon uptake
Postdoctoral researcher Bill Smith and UM faculty members Steve Running and Cory Cleveland, along with a former UM postdoctoral researcher and current USGS scientist Sasha Reed, used estimates of agricultural NPP and satellite-derived estimates of natural NPP to evaluate the impact of expanding agricultural land to meet needs for food and fiber. Terrestrial NPP represents the total annual growth of vegetation on the land, which is a critical factor that helps determine how much carbon can be absorbed and stored from the atmosphere…
“Current forecasts suggest that global food demand will likely double by 2050,” Smith said. “We hope that this research will help to identify strategies that, from a carbon balance perspective, should be avoided due to the potential for severe degradation of global vegetation growth and carbon storage.”
The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters and highlighted in the February 2014 issue of Nature Geoscience.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/02/06/university.montana.research.shows.converting.land.agriculture.reduces.carbon.uptake
00
the frenzy continues at Bloomberg!
6 Feb: Bloomberg/Businessweek: Ewa Krukowska/Jonathan Stearns: Fast-Track EU Carbon Fix Approval by Bloc’s Parliament (2)
“It is the best-case scenario eventually materializing,” said Matteo Mazzoni, an analyst at Bologna, Italy-based Nomisma Energia srl, an adviser to energy companies, governments and banks. “It is good news for the market.” …
Emergency Measure
“We estimate that backloading could start on March 17,” Itamar Orlandi, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said in an e-mail…
The emergency measure needs to be cleared by both the Parliament and the EU Council of national governments before it enters into force…
Carbon prices will jump to 7.75 euros a metric ton by the end of the year amid the planned supply curbs, according to the median of nine analyst and trader estimates compiled by Bloomberg News last month…
Complicated Process
New Energy Finance’s prediction that backloading could begin on March 17 assumes that the regulation is published in the week starting Feb. 24 and that the announcement on new auction calendars is made on March 3…
Today’s vote “shows that the will is there but the process was so complicated and flawed and there was so much delay,” Nick Eagle, a trader at Clean Energy Group Ltd. in London, said today in an e-mailed response to questions. “You can’t avoid the fact this was meant to be the easy bit.” …
A more permanent tightening of the market “will be much harder to agree” and realization that this political fight is still to come “could lead to a sell-off after the excitement has died down,” he said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-06/fast-track-eu-carbon-fix-gets-approval-from-european-parliament
00
6 Feb: Platts/McGraw Hill Financial: EU parliament backs fast CO2 market fix; ministers set to OK plan Feb 24
(WISHFUL THINKING?) Meanwhile, EU ministers are tentatively scheduled to give the EU Council’s formal approval without further discussion on February 24, an EU diplomatic source told Platts Thursday…
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/brussels/eu-parliament-backs-fast-co2-market-fix-ministers-26690934
00
6 Feb: Chicago Tribune: Mark Drajem, Bloomberg News: Southern balks at EPA rules that cite its carbon-capture plant
Southern Co., which is building the nation’s only commercial power plant that will capture its own carbon emissions, criticized a proposal from the federal government to require all new coal plants to use the technology.
At a public hearing Thursday at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, industry representatives said the agency went too far in its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from new power plants. The technology isn’t commercially available and doesn’t have the rules in place to govern its use, they said.
Southern said the plant it’s building in Kemper, Miss., which the EPA cited in its proposal, shouldn’t be viewed as a model. It “should not be used in developing a national standard for greenhouse gases,” Danny Herrin, the Atlanta-based company’s environmental director, testified…
(MOTHERS & GRANDMOTHERS???) Environmental advocates, religious leaders, medical professionals and mothers and grandmothers also testified Thursday, mostly in support of the plan or asking the agency to go further…
The standard “is supposed to be technology forcing,” said Felice Stadler, senior director for climate at the National Wildlife Federation. “You have to put a marker out there.”…
“It’s about fuel diversity,” said Eric Holdsworth, director of climate programs at Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based trade group representing utilities such as Southern and American Electric Power Co…
Industry groups also said that standard is too tight, because plants can’t meet it in real-world conditions.
The rules were embraced by environmental groups and other lawmakers who have been seeking new methods to curb carbon emissions, even though have lacked consensus in Congress to achieve their goals.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-epa-southern06-20140206,0,6624868.story
00
Winston –
CSIRO’s “social psychologist” Zoe Leviston at The Conversation with the bogus CAGW survey. if u call it “climate change”, responses simply make people seem stupid:
7 Feb: The Conversation: Zoe Leviston, Research Scientist at CSIRO: Most Australians overestimate how ‘green’ they really are
Most Australians overestimate how much they are doing for the environment compared to others, and are more concerned about water shortages, pollution and household waste than climate change, a new CSIRO survey reveals…
When we asked people how important climate change was, just over 70% of people rated it as “somewhat”, “very”, or “extremely” important…
There has been an increase in the levels of responsibility individuals feel to respond to climate change. People have also become more trusting about information from environmental and government scientists.
http://theconversation.com/most-australians-overestimate-how-green-they-really-are-22400
10
“Bill Shorten” – and who doesn’t want to shorten his or her bills? I can’t help thinking that Bill isn’t the man to call on for that.
00
Cassidy hires DOD clean energy expert
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/personnel-notes/197754-cassidy-hires-dod-clean-energy-expert
Cassidy & Associates makes its first hire after its major restructuring at the beginning of the year, bringing on retired Air Force Col. Dave Belote as senior vice president.
He most recently served as the vice president for federal business at Apex Clean Energy, which contracts with the federal government to provide renewable energy services to military bases and public lands.
The Obama Administration commended Belote in November, naming him one of 12 White House Champions of Change for his work advancing “clean energy and climate security.”
“This is an exciting time to be a part of the exceptional team at Cassidy as the firm stakes out its future and recognizes this nexus of energy and national security as an area demanding Washington and Wall Street’s attention,” Belote said in a statement.
Last year, firm founder and K Street icon Gerry Cassidy announced he would step down as the chairman at the end of the year, handing the reins to Kai Anderson, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and retired Lt. Col. Barry Rhoads. Cassidy still serves as chairman emeritus of the firm.
————————
Here is one of the stories I did at the DB, which included Apex.
Apex buys rights to wind farm project
Property intended for a wind farm south of the Hoopeston area has again changed hands.Development of the Hoopeston Wind farm has been ongoing since 2008. The most recent coordinator, GDF SUEZ Energy North America Inc in Houston, Texas, took over in 2011 when it purchased the previous wind farm developer, International Power.
Now, a representative of Apex Wind Energy Inc. confirmed Friday afternoon that the company has taken over the project. Company Communications Manage Dahvi Wilson indicated in an e-mail that Apex acquired the Hoopeston Wind farm from GDF SUEZ in February.
Apex Wind Energy, Inc. is an independent renewable energy company based in Charlottesville, Va. Since its founding in 2009, Apex has completed 10 acquisitions and has project sites in 20 states, including Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
BP owns Greenlight and Apex
Maersk Line and Apex partnership
Apex Nevada
Jim Trousdale relationship map
00
Here is the link (with apologies), just scroll down to the Apex story.
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
00
Methinks that the support of the CAGW scam by the oil companies (BP, Shell, etc) and the big “generator” manufacturers (GE, Siemens) was a strategy to “add value” to their own product. Well, they’d get more turnover for delivering less energy so their production costs are lower but the returns higher.
If they had real engineers working for them, they’d have been able to figure out quickly that energy supply “renewables” do not scale or fit the demands of an industrialised world. So their oil and gas products would be increasingly in demand as “renewables” are deployed and their interference with the grid makes traditional coal-fired sources unable to fill the gross fluctuations resulting from the mandated prioritisation of intermittent electricity supply from “renewables”.
They simply could not lose as long as renewables were given priority and subsidised to “wobble” coal off the grid.
For the consumers of energy; ot’s a lose-lose situation. Their taxes and increased energy costs go to increasing renewables demanding deeper subsidies and a larger proportion of electricity being delivered, at higher cost, oil/gas-fire plant.
Cynical? Me?
00
“from 543.9 million tons all the way down to 542.1.”
That’s a reduction of 543899457.9 tons.
Oh, you mean 542.1 MILLION.
It kinds of help your argument if you don’t make incredibly stupid mistakes like that.
It would be even more clear to the average sheeple if you used a bar chart, showing that there has been virtually no change – most people are REALLY stupid when it comes to maths, and need a picture.
It would be clearer if you put “543,900,000 tons to 542,100,000, a reduction of only 1,800,000 tons, or 0.33%”.
—————
Steve, with 0.3% in the headline, I think you are the only reader who was struggling to follow. This blog is not aimed at sheeple. – Jo
00