Monday, 11 November 2013

Cold Turkey (Why and how to Repeal the Carbon Tax)

by Viv Forbes and Helpers

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense". Please pass on.

The Carbon Sense Coalition
10 November 2013

A print friendly pdf of this newsletter can be found at:

Repealing the Carbon Tax
- the Way Out, is the Way we Got In:
Simply Repeal all of the 25 Clean Energy Bills.

This is the text of a submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Australian Government on the Proposed Repeal of the Carbon Tax.

The Case for Repeal

We support the immediate repeal of the carbon tax. This tax was introduced by stealth, and the justification for its introduction is spurious. It should be repealed or made ineffective immediately.

We are told its purpose is to “reduce carbon pollution” – just three words, each of which is based on a lie.
  • “Reduce”: The effect of Australia’s carbon tax on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so tiny as to be undetectable and any miniscule reduction would be totally swamped in the far bigger natural seasonal variations of carbon dioxide levels. The effect on global climate, if any, would also be too small to be measured and of no benefit to the climate or life on Earth.
  • “Carbon”: It is NOT a tax on carbon. Carbon is a solid – either soft and black like graphite and soot, or crystalline, hard and beautiful like diamond. It is definitely not the colourless gas created when carbon is burned. The “carbon” tax falls mainly on carbon dioxide, a colourless, harmless natural gas which has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere, usually in far greater amounts than at present. The use of “carbon” when referring to “carbon dioxide” is a deliberate deception. It would be like calling liquid water by the name “hydrogen”, a major element in the water molecule which is a dangerous explosive flammable gas. Based on the carbon example, a tax on water vapour (another “greenhouse gas) would probably be called “The Hydrogen Tax” by government propagandists.
  • “Pollution”: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and should never have been called one. It is the essential gas-of-life for all plants and they support all animals on Earth. It is no more a pollutant than oxygen, which is the gas-of-life for animals, or water vapour which is essential for all life. All three gases have effects on earth’s surface temperature, and on surface life, and such effects are usually highly beneficial. Additional carbon dioxide has been improving and will continue to improve the growth rate and drought tolerance of all plants on earth. Far from polluting the Earth, extra carbon dioxide has been greening the globe for decades.
There has been no attempt at an independent cost benefit analysis to justify the tax.

The costs of the carbon tax are substantial and will increase every year it remains. It will increase the costs of locally produced coal, gas, electricity, cement, steel, timber and everything made using these essential products. If these businesses are exempted or compensated, the tax will be totally ineffective and taxpayers in general will bear the cost of the extra red tape, bureaucracy and churning of funds. If they are not exempted, value-adding businesses such as further processing, fabricating and manufacturing will be forced to close and relocate to more sensible business environments.

There are no proven benefits. In fact, even if the tax was effective in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this result would not be beneficial to life on Earth.

To introduce such a costly tax without even the pretence of an independent public enquiry into the likely costs and benefits will (hopefully) stand for decades as Australia’s worst example of bad public administration.

There has also been no independent enquiry into the science supporting this massive gamble with the job prospects and economic future of Australians. The government has relied totally on local and overseas activists with a radical agenda, or on its own employees and grant recipients, most of whom have bent to the political will and supported the views of their pay-masters. The continual appeal to “consensus” and “authority” is clear evidence that the scientific case is weak.

The conclusion is obvious – this tax must be repealed as soon as possible. Australian voters have twice supported a political platform that promised that there will be no carbon tax under their administration. It is time the people’s opinion was heeded.

The Mechanism of Repeal

The main legislative support for the introduction of the war on carbon in Australia is contained in about 25 separate bills passed quickly and gleefully one day in 2011.

In an instant, a new class of carbon tax victims was created as well as another class of carbon tax beneficiaries.

The passage of time has entrenched and emboldened the beneficiaries and triggered the evasive ingenuity of the victims.  Neither should be rewarded or punished any longer.

No new injustice will be created by instantaneous restoration of the situation to that which prevailed on the eve of the introduction of the carbon tax legislation.

To organise repeal by introducing almost as many new bills as are being emasculated is just creating legislative pollution which is sure to provide employment for smart lawyers for years to come. There should be no transitional arrangements – those receiving benefits should see them stopped immediately, and those paying the costs should get immediate and total relief.

The most appropriate repeal bill should say: “The sole purpose of this Carbon Tax Repeal Bill is to totally repeal the following Bills and regulations (and then list them all). The Speaker should then say “Those in Favour. . . Those against. . . I think the ayes have it. Session closed”.

If there is any opposition or delay to the repeal program in Parliament, the government should use its regulatory power and ingenuity to reduce the carbon tax rate to zero. It should also set to zero any penalties for failure to comply with the as-yet un-repealed Bills.

Related Matters Needing Attention

As part of this carbon tax repeal session, several more things need to be done:
  1. Remove carbon dioxide from the list of pollutants requiring reporting under the National Pollution Inventory Scheme.
  2. Australia should withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement, thus falling into line with China, India, Japan, Canada and USA.
  3. Cease funding or supporting in any way in the operations of the IPCC. This body has become a destructive and costly international bureaucracy. Australia should push to limit its activities, cut off its income and close its operations.
  4. There should be no new price control or surveillance legislation. Many semi-public bodies such as electricity generators are already subject to price justification/competition tribunals. All this has done is allow or even encourage generating and distribution companies to invest heavily in building or upgrading facilities knowing they will get a guaranteed return on those investments. More useless price surveillance will just add to the costs and overheads of the industry.
  5. The Climate Change Authority is still spreading nonsense reports. The responsible minister should immediately change the board, re-deploy staff to more productive jobs and lock the corporate doors. It should then be abolished as soon as possible.
  6. The government should delay the introduction of legislation to support their direct action climate program until there has been an independent enquiry into global warming science and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of “Direct Action”.
  7. Finally, John Howard’s Renewable Energy Targets legislation should be repealed. These targets act like a hidden carbon tax, whose cost will continually escalate as significant renewable energy sites become harder to find and connect to the power grid. No one should be forced to use or pay for any special type of energy.
Summary Recommendations
  1. The “Bill to repeal the Carbon Tax” should be no longer than one page and should say just that – no transitional arrangements.
  2. If the repeal bill is delayed in Parliament, the government should use its regulatory ingenuity to reduce the carbon tax rate and the benefits to zero and set to zero any penalties for failure to comply with the as-yet un-repealed Bills.
  3. Carbon dioxide should be removed from the list of pollutants covered by the National Pollution Inventory Scheme.
  4. Australia should withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement.
  5. Australia should cease all financial or other support for the IPCC.
  6. There should be no new price surveillance introduced when the carbon tax is repealed.
  7. The Climate Change Authority should be abolished as soon as possible. Pending abolition, it should be de-staffed, de-funded or re-deployed.
  8. The “Direct Action” legislation should be put on hold until a thorough independent enquiry has been held into global warming science and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis has been completed.
  9. The Renewable Energy Targets should be repealed together with all other market, price or subsidy mechanisms which favour renewable energy.

Submitted on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition by:
Viv Forbes
3 November 2013

A print friendly pdf of this submission can be found at:

Disclosures: The above report was produced by Viv Forbes with assistance from several other members of the Carbon Sense Coalition. No one prompted or paid us to produce it.

Everyone in Australia has a vested interest in this legislation, some winners, and some losers.

Viv Forbes and his wife own and operate a livestock grazing property which will benefit from repeal of the carbon tax. He also uses electricity, diesel, petrol and gas all of which will benefit from repeal of the carbon tax. He is also a non-executive director and small shareholder in an Australian coal exploration company. The operating costs of this company will benefit if the carbon tax is repealed and any future underground mining operations will also benefit with lower costs. However this company’s expected market for coal is overseas in Asia, and Australian coal exporters will benefit if Australian processing, smelting, refining and manufacturing plants are forced overseas by the carbon tax. Finally, he is a father and grandfather who supports repeal of the carbon tax because that will create stronger, richer Australia with better opportunities for those who want to work and prosper.

If you are concerned that federal and state governments are spending billions of taxpayer funds on green climate follies, without due diligence, here is a petition demanding a cost-benefit study be done. Please sign and help it along:    or

John Howard Joins the Deniers (well almost).

John Howard did many silly things which still haunt us. One of the worst was when his government passed the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets legislation in 2000, after an off-the-cuff election promise in 1998. This acorn has developed into Australia’s most costly carbon tax. It has permanently saddled our electricity system with a slab of costly intermittent energy, and created a mendicant class of electricity producers and equipment suppliers with a huge vested interest in staying on that gravy train.

Then in a silly promise before the 2007 election, Mr Howard promised, if elected, to introduce an Emissions Trading Tax. But Mr Rudd outdid him, describing the ETS as the answer to the “great moral and economic challenge of our time”. Unfortunately Rudd won the election and unfortunately kept his promise.

Despite these black marks, Mr Howard has seen the light (despite the fact that he says he has only read one sceptical book on global warming policy).

In a speech in UK to the Global Warming Policy Foundation entitled “One Religion is Enough” he said “The high tide of public support for over-zealous action on global warming has passed”.
For his full speech see:

The Many Benefits of CO2

How humanity and the rest of the biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous air pollutant.:

Keeping a Sense of Perspective on Global Warming.

There is nothing unusual or worrying about the modern warm era (as long as it does not end):

Funds Flow in, in Enormous Dollops

In the previous issue of Carbon Sense, we advised that our finances were $124 in the red for the month (while Flannery raised $1 million). This is the response from one supporter:

Funds, in enormous dollops, flow in to Viv: slightly tongue-in-cheek, I just deposited (exactly….) $124 into your account.   Didn’t send a dime to Flannery though.

All that aside, the last several weeks have been a very cheerful period, as we have watched a lot of the nonsense being dismantled by people with a bit of sense.

Other Feedback:
Hello Viv Forbes,
This is a belated reply to your email and to reassure you I appreciate and want to continue receiving information from you – and to let you know I am one of the many others out there trying to do my small bit against this climate alarmism.

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to:
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.

Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia. 

RE-Branding the Greenhouse Effect

Canadian Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch writes:
With the latest IPCC SPM moving the official end of global warming from 16 years to 15 years to hide the fact that global warming had already ended before the 1997 Kyoto protocol was even initiated, the IPCC now exposes itself for fraud in claiming global warming over the past 15 years when now it states that no such warming occurred! 
The fundamental issue in support of climate change is the claim that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have enhanced the greenhouse effect causing the Earth to warm. I did the unthinkable and actually calculated the greenhouse effect and found that there was a slight decrease in greenhouse effect since 1980 rendering fraudulent the claim that the 70.9% increase in CO2 emissions since 1980 had enhanced the greenhouse effect.


By  Norm Kalmanovitch (From the Minority Report)

The Greenhouse effect is defined as the temperature difference between the surface temperature of a planet and what that temperature would be if it was calculated from Total Solar Irradiance, albedo, and σ, the Stefan Boltzmann constant according to the formula.

Temperature = [Total Solar Irradiance (1-Albedo)/4σ]1/4

This proper scientific definition of the greenhouse effect was known to Hansen who stated it as “Ts – Te is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds” and defined Te according to the same formula Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4
(Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.)

Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

If ‘climate change’ was actually an issue of science, before any attribution of observed global warming was made to increased CO2 emissions as Hansen did with his computer model projections, we should first calculate the greenhouse effect according to the formulas provided by Hansen to determine whether it is gases or clouds that is the primary driving agent for the observed warming.

The gases have most of their effect on the thermal radiation leaving the Earth while cloud cover affects both incoming and outgoing energy in more or less the same proportion. Since incoming energy only affects half the globe at a time while outgoing energy is radiated from the entire Earth surface the same proportional change in cloud cover will have twice the effect on incoming energy than on outgoing energy providing a signature to distinguish the effect of cloud cover from the effect of gases in influencing global; temperature.

A decrease in cloud cover will allow more energy to come in causing the Earth to warm but will also allow more energy to leave causing the Earth to cool. Since the incoming effect is over twice the outgoing effect the net result from decreased cloud cover will be warming. Since the greenhouse effect is essentially a measure of atmospheric insulation a reduction in cloud cover will be seen as a reduction in atmospheric insulation and manifest itself as a reduced value for the calculated greenhouse effect.
On the other hand if there is no change in incoming energy and observed warming is strictly due to increased atmospheric insulation from atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, the greenhouse effect calculation will show an increase commensurate with any observed warming that was caused by this increased insulation from CO2.

This graph of global temperature Anomaly from NCDC shows 0.4°C of warming since 1980.

( )

Climate 1
The trillion dollar question is whether this 0.4°C of observed warming is simply due to a net decrease in cloud cover or if in fact the IPCC is correct and this has resulted from the 70.9% increase in global CO2 emissions justifying the trillion dollars spent on initiatives dictated by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

The formula Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4 provided by Hansen in his 1981 paper shows that only So and A need to be input to calculate the greenhouse effect with σ being the Stefan Boltzmann constant of 5.670 x 10-8.

So is total solar irradiance (TSI) and we have continuous measurement of TSI from weather satellites since late 1978 as shown on this graph from the World Radiation Centre in Davos

This graph shows TSI to be 1366.6W/m2 in 1980 and at a lower value of 1365.8W/m2 in 2010.

Climate 2
According to the IPCC since TSI does not show the necessary increase to cause the observed warming; by default the only possible cause is increased atmospheric CO2 concentration resulting from CO2 emissions. This ‘attribution by default’ is the only IPCC rational for anthropogenic global warming but this default does not exist because of the second factor “A” in the greenhouse effect formula for Te presented by Hansen in his 1981 paper.

A portion of the incoming energy is reflected by the Earth’s atmosphere and surface and this is called albedo and represented by “A” in the equation.

TSI/4 minus the portion of the energy that is reflected away is equal to the outgoing energy as demonstrated by this energy balance diagram by Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997).

Climate 3

Figure — Details of Earth’s energy balance (source: Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997). Numbers are in watts per square meter of Earth’s surface, and some may be uncertain by as much as 20%. The greenhouse effect is associated with the absorption and reradiation of energy by atmospheric greenhouse gases and particles, resulting in a downward flux of infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface (back radiation) and therefore in a higher surface temperature. Note that the total rate at which energy leaves Earth (107 W/m2 of reflected sunlight plus 235 W/m2 of infrared [long-wave] radiation) is equal to the 342 W/m2 of incident sunlight. Thus Earth is in approximate energy balance in this analysis.

The same weather satellites that provide the TSI measurement also provide a measure of outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR).

TSI/4 is equal to 341.65W/m2 for 1980 and 341.45W/m2 for 2010 and both these numbers are similar to the 342W/m2 used by Kiehl and Trenberth in their 1997 diagram.

This graph of OLR (from ) compiled from data available from NOAA at shows OLR to have increased from 231W/m2 in 1980 to 233W/m2 in 2010.

Climate 4
We can determine the albedo by simple subtraction of OLR from TSI based on the same energy balance as Kiehl and Trenberth 1997.

For 1980 the reflected energy was 341.65W/m2 – 231W/m2 = 110.65W/m2
For 2010 the reflected energy was 341.45W/m2 – 233W/m2 = 108.45W/m2

When less energy is reflected more energy comes in and the decrease in reflected energy of 2.25W/m2 is more than adequate to account for the 0.4°C of observed global warming between 1980 and 2010 without invoking any effect from CO2; leaving the IPCC “attribution by default” with no validity.
The unequivocal (and inconvenient for Al Gore) truth comes to light when we portray albedo as a decimal as required for the calculation of Te and the greenhouse effect according to the Hansen et al 1981 mathematical formulas.

Albedo is the percentage of incoming energy reflected giving values
A = 110.65/341.65 = 0.323869 for 1980
A = 108.45/341.45 = 0.317616 for 2010

Using the formula Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4
1980 Te = [1366.6(1-0.323869)/4σ]1/4  = 252.64 K
2010 Te = [1365.8(1-0.317616)/4σ]1/4 = 253.18 K

Climate 5
For simplicity if we equate 288 K to the zero reference on this NCDC temperature anomaly data, we get absolute temperature from which we can subtract Te to determine the greenhouse effect for 1980 and 2010.
1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C
2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C

( )

In 1980 CO2 concentration was 338.68ppmv and increased to 389.85ppmv by 2010 yet the greenhouse effect decreased by 0.14°C instead of increasing to match the 0.40°C observed increase in global temperature.

A reduction in greenhouse effect is essentially a reduction in atmospheric insulation so regardless of how much CO2 emissions increased the greenhouse effect; changes in cloud cover reduced the greenhouse effect by an even greater amount than CO2 emissions enhanced it.

Norm Kalmanovitch is a geophysicist with over 35 years of experience, and recently retired from Penn West, a Canadian oil and natural gas energy trust based in Calgary, Alberta. Norm is a member of Friends of Science, a Canadian group that plays the important role of conveying to the public the facts (as opposed to the legends) of global warming and climate change.