Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print
GREEN TAX SHIFT (Read 144503 times)
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #165 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:21pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some.  


Quote:
FD
Isn't this more of a reason to ge the economics right, not less?


I agree with you!

Which, I have noticed, is something that you don't do much of, even when I agree with quite a bit of where you apparently want to get to???
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Goodbye ETS - Hello Carbon Tax
Reply #166 - Sep 19th, 2010 at 1:44pm
 
http://newmatilda.com/2010/05/05/goodbye-ets-hello-carbon-tax

The delay of the Government's carbon trading scheme gives us a chance to choose the policy we should have been working on all along, write Donna Green and Liz Minchin

Despite the Rudd Government’s decision not to take its ETS to the next election, all big businesses have known that the move into a carbon-constrained world isn’t an "if", it’s a "when". Paradoxically, right now it’s not having to pay for the cost of their carbon pollution which is causing many businesses the most problem. That’s because it’s the lack of certainty about what policy is going to come in, and when, which is creating havoc for their long-term investment strategies.

As Declan Kuch argues elsewhere on newmatilda.com today, now is the time to have another really close look at the policy options. But while Kuch proposes a range of ways to improve the ETS framework, there is serious doubt over whether the ETS was ever the right policy in the first place.

We need to take this opportunity to develop a much simpler, more transparent carbon pollution reduction policy, one that would provide a dependable income stream to invest in retraining people for jobs in new lower-emissions industries, and for carefully targeted rebates to low-income households. That policy is a carbon tax.

How would a carbon tax work? Like emissions trading, a carbon tax is all about introducing a price on carbon pollution. It works by adding a tax on the price of coal, gas and oil, set at a rate based on the carbon intensity of the fuel. For instance, the carbon tax on electricity generated from burning natural gas would be only half as much as from burning black coal, because burning gas produces only half the emissions. The added cost of using fossil fuels would inevitably be passed on, meaning price rises for things including petrol, electricity and groceries.

For consumers, the prospect of even the smallest price rise is never welcome. But the fact is that, unless you believe that climate change isn’t a problem at all, it’s inevitable that we will eventually have to address these hidden costs. That means the real question is how to make that economic change fair and effective. A key advantage of a carbon tax is that it’s a more transparent solution than emissions trading because it’s easier to see exactly what tax everyone is paying.

As well, because a carbon tax would apply right across the economy, it would also drive change in critical areas such as energy efficiency and better buildings, which we know can deliver the biggest, quickest, most cost-effective reductions in our emissions now. Doing that would begin the transition away from outdated, unnecessarily energy-intensive ways of doing things. It’s the catalyst we’ve been waiting for to get Australia moving towards being a low-carbon economy.

For business, a tax offers more certainty and control over their costs, enabling them to plan ahead instead of not knowing whether the price of permits to pollute under an emissions trading scheme might spike up or down, as has happened in the EU. As staff from the International Monetary Fund wrote in late 2009, that kind of unstable carbon price is still slowing down investment in renewable energy. And that’s exactly what we’ve recently seen in Australia with several high profile renewable energy projects being cancelled or put on hold.

There’s nothing new or radical about the idea of carbon taxes. Over the past 20 years, around half a dozen European countries, including Denmark, Finland, Britain and Ireland, have brought in various types of levies or carbon taxes. More recently, other countries that have either given in-principle backing to a carbon tax, or else are in the process of bringing one in, include China, Japan and Indonesia. One of the first to act was Sweden, which introduced a carbon tax in 1991 that has since been gradually increased. That economic reform started a shift in how Swedes did business and heated their homes, helping them achieve something that many said was impossible: shrinking the nation’s carbon footprint without shrinking the economy.

In stark contrast with most other countries, Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by more than 7 per cent below 1990 levels, while its Gross Domestic Product has grown by more than 40 per cent. Continuing to push for further improvements, in 2007 the Swedish parliament decided to modify the tax to reduce emissions by another 4 per cent, at the same time as integrating with the EU trading scheme. The Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren, has highlighted just how successful the tax has been, noting that, without it, the country’s emissions would have been 20 per cent higher today.

But few policies are completely problem-free, and it’s fair to ask what the potential problems of a carbon tax might be. A carbon tax is certainly not foolproof. Like emissions trading, a tax can be badly undermined in all sorts of ways. For example, if the tax is set too low, or the industry and household compensation for its introduction is too high, there would similarly be little incentive for anyone to change. Another common concern is that a carbon tax could hurt business and affect jobs.

A note on polls about global warming:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284867601
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #167 - Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:48am
 
There is one major problem with a straightforward carbon tax, but I'm not saying that it's insurmountable.  

Let's say that your industry has a reactor that produces more greenhouse gas than it should. You could invest in a new reactor, and the carbon credits under an ETS would provide financial encouragement to do that.

Where is the incentive under a carbon tax? It becomes all stick and no carrot.

This is not as hypothetical as you might think. I know a number of industries which were holding off on new technology in anticipation of emissions trading.

Carbon Tax is not the best name for it. Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:53am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #168 - Sep 26th, 2010 at 5:03pm
 
Quote:
Where is the incentive under a carbon tax?


Paying less tax is an incentive.

Quote:
It becomes all stick and no carrot.


A dollar less stick means exactly the same as a dollar more carrot to a rational businessman.

Quote:
Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.


You are welcome to call it an emissions tax if it clear up any confusion.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pansy
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #169 - Sep 30th, 2010 at 3:13pm
 
Already there is more waste water generated and dispersed today than at any other time in the history of our planet: more than one out of six people lack access to safe drinking water, namely 1.1 billion people, and more than two out of six lack adequate sanitation, namely 2.6 billion people. 3900 children die every day from water borne diseases


http://sp@m/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Climate action will benefit us: BHP boss
Reply #170 - Nov 28th, 2010 at 6:30pm
 
Marius Kloppers (CEO of BHP) supports my position on carbon taxes:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-action-will-benefit-us-bhp-boss/story-e6frg6xf-1225954629611

BHP Billiton chairman Jac Nasser has called on the federal government to act immediately on climate change, telling his shareholders the world's biggest mining company stands to benefit from the inevitable shift to a low-emissions global economy.

Echoing BHP chief executive officer Marius Kloppers's recent call for Australia to act on a carbon tax before the rest of the world, Mr Nasser said Australia's emissions-intensive sectors would maintain or improve their competitiveness if the country moved quickly to slash its carbon footprint.

"Economies that defer action are likely to face higher long-term costs as global investment is redirected to early movers," Mr Nasser said.

"As one of the most carbon-intensive economies, if Australia acts strongly to reduce its carbon footprint, its emissions-intensive sectors are likely to maintain or improve their competitiveness in a low-emissions world."

Mr Nasser was speaking at BHP's annual general meeting in Perth, the first time he has addressed the company's shareholders in Australia since taking over from Don Argus as chairman in March.

The meeting was dominated by shareholders grilling Mr Nasser and Mr Kloppers about BHP's plans to mine uranium at Yeelirrie in Western Australia, its record in dealing with traditional owners, and its poor safety record on mine sites.

Mr Nasser admitted that BHP's progress had been slow in lowering carbon dioxide emissions from coal through the use of carbon capture and storage technology.

But he said the company, which has both uranium and natural gas assets, stood to benefit as new solutions were found.

Mr Nasser stopped short of calling for a nuclear power industry to be developed in Australia, saying it was a matter for the federal government.

"Where governments support nuclear power we will sell into those markets," he said.

Mr Kloppers repeated his recent call for a revenue-neutral carbon tax to reduce emissions.

Outside the meeting, Mr Nasser said Mr Kloppers's recent speech on climate change had been endorsed by the BHP board.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #171 - Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:05pm
 
muso wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 9:48am:
There is one major problem with a straightforward carbon tax, but I'm not saying that it's insurmountable.  

Let's say that your industry has a reactor that produces more greenhouse gas than it should. You could invest in a new reactor, and the carbon credits under an ETS would provide financial encouragement to do that.

Where is the incentive under a carbon tax? It becomes all stick and no carrot.

This is not as hypothetical as you might think. I know a number of industries which were holding off on new technology in anticipation of emissions trading.

Carbon Tax is not the best name for it. Some Greenhouse gases (eg N2O, O3) contain no carbon.


An ETS is not the answer!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #172 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:00pm
 
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #173 - Jul 7th, 2018 at 7:54am
 
The Green Tax Shift Concept and the Economics of Climate Change

Just put this on the home page:

The links below are to a powerpoint presentation, and two word documents containing a transcript and brief notes, for a presentation on the economics of climate change. Feel free to use them, but please cite OzPolitic as the source.

The Green Tax Shift Concept and the Economics of Climate Change

Presentation transcript

Key points
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #174 - May 15th, 2022 at 7:17pm
 
bump
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 45589
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #175 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 8:08pm
 
Ecological footprint is for those who can afford not to pollute and all the other crimes against the environment.
80% of the world's population cannot achieve that.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print