Slashdot Mirror
Australia Repeals Carbon Tax
schwit1 notes that the Australian government has repealed a controversial carbon tax. After almost a decade of heated political debate, Australia has become the world's first developed nation to repeal carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. In a vote that could highlight the difficulty in implementing additional measures to reduce carbon emissions ahead of global climate talks next year in Paris, Australia's Senate on Wednesday voted 39-32 to repeal a politically divisive carbon emissions price that contributed to the fall from power of three Australian leaders since it was first suggested in 2007.
As an Australian, I am bitterly disappointed in my Government. Whilst the rest of the world is ramping up their climate protection measures, our government is ramping up their BIG Industry protection measures. This is the same government that believes that wind farms are an ugly blight on the landscape (and attempting to block many new farms) whilst allowing large coal mines to go ahead. Because a very quiet white propeller on a pole making no pollution is much more horrible to look at that a giant hole in the ground with dozens of house sized trucks dragging out overburden and dumping it in a giant dirty pile.
If you are worried about your access to coal is going to be reduced because your own Government is closing coal mines, don't worry! you can just come and buy a freighter load of coal for less than it costs to remove it from the ground!. And again, don't worry! the trucks used to extract the coal will have all the modern pollution preventing technologies applied to them.. so the environment will be protected.
Outside of the government there is an enormous ground swell of alternative energy research and technologies being installed by Joe Average in their own house.. Much to the governments disgust
Unfortunately, the Australian federal government is a 100% owned subsidiary of the mining companies. Although the prime minister is a moron in his own right, he's only doing what his bosses tell him to do.
People will vote themselves entitlements at the expense of future generations. It's the fatal flaw of democracy.
I'm not sure it matters much anyways. Barring a total miracle like Rossi's unicorn reactor it seems we've already passed the point of no return. If you haven't had kids -- don't. As painful as that sounds.
Voters love the environment until it costs them money.
The Australian economy is having some troubles, but by world standard we are doing OK. Some poeple are genuinely doing it tough and struggle to afford the higher prices caused by the carbon tax, so they want it repealed. More poeple still *think* they are doing it tough, but can still afford ciggies and pay TV. These are a prime demographic for swinging votes, so the government loves to give them a price cut too.
Fearmongering and a brutal budget this year have made things worse, we are going into Austerity mode (when it is arguably not required) so poeple think that doing something responsible for the environment like the carbon tax is just a "nice to have" and easily discarded.
Makes me sad to be an Aussie sometimes. The current government has agressively wound back the clock on science and social responsibility:
- Abolished Australian Renewables Energy Agency, worth $1.3 billion.
- Stretched $2.5 Billion Emmisions Reduction Fund over 10 years instead of 4
- Cut $460 million from Carbon Capture and Storage
- Scrapped the National Water Comission and the Standing Council on Enviroment and Water
- Cut $110 milliion from CSIRO (the research group that developed WiFi and lots of other cool things)
- Cut $75 million from the Australian Research Council
- Cut $80 million from the Cooperative Research Centres program
- Cut $8 million from the Australian Institute of Marine Science
- Cut $120 million from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation
- Cut $28 million from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
- Cut $36 million from Geoscience Australia
Oh, I forgot to add - they *didnt* cut the $222 million school chaplaincy program. The agenda is clear, they are just religious luddites.
AGL are reporting that their most polluting coal fired electricity plant(s) is now $186M less profitable due to loss of government funding provided entirely by the carbon tax. Essentially it was funding pollution, not penalising it. PEr the AFR: http://www.afr.com/p/business/... (paywalled, but the summary say it all) The carbon tax never did anything due to a ridiculous number of exemptions and pay-back subsidies designed to protect labour voting areas - one of which the above coal fired plant is in.
Time to put a big pot of carbon on the barbie!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh, I forgot to add - they *didnt* cut the $222 million school chaplaincy program. The agenda is clear, they are just religious luddites.
Cheer up and take heart in the fact that even in these tough times of austerity they did at least commit to buying 58 more Joint Strike Fighters for $12.4 billion. Cut down on sicence and buy more flying lemons, at least they have a sound strategy.
The entire idea is that businesses will strive to become more efficient such that they produce less pollution so that they'll be taxed less.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices. To the businesses in question, it just goes in one door and out the other. You want to use the heavy hand of the tax collector to damage people's behavior in a way that makes them go out less, drive less, spend less, do less? Tax citizens directly, with a very special line item they can't miss, that says "carbon tax, because you exist" - and they'll act. Well, mostly they'll act to elect people who will undo that tax, but they'll act.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As part of the carbon tax package, income tax was reduced, particularly for low income earners as a kind of compensation for the increase in cost of living caused by the carbon tax. The new government is raising those income taxes again, despite promising not to raise taxes.
If a goverment needs to have tax, It is better to tax things that you want to discourage. The carbon tax was discouraging the emission of greenhouse gasses, an unnecessary and dangerous activity, simultaneously providing necessary revenue. Income tax discourages the earning of income.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
However, if you believe in capitalism this creates a space for an aggressive innovator to come in with new reduced-energy practices/processes, and pass those savings onto consumers, causing the existing players to either likewise update their practices/processes to compete, or have them diminish/die. Such changes don't happen overnight however -- it could take many years for the selective pressure to bear.
Yaz
How come your neighbor New Zealand can do better?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Lets make sure that you tell the whole story here. The current government has increased taxes on the HIGHEST EARNERS in the country by 2% for income generated over $250,000. And this is for a period of 2 years. So your statement of "The new government is raising those income taxes again" is a complete and utter fallacy.
It gives companies who pollute less an advantage, and it gives businesses an incentive to look into renewable energy.
For example:
Electricity prices would go up but only until it became cheaper to get solar, and at that point the price war resumes. Customers will not pay higher prices if there is a cheaper alternative, and so a carbon tax opens up an advantage for technologies that cause less polution.
Besides, the stats in Australia show that the carbon tax was working.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Except that the businesses can decide to change the production process. They could invest in solar energy to power the factory, and because they'll be paying less carbon tax, they can lower the cost of the product, and increase sales and profits.
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
The same way Ronald Regan and the Iron Lady acted to reduce sulphur emmissions that cause acid rain, international cap and trade treaty. Cap and trade is a market solution proposed and implemented by the founders of the neo-conservative movement, that has actually worked as advertised. The problem today is that influential "conservatives" are sitting on coal mines that could easily become stranded assests ten years from now. Funny how the politics turns itself upside down if you watch for long enough.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yes, that's because we've sent all of our "polluting" (note: carbon dioxide isn't pollution) industries to China, along with a lot of jobs and wealth.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
However, if you believe in capitalism this creates a space for an aggressive innovator to come in with new reduced-energy practices/processes, and pass those savings onto consumers, causing the existing players to either likewise update their practices/processes to compete, or have them diminish/die. Such changes don't happen overnight however -- it could take many years for the selective pressure to bear.
Yaz
And here's what the problem is: it's cheaper for the capitalist to simply buy some sort of "exemption" from the government through "campaign donations" or outright bribery. This gives the company a leg up on their competition, then, and the tax simply becomes a barrier to entry into a market that existing players don't have to deal with.
I'll assume that there were industries that donated heavily to whoever had the previous majority in the parliament and were exempted from the carbon tax. Am I correct?
Or how about the other side that we see in America where politically connected "green energy" scams rake in millions?
Do you have ESP?
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things
You are talking about tax incidence but you don't have the logic correct. We ALREADY are paying for whatever cost carbon pollution has but it is spread out equally among all people regardless of their use of technologies that rely on carbon emissions. There is no direct incentive for anyone to worry about emitting less carbon. A tax would create a direct economic burden on those who use more carbon which which in turn will motivate those who use more to try to find ways to use less. If you get more benefit from carbon emission (like a power company or a heavy consumer of electricity) then you should have to pay more of the burden. As it stands each of us has to pay for the effects of carbon pollution in an amount unrelated to the amount we generate.
because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
They already are passing along the cost, just not directly. Instead of paying for it directly, we pay for it through environmental effects. Climate and the resulting weather changes affect crop yields, business patterns, healthcare, etc all of which have very real and measurable costs. But the cause of those costs has zero incentive to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution because they do not have a direct economic cost of their actions. It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons, writ large.