China to introduce carbon tax

From the AFR:

China has outlined plans to introduce a carbon tax, but the mooted starting price is likely to be a fraction of that under way in Australia.

The Ministry of Finance indicated a starting price of about 10 yuan ($1.50) for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, rising to 50 yuan a tonne by 2020.

EU, China, guess we’re not alone after all. The efficacy of the tax will likely be based on proportionate pricing throughout the economy. Therefore the disparity will be nowhere near as great as the article suggests.


  1. “..China has outlined plans …”

    Let’s not get too excited. It’s just a plan after all. Let’s see what reality looks like.

    Have we got Combet’s quote yet?

    • As I’ve said, many times, to the derision of many here, a carbon tax or trading scheme is inevitable in every country of the world.

      AGW is a fact. It’s becoming a “long emergency”. We have to act.

      I heard Abbott promising to abolish Australian carbon taxes and trading schemes today. Talk about a fool.

      • rubbish. its a fact amongst a collective of groupthink scientists (and i am a scientist by training) but if you look at long term climate records (100 thousand to 100 million years etc) its just noise and completely insignificant. this is where the climate change skeptics get their ammo. up until 2 years ago the models didnt even include southern hemisphere cloud cover, where 80% of clouds are. trust me when i tell you the models are so simplistic they cannot possibly estimate anything! im not saying humans arent altering the climate, but we are treating the symptom of a much bigger problem that no one wants to admit–there are too many of us, consuming too much, with cheap debt! systemic collapse at various scales is much more likely than a few degrees of warming that might mean we farm differently and have to move some bengalis. we need strict population control and regulatory regimes that close the loop, market based mechanisms like ETS only enrich corporations, are open to fraud, and impoverish the fixed income earners. i do agree with the abbot is a fool part of your statement though. but to quote obi wan kenobi, who is the more foolish, the fool or the fools who follow him (ie according to polls a lot of australians!)

      • It’s you versus over 13,000 studies, over 20+ years, by climate experts, that prove you are wrong. Wow. You should be ashamed, voicing daft opinions like that in an open forum. It’s like farting in a meeting ๐Ÿ˜ณ

      • was burry and paulson wrong when they shorted subprime. everyone was sure prices only rise. and that was millions if not hundreds of millions of bankers, and “experts”. read my paragraph. im not denying climate change, i am saying people are hysterical over something that is a symptom of a much deeper problem. im not ashamed at all i understand the science. do you?

      • You’re comparing a credit bubble to climate science ๐Ÿ™„ ๐Ÿ™„

        I rest my case.

        Where’s my killfile?

      • and again i reiterate im not denying “human accelerated/compounded warming” im just stating i think the world has much bigger problems. look how effective the montreal protocol was in regard to CFCs. the ozone hole is now shrinking. thats what happens when strong policy/regulation is put in place. not a trading scam. but there was clear evidence for the ozone hole, it frightened people. climate change needs a shock. humans are reactionary, not precautionary. thats all im saying

      • You said AGW is “its just noise and completely insignificant”.

        Now you’re saying “im not denying โ€œhuman accelerated/compounded warmingโ€”.

        Please accept that I will not be responding further to your twaddle interesting posts.

      • no worries, i have pretty much discounted your insults and limited understanding of climate change. at least hr holden has a grasp rather than just spouting hyperbole and headlines. im just stirring the pot here if you havent noticed. you should go back and read my very first post and take a deep breath, maybe go for a walk?

      • arescarti42MEMBER

        The climate records show one thing very clearly, global temperature tracks atmospheric CO2 very, very closely.

        Current rises in CO2 concentration are way out of range for anything that has happened in the last 400,000 years at least (although I don’t know about periods longer than that).

        The key point is it was the unusually stable CO2 concentrations and temperature over the last 10,000 years or so that allowed humans to transition from hunter gatherers to industrial globalised civilisations.

        What the climate was doing a million years ago is irrelevant in the sense that humans weren’t depending on it to run huge and massively complex societies based on extremely fragile agricultural systems like we do now.

      • exactly. you are anthropomorphic, you think we are the centre of the system. the world will be better off without us. and its virtually undeniable we in the 6th great extinction. i doubt climate change will make any difference at all. i could be wrong, but i doubt it. giant cockroaches would probably manage the system better ๐Ÿ™‚

      • you are anthropomorphic, you think we are the centre of the system

        I think you mean anthropocentric. ๐Ÿ™„

      • a) Yes. On geological time scales, natural process will eventually wipe human impact from the face of the earth. But I don’t give a toss about what will happen in 1,000 years – I’m interested in the next 50. So millennial change is irrelevant.

        b) There is not one single national academy of science on the planet that rejects either AGW or the need to act on it. Not one. There is not a single peak science body on the planet that rejects either AGW or the need to act on it. Not a one. There are 6 global peak geology bodies that support action on AGW. There is not a single one that that rejects it. Note please too that these bodies are funded by right wing governments, left wing governments and totalitarian governments and even totalitarian governments with massive dependencies on oil production, (like Saudi and UAE).

        Both right wing, centrist and centre left governments would like the problem to go away. (Only the far left benefit politically from it). There is also a spectacularly good business case for the O&G, black coal, steel, brown coal, alumina etc etc industries to disprove AGW.

        Despite all this – there is not one single peak body on this planet that agrees with you. None.

        Yes there is uncertainty. Like there is a 0-10% chance there is warming but it won’t matter much. A 20% chance that it be quite problematic. A 50% chance that it will be destructive to human quality of life and a 20% chance it will be catastrophic.

        ie the is an 80-90% chance we’ve got a problem. It would be irrational not to act.

        But letโ€™s hope it ends in the “it warmed a bit and didn’t really matter” category. Another 10-20 years of climate science will at least reduce the uncertainty and provide a clearer picture as to whether it is going to be a small or massive problem.

      • BTW โ€“ Sure, the “group think” argument cannot be discounted – the GFC is a classic example of group think in operation.


        The AGW debate has been running solidly for 30 years (on the fringes even longer). The Consensus was only arrived at in around 2003-4 after years of public debate – hundreds of conferences on every conceivable significant sub issue and thousands of peer reviews and many well publicised augments.

        This is quite unlike the GFC. For one, there was a massive profit motive to ignore the problem and lets be honest; the profit motive is very good at pushing negative externalities from the mind. Also, unlike climate change, the GFC has no peer review, no Climate Gate to publicise and air concerns, no 20 years of well publicised vociferous debate and no equivalent to an IPCC peer review process.

        Sure group think is possible – but it’s accounted for in the 10% – “it won’t matter” uncertainty class. Group think might be happening but it’s less probable given the range and types of scientific bodies involved and the range of cultural and political perspectives involved.

        If AGW is as silly and blindingly wrong as you suggest – how come the 100s of millions of $ put up by various bodies, individuals and groups to disprove AGW – has not provided enough prima facie evidence to convince just one single academy of science or just one peak body?

        You really need to make a more cogent argument if you want to bring yourself back in from the nutcase box.

      • ps i have read kunstlers long emergency too, this guy was forecasting the end of the world due to peak oil a few years back and now look where we are, a global gas glut that is coming to australian shores soon enough.

      • thanks i will pass on your biased link. i understand the shale ponzi well. but who said anything about shale specifically? i just said gas!? the sky is falling R2M quick put on your tin hat.

      • i also like the saying “Trust those who seek the truth – doubt those who say they’ve found it” have you read any of those 13,000 papers R2M because i read a lot in 3rd climatology at university? again before you go and get all hysterical, read what i have written. i would also take a look at emissions and the ETS there since the financial crisis, i think you will find that emissions dropped much sharper when consumption fell due to excessive debt than any ridiculous scheme they put in place, filled with russian “hot air” and widespread corruption. but anyway……carry on.

      • Kunstler was never talking about gas when he coined the ‘long emergency’ phrase, so you’re mixed up there. He was referring to oil

        And BTW I was using the phrase to refer to climate (that point seems to have gone over your head too).

      • i know he was talking about oil champ hence i stated “the world was going to end due to peak oil!?”

    • No Combet quote yet, but here’s Greg Hunt’s view from just two nights ago …

      “I can guarantee you that China will not be imposing a nationwide electricity, energy and gas tax”

      • Greg Hunt is Abbott’s Climate spokesman, not so? He’s totally misinformed (colour me unsurprised).

        This is therefore another blow to Abbott’s credibility ๐Ÿ™„

  2. It’s worth noting though that many of our energy intensive trace exposed companies get 94.5% free permits – hence the price they actually see is 0.55*23 = $1.26 per ton….

  3. And yet, global atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise … proliferation of bankster-enriching and -empowering CO2 pricing/trading mega-scam(s) notwithstanding.


    • Not surprising, given that China is now responsible for nearly half the world’s coal consumption. US emissions, by contrast, are decreasing (no doubt partly due to manufacturing moving offshore, but still a reasonable achievement given their population growth).

  4. Jumping jack flash


    If this goes ahead then crisis averted!
    As soon as China, and to a lesser extent, India, start paying their dues to the ECB, the crisis is over.

    We’ll all be able to get our money back. All that money spent in China on cheap useless stuff, the money flowing into the mysterious void over there, it will all gradually come back. The global money flow will finally be closed.

    The scourge of globalisation has found its solution – make the productive countries pay a tax on their productivity. The details are irrelevent: global warming/cooling/asteroids that need nukes built for them/irrigation of the desert/population controls. It doesn’t matter. And I don’t care one way or another about the details.

    The important fact is the money will start to trickle back from the productive Eastern nations, back to the Western nations, the service economies, the “nations of shopkeepers”, who don’t produce as much evil pollution because frankly, they don’t do anything.

    The West controls the earth you see, and hence gathers the funds that are required to repair it.