Carbon price ‘to add $220 to $412 to car cost’

[BroadyFord]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25789300242202

Industry study counts the cost of a carbon tax on local car-makers

17 May 2011
By RON HAMMERTON
A CARBON tax could add between $222 and $412 to the cost of each car made in Australia if the carbon price is set at between $20 and $30 a tonne, according to a report prepared on behalf of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI).

The investigation, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia (PWCA), found that the overall cost to the $6.2 billion domestic automotive industry was likely to be between $30 million and $84 million, depending on factors including compensation.

The report warned that additional cost burdens could threaten plans for growth in the automotive industry, which it described as “vulnerable”.

The opposition leader Tony Abbott used the figures during a visit to Ford’s factory at Geelong in Victoria today to raise the spectre of lost jobs in the motor industry due to Labor’s carbon tax.

“If the carbon tax turns out to be the nail in the coffin of the motor manufacturing industry in this country, that spells disaster for Australia as a first-world economy,” he said.

“We want to be a country that makes things, and the risk with this carbon tax is that we will stop being a country that makes things any more – an absolute disaster for Australia.”

The federal government is set to spell out the details of its carbon tax plan by July, with the scheme set to be introduced on July 1, 2012.

The PWCA report said each domestically made vehicle would have a CO2 footprint of between 11.1 tonnes and 13.6 tonnes.

The largest proportion – between 6.0 and 7.8 tonnes – would be embodied in the manufacturing of materials such as steel, aluminium and plastics.

Parts manufacturing would generate between 2.6 and 3.5 tonnes and vehicle assembly 1.5 tonnes, while small amounts would be contributed by air-conditioning gases, the retailing of the vehicle and transportation.

The report said the extent of greenhouse gas emissions depended on factors such as the size of the vehicle, extent of local content, vehicle configuration and energy supply mix.

Of the materials used in the typical vehicle, steel was by far the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases, at 67 per cent, followed by aluminium on 26 per cent. Plastics rated only two per cent.

PWCA warned in its report that the local automotive industry was likely to have little or no ability to pass on any additional cost burden, due to the highly competitive international market.

It said the three local manufacturers were likely to source components from international markets to avoid incurring a carbon price within automotive products.

“The automotive industry is a highly value-adding industry, and a reduction in its competitiveness in the global automotive market could ultimately result in a loss of these value-adding activities offshore,” the report concluded.

The visit to Ford by Mr Abbott and shadow minister for industry, Sophie Mirabella, was pointed, as the Geelong engine plant has been described as one the most vulnerable of the Australian car company factories.

Ms Mirabella said a carbon price was going to price Australian cars out of the market, with imported vehicles swarming the market.

“If the Labor Party cares for workers, for their families, who work at Ford, who work in manufacturing across Australia, they must start to listen to their concerns.

“They must start to listen to what they want, and they want to keep their jobs. They want to continue to make things in Australia, they don’t want a carbon tax.”

Mr Abbott said the coalition accepted climate change and humanity’s impact on global warming.

He said the coalition would use $1 billion saved out of the budget to reduce emissions by planting more trees on suitable land, getting more carbon into the soil and turning carbon dioxide waste from power stations into thing such as biodiesel and stock feed.

[2011G6E]

I think that they're forgetting one little scrap of information there...

Let's face it, when you pay $40,000+ for a new car, or even $20,000+, what's another couple of hundred? People will accept that, especially if they already accept the lies that Australias miniscule contribution (compared to any other country) to world carbon emissions somehow makes a difference to "the big picture".

The effect of a carbon tax will hit everyone who drives a car, of every age. Fuel prices must rise. Therefore transport costs for everything...literally everything...must rise as well. The cost of electricity will have to rise. Therefore the cost of producing literally everything will rise. Your household bills will rise because Australian politicians won't grow a pair and go nuclear, and instead we are going to keep soldiering on with coal.

Back to cars...of course imported cars will be more competitive...the countries they come from (especially China and India) have governments already rubbing thier hands together waiting for our stupid mob to implement a tax that they won't even consider. If the guy next door has higher costs than you do for making the same product, of course you can sell them cheaper than he can.

Idiots...

[aualright]

Lots of scaremongering with climate change sceptics leading the charge, based on advice from only 2.5% of climate change scientists (97.5% support the theory). The fact Abbott says he believes in it one day and not the next (depending on how much influence dinosaurs like Nick Minchin have had on him that week) means his opinion shouldn't even be considered on this subject.

At the end of the day, I agree that nuclear is the way to go. Neither party supports this with their current policies so we are left with other non-coal alternatives.

For those that think we are on our pat malone introducing a carbon tax, you are incorrect as many major European countries have already implemented this. As for China, they are leaders in alternative energy and have invested more in this area than we could ever hope to.

A free-market approach like the ETS is a must, but the Liberal / National coalition want a regulated market for carbon trading. Funny how they go against all their principles just to say no to whatever Labor is espousing. Reminds me of the days when Howard as Treasurer and Fraser as PM didn't support deregulating the banking system. Their close mates at the top end of town were concerned their closed world would collapse. It took a Labor govt to bring on change and Australia is much better off 30 years later.

****

[ltd]

Originally Posted by aualright

Lots of scaremongering with climate change sceptics leading the charge, based on advice from only 2.5% of climate change scientists (97.5% support the theory). The fact Abbott says he believes in it one day and not the next (depending on how much influence dinosaurs like Nick Minchin have had on him that week) means his opinion shouldn't even be considered on this subject.

At the end of the day, I agree that nuclear is the way to go. Neither party supports this with their current policies so we are left with other non-coal alternatives.

For those that think we are on our pat malone introducing a carbon tax, you are incorrect as many major European countries have already implemented this. As for China, they are leaders in alternative energy and have invested more in this area than we could ever hope to.
BTW, you like my signature? I did it just for people like you.

A free-market approach like the ETS is a must, but the Liberal / National coalition want a regulated market for carbon trading. Funny how they go against all their principles just to say no to whatever Labor is espousing. Reminds me of the days when Howard as Treasurer and Fraser as PM didn't support deregulating the banking system. Their close mates at the top end of town were concerned their closed world would collapse. It took a Labor govt to bring on change and Australia is much better off 30 years later.

****

This topic has been done to death and the warmist fabian society tossers lost. No argument, no disputing this as the science of the tossers losing is settled.
Well done on manufacturing statistics to suit your argument though, albeit you got greedy and can't substantiate any of your claims. Better luck next time.... idiot.

As for your rant about the alternative, you say we are much better off 30 years later with deregulation huh? How many billions in profit do the major banks make every quarter? How much are their fees? How easy are they to deal with?
You sound like a naive fool who's got less life experience and an idealistic view of the world. Let me guess, just out of uni?
You need to seriously grow up before making such stupid submissions again. BTW, we don't discuss politics or politicians on this site, refer to the terms and conditions.

[mr_xr8]

Originally Posted by ltd

This topic has been done to death and the warmist fabian society tossers lost. No argument, no disputing this as the science of the tossers losing is settled.
Well done on manufacturing statistics to suit your argument though, albeit you got greedy and can't substantiate any of your claims. Better luck next time.... idiot.

As for your rant about the alternative, you say we are much better off 30 years later with deregulation huh? How many billions in profit do the major banks make every quarter? How much are their fees? How easy are they to deal with?
You sound like a naive fool who's got less life experience and an idealistic view of the world. Let me guess, just out of uni?
You need to seriously grow up before making such stupid submissions again. BTW, we don't discuss politics or politicians on this site, refer to the terms and conditions.

couldnt agree more with you ltd


i find the green push like a watermelon, green on the outside and communist red on the inside

[PHANTMXR6]

A $200-$400 increrase realy won't mean squat to a consumer.

Who pays retail anyway?

Manufacturers are the ones who will be paying.

[Spinner77]

As for China, they are leaders in alternative energy and have invested more in this area than we could ever hope to.

It's just not fake goods made there. As any Chinese can tell you, the Communist Party of China is a past, present and future master of fake data.

[bmorris]

Mods might want to lock this thread before it turns into a political fight.

[Spinner77]

My sincerest apologies.

What I meant to say of course was that the Chinese Government has a well-deserved and universally envied reputation for its transparency in, among many other things, data collection and the production of statistics of a quality second to none.

[mr_xr8]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

My sincerest apologies.

What I meant to say of course was that the Chinese Government has a well-deserved and universally envied reputation for its transparency in, among many other things, data collection and the production of statistics of a quality second to none.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by PHANTMXR6

A $200-$400 increrase realy won't mean squat to a consumer.

Who pays retail anyway?

Manufacturers are the ones who will be paying.

Yeap...manufacturers look at ways to save 50 cents per car....this hurts.

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by ltd

This topic has been done to death and the warmist fabian society tossers lost. No argument, no disputing this as the science of the tossers losing is settled.
Well done on manufacturing statistics to suit your argument though, albeit you got greedy and can't substantiate any of your claims. Better luck next time.... idiot.

As for your rant about the alternative, you say we are much better off 30 years later with deregulation huh? How many billions in profit do the major banks make every quarter? How much are their fees? How easy are they to deal with?
You sound like a naive fool who's got less life experience and an idealistic view of the world. Let me guess, just out of uni?
You need to seriously grow up before making such stupid submissions again. BTW, we don't discuss politics or politicians on this site, refer to the terms and conditions.

Perhaps if you're going to quote the Terms and Conditions, you should read all of them......

3. Posts that are disrespectful or insulting to another forum member. Remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it is expressed in a reasoned manner.

[StrokedXT]

2011g6e with his usual scare mongering, he mentions china rubbing it's hands together but forgets they have stated a carbon tax is 100% in the near future.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by ltd

As for your rant about the alternative, you say we are much better off 30 years later with deregulation huh? How many billions in profit do the major banks make every quarter? How much are their fees? How easy are they to deal with?
.

not sure why this is talking about banking, but due to deregulation and the legislation put in place was one of the reasons our banking system didnt collapse during the GFC.

Bank employees are paid substantially more now, investors get greater returns, deregulation of banking was a great thing.

I know i havent paid a bank fee in 35 years, only idiots and morons pay bank fees.

[2011G6E]

Yep, China are clean and green, Gillard told us that they're shutting down 200 megawatts worth of old coal fired power stations. That is a fact.

It's also a fact that they're replacing them with 600 megawatts of new coal fired power stations...


Back to the original topic, the price increase will be meaningless for a brand new car. People should be more worried about all the other increased costs under a carbon tax.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by PHANTMXR6

A $200-$400 increrase realy won't mean squat to a consumer.

Who pays retail anyway?

Manufacturers are the ones who will be paying.

OK Mfg costs up say $400, lets add 25% sales & marketing, 8% admin +profit margin - say 15% for the manufacturer. Dealer profit 10% and Whoa that $400 is getting close to $700 dollars!

Games up! They don't want local manufacturing - just import everything. Anyway, I think the current sales figures for the local product just seems to point to a slow death for the industry - the Carbon tax will just hasten it's demise.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yep, China are clean and green, Gillard told us that they're shutting down 200 megawatts worth of old coal fired power stations. That is a fact.

It's also a fact that they're replacing them with 600 megawatts of new coal fired power stations...

If the output of emissions is the same then you get more for the same. Mind you it will cost us. But at the end of the day we need more electricity.

..........


What gets me is that Europe has about $8/ton carbon tax, but the current government wanna push a much higher amount (some are saying $40/ton).

[mik]

car makers or any industry in oz need another tax like a hole in the head, theres only one way to go from here, cost of living increases on everything, i cant help thinking there are so many ways this tax can be applied its like another GST, you have to wonder how many manufacturers will move off shore to the countries that do not support this tax.

[damo76]

The government can get ******.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

not sure why this is talking about banking, but due to deregulation and the legislation put in place was one of the reasons our banking system didnt collapse during the GFC.

Bank employees are paid substantially more now, investors get greater returns, deregulation of banking was a great thing.

I know i havent paid a bank fee in 35 years, only idiots and morons pay bank fees.

I raised deregulation of banking in respect to the free market ETS and how ironic it is that a supposed free market political party such as the Liberal / national coalition oppose it and would rather have a regulated system.

As for the one that accused me of all sorts of things in their post, this issue must be quite personal to them so their anger is understandable, albeit misplaced and ill-informed.

****

[aualright]

Originally Posted by vztrt

What gets me is that Europe has about $8/ton carbon tax, but the current government wanna push a much higher amount (some are saying $40/ton).

The thing is we won't know until the multi-party talks are completed and the legislation is brought to parliament. All this speculation merely causes those that are opposed to any form of a push to alternative energy to get all heated up....kinda like those shock jocks on AM radio.

****

[aualright]

Originally Posted by mr_xr8

couldnt agree more with you ltd


i find the green push like a watermelon, green on the outside and communist red on the inside

You don't get much more free market than an ETS. In fact, that was my point. Why is the Federal Opposition opposed to a free market carbon trading system and in favour of a regulated socialist one.

****

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by aualright

You don't get much more free market than an ETS. In fact, that was my point. Why is the Federal Opposition opposed to a free market carbon trading system and in favour of a regulated socialist one.

****

It was their leaders idea! Even if he tries to deny it.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by ltd

This topic has been done to death and the warmist fabian society tossers lost. No argument, no disputing this as the science of the tossers losing is settled.
Well done on manufacturing statistics to suit your argument though, albeit you got greedy and can't substantiate any of your claims. Better luck next time.... idiot.

As for your rant about the alternative, you say we are much better off 30 years later with deregulation huh? How many billions in profit do the major banks make every quarter? How much are their fees? How easy are they to deal with?
You sound like a naive fool who's got less life experience and an idealistic view of the world. Let me guess, just out of uni?
You need to seriously grow up before making such stupid submissions again. BTW, we don't discuss politics or politicians on this site, refer to the terms and conditions.

My political references were merely there to question why we didn't introduce an ETS when both sides of politics agreed, until one reneged and went against their party ethos of free markets.

If anything, your diatribe about the 'terrible' banks and their profits, fees, etc showed you have a limited grasp of economics.

Fair enough if you think a carbon tax is a bad idea, but unfortunately you lost me with your insults and all round arrogance to tell me not to post again if the post's content doesn't align within your narrow mind.

****

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by aualright

Lots of scaremongering with climate change sceptics leading the charge, based on advice from only 2.5% of climate change scientists (97.5% support the theory). The fact Abbott says he believes in it one day and not the next (depending on how much influence dinosaurs like Nick Minchin have had on him that week) means his opinion shouldn't even be considered on this subject.

At the end of the day, I agree that nuclear is the way to go. Neither party supports this with their current policies so we are left with other non-coal alternatives.

For those that think we are on our pat malone introducing a carbon tax, you are incorrect as many major European countries have already implemented this. As for China, they are leaders in alternative energy and have invested more in this area than we could ever hope to.

A free-market approach like the ETS is a must, but the Liberal / National coalition want a regulated market for carbon trading. Funny how they go against all their principles just to say no to whatever Labor is espousing. Reminds me of the days when Howard as Treasurer and Fraser as PM didn't support deregulating the banking system. Their close mates at the top end of town were concerned their closed world would collapse. It took a Labor govt to bring on change and Australia is much better off 30 years later.

****

You're entitled to your leftist views aualright but your opening line about scaremongering can be thrown straight back at you by conservative thinking people such as I. The spurious 97.5% scientific support you claim is a figure contrived to support your argument. There are as many eminent scientists who don't support the climate change theory as those that propose it but it's the proposers who get the media attention as anything scary makes good copy.

As for nuclear being the alternative, I think the door is closed on that one after the disaster in Japan.

I'm not aware of "many European countries implementing carbon tax", but I did read in the paper the other day that Greenland had done so and since it's carbon tax has been in effect, Greenland’s emissions have risen 17%.

And you are correct, that ratbag Keating took us out of the basket system ... and sent Australian manufacturing and it's workforce to it's doom.

[Struggo]

The great global warming swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

Watch this and learn the truth my friends

[chamb0]

I'm not aware of "many European countries implementing carbon tax", but I did read in the paper the other day that Greenland had done so and since it's carbon tax has been in effect, Greenland’s emissions have risen 17%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Europe
Many other countries have moved far ahead of us on this issue, some all the way back in the 90's (in Europe a carbon tax already exists in one form or another in the UK, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway). There are other examples of similar frameworks in action around the world, at different government levels - state, provincial or county (such as places in US and Canada) and national.

[chamb0]

Sorry for the stuffed up quote above... still trying to learn how to post correctly...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Pedro

There are as many eminent scientists who don't support the climate change theory as those that propose it but it's the proposers who get the media attention as anything scary makes good copy.
....
I'm not aware of "many European countries implementing carbon tax", but I did read in the paper the other day that Greenland had done so and since it's carbon tax has been in effect, Greenland’s emissions have risen 17%

You need a reality check.....name just one "eminent" scientist that will lend their name to climate scepticism that has any qualifications or research to back up their stance.

Biased media attention?, certainly is bar every outlet except the ABC, name one climate scientist that has been interviewed on 2UE that supports the current findings on AGW.

Perhaps you can direct us to any source that supports your claim that Greenland has a carbon tax and how long it has taken for its emissions to rise by 17% and the change in its population and compare that with Australia? oh, never mind about details....

Obviously how effective a carbon tax is depends on how much their energy costs and is taxed in the first place and the price paid as a carbon tax.

A $26 tonne tax here on carbon would only add about 5-8c to a litre of petrol here, would that change how many use their cars here? its only argument to actually have a more substantial carbon tax.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

It's also a fact that they're replacing them with 600 megawatts of new coal fired power stations...
.

and there is no shortage of people in this country that are getting paid to make sure they have plenty of coal to put in them, some of them being adamant that this madness should be able to continue solely because they are making a quid out of it. I suppose there must be thousands of people that work for cigarette companies that somehow justify why they are getting paid to help kill people too........