Carbon tax cost $5310 a ton. $15 billion to abate almost nothing and cool the world by even less.

If the Greens cared about the environment, they’d call this scheme “a ghastly waste”.

The “price” of carbon was advertised as $24 (per ton emitted) but real price of reducing emissions by one ton was $5,000. It could only happen when people are playing with other people’s money. That’s the soft left idea of good maths and good business.

That the Labor-Greens boast that this spectacular failure was a success shows the carbon tax was never about the climate, nor about CO2 or the environment. Follow the money. The purpose of the tax was to reward friends and punish competitors. Anyone dependent on Big-Government is a “friend”, and anyone who can stand on their own two feet is a “polluter” or a “denier”.

If the Greens cared about the environment, they’d call this scheme “a ghastly waste”.

The $15 billion price tag is $670 per Australian, or $2,700 per household of four. The real total is much more (when will the government add up the real bill?), because that tally doesn’t include the money wasted on solar panels, windpower, or the whole  “Department of Weather Change”. It doesn’t include millions in scientific research money poured down the sinkhole of climate models that don’t model our climate, nor the advertising, promotion and propaganda of all of the above.

A smart conservative government would add up the whole bill, then spend 0.1% (something like $20 million) paying skeptical scientists to audit, and check the evidence trail. They would trumpet their green credentials. This source of the river of gravy starts with the science. People who care about the poor and the planet would want to get that right.

Sid Maher, The Australian

THE carbon tax cost $5,310 for every tonne of emissions abated during its two years of operation, new government analysis shows.

The release of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory last week shows emissions for the economy, excluding the land sector, fell 1.4 per cent in 2013-14 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. When the land sector is included, as is the case under Kyoto accounting, Australia’s emissions fell from 567.1mt in 2012-13 to 563.5mt, a drop of 3.6mt. Between 2011-12 and 2013-14, emissions fell 0.5 per cent or 2.9mt (there was a small rise the previous year).

No one can call this a success. Australian emissions were falling before the carbon tax came in. The big 1.4% fall only came after the figures of the year before were adjusted up. The 0.8% reduction they talk about for the previous 12 months does not exist after the figures were changed, yet they are still citing it. The current count of emissions will most likely be adjusted up itself, and the 1.4% figure is mere noise in the data — in past years the post hoc adjustments have been larger.

Opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler told the ABC the report proved Labor’s policies were working. “The Nat­ional Greenhouse Gas Inventory — dropped by the government in the lead-up to Christmas in an effort to bury the report — showed that the emissions count for the overall year of Labor’s climate policies reduced by 1.4 per cent,” he said.

“That compares to a decline in emissions of 0.8 per cent for the previous 12 months, which shows that Labor policies to reduce emissions were working — to say otherwise is laughable.

Shame the Greens hate the environment.

Edit April 2015: First sentence changed to make it clearer and more useful. Was “It takes skill to figure out a scheme where you set the price at $24 for something and end up paying $5,000.”

9.3 out of 10 based on 104 ratings

84 comments to Carbon tax cost $5310 a ton. $15 billion to abate almost nothing and cool the world by even less.

  • #
    Eric Worrall

    There’s an excellent history book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”, which charts the failure and collapse of pretty much every major civilisation since the 16th century.

    Most of the civilisations they analyse imploded due to a combination of military overstretch, colossal public debt, political ineptitude, and, finally, total irreversible economic collapse.

    Can’t think of what this reminds me of.


    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      The Hawke government’s deregulation of the banks + the Hawke government’s promotion of Alan Bond’s abuse of the deregulation of the banks = half of Australia’s contribution to the crash of 1987. (There were a lot of other less noticeable contributions).

      They were outsmarted in 1987, but the Keating government’s $96 billion debt was a further contribution to the same plan, to be followed by the Rudd/Gillard/Brown government’s reckless spending to hundreds of billions of debt.

      All working to the same plan, which is to demolish the capitalist system so that they can replace it with another system of their choosing. A system in which there is no private ownership/management of industry. Public debt must be funded with private capital.

      There is no Australian Labo(u)r party today, and hasn’t been for 40 years or more. The modern ALP is a party of Marxists, who seem to believe that they personally are insulated from the destruction they are trying to wreak.


      • #

        Hi Ted

        You forgot the other cluster **** called Whitlam.


        • #
          Just Thinkin'

          Whitlam was the downfall of Australia as we knew it.
          He really put us behind the 8 ball.


          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Whitlam’s Family Law Act, his mass reduced education system, and deliberately created high unemployment were certainly major factors destroying the confidence of the Australian people in themselves and each other. But Hawke at the ACTU was the biggest mover and shaker.

            Repco is a good measure of Hawke’s politics. Before Hawke took over the ACTU in 1969 Repco in 1967 manufactured the engine for the car which Jack Brabham built and drove to win the Fprmula One World Championship. After the ravages of the ACTU through the 1970s Repco abandoned manufacturing altogether and became just a trading company selling largely imported goods.


        • #

          The worst thing about the Whitlam government wasn’t Whitlam himself, he was a fairly reasonable person. It was the nutters like Jim Cairns who undid Australia.

          Even the diehards in Labor can’t bear to speak his name, but I will: JIM CAIRNS is what Australia should fear from the ALP. A shockingly dissolute communist married to a stupid woman, with a mistress that outsmarted all of them.


        • #
          John Brookes

          OMG. Whitlam was excellent. His government did so much. Unlike the [snip] running the country now.

          Anyway, that $5301 per tonne figure is meaningless. Remember that low income earners were given tax cuts and benefit increases to cover the carbon tax. You can’t count the income from the tax without counting the expenditure.

          Of course with Australia’s emissions dropping, you guys will be so happy. But of course its all due to our industry going to China. That and low energy lighting.


  • #

    Yep, what a waste! Well, the damage is done.

    Many so called “polluters” have moved their operations overseas and will never return but what do the warmists care? Warmists are parasites that do not give a flying whatever about the future of Australia.


    • #

      Any politician who wants to serve their country will want to learn from policy experiences. In particular the concerned politician will want to ensure two things.
      First is that the harms are not continued. Any legislation should be removed.
      Second is that controls are put in place to ensure it does not happen again. That means critically evaluating policy before implementation.


    • #
      James Bradley

      See this is what comes of complacency.

      Australia 2014 suffered its second warmest year on record… c’mon, this is no way to perpetuate a scare, we need to be number one every year.

      Say, I wonder what the other countries did last year?


  • #

    Abbott and his crew should have been overwhelmed with all the targets they had to attack and destroy after taking government. Instead they went down the Vic Libs path – do almost nothing and suck up to the people who hate you. Throw in a broken promise (18c) a la Gillard and the abandonment of any core principles they may have had and you have a one term Lib government. Unless they move fast and get Morrison as Leader and start to act like a Liberal government very quickly Bill Shorten will be next PM. The unions have him in their pocket and so we go evermore downhill.


    • #

      The carbon (dioxide) tax was hugely unpopular of course but, undaunted, Shorten says he intends to go to the next election promising to “reintroduce a carbon price – but not a carbon tax”.
      This could provide Abbott and Co an excellent opportunity to tie Shorty up in knots, he’s not going to reintroduce a carbon tax a price on carbon, but a price on carbon; we all remember him agreeing with his Prime Minister although he didn’t know what she had said.
      Regrettably there are too many ‘fellow travellers’ on the Coalition side, I’m not sure they have the smarts to make the most of Shorty’s fudging and evasions.
      The media won’t help of course, even The Australian editorially supports an ETS.


    • #

      Sadly the Australian political awareness is v. low to non-existent. As a result, I am constantly surprised that a right leaning party can win in this country. The liberals will loose after only 1 term and a new dark age will descend upon us again. There is always more parasites than workers, particularly after the age of entitlement.
      I think labor/greens are banking on destroying this country hoping that a new post-industrial order can be established preferably with blood as this will be a perfect opportunity to attack Australian kulaks and the middle class. This will be done to destroy the future seeds of opposition. The capitalist however, will leave before avoiding the bloodshed just like 1930-ties Europe leaving average mainlander for slavery. However, this time there won,t be any free country to go to.

      People talk about freedom but most have no idea what it is as Australian never had to fight for it (a comment that I have made before). Bread & economy is always 1st and if you promise people easy way out they will be driven, as usual, by self preservation with freedom rights trampled.

      Sfw, Tony Abbott can still be a hero and resign now to give the reins to Morrison and grow the liberal spine again. Bring back “Johnny be good” again! Not too mention Costello.


      • #

        Let’s hear what Morrison says about Global Warming Climate Change Doomsday Climate Safety.

        My bet is Morrison will say what ever is politically expediant, possibly something about it being crap, the UN being Bob Brown International bank …

        Fool me once, shame on you.
        Fool me twice, shame on me …


      • #
        Robert O

        The LNP government should think very seriously about where it is going over the holiday period and how it can reverse the poll trends. On this blog most know global warming is a furphy promoted by vested interests but the government still is paying lip service to it because a lot of the electorate actually believe in the dogma and never hear anything much to the contrary coming out of the media. If the LNP does not want Australia to have another 3 years of Labor mismanagement it has to put the country ahead of self-interest. The PM needs a succession plan and ways of how they will get across the next election line. For starters I would muzzle the ABC bias, sack the board as it is not following its charter, replace it with another, lose the CEO, and if the Minister will not do it let him go too. I would like to see some prominence given to the evidence that the globe is indeed not warming and that carbon dioxide has little to do with anything much, apart from being the basic building block of civilisation. What is wrong about enlightening the plebs with a little knowledge of organic chemistry?


    • #
      Peter C

      I agree sfw.

      A smart conservative government would add up the whole bill, then spend 0.1% (something like $20 million) paying skeptical scientists to audit, and check the evidence trail. They would trumpet their green credentials. This source of the river of gravy starts with the science

      Have they done that?

      Ergo Not Smart!

      Nor committed to any philosphy or ideals, or not that they want to talk about. Therefore question mark about conservative!


  • #
    Peter Mckinlay

    “That the Labor-Greens boast that this spectacular failure was a success shows the carbon tax was never about the climate, nor about CO2 or the environment. Follow the money. The purpose of the tax was to reward friends and punish competitors. Anyone dependent on Big-Government is a “friend”, and anyone who can stand on their own two feet is a “polluter” or a “denier”.”

    Both Labour and the Greens in 2010 held their own copy of that given to the people for copying at the end of Carbon Capture development funding.

    By replacing Steam with captured Carbon, power generation increases. Steam at +600*C producing 350 megawatts is replaced by captured Carbon at +100*C producing 17,500 megawatts.

    The Clerk of Parliament is yet to see the gift and cannot display for public copying until its released by Government.

    We now have the LNP gone Coalition and Coal is good, which is why the LNP demands that Green Power has Coal back up!

    Captured Carbon generated electricity for all its slashing of power tariffs is not allowed in Australia under past and present Government.


    • #

      This sounds a little unconvincing. I’m not sure where the “Steam at +600*C producing 350 megawatts” and “captured Carbon at +100*C producing 17,500 megawatts” come from. 600 is s bit high for steam generated power, and I have no idea what “captured carbon” at any temperature can do.

      Can you (Peter) provide a source for this info?


    • #

      Peter Mckinlay,

      I would need to see a few thing from you to back up your nonsense.
      The first is how your revelation with regard to Carbon powered anything, works within the bounds of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
      To narrow the scope and make life fair, let’s have a demonstration or reference in a contained environment that shows any evidence that Carbon can be used to generate energy at any measurable output level and without using an external power source, or other forms of energy, that would basically negate the presence or indeed the requirement of the Carbon.
      By measurable output level, I would suggest from 1 to at least 5 volts, or greater, generating either AC or DC based electrical energy, don’t really care.
      Once you get us there, we we can start to apply the usual metrics to measure the efficiency of this claim and it’s merits, or the lack, thereof..
      I would suggest that Your figures for steam are too simply great for what you are quoting.
      To my knowledge, no single steam engine has ever been built that could come even close to generating energy of the magnitude that your are referring too.
      This would include the use of Nuclear Energy, as Nuclear Power Stations are just very large steam engines, that use the thermal energy from a nuclear reactor to boil water for the steam engine.
      Typically in all conventional thermal power stations, be they Gas powered, Coal powered, Nuclear powered or powered by other means, the thermal energy generated from the energy source is used to generate steam which drives a steam turbine connected to a generator which produces electricity.
      So with that in mind, could you reference any working model that while not using Coal, Gas, Nuclear Energy or other common sources, creates that scale of energy required to support your claims, or any proof in in general engineering theory how such a device would even work, that would support your claims?
      Failing any and all of the above, I’m afraid your just having us all on.


    • #
      Just Thinkin'

      Carbon capture requires too much power to be of any good.
      About half the power produced is used in the carbon capture.
      To say it produces more is a furphy.

      And then you have the worry about the liquid carbon dioxide
      changing back to a gas once it warms up.

      Glad I won’t be living ANYWHERE near where the send it in
      to the ground.


  • #

    jo writes:

    “A smart conservative government would add up the whole bill, then spend 0.1% (something like $20 million) paying skeptical scientists to audit, and check the evidence trail. They would trumpet their green credentials.”

    two articles from the Catholic World Report, the only sanity amongst HUNDREDS of Pope-Francis-CAGW-Superhero articles (prompted by John Vidal’s Guardian article –

    “Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches”

    which i posted with a response on jo’s “IPCC competition? Dr Xargles Book of Earth Weather” thread.

    29 Dec: Catholic World Report: Carl E. Olson: If Pope Francis is a “radical” environmentalist, what was Pope Benedict XVI?
    I ask the question because I made the mistake of reading an article, “Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches,” written by John Vidal for The Guardian(Dec. 27th), and now feel obligated to clear the air a bit from all of the pollutants released by the ill-informed, sensationalistic bit of punditry. The overarching problem is that Vidal, like so many others in the media, wishes to use the pontiff as a political tool with which to bludgeon those he deems ill fit to lead or be taken seriously in the public arena…
    But, really, how radical is Francis’s environmental radicalism? Is it this radical?

    ‘In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”. His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources?’

    Benedict XVI made those remarks just five years ago, on January 1, 2010, on the occasion of the World Day of Peace. A search of the Vatican website turns up several such remarks by the Pope Emeritus. In an August 26, 2009, general audience, to give just one more example, Benedict stated that he wished to “offer my support to leaders of governments and international agencies who soon will meet at the United Nations to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.” And:
    “The Earth is indeed a precious gift of the Creator who, in designing its intrinsic order, has given us guidelines that assist us as stewards of his creation. Precisely from within this framework, the Church considers that matters concerning the environment and its protection are intimately linked with integral human development.”

    Of course, Benedict is usually presented as being “right-wing” and “reactionary” and “traditional,” and so his statements about ecology and the environment are often ignored, especially when they indicate that Francis’ remarks and positions on those topics is not nearly as “radical” and unique as is often claimed. I suspect that Vidal has not read the expected encyclical by Francis, so his piece, on one hand, is simply a way of stirring up the waters—or, rather, polluting the waters…
    Questioning the nature, extent, and exact status of “climate change” is not, it should be noted, anything at all like supporting the killing of the unborn and the aged, actions that more than a few American, “Catholic” politicians support—and with religious zeal (a zeal they fail to display for their claimed religion). Benedict’s warning that “the deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence” should be taken far more seriously; I suspect that Francis will repeat it—and I am confident it will be largely ignored.
    In the meantime, I suggest folks read the newly posted CWR feature, “Catholicism and Environmentalism”, by Thomas M. Doran, which provides food for thought that is free of ideological posturing and sensationalist “reporting”.

    29 Dec: Catholic World Report: Thomas M.Doran: Catholicism and Environmentalism
    Catholics with an interest in the environment should attempt to separate legitimate science from ideological noise and organizational self-interest.
    Environmental activism is often a matter of science andideology. Not infrequently, when someone disagrees with a tenet fervently held by environmental activists, they are labeled “science deniers”. Ironically, many of those who blithely label opponents “science deniers” do not themselves understand the underlying science.
    As an engineer/scientist who has worked in the trenches for over 30 years, taught environmental engineering subjects, and loves to explore history, I have seen my share of bad science and bad data (sadly, guilty myself on occasion). I’ve learned that while we need to rely on data, an honest skepticism of data is an important aspect of the scientific method. On many occasions, scientists—experts—have reached a consensus on something that was subsequently proven to be false. As Matt Ridley wrote in a 2013 Wall Street Journal article, “Science is about evidence, not consensus.” I’m with Mr. Ridley. I don’t care about consensus, no matter how passionate or morally indignant. I want to see the data and the evidence…
    Rejecting ideology, finding balance
    The ideology of many in the environmental movement also bears examining. There is a quasi-religious and especially virulent element in the environmental movement for whom, as the Journal puts it, “climate change has become a totemic cultural issue, like abortion and gay marriage…What matters is that they are on the right side of the cultural and political symbolism.”
    Without weighing in on the complex issue of climate change, I am suggesting that environmentalism has become a moral lodestoneto many, one in which facts, data, evidence are of secondary concern. Among these vocal activists, you will find the themes that man—exerting an unsustainable carbon footprint—is a threat rather than a transcendent creature; that man should have no more legal or ethical standing (and maybe less) than any other animal; that messy free markets are environmental threats; that states or intergovernmental organizations with people who know better ought to be establishing economic, environmental, and energy policy; in short, a materialistic interpretation of the relationship between man and the planet. And lest we think that these themes are limited to the radical fringe, some of these tenets are seeping into mainstream environmentalism.
    Given a free hand, these movementactivists’ energy and industrial policies could return us to the days of freezing in the winter, roasting in the summer, and perishing from lack of food and the pharmaceuticals that keep diseases at bay. More importantly, the Catholic concept of man undergoes violent deconstruction with this ideology, or quasi-religion. Man’s work and dignity should not be subordinated to the natural world, which is far different from saying man should be able to rape the world to satisfy his appetites. The right balance is achieved when man is properly formed in relation to virtue and reason so that he behaves responsibly in relation to the environment. Sadly, the materialistic dogma that many of these activists espouse views virtue, and even reason, as mere human or societal constructs…


    • #
      Gee Aye

      Yep, the Pope sure has a lot to say about our defunct carbon tax.

      Btw can someone please translate what Peter Mckinlay wrote?


      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I think it is written in gibberish.

        1. If Labor or the Greens have a copy of some wonderful scheme why not release it for public comment?
        2. He obviously knows nothing of Carnot cycles or thermodynamics.
        3. Our old coal fired stations do not generate steam at 600℃ so where is he referring to?
        4. Our coal fired stations run at roughly 36-39% efficiency, so carbon capture couldn’t generate 1000MWh let alone 17,500, and
        5. All carbon capture schemes so far are use power & do not generate it. Using about a third of the station power.

        The claims on available generation are ridiculous, and are probably based on some perpetual motion idea.


      • #
        Gee Aye

        Thanks gn3

        Your info is well known and your use of language (ie you used one known to all) is helpful. I’m not sure if you explained what Mackay wrote but I’m sure he was not serious. Was he?

        Re point 5. Are these serious schemes?


        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Serious money anyway.
          Sorry can’t find link to analysis. Project was Boundary Dam power station in Saskatchewan, where one of the smaller units was “up-graded” with carbon capture. Went from 176 MW capacity to 110MW capacity (don’t sneer, Tony) at cost of ~ 1,300 million. 600 million was for the carbon capture unit which pipes the CO2 away for fracking. The sales of the million tons of CO2 are crucial to the projects “success”. The loss of electricity output is due to usage by the CO2 recovery unit.
          Google has pages of links from green groups hailing the “success” – I gave up after 6 pages. The only one that looked beyond the headline was The Economist “Great story but pity about the cost”, but it wouldn’t open for me.

          So if you can persuade somebody to spend $9 billion of someone else’s money then Bayswater could have carbon capture and only lose 1000MW in capacity. But then the Greens & Labor would have to agree to fracking. Whether the public would like the consequent blackouts due to loss of capacity is another question.


          • #

            Greame No.3
            Details of the Saskaste were found out by Richard North and reported by Bishop Hill.
            How much is that in CO2 saved?
            Let us say the plant would emit 400kg per megawatt hour and the plant works at 80% capacity for 30 years. That is 771000 Mwh times .4 times 30 years. That is 9.25 million tonnes of CO2.
            The additional cost of the upgrade with CCS was about $1.1trn or $119 per tonne. Double that allowing for cost of capital.
            It gets worse. Output is reduced by 32%, so costs are at least 50% more. Say $30 per MW or $75 per tonne of CO2.
            Overall you are looking at $300 per tonne of CO2 saved – cheap compared with Australian policy, but much more than the worst damage costs.
            To save the planet we need reduce emissions by about 20bn tonnes a year. Just $6trn a year at that rate or over 6% of global output.


          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Why doesn’t Australia just cut to the chase, and go nuclear?

            You are mining and exporting the raw material, why not just process it, and use it?


            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Uranium is a very dense metal, but nowhere near as dense as most of our politicians. For various reasons we’ve had 40 years of propaganda about how deadly radiation is, regardless of the actual case. Similar to asbestos but leaves your corpse glowing in the dark.
              So public sentiment is against introducing nuclear, although far less so than our timid teddies in Canberra think (they’re pretty remote from the real world).
              In the meantime we may as well use cheap coal and wait until something nuclear e.g. Thorium comes along that can be sold as safe.


              • #
                Ted O'Brien.

                The propaganda was raised by the friends of Communism for the purpose of hindering Western nations in the cold war nuclear arms race. It was not founded in science. there were no demonstrations against Soviet nuclear power.


              • #

                The main drawback with introducing nuclear power is the expense of it. Britain last year allowed the first nuclear plant to be commenced since the 1980s. The cost is phenomenal – about $160Mwh guaranteed – probably due to over zealousness on the safety front. It would be a similar situation in Australia.


    • #

      Throughout history Therese church has always been on the wrong side. Why change now?


    • #

      Keep in mind the practice of the Church to sell indulgences.

      A carbon tax was simply a re-implementation.


      • #

        The Church is a survivor and it adapts slowly. Is it not given to incorporating the memes and customs of the moment? Many of the Church ‘holy days’ are re-badged pagan celebrations.

        And so it is with the environmental meme of the moment, the toxic melange of Socialist dogma and Green beliefs expressed in the discredited philosophy of the ‘double dividend’ (promoted among others by the IPCC, UN et al.) — tax pollution and improve the environment. Expressed by a graphic reductio ad absurdum, observe the necessity of labeling CO2 as a ‘pollutant’!

        One can only speculate that one permutation of a dismal future is one in which the word ‘pollutant’ is progressively applied more widely to include undesirable human populations, political dispositions and of course, non-proscribed behaviour. Take ‘investment’ for example. This is already a prominent feature of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), which is well engaged in the installation of its euphemistic ‘six principles‘, a fluid, undescribed dogma encompassing environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG).

        These toxic dogmatists and masquerading planetary saviours are the authors of their own unsustainable lust for power and control. This guarantees their eventual philosophical, economic and political annihilation, and of that there can be little mistake. It may take awhile, as it is doing in North Korea, but it is nonetheless inevitable.


        • #

          Jesus Christ was the first socialist. The idea about the poor going to heaven first has eventually translated into the origin of socialism in the 19 century and then communism. JC also talked about taxing the rich and hence the unashamed acceptance of tax in the western societies. In contrast this is not accepted in the Arab countries, with taxation known as a sin. What a different way of thinking.
          I agree with you about Christianity being a mixture of socialism and pagan ie green traditions. So the pope,s acceptance of the global warming meme should not come as a surprise.
          In addition, JC was also not a democrat as being a socialist is fundamentally contrarian to freedom. He would resolve money dispute with violence like throwing the rich out of the temple. The translation: he disliked traders, people that created wealth. He also surrounded himself with the poor, uneducated and so-called downtrodden. Excellent for the image and building a propagandist legend.
          For any of you that may think that I am a rabid anti-Christian or anti-pope, let me say that I was brought up in a strong catholic family, but I have seen what religion can do to people. First of all, one has to surrender one,s individuality. Once this is done anyone can be controlled. Nothing different to socialism and other violent ideologies.
          For the record, Islam is even more violent because it is based on Koran where references to killing the infidels are numerous and considered virtuous. No democratic thinking in sight and hence democracy alien in the Arab cultures.


    • #

      Pat, I thought I thumbed up…don’t know why a down appeared. Sorry.
      Perhaps my experience explains some of the red thumbs we are seeing?!


    • #

      Perhaps His Holiness need only reiterate the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

      “353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence, and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.
      354 Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things is a principle of wisdom and a foundation for morality.”


  • #

    THE carbon tax cost $5,310 for every tonne

    Including the cylinder how much does it cost BOC etc to bottle CO2?


  • #

    links – if not provided – can be easily found online for these pre- & post-Vidal articles on Pope-Francis:

    2013: Democracy Now: The New Pope (Francis)
    News reports indicate that in 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio (Francis) that accused him of conspiring with the military government in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests. Bergoglio was a superior at the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976. Bergoglio’s spokesman denied the allegations. Bergoglio has also staunchly opposed abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception. In 2010 he said gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children…
    Below are past reports Democracy Now! has done about the Dirty Wars in Argentina, the Catholic Church, and the lead up to the most recent selection of a new pope…
    Pope Francis’ Junta Past: Argentine Journalist on New Pontiff’s Ties to Abduction of Jesuit Priests
    U.S. Nuns Face Vatican Rebuke for “Radical Feminism” in Stances on Church Teachings, Social Justice

    30 Dec: Democracy Now: Pope Francis Calls for Action on Climate Change & Capitalism on a Planet “Exploited by Human Greed”
    Pope Francis is set to make history by issuing the first-ever comprehensive Vatican teachings on climate change, which will urge 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide to take action…
    AUSTEN IVEREIGH (author, “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope”): Well, first of all, it’s an encyclical, which is the highest form of papal teaching…
    The fact that it’s also on ecology, on climate change, is also deeply significant, because there has never been a major document on this subject from the church…
    AUSTEN IVEREIGH: Well, I think it will be, of course, problematic. It will be controversial, because there are some church leaders, but also some very prominent Catholics, who are, if not outright skeptics on climate change, are at least skeptical of some of the claims being made about climate change. And they will also be skeptical of his attempts to link that to a particular form of capitalism…


    2013: MotherJones: Erik Kain: The World Has Its First Jesuit Pope. Will He Really Help the Poor?
    Unsurprisingly, the cardinals elected a man known for his orthodoxy on cultural issues such as gay marriage and abortion. The leadership of the church remains unwaveringly orthodox, especially on the matter of abortion. Thus, focusing on Pope Francis’s social conservatism is mostly unhelpful…

    30 Dec: MotherJones: The Pope Thinks Climate Change Is a Major Threat. So Do American Catholics.
    A papal letter “is among the highest levels of teaching authority for a pope,” said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant. These edicts “always make news, because they are rare and comprehensive,” he added…


    • #

      I’m glad I didn’t vote for him!


    • #

      No wonder Francis has been sipping the Kool Aid:
      ” The proceedings of the workshop have been published online and they make interesting reading. For example, the list of attendees tells a story in itself, with familiar names such as Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Martin Rees, Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz. There was also Daniel Kammen, the editor at Environmental Research Letters who is threw scientific integrity out of the window in a bid to prevent John Cook’s fictions from being exposed. Needless to say, there were no familar names who could be put in the “global warming not a catastrophe” camp.”


  • #

    Salon hasn’t jumped on the Vidal story, as yet…but fun to note in case they do:

    April 2013: Salon: Katie McDonough: Pope Francis reaffirms Vatican censure of “radical feminist” nuns
    Meet the new pope, same as the old pope
    The Vatican announced this week that bus-riding, foot-washing Pope Francis supports his predecessor’s crackdown on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization that represents 80 percent of nuns in the United States.
    Like Pope Emeritus Benedict, Francis believes that the nuns focus too much on serving their communities around issues of health care and economic justice and too little on gay people and abortion. In a report issued by the Vatican under Benedict’s leadership, the Holy See accused the group of undermining “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” and promoting a “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”…


    31 Dec: WaPo: Chris Mooney: Our new pro-science pontiff: Pope Francis on climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang
    ‎After all, we see science-religion conflicts all the time: Creationists try to disrupt the sole teaching of evolution. Religiously driven anti-abortionists come up with dubious scientific arguments for why the procedure is dangerous…
    Earlier this year the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (along with the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) convened a workshop entitled “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” bringing together a number of scientists and experts who then released a statement declaring that “If current trends continue, this century will witness unprecedented climate changes and ecosystem destruction that will severely impact us all.”…

    (behind paywall)
    31 Dec: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Tracing the Roots of Pope Francis’s Climate Plans for 2015
    One of the highlights of my year, perhaps my career, was being able to participate in ” Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” a four-day Vatican workshop aimed at shaping strategies for human advancement that are attuned to the planet’s limits, organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Academy of Social Sciences last May. Now there are signs that the themes and conclusions developed in those sessions are helping to shape Pope Francis’s planned push for serious international commitments in 2015 to curb greenhouse gases and gird communities, particularly the poorest, against climate-related hazards…

    two silly headlines:

    Is 2015 the year Pope Francis defeats climate change?
    Grist – ‎Dec 29, 2014‎

    Pope Francis Expected To Instruct One Billion Catholics To Act On Climate Change
    ThinkProgress-28 Dec 2014


    two stories the CAGW crowd will ignore now that Francis is a CAGW Superhero:

    Society needs you, Pope Francis tells large families
    Catholic Herald Online – ‎Dec 28, 2014‎

    In his dealings with Beijing, Pope Francis steers clear of politics
    Tom Plate says Pope Francis’ approach to dealing with Beijing in order to reach out to the Catholic flock in China has been adroit, as seen by his polite refusal to meet the Dalai Lama.
    South China Morning Post (subscription) – ‎Dec 30, 2014‎


  • #

    If a Carbon Tax of $24 per Tonne produced a rounding error in terms of emissions,how much would the tax need to be to make a significant difference?


  • #

    Don’t forget that exports of coal, gas and iron ore boomed under the Rudd and Gillard govts.
    The Gillard govt even urged the Vic govt to modify their brown coal so it could be exported as well.
    Ferguson stated that the Latrobe valley coal exports would be another Pilbara. That’s huge certainly 10s of millions tonnes extra per year.
    This just proves that Labor couldn’t care less about increased co2 emissions, but wanted to hurt the OZ economy.
    And yet people want to vote these imbeciles back into power? Barking mad the lot of them. Here’s that link to Labor’s 2012 plans for Latrobe valley exports of coal.


  • #

    The carbon tax was just another costly Labor policy debacle. And Professor Garnaut is a disgrace.


  • #

    It takes skill to figure out a scheme where you set the price at $24 for something and end up paying $5,000. It could only happen when people are playing with other people’s money.

    That is exactly where the World Bank excels, creation, function and operation of `free markets’ (where free means anything but) and tax schemes. Their charter is to `reduce poverty.’ Obviously there can’t be enough of it in the world for them to be bothered with if they have to create so much.

    That’s the soft left idea of good maths and good business.

    I would call the World Bank far out beyond the Genghis Khan point on the scale of right wing. Except the w….bankers don’t ride ponies and are overstaffed by shamans who title themselves `Economists.’


  • #

    Well folks, you can now grow your own fuel in your own back yard and use up lots of CO2 in so doing.


    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      re fuelfarm. You will always find people attempting to register a patent on the wheel. It seems to me that some almost get away with it, especially these days when lawyers seem to outnumber engineers.

      I have no doubt that research into marine aquaculture has the potential to replace our current sources of not only energy/fuel, but also of many minerals, especially phosphorus for crop fertiliser.


  • #

    It’s a shame the Liberals lost their spine. What the hell happened?


  • #

    A smart conservative government would add up the whole bill, then spend 0.1% (something like $20 million) paying skeptical scientists to audit, and check the evidence trail.

    This is not quite correct. Getting the most bang for bucks is not a problem that scientists are qualified to tackle. Effective policy formulation requires people with training in economics – to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for policy to be net beneficial. Auditing requires accountants – to check the numbers and the processes.
    Determining whether policy will be net beneficial is a complex question. My attempt of developing a simple graphical model to explore the issues 15 months ago needs development, but still goes much further than anything else available.


  • #

    Politically the failure is disastrous. Australian policy was never intended to save the planet. It was to take a lead . In the real world taking a lead is providing an example others willing follow. No rational government will follow a policy where the costs are over 100 times the benefits.


  • #

    A couple of days ago the CBC National News had a segment on economics for this past year, 2014, and one of the pundits claimed that the biggest economic boondoggle of the year, in the world, was Australia canceling its carbon tax.


  • #

    Mostly on topic (carbon footprints anyway). Got rellies staying over Xmas as you do and my uncle for some reason likes to watch those shows about trucks, motorhomes etc of the rich and famous. Well whos motor home should show up…. but Leonardo Di Nocarbono.

    Easily the largest and most obscene vehicle on the program. Surely gets about 11 inches to the gallon….

    He truly is a monumental tool.


  • #

    Maybe the rest of the world will follow Australia’s lead?
    Suppose we scale up the cost of $5310 a tonne of CO2 saved to a global level. Experts (Like the Stern Review) agree that we need to reduce global emissions to 1990 levels quickly to save the planet from climate catastrophe. But global emissions in 2020 will be around 20 billion tonnes a year more than in 1990. So this is the minimum reduction. At a cost of A$106trn (US$87trn), it is around 100% of gross world output.


  • #

    As I am known to say, “There is nothing so unimportant that you can’t spend other people’s money on it.”

    Happy New Year to you and yours, Jo.


  • #

    $5310 a tonne? What a nice little earner. I wonder where that will go? It normally ends up going to the banks one way or the other. In my view it is delusional to think any amount of reduced CO2-emissions as beneifical to the environment and it’s remarkable to think such a large portion of the public has been convinced into thinking that removing harmless plant food from the atmosphere is going to “save the planet” but as soon as an “expert” declares something people just stop thinking for themseleves. It seems to me that these CO2-taxes are just a way for the banking cartel to accelerate the rate at which all Western countries are indebted to them. They already charge interest on the money they create out of thin-air after “lending” it to us. In my view the CO2-tax is just another way for us to pile on more debt until we are all in hock to the international banking community and there’s a total collapse of fiat currency. Then they’ll roll out the STR or something.


  • #

    SMH: Australians now live in “energy poverty”

    “Although the carbon tax has often been the scapegoat for the dramatic doubling of electricity prices, the real culprits are the network companies whose spending on poles and wires accounts for half of the rises.

    The upshot is not only that the high cost of energy is slugging the entire economy.
    It is also that hundreds of thousands of Australians now live in “energy poverty”.

    Robertson’s offence had been to criticise the electricity giants for “gold-plating” – that is, spending up big on poles and wires that didn’t need to be built – and for claiming demand for electricity was rising, when in fact it was falling.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Julia Gillard @2.24 minutes utube:
    “We will tackle the challenge of climate change.
    We’ve invested record amounts in solar and renewable technologies.
    Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid.”
    ~ ~ ~
    SMH – New App:
    It lets consumers use a smartphone app (on iPhone and Android) or the web to monitor their energy consumption at home and choose the source of their electricity – from alternative energy projects including wind, solar or even sugarcane processing and landfill generation.
    A move that could help increase demand for renewable energy.
    . . .

    All fun until you can’t charge the phone to use the app because the wind power you chose has stopped blowing whilst you were asleep.


    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      They haven’t yet mentioned the aluminium smelters and cement factories that closed.

      And they are yet to discover what their “Free Market” will now do to the price of those commodities.


  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    You’re only looking at government analysis figures, and you’ve already pointed out that various government schemes where everybody pays for the few to use (solar panels) were not included. The real figures would likely be at least double, could be as high as quadruple the “government stated figures”. The government always understates costs for public consumption.

    Then you have legally forced implementation of the regulation.
    Our council had to pay $1,000,000 extra taxation for the carbon dioxide emitted from the local rubbish tip. That’s why dumping costs doubled as soon as the tax was brought in.
    Water costs doubled, electricity has nearly doubled. And manufacturing costs have gone up (my estimate) 30% or more for extractive industry (sand, limestone, clay for bricks).

    No, the cost to the community for that particular broken window, was closer to double the cost of living previously (again; my estimate).


  • #
    Timo Soren

    I used to look to Australia for a different approach, much like how we use ‘Dutch’ in the US to mean ‘not quite normal’.

    But this flagrant waste of money, time and effort to protect/improve the world with no return is battering my opinion of my friends down-under.

    I hope the New Year brings you better statisticians, better economists, who can then explain to the common manL that you are attempting a futile task. “Man makes plans … and God laughs.” (Chabon)


  • #

    Weather commentary on Sky just now.

    “Its expected to reach 42c in Adelaide today, if it does, it will be the hottest day since last summer”

    Thank you captain obvious. [face palm]


    • #

      Take heed Safety, the MSM doesn’t just issue hot weather warnings without good reason and besides, who are we to question their expertise? 🙂


    • #
      James Bradley

      Yeah, they must be scraping for news this morning, Sunrise 7 News reported a tree had fallen and caused no damage but if it had fallen 2 inches closer to something or other then someone may have been severley injured.

      And 2014 is the second hottest year evvvaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!


      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And in breaking news, a disastrously fatal accident was narrowly avoided this morning at Sydney International Airport, as a fully laden Jumbo Jet flew over dense commuter traffic, and managed to land on the runway.

        It is reported that several seagulls were seriously disturbed by events.


    • #


      If you watched Sky Weather Active you would scarcely fail to notice the continent- all coloured red to indicate how hot it is going to be, with a humungous caption inserted across the continent in bold block letter writing (about 1/4 the entire screen) saying, I kid you not – HOT!

      They even included an exclamation mark (obviously for subtlety). Yet a casual glance at the weather predictions for today showed Alice Springs 41, Adelaide 40, Melbourne 39, but in contrast Darwin 30 (below average) Perth 28, Sydney 27, Brisbane 29- essentially normal temperatures (or in Darwin’s case below the usual 34) with the sole exception of a tongue of hot air coming from the desert southward, which anyone who ever lived in Adelaide would know is par for the course when this weather system configuration exists.

      My wife, a confirmed sceptic of my scepticism, has after 10 years of thinking I am over-reacting, etc can now see exactly what I have been talking about, as now the propagandising has become so obvious that even the apolitical amongst us can see it.

      The BOM are truly pathetic people, they deserve the harshest possible censure- French Revolution style would be my preference, but hey, I’m a hard marker.


      • #

        No summer in Perth so far after a couple of hotter days which I missed as I was away. Still wearing winter clothes.
        When it,s cold the Goebells warmist propagandist suddenly go missing.


  • #

    Carbon(sic) tax this!

    A new eruption has started at the submarine volcano Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai in the island nation of Tonga.

    Terra/MODIS image of the area (see below) taken on December 29 shows the plume and possible seawater discolored by the subsurface volcanic activity. Beyond this, not much is known about the actual activity at Hunga Tonga-Hung Ha’apai.
    ~ ~ ~
    18 December 2014: Nasa’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) has returned its first global maps of the greenhouse gas CO2.

    The satellite was sent up in July to help pinpoint the key locations on the Earth’s surface where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed.

    The Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been spoken of as the forerunner of satellite missions that would seek to gain the information needed to patrol climate treaties, by helping to check that promises made by nations on carbon curbs were being kept.


    • #
      Peter C

      According to the first output of the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory;

      Europe, Britain, USA, Canada and Australia and New Zealand are keeping their promsies and not adding CO2 to the amosphere.

      China, Indonesia, Cental Africa and Brazil are not. Neither is the sea which seems to be adding CO2 in the regions of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn.


    • #

      The image of co2 is very revealing:
      1. No elevated emissions over Europe, one of the most industrious areas. Why? This is not because Europe is clean? Eastern Europe and Russia certainly not.
      2. Source of most co2 comes from non-industrial tropics and oceans showing that most co2 is natural
      3. Absolutely nothing over India
      4. Western Australia looks more industrious than rest of Australia.
      5. Indonesia, Galapagos and Greenland – powerhouses of the world.
      6. Aliens reading this map using our greenhouse theory will certainly understand industry and population distribution. They would certainly believe in Atlantis, sea worlds. And why not? The science is settled last time I heard.


  • #

    Here’s How People 100 Years Ago Thought We’d Be Living Today

    When you don’t have climate computer models & photoshop, you use postcards!


  • #

    31 Dec: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: The year in climate science
    Debate over winter flooding…
    A mammoth effort from the IPCC
    This year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ensured that nobody anywhere would ever be short of something to read on climate change…
    Contrasting fortunes for Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice…
    Record breakers
    Finally, the year ended with news that both greenhouse gas emissions and global mean temperatures had hit new record highs***…
    The year ahead
    There’s still a chance that El Nino might finally appear during the winter, and in the next month or so we should get confirmation of whether 2014 was the hottest year on record or just a close second
    As for the rest of the year, we don’t yet know what researchers have got in store, but as climate science is the gift that just keeps giving…

    ***new record highs! why leave out the following, all of which are easily found online (can’t be bothered with the urls, cos the comment will go into moderation). no doubt other examples could be found:

    July: WUWT: So far in 2014, record low temperatures outpace record highs nearly 2-1 in the USA
    This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.
    For all types of high and low daily records for the year to date, there were 29,372 cold records versus 16,761 warm records, a ratio of 1.75 to 1.0…

    August: For U.K., Europe, It’s One of the Chilliest Augusts in Decades; Snow Possible in Scottish Highlands
    “The cool Arctic flow will reach much of central Europe with temperatures 5-6 degrees Celsius below normal,” says Leon Brown, meteorologist with The Weather Channel U.K…
    According to the U.K. Met Office, the coldest August daily high temperature on record in the U.K. was 8.9 degrees C (48 degrees F) at Lerwick on August 18, 1964, as well as three other locations on August 27-28, 1919. …

    July: Courier Mail: Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years
    Not since July 28 1911 has Brisbane felt this cold, getting down to a brisk 2.6C at 6.41am…
    Brisbane wasn’t the only town hitting landmark temperatures with Clermont breaking its coldest record two days in a row…


  • #

    how tragic…

    1 Jan: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Leaders are in denial about climate change
    Sir David’s comments come two days after a separate warning – on the dangers posed by the booming human population.
    “It’s desperately difficult, the dangers are apparent to anybody,” he told The Independent.
    “We can’t go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because the Earth is finite and you can’t put infinity into something that is finite.
    “So if we don’t do something about it – the natural world that is – we will starve,” Sir David said…

    on the other hand, here’s a wonderful 2008 ABC History Unit Documentary i watched last night. a real celebration of Australia’s droughts, monsoons, bushfires, cyclones, etc. not even a hint of CAGW from start to fabulous finish.

    Parrots: Majestic Birds (Nature Documentary 2008)


  • #

    ***Daily Mail headline tells an inconvenient truth, but reverts back to CAGW in the sub-headings!

    31 Dec: Daily Mail: Richard Gray: Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical
    rainforests grow faster: Study shows trees absorb more greenhouse gas than
    Scientists previously believed tropical forests emitted carbon dioxide
    ***Researchers claim their findings emphasise the need to protect rainforests
    from deforestation to help counteract human greenhouse gas emissions

    pure propaganda:

    1 Jan: Forbes: Jeff McMahon: Americans Favor EPA Regulation Over Carbon Tax
    Or Cap And Trade
    Americans want the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse
    gases, preferring EPA regulation far more than a carbon tax or a
    cap-and-trade program, according to a Harvard political scientist who has
    conducted a comprehensive survey of attitudes toward energy and climate for
    the last 12 years.
    Experts view EPA regulation as the least efficient way to curb greenhouse
    gas emissions, but Americans readily accept EPA’s role, Harvard Government
    Professor Stephen Ansolabehere said during a December appearance at the
    University of Chicago.
    “People accept the EPA power to cap carbon emissions. They support giving
    EPA the power to do that,” Ansolabehere told climate scientists, physicists,
    economists and public-policy experts gathered by The Energy Policy Institute
    of Chicago (EPIC)…
    Ansobelere conducted a meta-analysis of 25 surveys of Americans and found
    a.. 75 to 80 percent of Americans favor EPA regulation of greenhouse gas
    b.. 45 to 55 percent favor cap and trade
    c.. 25 to 45 percent favor a carbon tax
    Ansolabehere and Georgetown public policy professor David M. Konisky detail
    these findings and more in a recent book, “Cheap and Clean: How Americans
    Think About Energy in the Age of GLobal Warming” published by MIT Press.
    Among their other findings…
    Americans Want America To Run On Solar and Wind…(LINK)***

    ***even worse propaganda at the link. republicans want US to run on solar and wind too!!!


  • #
    Peter Mckinlay


    January 1, 2015 at 7:21 pm · Reply

    This sounds a little unconvincing. I’m not sure where the “Steam at +600*C producing 350 megawatts” and “captured Carbon at +100*C producing 17,500 megawatts” come from. 600 is s bit high for steam generated power, and I have no idea what “captured carbon” at any temperature can do.

    Can you (Peter) provide a source for this info?”

    Tarong Power Station QLD owned by the LNP. Toshiba steam turbine, +600*C, 200 bar pressure force, 350 megawatts. Steam recycle +600*C to +100*C. 240 tonne Coal per hour.

    CO2 +100*C 10,000 bar pressure. CO2 recycle +100*C to +30*C (70 bar).

    Both Steam and CO2 pressure to temperature charts fully web available.


  • #