The Lesson from the Death of the Aussie Carbon Tax


When Australia embraced a carbon tax two years ago, global warming warriors were ecstatic. Australia had gone

Kris Krug / Foter / Creative Commons

from environmental laggard, refusing to even the sign the Kyoto treaty at first (just like the benighted US of A), to environmental leader. They told the world to watch and learn.

But two weeks ago, Australia's newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott scrapped the tax that was as popular in the Land Down Under as Donald Sterling is here.

So if anyone needs to learn from the death of Australia's carbon tax, and the terminal fate of Europe's cap-and-trade program, I note in the Washington Examiner, it is the enviros themselves. And the lesson is that "mitigation" strategies — curbing greenhouse gases by putting economies on an energy diet — are not winning or workable.

Instead,  envrios should accept that "the sins of emission can't be legislated away and abandon their quixotic quest for radical cuts in emissions in favor of less economically destructive coping strategies."

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Cop Shoots Dog in Throat, Threatens Owner With Arrest If He Tries to Help Wounded Canine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does this mean that the Aussies are backing off of their full on retard? They need to take care or they will lose their numero uno retard spot to the USA, Sweden, or Britain.

  2. I bet Bailey has a sad.

  3. Global warming is real and going to kill us all!

    But the one policy that would actually work, switching ourselves and India and China to nuclear power, is an unacceptable solution, because of pollution.

    Even though I just said carbon pollution is the one that’s going to kill the world

    1. Nuclear is unacceptable because it is every bit as uneconomic as ‘renewable’ energy, and that doesn’t change if you drop the unreasonable safety regulations.

      1. Bullshit.

        Safety regulations are only part of the cost; the other part is fighting NIMBY lawsuits and obstructionism by enirowackos that greatly lengthen the amount of time it takes to build a new reactor.

        The technology is there, and newer technology is both more efficient, safer, and less expensive. If the Watermelons would get the fuck out of the way it’d be far, far cheaper than it is.

        1. Nope. France has lots of nuclear and the government can probably steamroll any NIMBY opposition. Nuclear is as expensive their as here. It just doesn’t work economically, despite the billions and billions of dollars thrown at it by government.

          1. I would disagree. Once you get beyond the huge fixed cost of building the plant, the operating costs are quite low (ignoring externalities related to carbon).

            A 2009 MIT study (updating a 2003 study) found the cost per kWhr to be around 8.4 cents. This is in line or lower than other energy sources.

            I’m pretty optimistic about the future of nuclear energy, especially if liquid thorium reactors start taking off.

    2. If global warming is going to kill us we all should be dead by the list of what it causes.

    3. Global warming is real and going to kill us all!

      No it isn’t.

      There is zero evidence that the small warming due to increased CO2 causes a positive feedback loop.

      In fact the lack of that feedback loop over the past 60 years is proof that it is not real.

      1. Nevermind that there has been warming in the past and no positive feedback loop ever occurred.

        The whole idea that a small bit of warming, regardless of the original cause, would create a world killing feedback loop is absurd at its base. If it was possible, that the climate was so very fragile, then it would have already happened and we would be hypothetical bacteria floating 10 miles up in the atmosphere of Venus 2 instead of multi-cell organisms that took 4 billion years to evolve.

  4. But the one policy that would actually work, switching ourselves and India and China to nuclear power, is an unacceptable solution, because of pollution.

    Well, that and ZOMG NUKLEAR WEEPONS!

    Yeah, it’s dumb.

  5. I can’t find it right now, but the Chron ran an article on Moonbeam’s ‘green regs’ and the effect on gasoline prices; the result of a poll was included.
    When the question was ‘Do you think this is a good idea?’, they got 75%+ approval. When the question was ‘Do you think this is a good idea if it raises gas prices?’, approval dropped to something like 35%

    1. Which is why greenies lie about the costs of their “solutions.”

      1. Because, yeah, it beats fucking working for a living.

  6. HIDE THE DECLINE, BABY!…..1344004278

  7. “According to a study by UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, the program has had “almost zero impact” on emissions — challenging the much more rosy assessments of the European Commission.”

    Hey Shikha, do you have a link to that UBS report? Last i heard, Ron B was trying to get a copy, but never heard that he did:…..on-trading

    No luck googling around a bit either, but my google-fu isnt that great.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.