Carbon Tax

[Slats7]

ABOUT 50 high-emitting polluters would pay two-thirds of the government's carbon tax take, Greg Combet revealed today as he hinted at a carbon price at the lower end of predictions.

About 50 high polluters to bear carbon tax brunt, Greg Combet tells Press Club | The Australian


So both QAN & VBA are top 50 and will be bearing the brunt of the tax.

 

[anat0l]

I wonder how they calculate the emissions of the airlines, and does Qantas Airways Ltd include the entire Qantas Group or not. (For example, how do you account, if at all, QF international flights, or even QF international fifth freedom flights, e.g. BKK-LHR, SIN-LHR etc.)

In any case, a carbon tax won't come to much unless the collected tax (at least part of it) is used to fund useful research, development and implementation of technologies to improve sustainability, and / or will coerce carbon intensive companies to take a more active role in such actions.

 

[farstar]

We all know they will pass on the costs.

 

[odysseus]

This jet is Natural Gas powered.

 

[clifford]

I wonder how they calculate the emissions of the airlines, and does Qantas Airways Ltd include the entire Qantas Group or not. (For example, how do you account, if at all, QF international flights, or even QF international fifth freedom flights, e.g. BKK-LHR, SIN-LHR etc.)

In any case, a carbon tax won't come to much unless the collected tax (at least part of it) is used to fund useful research, development and implementation of technologies to improve sustainability, and / or will coerce carbon intensive companies to take a more active role in such actions.

Well, you could always look at what the rest of the world is doing.

Or are "we" always right?

 

[Slats7]

I still want to know how Australian introducing a Carbon Tax will reduce the world's emissions??

Why is USA, China, India, South Korea etc. doing nothing.

Hmm I wonder..

 

[drron]

I shouldn't really start but Combet and Swann really rile me when they talk of the Carbon tax.
If ordinary folks are not going to be worse off why will they reduce energy consumption?
If the big polluters pay the tax how can they not pass on the costs and stay in business?
Smart politics-low income earners and pensioners will get their cash,think the government is great until after the election when they finally realise everything is going up.
What are they going to do about aluminium smelters?Huge consumers of electricity supplied on much lower rates than other businesses-eg Point Henry smelter in Victoria consumes half of Loy Yangs output.Put up the price considerably though and new investment will probably be overseas-China has just postponed $20 billion of smelter investment due to overproduction of aluminium.I have no doubt China could ramp that back up before even planning could be done here.
As one commentary I read says-great,the government robs industry of $12 billion,keeps half for itself and bribes the majority of voters with the other half.

 

[Alanslegal]

I still want to know how Australian introducing a Carbon Tax will reduce the world's emissions??

Why is USA, China, India, South Korea etc. doing nothing.

Hmm I wonder..

If you follow this logic, then why does Australia bother at all? Seriously, why why why bother? What's our % of emissions globally? It's soooo minimal that anything we do is negligible so we shouldn't even care, bother, or worry. Let's just consume and use as much as want till our hearts desire, because at the end of the day .... China or whoever country still pollutes much more.

I believe in global warming and in climate change. Whether or not we fail or not, at least I can say that I tried my best because I believed it. I'd rather fail because I gave it my all, rather than failing by doing nothing.

If we continue the logic that some other country does nothing, we might as well not do anything at all. Why do we bother with Earth Hour for a start? Why bother with recylcing? Re-using? Being greener? Why re-use plastic bags or even use green bags? And the list goes on.

We like to believe we will do the 'best' thing but we are afraid to commit. Soft.

 

[medhead]

I still want to know how Australian introducing a Carbon Tax will reduce the world's emissions??

Why is USA, China, India, South Korea etc. doing nothing.

Hmm I wonder..

It is called setting an example to encourage those other countries to do something.

BTW both china and India are doing a lot to reduce their emissions. China are taking massive steps to diversify their energy sources especially building 20+ nuclear power plants. Nuclear power that has the same emissions over the full life cycle as solar and also works at night.

India similiarly.

 

[Andyzx]

As a part of another top 50 Co2 emitter, it is difficult to see how they will treat us vs. say a QF. We sell domestically and export products. We also make products overseas.
All we know so far is that we will pay CPRT (CT) on all Oz sourced inputs and all outputs regardless of destination.

In terms of reducing carbon use, we previously have worked on efficiencies and emissions. This requires capital to increase efficiency of inputs and reduce the emissions of all pollutants also reducing other wastes e.g. solid waste. We also sponsor uni research to reduce carbon and other inputs. The problem is we are a huge electricity user and carbon is a critical element in our products.

Since the GFC and unlike the mining industry we are struggling as a manufacturer in the Labour government financial environment of high currency and tax regime. Coupled with the uncertainty over all the new taxes it’s a difficult environment out there.
The last paragraph gives you an idea on how hard it is to have the money to spend in reducing carbon emissions…. We will somehow, as imported products that do not attract the tax, we can’t compete with that.

This is the same for QF and VA competing against overseas imports, they have limited options but to use fuel, which is a significant cost in there products. It will be difficult to pass on as the “imported” seats will not be attracting the tax. Also given the GFC and current environment it will be difficult to have spare money to invest in new technology and updated planes.
Sorry for the rant but this is a complex and unfair tax. I also don’t speak for the company I work for. The above is a personal comment only and not for publication elsewhere

 

[Sifor]

I believe in global warming and in climate change. Whether or not we fail or not, at least I can say that I tried my best because I believed it. I'd rather fail because I gave it my all, rather than failing by doing nothing.

There's nothing wrong with what you have said, however it begs the question: is it worth the risk to our way of life?

I'm sure all politicians from both sides and the general population would like to help mitigate climate change. But at what point do we say the cost to society too great? Companies moving off shore (like the MRRT for miners), Australians out of pocket by $900 per year, lost jobs (sounding like the Labor machine there ha!).

I do subscribe to the belief that because Australia contributes only 0.01% (or whatever minuscule number it is) then I don't see the point in us having to bear the enormous cost that very well may not achieve anything but social hardship. Get China, America, India, Europe to hop on board then I'll be happy to support it.

A country of our size and GDP should not have to lead by example. We've never done it for that reason. Let America go first, we'll sit back and watch their economy fail. That's probably why other countries are not really going forward: "let's see what happens with Australia before we commit."

Oh and with regards to my comment "But at what point do we say the cost to society too great?" there are other problems such as the Middle East, North Korea and perhaps even China that pose a far greater risk to humanity in the next 50 years than climate change...

 

[Smackbum]

There's nothing wrong with what you have said, however it begs the question: is it worth the risk to our way of life?

I'm sure all politicians from both sides and the general population would like to help mitigate climate change. But at what point do we say the cost to society too great? Companies moving off shore (like the MRRT for miners), Australians out of pocket by $900 per year, lost jobs (sounding like the Labor machine there ha!).

I do subscribe to the belief that because Australia contributes only 0.01% (or whatever minuscule number it is) then I don't see the point in us having to bear the enormous cost that very well may not achieve anything but social hardship. Get China, America, India, Europe to hop on board then I'll be happy to support it.

A country of our size and GDP should not have to lead by example. We've never done it for that reason. Let America go first, we'll sit back and watch their economy fail. That's probably why other countries are not really going forward: "let's see what happens with Australia before we commit."

Oh and with regards to my comment "But at what point do we say the cost to society too great?" there are other problems such as the Middle East, North Korea and perhaps even China that pose a far greater risk to humanity in the next 50 years than climate change...

As Bart Simpson would say - "Can't win, don't try. Got it!"

Anyway - $900 a year is the cost of a new flat screen TV ... with which to watch the planet go down the tube in high definition.

 

[anat0l]

There's nothing wrong with what you have said, however it begs the question: is it worth the risk to our way of life?

I'd say 'yes', actually.

Whether you like it or not when we decide to accept this scheme under either a Labour or Liberal government then it will always have a risk to our way of life. Mitigating against the effects of climate change is going to require societal change which no one is going to like, but it's going to happen so whether we do it like mature people or kicking and screaming are the choices.

Anyone who thinks we can manage climate change without risk to society is kidding themselves. There are going to be significant societal and cultural shifts required; the realisation of that should already flag the significant risk which will need to be accepted.

I'm sure all politicians from both sides and the general population would like to help mitigate climate change.

I'm not so sure about both sides of politics, let alone the general population for that matter.

In any case, the general fallacious argument comes back to, "Sure, I'll do something as long as it doesn't affect me." Well, it's not going to work like that.

But at what point do we say the cost to society too great? Companies moving off shore (like the MRRT for miners), Australians out of pocket by $900 per year, lost jobs (sounding like the Labor machine there ha!).

And herein lies another common problem.

No one is prepared to analyse further than that situation. Everyone thinks that tax comes in, people lose jobs, cost of living goes up, and that is that. Therefore it is bad, don't do it.

What happened to actually thinking about ways to mitigate against those proposed 'negative' changes? So we can still have the tax, achieve its goals and not have everyone needing to foot a fabled $900 increase? No one thought we could do that, or have the capacity to try and think about how we could do / achieve that? It's a case of "install tax - everyone pays $900 extra, period, that's it, no way around it"? Although I don't have the answer right now (so don't come sending shooters to nail me just because I can't do it), I'd like to think there is a "lemonade from lemons" answer here.

I'll vouch that there is not enough effort being done by the government to actually communicate what are their mitigating measures against adverse societal impacts like cost of living increases (e.g. the "compensation" plans), but to simply state "yep, $900 extra if we instigate the tax" and say that that is that is just as fallacious and - dare I say it - just as stupid.

Big companies are the same, and if anything from the failure of the RSPT has shown us is that big companies dominate this country more than the government does. That in itself is ridiculous and don't even think of raising the "but that is a democracy" argument - not even close. A mining company that will instantly close all its operations if a new tax comes onboard is very shortsighted - it is doing so without even considering how it may realign or reestablish itself so it does not have to shed jobs or without dramatic impacts on its bottom line. Again, it is a very simplistic "I don't like it so fob off" reaction with no room to consider change or mitigation of impacts.

I do subscribe to the belief that because Australia contributes only 0.01% (or whatever minuscule number it is) then I don't see the point in us having to bear the enormous cost that very well may not achieve anything but social hardship. Get China, America, India, Europe to hop on board then I'll be happy to support it.

There are a number of reasons - cynical, political and just downright ridiculous - why America won't support or install a carbon tax or other kind of carbon trading system. Heck, they are even very stubborn that they won't support the EU's carbon taxing of airlines entering the EU (but it will come - the US can only resist so long so they'll just have to learn to "deal with it"). They are the same reasons why America has been resisting every environmental effort since the 1960s. Sometimes they appear to "do it" in spirit, but in practice they are resisting very strongly, which is not helped due to the separation of powers between their national level politics and the states.

Europe is already on board with its own carbon reduction scheme, and it has rather aggressive carbon reduction targets to be achieved within the next 10 years.

Like Alanslegal said, who are you going to wait for before you do anything? So "most" of the world is doing "nothing". So we should also do nothing?

A real investment and effort is required for research, development and implementation of sustainable technologies. A carbon tax will help fund such efforts, because the societal carrot so far is just not doing it. Of course, if you are a non-believer of climate change then I'm sorry we can't help you and vv.

I swear the more I hear Tony Abbott argue that the carbon tax is wrong because Labour promised no carbon tax at the last election, the more I want something really bad to happen to him and the next Tony Abbott wannabe.

Oh and with regards to my comment "But at what point do we say the cost to society too great?" there are other problems such as the Middle East, North Korea and perhaps even China that pose a far greater risk to humanity in the next 50 years than climate change...

What kinds of problems? Would you say that the funding and efforts in solving these problems are insufficient right now?


At the very least, I stand by my argument that I would like to see the monies collected from this tax reinvested in both mitigating the effects on end consumers and serious research, development and technology transfer in sustainable technologies. Again, this is where the government is failing to either consider or report on the proposed use of the tax's funds, but that does not mean we should not implement a carbon tax or some kind of trading scheme.

I will also repeat that the communication by the government as to the full details of how this tax will be implemented and managed is very poor, although in part this is not helped at all by the popular media.


In any case - for those that think this is a bad idea, what do you think is a more effective way of addressing the issue of climate change if not via a carbon tax?

 

[drron]

Sorry but there is an old saying-you cant have your cake and eat it too.
If a carbon tax is not going to send a price signal to the population how does it reduce CO2 emissions?
If the big polluters are going to pay will they remain in business if they dont pass on the price increases?Though here the likes of BHP and Rio Tinto should have no problems.QF and DJ though?
And just remember if electricity and fuel prices go up it eventually it is virtually every business that is going to pay.Here in regional Australia,despite our fantastic economy,businesses are failing regularly.Many are just hanging on.This will be the final straw.
However introducing a carbon tax will solve the Government's budget problems.Call me a cynic but this announcement came just before we were warned of the growing budget shortfall.

 

[medhead]

There's nothing wrong with what you have said, however it begs the question: is it worth the risk to our way of life?

I'm sure all politicians from both sides and the general population would like to help mitigate climate change. But at what point do we say the cost to society too great? Companies moving off shore (like the MRRT for miners),

Have a look at Venus to see the potential cost to our way of life and see the risk to our way of life of doing nothing. The fact is our way of life needs to change, it is extremely wasteful and it should change. The potential cost of doing nothing in the long term are far worse.

As for the MRRT, tell me how are these miners going to move offshore, the minerals are in Australia not offshore. Therein is the logical fallacy of buying that furphy.

 

[drron]

Have a look at Venus to see the potential cost to our way of life and see the risk to our way of life of doing nothing. The fact is our way of life needs to change, it is extremely wasteful and it should change. The potential cost of doing nothing in the long term are far worse.

As for the MRRT, tell me how are these miners going to move offshore, the minerals are in Australia not offshore. Therein is the logical fallacy of buying that furphy.

And just say china's economy tanks,demand for resources drops.Does BHP mothball it's Chilean copper mine or it's Australian mine with higher costs.Does Rio drop it's coal expansion plans in Africa or Australia where costs are greater?

 

[medhead]

And just say china's economy tanks,demand for resources drops.Does BHP mothball it's Chilean copper mine or it's Australian mine with higher costs.Does Rio drop it's coal expansion plans in Africa or Australia where costs are greater?

Good question. Do they give up the worlds largest uranium resource to save a few dollars in copper? Do they risk having the government\rebels\terrorists take over their newly built coal mine with freshly trained staff? The terrorists would probably blow it up.

Assuming they do. What do they do when the Chilean/African mines are exhausted? where do they find the next big resource? Australia or Antarctica?

The MRRT only shifts the cost curve there are many other factors to consider, which makes leaving Australia a rather hollow threat. Plenty of others out there prepared to step in and take over already developed operations and still make a profit.

 

[drron]

Well the already developed operations are owned by the companies so unless they sell who can just walk in?
Or are you advocating Government seizure of assets?Now that really will encourage investment.
Now I am not picking on you.I actually do believe in some form of MRRT.But there are arguments on both sides.

 

[Slats7]

It is called setting an example to encourage those other countries to do something.

BTW both china and India are doing a lot to reduce their emissions. China are taking massive steps to diversify their energy sources especially building 20+ nuclear power plants. Nuclear power that has the same emissions over the full life cycle as solar and also works at night.

India similiarly.

I don't think Australia introducing a tax is going to encourage India & China to do the same. Why are they not jumping up and down and saying lets bring in a tax because Australia is?

The fact is China is still building one new coal power station each week! Yes they might be building nuclear power but one new coal power station a week is offsetting this.

I also read that another volcano like Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland last year would negate all the work being done to save Carbon emissions around the world!

The cost of living is going to rise significantly under this tax. Use Qantas & Virgin Blue for example: both being top 50 'polluters' will bear the brunt of the tax. They are just going to pass the cost onto the consumers! It's that simple.

We can talk about compensation but the fact is everyone is going to pay more for everything and for what really? Australia going at it alone is not going to make any difference.

It's either all in or nothing in my opinion.

 

[Sprucegoose]

I wonder how they calculate the emissions of the airlines, and does Qantas Airways Ltd include the entire Qantas Group or not. (For example, how do you account, if at all, QF international flights, or even QF international fifth freedom flights, e.g. BKK-LHR, SIN-LHR etc.)

In any case, a carbon tax won't come to much unless the collected tax (at least part of it) is used to fund useful research, development and implementation of technologies to improve sustainability, and / or will coerce carbon intensive companies to take a more active role in such actions.

How would the new avgas bio go here anat0l? I believe it has been trialled.