You would have loved it. Plenty of conspiracy theories.

Let me tell you, the niceties of the Black and Scholes Option Pricing Formula leave Mouldy and Pox for dead.

[QUOTE=slapphead_otool;8350491]

Can you tell me the difference between your Carbon Tax, and the proposed ETS?
A Carbon Tax At Source is far simpler than an ETS. An ETS involves a complex trading system, creating a new financial market. A CTAS would be similar to the existing royalties system.

It is pedantic to argue over the name, when the intention is the same – namely, to increase the cost of carbon emitting fuels to a point where consumption is reduced.
Hardly. An CTAS would be far cheaper to implement. Surely that's not a "pedantic" difference? Instead of traders in London making a killing trading carbon offsets and other fancy financial products, tax revenue on Australian coal, oil and gas will flow straight to the Australian government.

Damn, I knew the postgrad in Economics was a waste of time.
You are kidding, right?

So – using your logic, if we taxed cigarettes at $50 each and handed the S50 back to the smokers, cigarette consumption would decline?
For analogy is incorrect. The $50 dollars would be equally distributed amongst smokers AND non smokers.

I tell you Budawang, I may not have learned much in those lectures, but I managed to align my meagre brain cells into a common direction and at least get some basic logic flowing.
I fully agree with the first part of the above statement. Not so sure about the logic part though.

[QUOTE=Budawang;8353798] Ok – I see what you mean re Carbon tax v ETS, your difference being it isn’t traded.
I am sure you will agree that the object of either is to make carbon producing fuels more expensive, thus reducing consumption.
Do you agree on this simple principle?
Let me restate it in really simple terms. A Carbon Tax, like ETS, will put the cost of electricity up by a substantial percentage, in an attempt to persuade people to sit in the dark.
Agreed?

I wasn’t joking re economics. But as you notice, I am not a bright chap. Can you elaborate on the $50 cigarette tax example? See I don’t understand how taking money off people as a tax then handing it back to them stops them consuming anything.

It’s a bit like tying someone’s legs together, then cutting the knot. Pointless.

Unless of course its an attempt to tax those evil wealthy capitalist environmentally damaging pigs and redistribute money to those poor underprivileged downtrodden workers. Then it’s a fine idea.

Doorstop interview"

Houswife: So Ken, you want to tax me more?

Kev, Actually its Kevin.

Housewife: yer sure, whatever your call yourself love. What about this tax?

Kev: Well madam, you have been buggering up the planet. Now you have to pay.

Housewife: What? Has my little Eddie been at it again? I will kick his backside.

Kev: No, no madam. You have been using……… ELECTRICITY!

Housewife: Too bloody right Ken. Heats the place in winter, cools it in summer, and cooks dinner. Great stuff.

Kev: Actually its Kevin. And you have to stop using it.

Housewife: WHAT? Have we run out?

Kev: No, we have lots of it, and we can generate lots more. But some people think it might make th place warmer.

Housewife: Strewth Ken, is it getting warmer?

Kev: Well No. In fact its getting cooler. But that doesn’t matter. You have to pay a new tax.

Housewife: Why that Ken?

Kev: Because I’m an economic idiot and I have stuffed the economy. I need the money.

Housewife: so I am going to be taxed?

Kev: Yes madam, but we will return the money to you, with 20% extra.

Housewife: Wow Ken, that’s great, so I can keep the aircon on 20% longer can I?

Kev: Well errrrr.......

Housewife: look love, you look like a nice enough guy, but you are talking cobblers. If you give me the money back how come its supposed to stop me buying the stuff?

Kev: Errr – well some guy called Budaburg told me.

Housewife: You got some rum people giving you advice love.

[QUOTE=slapphead_otool;8353872] Ok, here goes. 20% of the population smokes. The government puts a $50 tax on a pack of smokes. The government distributes the proceeds from the tax equally. The smokers and non smokers alike get back $10 each. The smokers are worse off by $40 and the non smokers are better off by $10. The smokers realise that not only is smoking bad for their health but it's also very expensive. They look at their non smoker friends and see that they have more disposable income than they do. Although they don't experience the joy of smoking they can see that their non smoker friends are able to indulge in other pleasures like eating Swiss chocolate and drinking French champagne.

[QUOTE=Budawang;8354233] that doesn't fit anywhere in right-wing economics . . .

the quotes are messed up

A bit like the IPCC's data.

Boom tsk.

Haha!

But to be honest even if the IPCC's data wasn't messed up do you think it'd make a shread of difference?

[QUOTE=Budawang;8354233] Bundy my old fried, do you really want me to critique your economic argument???

Let me just point out some of the more obvious flaws:

Firstly, unlike cigarettes, where usage is limited and voluntary (although addictive), energy is what makes our life bearable.

You cant avoid its usage – unless you want to revert to third world standards, sit around the camp fire and talk about the good old days.

Secondly, energy costs are a component in everything we do.

Take the kids to day care: something like 20% of the cost will be energy related. This component cost isn’t just direct – it’s a compound component cost, because the day care staff also use energy to get to work, to do the work, and to live outside of work.

Go to the supermarket. The lighting and aircon or heating are direct energy costs. The transport from the factory to the supermarket are indirect component costs, the goods are made using energy, the workers who make the goods use energy. The tools used to make the goods are manufactured using energy.

If you think very carefully about this, you will realise that a 20% Carbon Tax will result in a compound price increase in everything, and a huge increase in cost of living, resulting in inflation.

Of course, if the supermarket goods are made in China, which doesn’t propose taxing its energy (and is now the biggest CO2 polluter in the world) then the goods wont contain an energy tax component.

Do you still think it’s a good idea?

Yvo de Boer's resignation compounds sense of gathering climate crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...te-change-body

Interesting article in the Guardian….

[QUOTE=iolande;8355581] Exactly Iolande,

and I didnt say it either.

Bundawang said it, and he isnt a proponent of right wing ecnomics.

Absolutely. The primary reason I have problems with those who propose that humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change include:

1. Their data are either unavailable or cherrypicked.
2. They refuse to produce data when asked.
3. They accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of being a heretic, instead of entering into scientific debate. Or they evade the questions completely.

The only thing I know for certain is that it is perfectly possible for the climate to change through natural causes. No one has yet convinced me firstly that humans are even capable of causing significant changes to the climate, and subsequently that the current climate change is due to humans.

If someone wishes to present competent analyses from good clear and publicly available data, then I'd be delighted to look at it. It may even change my mind. I'm a scientist, not a fanatic. religious or political. If I am presented with good evidence of humans affecting the climate then it is not only right that I alter my position, but a requirement of scientific philosophy. I might not change my position completely until the evidence is insurmountable. But we're a long way from there yet.