Bye Bye Carbon Tax

Australia has one of the largest per capital emissions of carbon dioxide in the world. In an effort to reduce emissions a past government enacted a highly controversial carbon tax. Its opposition claimed that the carbon tax would wreck the Australian economy. Of course that claim was nonsense; a single tax does not wreck economies but the overall effect of taxation on economies can make them prosper or decline.

The tax in Australia was about £13 for every tonne of greenhouse gas produced payable a several hundred of the top polluters; all of those top polluters have plenty of money and thriving businesses.

The present government made it a point of honour, and a point of dogma that it would repeal the carbon tax. The Australian Senate has now voted to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a measure that gave taxpayers’ money to industries to help them reduce pollution and emissions.

So instead of the polluter paying the taxpayer pays. It is an odd reform, and one that is bad news for lovers of the environment and good news for the top polluters who will now get free government money. The stick has been abandoned for the carrot, and some who love carrots will now gorge on them at the expense of the taxpayer.

6 Responses

  1. Robert
    Please don’t fall into the trap of quoting “per capita” emissions for Australia because in the context because it is an entirely pointless way of expressing the quantum of emissions from my country. What matters is the percentage of the global whole which is something less than 2%. Because once you have the spurious Per capita nonsense out of the picture the very small part that we play globally in total emissions makes the punitive Carbon tax look even more like the vile economic impost and environmentally pointless measure was the reason it has been repealed.
    Further the alternative proposed by this government is unlikely to pass our upper house which will be another win for common sense. Because its better to do nothing than to waste tax payers money on something taht will make no difference either.

    • Iain

      I really do not think that looking at per capita emissions is pointless or spurious. It defines the contribution that each individual in a nation makes to emissions. It helps when considering emissions produced by developed nations to see what efforts they are making to reduce emissions and it highlights the emission differential between developed and undeveloped nations. Per capita figures do not set out climatic differences between nations; you would expect a very cold nation to have to use more energy than a temperate nation and a very hot nation which is developed would also use more energy per capita than a developed nation located in a temperate clime.
      A carbon tax is a crude way of trying to make the polluter pay for its pollution. That’s all it is. Ideally it should encourage people not to waste energy and use cleaner forms of energy, but I doubt that it has much impact on these two important areas.
      Australia may be responsible for 2% of the world’s emissions, but its population is probably 0.2% of the world’s population. A whole is made up of many parts and each part must have a role to play in reducing emissions.
      I am glad, however, that you say that the Upper House will not pass the alternative, for the reasons I set out in the essay.



  2. We might begin trying to tax nature herself then Rob, she produces or rather generates 85% plus of the non poisonous gas via rotting vegetation.

    @ Lain

    The carbon tax is alive and well mate, simply check the annual charges for your car via its CAT, and what we will all be still paying after the next MOT test, the older the car gets the higher its emissions tend to rise as the engine wears out.

    Then see how much the shipping moguls are going to pay for the foul Mox their ships engines bellow out.

    • The carbon tax IN AUSTRALIA has been repealed and we doin’t have MOTs here at all

    • The poison is in the dose, not the substance; as the does of the substance increases so does its toxic effect, and this applies to carbon dioxide.

  3. @ Iian, I know the rules in AUS on the MOT scenario, but the rest of the world has a plethora of rules regarding emissions. The real target began in the USA with California Mission back in the late 50 early 60’s, if you can remember all the Jap Motorcycles had stickers near their filler caps for petrol/gas, saying unleaded petrol only, these money mongers are way ahead of the game they are now playing.

    @ Rob, the poison is minute in terms of effects, Nitrogen is 70+% in air yet the body does not use it for its sustenance.

    The human body can survive on around 15% oxygen so Co2 will never be able to have any effects whatsoever on the human body below 12% in air, see the bio-dome experiments for clarification of how much Co2 we can consume as humans.

    The turn around will come for life on this planet when there is insufficient Co2 to feed food, as the level approaches the huge die off might come, due to the lack of Co2 not the other way around, but that would never happen because nature herself without our help produces 85% of Co2 naturally.

    This camel has broken its back and we will all be walking in the future, due to carbon taxed, but those creating what we need to survive will be exempt from them, as is we see already today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: