The government's Green Loans and Environmental Assessment schemes are facing similar strain. They underestimated the demand and the system just isn't working. Meanwhile they didn't cap the number of people who got trained up to do the assessments either, so now there are people who spent time and money to get skilled up into these "green jobs" who can't get any work.

Again, WHY is Abbott pushing for these schemes to became the future of Australian policy, and why are people lapping it up?

I've noticed a distinct silence on this board ... so many people seem to think a carbon tax or ETS is bad and "rewards" are good, but as soon as evidence is presented to the contrary they all piss off.

So ? the world is not going to cook itself in 20 years now is it ? Even the most rabid global warming alarmists don't claim that , well mabey rose thinks that !! Nuclear power is the way to go for sooner or later the coal is going to run out , especially at the rate we are selling it to China .

As for me , I will plant a tree !

For those interested in how Europe's ETS is going so far, how it works and what its future directions are, there's a report here that might interest you. The section on auctions (page 9) is particularly interesting.

The insulation scheme has been called to a halt. The green home audits are in a shambles. And now another green scheme is showing its weakness. A Rudd policy put in a target of 20% renewable energy, but all that's encouraged is home rooftop solar panels. It hasn't yet funded a single large-scale investment in a solar or wind plant.Some of the problems with these plans, especially the gross negligence in the roof insulation, are the fault of sloppy policies that could be improved. But the core of rebates and targets is still rotten - subsidies will always create artificial booms-and-busts and people will always find the easiest way around targets. I'm still trying to find examples where subsidies have really worked well and justified their costs, and still failing.

And it STILL boggles my mind that people think Abbott's proposed subsidies-based scheme will work.

Without positive incentives (subsidies) nothing would ever be achieved. Inevitably, as it always has been, what works for some will fail for others.

Could you read back through at least the first post in this thread before you claim subsidies are the only option? Subsidies mean the government has to pick a few "winners" they think will have a big impact. If something isn't subsidized there's no incentive to do it.

On the other hand, a carbon tax or ETS increases the cost of the pollutant and lets the free market figure out the most efficient ways to reduce that pollutant.

I haven't seen much on carbon taxes until I came across this report on British Columbia's carbon tax, the first in North America which began in 2008.

Please don't presume. At no point did I say they were the only option.

Well yes I suppose "Without subsidies nothing would ever be achieved" does not mean they are the only option, but it does clearly state they are a necessary option. Could you share why you believe they are a necessary option to reduce carbon pollution to manageable levels?

I would still argue that an ETS or carbon tax is the truly necessary action to manage cost-efficient carbon pollution reduction. Subsidies can certainly help with that, but a system of all subsidies/no ETS would be grossly less effective and efficient than an all ETS/no subsidies approach.

I have not argued the case for a system of all subsidies/no ETS either.

Do you disagree with the premise that people need positive incentives?

No, I don't believe people "need" subsidies in order to reduce carbon pollution across a nation. You believe people do "need" subsidies "for anything to be achieved." How about you elaborate on why you believe this? After all, this is the second time I've asked you nicely.

That was not the question I asked.

I'm sorry I didn't see the question the first time. I will get to it.

Also the phrased I used was "positive incentives". I thought it was obvious that "(subsidies)" was an example. I shall correct that error now.

Do you believe in positive incentives (e.g. subsidies) to enable change?
In another context praise, rewards, etc can act as positive incentives.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question:

In a general context, do you believe in giving people an incentive to act that does not act as a punishment?

In this context I'm not sure what you mean by "believe in it". I believe that positive reinforcement can change behaviour, yes. But I don't believe subsidies are an efficient or effective method for creating societal change toward a low-carbon future. However subsidies are not the only way to reward people for polluting less.

With a carbon tax or ETS, polluters are being charged for their amount of pollution and power bills go up. However the money collected by the government gets handed back to taxpayers as tax breaks or rebates. So if my energy bills go up higher than my tax break, then it's up to me to choose - pay the extra energy bill, or decide for myself how to reduce my bill. And if I cut back on my use so that my power bill drops below my tax rebate, I end up with more money in the end than if there wasn't a carbon tax. I am rewarded for reducing my pollution.

That's the fundamental difference between a subsidies-based system and a tax-based system. In a subsidies-based system, the taxpayer pays but there's no incentive to pollute less except to grab a subsidy if you can. In a tax-based system, the people who pollute the most pay the most and low-polluters are rewarded by more money.

That is a correct assessment of what I meant.
You do realise a tax break or a rebate is a subsidy, don't you?

Also in an ideal world, subsidies are transitional. They are supposed to be temporary so the economic adjustments by businesses and people affected can be made and it has minimal affect on their lives. You have just given an example of how that is supposed to work.

However the subsidy (tax break or rebate) is not meant to be on-going indefinitely. Again your example seems to show this.

I believe I have done what you asked in the post above this one. We do not appear to be in disagreement.