Study backs Australia pollution tax plans

Jun 09, 2011
File photo of exhaust stacks on a northern Queensland sugar refinery. A government-backed study of pollution reduction policies among Australia's major trade partners Thursday backed "price-based schemes" as most effective, boosting Canberra's carbon tax plan.

A government-backed study of pollution reduction policies among Australia's major trade partners Thursday backed "price-based schemes" as most effective, boosting Canberra's carbon tax plan.

Australia's ruling Labor government wants to introduce a levy from mid-2012 and move to a full cap-and-trade scheme within five years -- a plan fiercely opposed by conservative parties and big business.

The independent Productivity Commission examined hundreds of measures to tackle in China, Japan, the United States, Britain, Germany, South Korea, and New Zealand.

Some of the countries had introduced emissions trading schemes (ETS), and all used a variety of less direct measures much as renewable energy targets and subsidies or feed-in tariffs to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

" schemes were found to be relatively cost effective, while policies encouraging small-scale renewable generation and biofuels have generated little abatement for substantially higher cost," the Commission found.

Carbon pricing mechanisms raised the cost of high-emissions products, reducing demand and boosting production of low-polluting substitutes, it said.

"It is this market-based objective assessment of the costs and benefits of abatement options that underpins why direct pricing mechanisms generally will deliver any given amount of abatement at least cost," the commission added.

Treasurer Wayne Swan said the new report disproved opposition claims that Australia would be moving ahead of other world economies or that a would be costlier than direct action.

"The report completely debunks any scare campaigns suggesting Australia is acting alone and provides more evidence that putting a price on is the best way to cut pollution and protect our economy," he said.

"The research highlights that far from striking out on its own, Australia risks falling behind the rest of the world if we fail to put a price on pollution," Swan added.

The report found Germany had the most success in reducing pollution in the key electricity generation sector, followed by Britain.

Both came under the European Union's cap-and-trade ETS, launched in 2005, which covers power stations, combustion plants, oil refineries and iron and steel works.

Explore further: NOAA: 'Nuisance flooding' an increasing problem as coastal sea levels rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China a surprise leader in clean energy: study

Oct 19, 2010

The world's top polluter, China, is a surprise leader in clean energy efforts, a study showed Tuesday, outstripping the United States and Japan and leaving Australia lagging far behind.

Carbon swap bank to beat climate change

Jan 06, 2011

Australian researchers have suggested that nations should abandon the concept of carbon emissions trading in favor of a carbon swap bank that might lead to genuine reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas ...

Australia targets 20 pct renewable energy by 2020

Aug 18, 2009

Australia on Thursday passed a clean energy law requiring the country to produce 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020 in move that could draw billions of dollars of green investment.

Pollution tax rebates little help for low-income workers

Feb 22, 2011

Although policymakers believe the regressiveness of pollution taxes can be offset by returning revenue to the low paid through a reduced labor tax, that approach may not work, and also could have the unintended consequence ...

NZ carbon price system hikes household costs

Jul 01, 2010

(AP) -- New carbon-trading laws intended to reduce climate-changing pollution emissions took effect Thursday in New Zealand, immediately sending gas prices higher.

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

12 hours ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2011
Of course. Can't do social modeling if we don't generate funds for redistribution.

Chicken Little says "The sky is falling and someone has to pay!".
Bog_Mire
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2011
Dogbert says " It is all a giant conspiracy designed to fleece more taxes off ME!" Yes Dogbert, we are all in on it, so cough up....I mean are you in the bunker with the tin foil hat and canned tuna like, right this very minute?
LVT
3 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
Wow there's a surprise. I wonder does it also say that extra grants need to be available for "scientists" to study how well the extortion is working...

After all the experience of the USSR tells us that bureaucrat run economies are experts at protecting the environment.
Loodt
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2011
Fantastic photograph, the first time I've seen a picture of carbon dioxide, obviously a white gas that looks a lot like steam!
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
After all the experience of the USSR tells us that bureaucrat run economies are experts at protecting the environment.
In the US we have a long track record of what is considered, economic disadvantage aversion.

For clarity, you run a business, you don't want to pay fines that cost more than the price of a repair, so you perform the repair to maintain profitability.

Welcome to the capitalist system, don't like it? Go to the former soviet union, where if you can't pay, the government will pay for you. That's the difference, kid. If the fine outweighs the profit from non-compliance, compliance will occur.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2011
If the fine outweighs the profit from non-compliance, compliance will occur


Or, the business may find that a third option is cheaper still; Move to another place, where they don't have to pay fines. Non-ferrous metal production is extremely energy intensive and can only really run competitively in a place where energy is very affordable. Australia's economy is strongly dependant on that industry. They need to be carefull here. Polls also show that the majority of the public does not support this measure. The elected officials need to listen to the people who elected them, because even the ones who voted for them are not in favor of this. Have you been following the headlines over there at all? I guarantee you aren't hearing about it on this site or the mainstream media.

The above report is another volley in the political battle they are having. It is propaganda, nothing more. Notice it's not a peer reviewed study.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2011
The report found Germany had the most success in reducing pollution in the key electricity generation sector


NPR was talking about Germany yesterday. They had an expert who said the following: Germany did this MAINLY by cheating the system. They are buying a huge portion of their power from Eastern European neighbors now, and that power is almost entirely coal fired, and old coal technology to boot. So the net result is that Germany is really polluting more than ever, but it's just not in their back yard now. If they really close all those nuke plants this situation will worsen by at least a factor of two.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2011
It is this market-based objective assessment of the costs and benefits of abatement options that underpins why direct pricing mechanisms generally will deliver any given amount of abatement at least cost," the commission added


No way. The carbon trading system in the EU has been nothing but unforseen costs, corruption, profiteering and now members are starting to talk about backing out. The carbon trading system in the US Northeast was even worse, and several members have already backed out or have announced that they will be leaving soon. The funds are never used as intended because making money is the key aim of the people supporting these things. They don't care about pollution. The effect on pollution is debateable anyway, since it's such a drop in the bucket compared to the cost. The value of carbon credits in the EU has fallen to almost zero and will probably not recover till after 2020, according to the World Bank who runs it. Anyone who owns one now lost money.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
Or, the business may find that a third option is cheaper still; Move to another place, where they don't have to pay fines.
In the case of resource companies, which is what energy really boils down to, where are they going to go?

The oil or coal is where they currently are. They can't exactly move to China to drill out the appalacians more cheaply.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2011
No, they are going to shut down the consumers in this case, not the producers. The producers will have no trouble covering cost increases by raising rates. The producers aren't the ones who pay.

There's no theoretical argument here. This is all well-documented fact that we've seen already. Even New Jersey is backing out of the deal up there. I've also seen estimates that say the German wind farms won't last. They are all the expensive offshore kind, and are too expensive to sustain. They'll be gone in a couple decades at most.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
No, they are going to shut down the consumers in this case, not the producers
Ah but that's where the market forces play a hand.

If one company simply passes their expense onto the consumers, another can rise, especially with a small subsidy, or a properly written tax code, that produces more cheaply, and within guidelines. This will put the non-compliant, expensive producers out of business.

Regulation does solve the problem, but only as long as that regulation is free of corporate influence.

And good luck finding that now a days.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2011
You are totally wrong. That is not what happens at all. Your theory is wishfull thinking and there's not a single example where that's how it worked out. In reality, the producers keep on using the same cheap coal that they've been using. They pay the fines and fees and pass the cost on to the consumers. In England, they say that 20% of every electric bill goes to pay for wind farms now. Again, I can't verify that number, so take it for what it's worth. Could be more propaganda from the other side. The rates have gone way up though, so there's no disputing that. The cost of these programs to consumers is huge, and the benefit is zero or nearly so. And businesses have been moving to developing nations where there aren't insane regulations. By that I also mean silly things like OSHA, EPA, taxes, NLRB rules, expensive healthcare costs, etc, not just climate laws.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
You are totally wrong. That is not what happens at all. Your theory is wishfull thinking and there's not a single example where that's how it worked out.
That's kinda how it worked here for a long time.
The rates have gone way up though, so there's no disputing that. The cost of these programs to consumers is huge, and the benefit is zero or nearly so.
None of the energy plans in the US in regards to emissions fee scheduling have gone into effect. I don't see how they're responsible for the market-based increases in energy costs.
And businesses have been moving to developing nations where there aren't insane regulations. By that I also mean silly things like OSHA, EPA, taxes, NLRB rules, expensive healthcare costs, etc, not just climate laws.
Ok you're jumping the shark here.
lengould100
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
Oh, goody. And lets also kill unions, so we can go back to digging coal by hand and with pit ponies, 12 hr days, 6 day weeks, starvation wages, child labour, zero safety or health rules, company stores. Wonderful life, that.

'Course GSwift probably THINKS he's too smart to be worse off himself in those conditions. Just like all who inherited their wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
Ok Len, you're jumping the other shark.

There is a middle ground here, and you'd both agree to it. Some regulations are ridiculous, we'll all agree on that. Some regulations are wholly necessary, again, we'll all agree to that. The problem is the two extremes of ideology which accurately represent none of the three of us.

Reset, start again. We all think proper regulation will address shortcommings born of greed, laziness, or other particular maladies in the human condition. Let's not argue specifics until we're all addressing particulars on the same playing field.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
None of the energy plans in the US in regards to emissions fee scheduling have gone into effect


That was a follow-up statement in regard to Brittish energy policy. The policies regarding wind power on the west coast have greatly increased rates there though. Consumers are paying extra for the feed-in tarrifs.
Loodt
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2011
The amount we pay in stealth green taxes is shown in this article.

http://www.dailym...ief.html

GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
'Course GSwift probably THINKS he's too smart to be worse off himself in those conditions. Just like all who inherited their wealth


Huh? I think you are reading way too much into my earlier comment. It's a fact that companies are outsourcing jobs. The place I work now sent several thousand jobs to contractors in Manila and Bangladesh in the past two years, in our accounting and IT departments. Outsourcing has been a major drain on US jobs for at least the past two decades.

there's a big difference between a reasonable level of regulations and where we are today. The politically correct stuff for example. Some of it just doesn't make a flea's turd worth of sense, and you know what kind of stuff I'm talking about. some of it is counterproductive in fact, and only exists due to special circumstances but then gets applied as a blanket policy due to "fairness". then there's all the law suits we allow here that don't happen anywhere else too.
Loodt
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
I have no problem with people that feel their dogs should be fed the best fillet steak, or want to take a trip to wherever. Provided they pay for it. I have no problem with people that want to use solar cells and rig up a battery set so that they can watch TV at night.

I only wish that we could buy our power directly from a supplier that generates the power in the way we find morally acceptable.

I object to the fact that our power companies should be told how to generate power by a bunch of morons in Washington or Brussels.

If only we discovered electricty networks after cell phones we could have used that network provider system. If your supplier is not available, you don't connect! Simples!
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
The complexity of our tax code is one specific example where we make it difficult to do business here for no real reason. Good lord, I'm not talking about worker's rights here.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
None of the energy plans in the US in regards to emissions fee scheduling have gone into effect


That was a follow-up statement in regard to Brittish energy policy. The policies regarding wind power on the west coast have greatly increased rates there though. Consumers are paying extra for the feed-in tarrifs.

Ok but now you're talking about a whole different animal. There's a bunch of multipliers in the UK economy that feed into that increase, including funding of the general pension fund, the NHS and a few other spending incentives that draw directly from the energy tax and transmission bucket.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Jun 10, 2011
"Can't do social modeling if we don't generate funds for redistribution." - Dogbert

Poor Dogbert. The world has gone socialist and he just can't cope with the fact.

We will cry a tear for Dogbert and his fellow Kooks, when they are gone and buried.

No.. Wait... We won't.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Jun 10, 2011
"Or, the business may find that a third option is cheaper still; Move to another place, where they don't have to pay fines. " - G-Swift

But, But, But, But, Libertarian free trade advocates argued through all of the 1980's and most of the 1990's that permitting the free trade of commerce wouldn't cause businesses to leave one nation and set up shop in other nations where the environmental regulations were more lax.

You wouldn't be telling us that those Libertarian Organizations were lying to the American people all through those 20 years would you?

Free Trade = Race to the bottom in standards.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Jun 10, 2011
"The complexity of our tax code is one specific example where we make it difficult to do business here for no real reason." - GSwift

I think everyone can agree that the tax code should be simplified. The problem is, that when it comes to simplification the Republicans always seem propose to simplify it in ways that zero's taxes on their constituents, you know like the Forbes Flat Tax that abolishes taxation on capital gains so that he and his Wall Street buddies have completely tax free incomes.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Jun 10, 2011
"I object to the fact that our power companies should be told how to generate power by a bunch of morons in Washington or Brussels." - Loodt

Sorry Loodt, but we just aren't going to allow you to burn Jews as fuel to run your generating stations, no matter how much you whine about it.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (41) Jun 10, 2011
" They pay the fines and fees and pass the cost on to the consumers. " - GSwift

Who see higher prices, and switch their consumption from coal to alternative sources of energy.

The coal company is then forced to lower is's prices to compensate or reduce it's production and live as a smaller entity.

The only time when this wouldn't be the case is in a very inflexible market where the consumer is being held captive by monopoly or market collusion, and such a condition is proof of inadequate government oversight and regulation.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (42) Jun 10, 2011
"Lord Turnbull - who served Tony Blair as Cabinet Secretary from 2002 to 2005 - accused MPs and civil servants of failing to challenge the 'climate change consensus'- Loodt

1. Who cares what Lord Tardball says... He isn't a climate scientist, and he isn't even a scientist. Like you Loodt, he is a nobody.

2. You are actually using the Daily Mail as a reference..

The daily mail is the least responsible and most dishonest newspaper in England.

Here is the Daily Mail reporting on the latest Bigfoot sighting

http://www.dailym...ime.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (42) Jun 10, 2011
"Fantastic photograph, the first time I've seen a picture of carbon dioxide, obviously a white gas that looks a lot like steam!" - Loodt

Oh, Loodt, you silly quack Tard you... The title if the article uses the word "pollution" and therefore isn't limited to CO2 Pollution as you presume. Neither does the caption say the picture is a picture of CO2.

You have made an incorrect assumption and then based on that assumption complained about what you have presumed to be true.

If that isn't Tard Ball behavior I don't know what is.

Loodt
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2011
VD, dose of clap, how aptly named.
Are you going to post us a picture of your Weiner, a common pratice for Democrats?

Pray do tell us how you arrived at Jews, I reckon on a lb for lb basis they will be dearer than coal, the price of electricity generated by burning them might even exceed that of generating power by wind mills.

But, as Greenie, what has economics to do with it as WE ARE SAVING THE PLANET.

Remember, everything is permissible in a good cause and WE ARE SAVING THE PLANET!
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2011
Vendicar:

I'll mark this date on my calendar. You made some very reasonable comments for once, in stead of the namecalling, and I actually gave you a 5/5! I can't believe it.

I think you're falling into the same ideological trap as skeptic on the following point though:

Who see higher prices, and switch their consumption from coal to alternative sources of energy.

The coal company is then forced to lower is's prices to compensate or reduce it's production and live as a smaller entity.


that's how it is designed to work, but not how it has worked in practice. There are a few exceptions where it worked as intended, but in large the power producers have found ways to get around it, and most people have no choice where they get their power. Renters cannot install solar, for example, and neither can the vast majority of lower middle class who just couldn't afford the initial investments.
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2011
The title if the article uses the word "pollution" and therefore isn't limited to CO2 Pollution as you presume. Neither does the caption say the picture is a picture of CO2


The Australian plans which they are talking about are mainly CO2 laws. So, while you are technically correct that the article doesn't say it, the article is in fact mainly about co2. The strategy they are using above is that they are trying to link co2 to other pollutants, so that people will be more supportive of the new laws. It's a strategy they have been trying for a while now. There was a strategy document leaked from the MP's office a while back that actually said that word for word, so i'm not making that up. I've been following the Australian headlines quite a bit lately.

I'm not against environmental policy, but the proposition in AU is repeating the same mistakes that made the previous efforts fail in other places. They should revise it to keep the good and dump the bad parts.
Loodt
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2011
If you go to a botttle store, or supermarket, you can buy red, rose or white wine. Various vintages, cultivars, and countries.

Nobody forces you to only buy 'wine'.

Why are you forced just to buy electricity?

Why aren't you allowed to buy coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro -power as separate entities?

It is the mixing of the power sources that gives regulators the power to obsure the real cost of Green power.

If only we lived in a proper and real Capitalist society!
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Jun 10, 2011
"Are you going to post us a picture of your Weiner" - Loodt

No doubt you are licking your lips at the thought.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, Adults don't particularly care what pictures other adults are sharing with each other.

The world only seems to see your kind of adolescent tittering coming from American Republicans, and we wonder what aspect of your Conservative ideology has halted your maturity at the stage of pre-puberty.

Since a bulge in a man's underpants seems to set you off, I certainly hope that you do your best to avoid beaches, wrestling, sumo, and Sears Catalogs.

Unless of course, the bulge is what you are looking for.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (38) Jun 10, 2011
"Renters cannot install solar, for example, and neither can the vast majority of lower middle class who just couldn't afford the initial investments." - Gswift

Hmmm Renters can't afford solar because they can't afford to say install a solar heating system in a high rise apartment.

The owner of that apartment simply passes the cost of ultimately coal powered heating to his renters without significant pressure to install more efficient heating.

The economic relaxation time for such a simple problem may be on the order of thousands of years. So unless you are willing to wait thousands of years, this is an admission that Economics fails to solve the problem.

Government regulation is therefore required to speed the transition to a system where market externalities which damage the environment are internalized within the economy.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Jun 10, 2011
"Why are you forced just to buy electricity?

Why aren't you allowed to buy coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro -power as separate entities?" - Loodt

It is - my little Tard - because you are purchasing electricity and not coal, gas, nuclear etc... and the electrons can't tell you where they are from.

Now there are various places around the world where you can enter into a contract with some specific electricity provider to pay them for supplying you with energy, but of course this can't work unless that provider has contracts with all of the other providers to pay them should their production fall below their consumption, and to be paid by them should their production exceed consumption.

Such agreements will also need to include rules for pooling other resources, and transmission lines, and who takes production off line when and under what situations.

Al Gore uses such services when he purchases 0 carbon energy for his offices and staff. and he is ridiculed as a fraud for doing so.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Jun 10, 2011
Al Gore uses such services when he purchases 0 carbon energy for his offices and staff. and he is ridiculed by mealy mouthed ConservaTards as a fraud for doing so.

I am pleased to see a Conservative such as yourself demanding to be able to purchase 0 carbon alternatives just like Al Gore has been doing for more than a decade.

I commend Gore for his vision and for putting his money where his convictions lay.

It is only logical to conclude from your comments that you do the same.

Loodt
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2011
VD, glad to see your fell into my trap.

The alcohol in wine is delivered in the same manner, irrespective of the tannins, robe, body of the wine, it makes you drunk, the effect is the same.

Now, your little electrons conveys the same flavour, some are generally delivered in a continuous stream, like those generated by coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear power stations. Others are delivered in bursts, like in the case of windmills only when the wind is not too strong or not too weak, like 25% of the time, and in the case of solar, only during the day, when the sun is shining brightly and not being obscured by clouds.

There is choice between a constant and intermittent supply. Now in case your mother or father is hooked up to life support equipment, do you want the solar panels on your roof to supply the power?

Or in the case where you are in the Channel Tunnel, below the sea, would you like your train to be driven by power supplied by the French grid with all their nuclear power stations
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
Now, your little electrons conveys the same flavour, some are generally delivered in a continuous stream, like those generated by coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear power stations. Others are delivered in bursts, like in the case of windmills only when the wind is not too strong or not too weak, like 25% of the time, and in the case of solar, only during the day, when the sun is shining brightly and not being obscured by clouds.
This isn't accurate in the least.

Fossil fuel and nuclear powered turbines operate at a baseload due to the number of turbines running from the steam pushed through them based on the total fuel temperature and water pressure which is variable. Wind turns a turbine with a minimum and maximum spin due to braking and gearing. The variability of wind is actually much lower than you'd assume due to prop size and the fact they have a transmission allowing for greater throughput in lower pressure situations.
Bog_Mire
not rated yet Jun 11, 2011
seems rather than post a science based rebuttal Loodt would rather just score a 1 and skulk away....
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (37) Jun 12, 2011
"The alcohol in wine is delivered in the same manner" - LoodTard

Well, no. Alcohol of varying origins isn't dispensed into your drinking cup from a common spigot.

You don't take a cup of juice from this community spigot and imagine that you are drinking wine or beer or whatever swill you drink. And then pay for the privilege of having that fantasy.

But electricity is different of course. An electron is an electron is an electron no matter if it is produced by solar, wind, coal, natural gas etc... So it is entirely possible to draw from a common spigot and yet pay different prices for different methods of production.

This is all obvious to any thinking person of course.

What is your excuse for not knowing any of this Loodt?

Have you been living on Planet Conservadopia or something?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Jun 12, 2011
"There is choice between a constant and intermittent supply." - LoodTard

Yup. Railway strikes can make the supply of coal problematic.

Fortunately sunshine varies by only around 2% over it's 22 year sunspot cycle.

LoodTard old boy... Your thinking abilities appear to be limited and intermittent.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2011
Vendicar:

Hmmm Renters can't afford solar because they can't afford to say install a solar heating system in a high rise apartment.

The owner of that apartment simply passes the cost of ultimately coal powered heating to his renters without significant pressure to install more efficient heating

Government regulation is therefore required to speed the transition to a system where market externalities which damage the environment are internalized within the economy.


That's my point about the current generation of carbon reduction laws, and why they aren't working in their current form. Take, for example, the mobile home that my daughter and I rent. There is no incentive for my landlord to install energy efficient windows, insulation, or an efficient heating/cooling unit. The added cost to improve the property does not equate to sufficiently higher property value. Raising the utility rates isn't a good solution either. That kills people like me, for zero effect.
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2011
Why are you forced just to buy electricity?


You're not. Stop paying your bills and you'll see that.

Why aren't you allowed to buy coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro -power as separate entities?


Because that's not how they're sold. The power goes to the grid and that's when your house draws from.

You want power straight from a wind farm or a solar farm? Lay down the cash for your own transmission lines then.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2011
The results for the latest RGGI auction just came out. Not good news for the State budget makers who were counting on misappropriating funds from RGGI to back their overdrawn State pension funds. The credits are selling for the market base minimum because supply exceeds demand. It seems that they have already exceded the goals of the plan. So not I guess it goes away, right? Bad news for anybody who speculated and bought credits ahead of time hoping to make a buck. I hate to say I told you so, but the only winners are the people who set it up. It's a fixed game, and the house wins. Yeah, Au needs that.

BTW, the ETS is even worse shape due to corruption and poor security, amongst other things.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2011
With all these targeted 'sin' taxes, who guarantees the revenues are not just dumped into the general fund?
Loodt
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2011
VD

Fortunately sunshine varies by only around 2% over it's 22 year sunspot cycle.

What?

No clouds, day or night time where you live?

You are a serious retard oozing serious tripe.
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2011
With all these targeted 'sin' taxes, who guarantees the revenues are not just dumped into the general fund?


Nobody. That's exactly what has happened in RGGI and ETS. I would bet my life that Ca will do exactly the same thing. It's just like the so-called South Carolina Education Lottery. Sure they divert the required amount of money, but they counter that money by taking away an equal amount of the 'normal' budget and apply that to the general fund (ie pension fund).
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2011
'Sin' taxes are irrational if their intent is to reduce the level of 'sin'. Govts become dependent upon the revenue and must then encourage more 'sin' or cut spending.