Remembering Julia Gillard - Part Two

Julia Gillard became Prime Minister of Australia on 24 June 2010. After the federal election in August 2010 she formed a minority government. Ms. Gillard ceased to be prime minister on 27 June 2013.

Below are the measurable effects of her government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GREENHOUSE ACCOUNTS Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, June Quarter 2012

Emissions increased in the June quarter 2012, with trend emissions growth subdued at 0.0% and seasonally adjusted and weather normalised emissions increasing 0.4% on the

previous quarter (Figures 1-3).

The fugitive emissions sector increased in trend emissions for the June quarter 2012 (section 2.4). This increase was offset by decreases in emissions from the electricity (section 2.1) and industrial processes (section 2.5) sectors, which resulted in zero trend growth for the quarter.

Annual emissions for the year to June 2012 are estimated to be 551.0 Mt CO2-e. This represents a small decline in emissions of 0.1% when compared to the year to June 2011.

                                                                    

The national carbon pricing mechanism (popularly known as the carbon tax) introduced by the Labor Gillard Government began on 1 July 2012.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GREENHOUSE ACCOUNTS Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, June Quarter 2013

Emissions increased in the June quarter 2013, with both trend and seasonally adjusted emissions growing by 0.3% (Figures 1-3).

Agriculture (section 2.6), industrial processes (section 2.5) and transport (section 2.3) sectors contributed to the quarterly trend increase in emissions. This was partially offset by trend decreases in emissions in the stationary energy excluding electricity (section 2.2) and fugitive emissions (section 2.4) sectors.

Annual emissions for 2012-13 are estimated to be 545.9 Mt CO2-e. This represents a 0.1% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GREENHOUSE ACCOUNTS Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: June 2014

Emissions increased in the June quarter 2014, with trend emissions growing 0.4% on March 2014; increases in the stationary energy (section 2.2), electricity (section 2.1) and agriculture (section 2.6) sectors were partially offset by decreases in transport (section 2.3) and fugitive emissions (section 2.4). Seasonally adjusted emissions increased 0.2% (Figures 1-3).

Annual emissions for 2013-14 are estimated to be 542.6 Mt CO2-e3. This represents a 1.4% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year.

Over 2013-14, there was a decline in emissions from electricity (section 2.1), reflecting lower electricity demand and changes in the generation mix. Emissions from transport (section 2.3), industrial processes (section 2.5) and agriculture (section 2.6) also declined over the year. These declines were partially offset by increases in the fugitive emissions (section 2.4) and stationary energy (excluding electricity) (section 2.2) sectors.

The national carbon pricing mechanism was ended by the Abbott Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government on 1 July 2014.

Professor of Geology and Director of Melbourne Energy Institute at University of Melbourne, Mike Stanford, 4 November 2014

Across the National Electricity Market (NEM) we are tracking towards an extra 14 million tonnes CO2 for FY2014-15 compared to FY2013-14. If we get lower than average rain, electricity sector emissions might grow by a few more million tonnes and exceed 10% over the year.

The pertinent numbers are shown in the figure below. In the first hundred days since the repeal NEM emissions were up 4 million tonnes on the equivalent period last financial year according to figures from the market operator AEMO.

CEDEX Carbon Emissions Index, November 2014

In the June 2014 CEDEX® report we said “it now appears that June 2014 may mark the low point of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for the foreseeable future”.  That is what is now happening. 

So just how much is the O'Farrell Government taking from the wallets of public housing tenants when it takes one quarter of their Commonwealth Clean Energy Supplement?

In April 2013 the NSW Coalition Government began to calculate public housing rent to include the Commonwealth Clean Energy Supplement. It also allowed community housing associations/corporations to similarly adjust their rent calculations.

Premier O’Farrell said revenue needs to be raised by increasing public housing rents because NSW won’t be compensated for the carbon tax “hit” to electricity generators.

According to the NSW Auditor-General in 2012; New South Wales has the largest social housing portfolio in Australia, comprising over 150,000 dwellings. LAHC owns the bulk of these with about 134,000 dwellings valued at around $32 billion.

If one nominally allocates one Clean Energy Supplement payment of $13.50 per fortnight^[1] to each of the 134,000 dwelling owned by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) and totals the 25% of this supplement that the NSW O’Farrell Government takes from the renters of this public housing – then Liberal Party Premier O’Farrell and Nationals Deputy Leader Stoner now extract an estimated $11.7 million annually out of the pockets of predominately old aged and disability pensioners, widows (including war widows), single parents and carers.

In March 2013 the NSW Liberal Party stated that the cost to the State Budget of the carbon tax is expected to be $237 million. So 134,000 low income households will be paying an estimated 4.96%^[2] of the O’Farrell Government’s total expected carbon tax bill for 2013-14.

Or to put it another way, about 5.42% of all 2.4 million NSW households (ABS National Regional Profile: New South Wales 2013) pay almost 5% of the NSW Government's total expected carbon tax bill.

 

If one also nominates one Clean Energy Supplement payment per fortnight to each of the 16,000 dwelling held by community housing – then the not-for-profit housing sector takes another $1.4 million annually. As this sector is unlikely to find that it is directly liable for the carbon tax, one wonders what excuse it will give its low income tenants for so blatantly gouging.

One particular Northern Rivers community housing company collects around $74,000 per annum from its tenants’ fortnightly federal energy supplements.


[1] The $13.50 is a single person's fortnightly payment if they are receiving the aged, disability, widow's or wife's pension or receiving carers payment.

[2] A thank you to Clarrie Rivers for confirming the estimated percentage of public housing renters paying part of the state's expected carbon tax bill.

In your guts you know he's nuts

Tony Abbott in all his intellectual glory

Tony we’ll all be rooned Abbott continues to prove Albo right – “In your guts you know he’s nuts”.

“This is not a true market. Just ask yourself what an emissions trading scheme is all about. It's a market, a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.” {Tony Abbott during doorstop interview on 15^th July 2013}

''Tony Abbott's insistence that Labor's emissions trading scheme is an expensive exercise in buying and selling an ''invisible substance'' has drawn derision from climate experts and industry.------Professor Richard Dennis, an economist at the Australian National University, said Mr Abbott should make it clear whether he thinks radiation was harmful or not. ''The notion that something now has to be visible to be valuable or harmful is an entirely new concept in Australian politics and one that will concern and confuse many,'' he said. ''If Tony Abbott is concerned about people paying for invisible things, then anyone who owns intellectual property should be very concerned, likewise people in the futures and financial derivatives market.'' {Granny Herald on 16^th July 2013}

“Abbott's "invisible substance" line appears to have been lifted almost word for word from this UK Telegraph column. http://bit.ly/a60yoH “ {@bencubby at Twitter on 16^th July 2013}

Tony Abbott, the author, the power bill and parliament

Image from ABC News online

Synergy (West Australia) is a state government-owned corporation which raised its residential and business electricity prices on 1 July 2012.

It states that the average customer uses 15.89 units of electricity per day or 969.22 units over 61 days. This should result in a carbon price charge in the vicinity of $22 (based on the state corporation's own calculations) for a billing period of this length.

In the case of an electricity account for June-July 2012, this average household should only attract a carbon price charge of around $11 dollars, because this charge was not introduced until halfway through the billing period.

Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, claimed in the Federal Parliament this week that the electricity account for June-July 2012 (pictured above) represented an $800 increase in electricity costs to an 82 year-old author/ pensioner since the previous billing period and that 70 per cent of this rise is due to the carbon tax.

This particular household appears to have almost doubled its electricity consumption since that previous billing period and used 112 units of electricity daily or 6,832 units over 61 days, resulting in a bill for $1,563.70 in total (GST and carbon price inclusive).

It is worth noting that at an average of 112 units per day this customer uses seven times more electricity than the average Synergy customer and, the carbon price charge included in this bill would be in the vicinity of $77 - again based on the state corporation's own calculations for this level of electricity consumption.

In fact most of the actual $827.45 increase represents increased tariff and supply charges imposed by the WA Coalition Government coupled with the cost of markedly increased consumption.

If Tony Abbott was seriously concerned about this woman, then he would be advising her to have her electricity meter checked and have someone look at her major appliances, if as she allegedly asserts in her email to him, there has been no change in lifestyle which would explain higher electricity use.

Perhaps Mr. Abbott might like to also speak with his political colleagues in the Barnett Government, given a June 2012 final report by the WA Economic Regulation Authority foreshadowed further price increases next year based on Synergy's operating costs:

Synergy reported that its forecast increases in operating costs were based on the following explanatory factors:
- an expected increase in the costs of dealing with customer complaints, due to tariff increases, and additional Ombudsman-related compliance costs;
- the implementation of new products and services required by government;
- increasing implementation costs associated with the new billing system;
- costs associated with strategic projects and business transformation; and
- higher IT costs arising from the separation of IT systems from Western Power.

Though, given this is a West Australia story, perhaps it is more than Mr. Abbott who has a connection with a mining industry unhappy about the national carbon price scheme and who may be intent on pushing the anti-tax case. Parliament might like an explanation as to how this pensioner came to his notice.