jackovesk
7th September 2011, 04:20
Carbon Dioxide 'Insanity' continues
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/03/22/1226026/346976-mccrann-mug.jpg Terry McCrann
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/04/28/1226046/532122-pollution.jpg
Under the Treasury model we do actually achieve significant cuts to CO2 emissions by 2050.
THE $650 billion that Treasury estimates we'll be sending overseas to buy permission to keep our lights on captures the utter, almost incomprehensible insanity of Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's carbon tax.
It also shows what an utter disgrace the once fundamentally important Treasury department, as formerly a bastion of reason and sober advice, has become. Its so-called analysis - "modelling a carbon price" - shreds the last remnants of its credibility.
The first sentence in the key Chapter Five captures its fall, mouthing the lies of its political masters. In her words, the crap that the Prime Minister utters continually on the subject.
"The Australian economy will continue to prosper as we cut pollution to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change."
"Pollution?" No, life-creating carbon dioxide.
"Reduce the risks of dangerous climate change?" No, not a single thing Australia could do, can have the slightest impact on OUR future climate. Close our economy down entirely and both our and the world's climate would keep changing just the same.
The $650 billion that captures both the Government's insanity and Treasury's disgrace is the rough amount that Australian emitters will pay for foreign CO2 permits, between 2020 and 2050, indicated by the Treasury modelling.
The critical question is WHY does Treasury factor in these foreign permits? Why won't we just cut our emissions in line with the local permits issued by the Government?
Because the foreign permits are critical to squaring the insane circle. Without them, the emission cut targets would be literally impossible.
They would be beyond even the most absurd assumptions that Treasury still makes about where we will get our future power from. Here's a little clue: it's not nuclear, not even by 2050.
To cut by "just" 5 per cent by 2020 - just, it's important to note, nine years away - we have to actually cut by something like 25 per cent from our present emission levels as against the 2000 reference point.
To get all those cuts domestically would be to run a chainsaw through the Australian economy. We would have to close power stations and literally turn off the lights.
So Treasury's model felicitously comes up with the conclusion that we will cut our emissions by only 58 million tonnes by 2020. We'll buy permits from foreigners covering the bigger portion of 94 million tonnes.
This is the 21st century version of paying indulgences to keep sinning. We'll keep using coal-fired power and pay someone somewhere overseas - more accurately millions of someones - to, for example, pedal to create their electricity. And sell us the permits for the CO2 not emitted. Apart from their exertions.
Under the Treasury model we do actually achieve significant cuts to CO2 emissions by 2050. By whacking up zillions of wind turbines and solar panels and the like.
But even then only 42 per cent of the 80 per cent cut is us actually cutting. We'll be buying permits from foreigners for the other 38 per cent. They'll theoretically cut on our behalf.
And according to Treasury we'll be paying $57 billion a year, every year, to those foreigners.
Of course they'll cut. Just like those Nigerians always deliver the hundred million-dollar bank deposit promises.
Again, the assumption that these permits will be available is utterly critical to the bare minimum of credibility of the Treasury model.
If it had to calculate that ALL the cuts came locally, even way out to 2050, it would be sending a million chainsaws through the Australian economy.
The so-called carbon price would have to be stratospherically high. We'd have to build so many wind turbines we'd be putting them up in national parks. And it still wouldn't be enough. We'd have to take the Australian economy back to the 19th century.
Treasury would not be able to make the literally fantastic claim that the Australian economy would grow by 1.1 per cent a year in real per capita terms through all this.
But who is going to sell us these permits? This is the central gaping flaw in the model. For us to be cutting emissions by 80 per cent, even on paper, it must be happening in a WORLD that is cutting by something similar.
So for, say, Nigeria, to have surplus permits available to sell to us, they must be cutting by say 90 per cent or even 110 per cent. At least, theoretically.
More theoretically likely is that EVERYONE will be desperately searching the world for surplus permits. For their coal-fired power stations.
That means we would get the higher prices anyway. The Treasury model's claim that our economy will sail almost untouched through all this is absurd.
That leaves just one question. Which is the bigger crock: Treasury or its model?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-dioxide-insanity-continues/story-e6frfig6-1226122415509
PS - Terry McCrann is only 1 of the Australian Journalists who consistently reports the Truth..!
Now can you 'Understand' why I get so :mad2: about the 'Carbon Tax SCAM'..!
Listen to Barnarby Joyce tell the Truth about the 'Carbon Tax SCAM'..! and How the Fabian Socialist Labor Govt has been Borrowing $100 Million per day and How Australia's National DEBT has Ballooned out to $200 Billion..!!!
Remember back in 2007 Labor started with $20 Billion in the Bank..!
:director: Barnarby Joyce on the National Debt and the Carbon Tax and what lies ahead if the Greens & Labor get their way - He tells you the Truth..! (http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110906-aj1-barnabyjoyce.mp3)
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/03/22/1226026/346976-mccrann-mug.jpg Terry McCrann
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/04/28/1226046/532122-pollution.jpg
Under the Treasury model we do actually achieve significant cuts to CO2 emissions by 2050.
THE $650 billion that Treasury estimates we'll be sending overseas to buy permission to keep our lights on captures the utter, almost incomprehensible insanity of Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's carbon tax.
It also shows what an utter disgrace the once fundamentally important Treasury department, as formerly a bastion of reason and sober advice, has become. Its so-called analysis - "modelling a carbon price" - shreds the last remnants of its credibility.
The first sentence in the key Chapter Five captures its fall, mouthing the lies of its political masters. In her words, the crap that the Prime Minister utters continually on the subject.
"The Australian economy will continue to prosper as we cut pollution to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change."
"Pollution?" No, life-creating carbon dioxide.
"Reduce the risks of dangerous climate change?" No, not a single thing Australia could do, can have the slightest impact on OUR future climate. Close our economy down entirely and both our and the world's climate would keep changing just the same.
The $650 billion that captures both the Government's insanity and Treasury's disgrace is the rough amount that Australian emitters will pay for foreign CO2 permits, between 2020 and 2050, indicated by the Treasury modelling.
The critical question is WHY does Treasury factor in these foreign permits? Why won't we just cut our emissions in line with the local permits issued by the Government?
Because the foreign permits are critical to squaring the insane circle. Without them, the emission cut targets would be literally impossible.
They would be beyond even the most absurd assumptions that Treasury still makes about where we will get our future power from. Here's a little clue: it's not nuclear, not even by 2050.
To cut by "just" 5 per cent by 2020 - just, it's important to note, nine years away - we have to actually cut by something like 25 per cent from our present emission levels as against the 2000 reference point.
To get all those cuts domestically would be to run a chainsaw through the Australian economy. We would have to close power stations and literally turn off the lights.
So Treasury's model felicitously comes up with the conclusion that we will cut our emissions by only 58 million tonnes by 2020. We'll buy permits from foreigners covering the bigger portion of 94 million tonnes.
This is the 21st century version of paying indulgences to keep sinning. We'll keep using coal-fired power and pay someone somewhere overseas - more accurately millions of someones - to, for example, pedal to create their electricity. And sell us the permits for the CO2 not emitted. Apart from their exertions.
Under the Treasury model we do actually achieve significant cuts to CO2 emissions by 2050. By whacking up zillions of wind turbines and solar panels and the like.
But even then only 42 per cent of the 80 per cent cut is us actually cutting. We'll be buying permits from foreigners for the other 38 per cent. They'll theoretically cut on our behalf.
And according to Treasury we'll be paying $57 billion a year, every year, to those foreigners.
Of course they'll cut. Just like those Nigerians always deliver the hundred million-dollar bank deposit promises.
Again, the assumption that these permits will be available is utterly critical to the bare minimum of credibility of the Treasury model.
If it had to calculate that ALL the cuts came locally, even way out to 2050, it would be sending a million chainsaws through the Australian economy.
The so-called carbon price would have to be stratospherically high. We'd have to build so many wind turbines we'd be putting them up in national parks. And it still wouldn't be enough. We'd have to take the Australian economy back to the 19th century.
Treasury would not be able to make the literally fantastic claim that the Australian economy would grow by 1.1 per cent a year in real per capita terms through all this.
But who is going to sell us these permits? This is the central gaping flaw in the model. For us to be cutting emissions by 80 per cent, even on paper, it must be happening in a WORLD that is cutting by something similar.
So for, say, Nigeria, to have surplus permits available to sell to us, they must be cutting by say 90 per cent or even 110 per cent. At least, theoretically.
More theoretically likely is that EVERYONE will be desperately searching the world for surplus permits. For their coal-fired power stations.
That means we would get the higher prices anyway. The Treasury model's claim that our economy will sail almost untouched through all this is absurd.
That leaves just one question. Which is the bigger crock: Treasury or its model?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-dioxide-insanity-continues/story-e6frfig6-1226122415509
PS - Terry McCrann is only 1 of the Australian Journalists who consistently reports the Truth..!
Now can you 'Understand' why I get so :mad2: about the 'Carbon Tax SCAM'..!
Listen to Barnarby Joyce tell the Truth about the 'Carbon Tax SCAM'..! and How the Fabian Socialist Labor Govt has been Borrowing $100 Million per day and How Australia's National DEBT has Ballooned out to $200 Billion..!!!
Remember back in 2007 Labor started with $20 Billion in the Bank..!
:director: Barnarby Joyce on the National Debt and the Carbon Tax and what lies ahead if the Greens & Labor get their way - He tells you the Truth..! (http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110906-aj1-barnabyjoyce.mp3)