Report: Carbon Emissions Increased After Six Years Downward Trend Following Abbott’s Repeal of Carbon Tax

240px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17200px-Tony_Abbott_-_2010We have been following the alarming rollback on environmental protections under Australia’s conservative Abbott, including the repeal on the carbon tax (the first of a major Western power). Tony Abbott has pledged to reverse environmental measures from the protections of the country’s famous reefs to opening up pristine areas for development. Now, just two months after the repeal of the tax on emissions, a study shows that (not surprisingly) carbon emissions and electricity demand in Australia have risen after a nearly six-year long trend of decline. This comes a week after the report of scientists who found an over 99% likelihood that humans are causing climate change.

The company releasing the report, Pitt & Sherry, tracks electricity use and emissions in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) and said that emissions are expected to continue to rise as a result of the rollback. In just two months, the increase was the equivalent to an annual increase of 0.8 percent.

The Abbott government has also pushed for more power generation black and brown coal power stations and there has been a drop in renewable energy use. The Abbott government has now commissioned a report recommending the effective repeal of the country’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), a scheme designed to ensure that 20 percent of its electricity would be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This will likely further the increase in non-renewable energy use.

The Abbott repeal removed the tax on carbon emissions for around 300 of the country’s biggest emitters to pay for their CO2 emissions.

Source: Scientific American

79 thoughts on “Report: Carbon Emissions Increased After Six Years Downward Trend Following Abbott’s Repeal of Carbon Tax”

  1. My husband spent years as an officer on a nuclear submarine (US). When you spend the amount of time the Navy required studying nuclear energy you get past fear nonsense and learn. Nuclear energy is the best way to provide energy. France has used it for a very long time. Yes, Japan had problems, but no one suggests we put a plant in dangerous places. The CO2 hysteria here is about power over citizens. And increasing that power is what progressivism/
    liberalism goals are. They will tell us how much water we may have, or power, or what you can plant on your land. Soon whether you may own a gun and what type. Then additional taxes because you have a bigger house than you “need” and luxuries of a pool, A/C, Dishwasher, spiffy TV’s. If you buy a dress over the amount “they” deem acceptable, a higher tax on the amount overage. Remember all the money the yacht luxury tax was going to add to government coffers? Not there. Why, because people bought their yachts elsewhere with less tax. We’ve had air, water, land since the inception of this country. But now we are idiots who don’t understand how to use it. They know that because they’ve destroyed a great education system. Laws are broken daily by the administration, but no one complains. Why is DoJ in Ferguson? Shouldn’t the state investigate it’s own police forces? And even if we put no CO2 in the air, one fart by every cow in India and the air is full of it. Pardon the pun.

  2. We don’t need no stinking water,…. What the heck… We don’t need no stinking air either…

  3. The sarcasm is so thick around here I could try to cut out a chunk and eat it with cheese.

  4. Nick,
    I am a little slow responding to your earlier slurs, but better late than never. I apologize if asking you to prove what you are claiming is tedious to you. It is a bad habit of mine to prefer to deal in facts when you are making claims about anyone, yet alone our host.

  5. “Climate change” is nature. 99.9% of scientists do not agree. 99.9% of those ASKED might agree. This is about fear and control. No one, absolutely no one, has any idea what weather will be 100 years forward. The US has done several things to clean our air, which is good, but costly. We are the only country going to the extremes we do on the basis of weather in 100 years. We’ve taken $$$ from roads and infrastructure to address climate change. We need the roads and infrastructure now! And close the EPA which is destroying so much of our economy. A meteor could blow us out of the sky in 50 years and what difference would extremism in the name of climate change have done? Nothing!

  6. Found this on Fine Gael: “The party lists its core values as equality of opportunity, fiscal rectitude, free enterprise and reward, individual rights and responsibilities.” I like how that sounds!

  7. Darren – than you for pointing out the politics of environmentalism.

    I belonged to the Sierra Club for over 20 years. I finally tired of continually reading the “we hate Republicans” drum beat in every issue. I wrote to them, urging them to accept the premise that environmentalism and conservationism are for everyone, regardless of political affiliation. They are alienating anyone who was not Democrat from a cause that is supposed to be inclusive. How does that benefit the environment?

    They never responded.

    Anytime we have a large group of people who believe that if you don’t believe exactly as they do, you’re a Nazi, a flat-Earther, stupid, etc, that is not an inclusive movement.

    Environmentalists will never prevent a Silent Spring by continually politicizing every issue, and bashing non-Democrats. That’s hardly in the spirit of “Let’s all work together so our kids can inherit a clean Earth.”

  8. Darren, You are naïve regarding the politics of this Climate Change controversy. This is not about the climate, it is about power and control. NOTHING reasonable people wanting common sense measures is going to create a love fest. The Al Gore folks have A LOT OF $ invested in “green energy” futures. They are all in on this and they need to scare and tax the bejesus out of us to make it happen.

  9. I just finished watching the documentary “Chasing Ice”. An amazingly beautiful film filled with massive ice shelves and glaciers that are disappearing before our eyes. Watch it on Netflix, then tell everyone how man made global warming is not real.

  10. Max-1.

    For my beliefs the notion of protecting the environment should, ideally, be neutral politically because for both sides of our current duopoly system they should both agree for different reasons. But what does it matter for why as long as it is important. Unfortunately, it has become political.

    A little over a year ago, I commented here how in my life I noticed during the 1970’s that the environmental movement made a strategic blunder. It aligned itself with one side of the political spectrum. As a consequence of this it did bring much support from the left at the expense of causing the right to view environmentalists with enmity. Now decades later it is polarizing and this is damaging the cause. So when people bring up protecting the environment the right views those advocating this as tree huggers and the left accuses the right of persecuting the environmental movement. There is truth in this but it is not as absolute as some perceive. However there are certainly too many who zealously follow the beliefs of a particular party who’s ideals they consider important.

    The other problem is that fear is driving much of this. Not often legitimate climate / environment worry, but political fear of the other side and it manifests itself in counter-productive ways.

    I think if somehow the right was convinced there was great political advantage in trying to outdo the left by proffering itself as the champion of green politics the fighting between both sides would have an effect of benefiting the environment.

    Since you brought up your convictions on being Liberal, maybe I might reveal mine. It probably averages center but a bit right sometimes. The political party I support is Fine Gael. in Ireland. I have dual-citizenship with Ireland so I care about what goes on there also

    I wish Fine Gael was an option for Americans.

    The Irish don’t have a problem with climate change prevention, why should we?

  11. Traveling Limey – my family fought in WWII. I still have memorabilia brought home from the war. Stories about the “living skeletons” in the concentration camps, the intense shock that human beings could do this to the Jews.

    Your comments that questioning anthropogenic climate change, or criticizing the failures of the study, is somehow equivalent to the Nazis is foolish in the extreme. If you do not understand this, I suggest you go find one of the few elders left with tattoos on their forearms and explain to them how questioning climate change is the same as the beast who gassed and cooked their family members, made lamp shades out of their skins, and stuffed pillows with their hair. Good luck with that. But you’re a great example of extremism.

Comments are closed.