38
TOPICS
670
VOTES
175
COMMENTS
143
PARTICIPANTS
Election 2013 - Sneak Preview
YourView Australia is covering all the major issues in the 2013 Federal election. When the official election period begins at the start of August, our forum will be integrated into the election coverage of a major media organisation. In the meantime, we're doing a low-key launch, and continuing to develop the platform, the visualisation, and the issue coverage. Your early participation and feedback is most welcome.
The carbon tax should be repealed
In Brief
On July 1 2012, the highly controversial price on carbon took effect in Australia as part of the Gillard government’s Clean Energy Bill 2011. Australia currently contributes about 1.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which translates to one of the largest per capita emitters globally. Australia is extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change and has a strong interest in seeing an effective international response to global warming issues.
How does it work?
As part of the Government’s plan for a ‘Clean Energy Future’, legislation was passed in 2011 to tax about 500 of Australia’s highest polluting companies for every tonne of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent that they emit over 25,000 tonnes per year. The price has initially been set at $23 a tonne for 2012-2013, but this will rise 2.5% every year until 2014-2015. From July 1 2015, the carbon price will switch to a flexible emissions trading scheme with the price on carbon being determined by the market.
At its most basic level, the goal of the price on carbon is to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. The government has stated that a price on carbon, together with other energy efficient initiatives in the Clean Energy Future policy, is the best way to address carbon emissions. In the long-term, the government has said that Australia will aim to reduce carbon pollution to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050.
Internationally, the approach to reducing emissions has been mixed, as countries have been hesitant to pursue energy efficiency at the expense of economic growth. Nevertheless, 118 countries have renewable energy targets and 33 countries have national carbon trading schemes.
The problem
Politically, the most important point of contention is that before being elected, PM Gillard declared in August 2010 that ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. As a result, Tony Abbott has attacked the Prime Minister for breaking her mandate to the electorate. Other criticisms of the scheme are that it will increase everyday costs such as electricity for Australians, that it attacks the most important and profitable sector of the Australian economy (mining) and that it will do little to reduce emissions.
Responses to the criticisms and political party positions
Labor has maintained that a price on carbon is the cheapest and most environmentally effective way of reducing Australia’s emissions. The Labor Party introduced a Household Assistance Package to respond to the increase in living expenses. The Package helps 9 out of 10 households through tax cuts and it increases some government payments such as pensions.
The Liberals have repeatedly promised that if elected, they will immediately introduce legislation to repeal the carbon tax. Their alternative policy to reduce emissions and protect the environment includes a ‘Green Army’ of 15,000 Australians and a Direct Action Plan to reduce carbon emissions.
The Greens support the price on carbon as they see it as a vital first step towards addressing climate change and other environmental issues. The party would like more action on environment policy and an increase in the cost of carbon emissions.
The leader of the National Party, Warren Truss, has highlighted how expensive the tax is when compared to European programs and has also spoken of the negative effect it has on the economy. The National Party supports the repeal initiative of the Liberals.
For Repeal |
Against Repeal |
|
The tax hurts businesses and households.Although only payable by the 300 top emitters, the tax will flow through to prices we all pay every week - particularly food and power. Every Australian will be paying more for basic needs. At the same time, it will make it harder for highly energy-dependent businesses to survive, and reduce some kinds of investment, leading to job losses. The tax is pointless.In the global context, Australia's carbon tax will make almost no difference to GHG emissions and the rate of global warming. Its effects if any will swamped by rises in emissions from developing countries who've been notably reluctant to commit to any limits on their burgeoning emissions. The tax is badly designed.The Gillard carbon tax has myriad design flaws. Its starting price ($23 per tonne) is much too high, relative to global carbon markets, and when the tax converts to a genuine trading scheme, the price will crash. And arguably it is taking fundamentally the wrong approach: we should be taxing consumption, not production. The timing is bad.The global economy hasn't fully recovered from the GFC and yet stands on the brink of another crisis, potentially more profound. European economies are failing, the US is effectively bankrupt and even China is slowing down. Australia's two-track economy is leaving millions struggling to maintain their standard of living. This is not the time to be subjecting ourselves to a tax which, by design, is meant to crush economic activity based on our abundant cheap energy. The tax is illegitimate.The Gillard Labour government was elected in part on the back of promise: "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead." Under pressure from Green partners, the carbon tax was subsequently introduced, despite popular opinion (as measured in the polls) being against it. It is undemocratic to introduce such an important change to the Australian economy, with attendant risks of great economic harm, knowing that it does not have majority and bipartisan support. |
The tax is the best way to reduce global warming.Lets keep in mind why the carbon tax was introduced in the first place. According to the scientists, rapid, drastic cuts in global greenhouse emissions are needed to reduce global warming. According to the economists, markets are the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. The carbon tax is just such a market mechanism. Repealing it would leave us either with an inferior approach or in neglect of our fundamental moral obligations to future generations. The tax helps usher in a new economy.The tax, and its associated measures, are helping reshape the Australian economy in directions we all know it must eventually head: knowledge-based services, advanced technologies, and bountiful clean renewable energy. Repeal would create business uncertainty.Business needs as much clarity and certainty as it can get to make long-term investments. The doubt and debate over carbon policy over the past decade or more has clouded the strategic horizon. Threatening to repeal the carbon tax just prolongs and increases that cloud of uncertainty. If the carbon tax was to be repealed, the immediate question will be whether some similar scheme will be reintroduced. The tax would be too hard to unwindThe carbon tax is already in place. Business have made plans and adjustments on that basis. The various components of the Clean Energy Future package, of which the carbon tax is the centrepiece, are being implemented. Payments have been made to millions of Australians. Unwinding all this is a practical impossibility and a fools errand. Repeal would a budget nightmare.The carbon tax is scheduled to generate billions every year. Repealing would leave a huge budget shortfall. Meanwhile the new Abbott government would be trying to find the additional billions needed to fund its own inefficient emissions reduction program. They only outcome for the Australian people: dramatic cuts to government services such as health, education and environmental programs. |
Vote
Views (50)
Support YourView
YourView's mission is to enhance democracy in Australia by identifying the collective wisdom on major public issues.
It relies entirely on volunteer efforts and donated funds, and is independent of any government, corporate or political organisation.
Please consider helping YourView to build momentum.
FOR (12)
I have read both arguments to this debate and conclude the following; 1. Whilst I believe we need to be more responsible with the global resources we have, I cannot understand why governments are running with the difficult to prove 'Global Warming / Climate Change' argument when they could more easily convince consumers about limited resources. For this reason, anything that relies on this argument to make money is questionable. 2. If the burning of fossil fules is indeed resulting in higher global temperatures and extreme weather conditions (Which personally I am a skeptic of) then I cannot see how a tax is going to be effective in curbing this phenemonom. What I believe will happen is companies that are taxed will pass on the expense to the general public, then perhaps change their processes to reduce their tax but not pass on the saving, resulting in even more inflation and stress on the household budget. 3. Why do we not tax our export of fossil fuels? It is all well and good trying to reduce Australia's contribution to CO2 emiisions which I believe run at around 0.003% on a global scale but we allow China to purchase coal with no carbon tax and they will use and contribute a much higher percentage, around 10% at a guesstimate. This I feel is hypocritical to the attempt of reducing emissions globally.
I would much rather advocate a tax to reduce consumerism by taxing what we throw away. This would eventually put pressure back on manufacturers to produce items that last and will increase our service industry rather than filling our rubbish dumps with toxic, non-biodgradable items. Unfortunately reducing consumerism goes against capitalism which is probably the underlying agenda of the carbon tax in the first place.
...It's called the GST. That said, not all consumption is taxed in this way. Perhaps the GST could be made applicable to more items like fresh food, rent and housing.
I agree that we should be taxing waste. However carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, which aren't subject to this tax) are waste products of various activities like electricity generation. This waste is not going into landfill, but the air. It thus makes sense to impose the tax at the point where the waste is being generated, thus creating an incentive to find more efficient (or less wasteful) methods of production.
To try and determine how much carbon dioxide waste had gone into each product would be an administrative nightmare, so it makes double sense to apply it at the point of production.
And businesses face cost pressures from many angles. Sometimes they'll just pass costs on, other times they will try and minimise them. Both will occur under the carbon tax, but those who do reduce their emissions might find themselves more competitive.
To tax consumption and not production is a false choice, as they are not mutually exclusive. Why not apply pressure on both supply and demand? e.g. Consider the scenario where someone sells a known harmful substance to those who are addicted. Do we prosecute the seller, the user, or both? In response to the individual points: 1. Yes, there are other benefits of carbon pricing, and the long-term payback of addressing "climate change" is probably the most difficult to explain to the majority who want to get a quick fix and move on. Why the government chose the harder path I do not know, but it has no bearing on whether the idea of a price is good or bad. 2. Let's say that companies passed on the full cost to consumers. If one of their competitors chose instead to curb their carbon emissions, and pass this "saving" to consumers by reducing prices, then they will gain customers. It's how the market works. 3. I totally agree with this! Again it is not an "either/or" choice. But since Australia sell 25% of the world's coal, that is how we can have the most influence. There is also the concept of a "frontier tax", the argument being that it is far simpler and effective to tax at the point where fossil fuels enter the economy (e.g. imports and mining) rather than at it's exit (e.g. emissions and waste). But we can do this IN ADDITION to a carbon price. So I do not see it as a reason to repeal the legislation.
The other argument that is so often neglected is that it is the government's responsibility to correct an externalisation. Historically, businesses have been able to dump waste into the atmosphere FOR FREE; they cause the problem, but pay nothing to correct the damage (i.e. the cost is externalised, in this case the cost is left for future generations to foot the bill). So really we have been paying the wrong price all along.
Did you actually read that piece suggesting taxing consumption, not production. It essentiall advocates REMOVING the tax from exports, and extending it to imports. It is basically a way of making sure that we don't hurt trade exposed industries. As for your points 1. and 2.: 1. Whether taking a different line would have been as easier 'sell' is irrelevant to whether the tax itself is a good thing, although if you are sceptical about climate change then the tax, while encouraging a switch from limited fossil fuels, goes beyond this and as such is excessive if your only concern is limited resources. 2. This may happen, but what is more likely to happen in markets which are subject to competition is that those businesses which are able to lower their costs by switching to less emitting prcesses will have the opportunity to undercut their compettitors on price and thus increas their market share. The only reason they wouldn't do so is if there is insuficcient competition in their particular industry or if they are engaged in price fixing with other major players in the industry.
And, painful and distasteful as it may be, the fact is that those high taxes have been proven to lower the number of people smoking. Tax does change behaviour.
I wonder how many of the voters in this poll thought they were voting to oppose the carbon tax itself, rather than opposing the action of repealing it. Cleverly confusing question methinks.
Look, a lot of the resistance comes from a wilful blindness to the science. Once that is acknowledged and we can move on, the question becomes how do we collectively address reducing our carbon emissions, and encouraging ourselves to do more with less. This is a good start.
Imposing a tax of this nature (higher and broader than others) before the major carbon emitters have committed to similar action is only going to cause a shift in production to no tax countries that likely have lower pollution controls. This will have a net negative effect on the environment since we will be using fuel to ship raw materials (think coal, bauxite etc) to the producer nation rather than doing it here. This will also reduce Australia's wealth, making it that much harder to transition to lower emission energy systems when they become available. The "rationale" that it will make alternative energy systems more affordable is untrue. The alternative energy systems prices will not reduce because of this tax, all it does is deny cheap energy to Australians, while allowing increasing shipments of coal to our economic competitors.
A large amount of the compensation is going towards the very trade exposed industries you mention (who in many cases already benefit from large government subsidies).
Much of the tax collected will be from electricity generators, which can't be moved offshore. Even thought the price of electricity for consumers is increasing rapidly the carbon tax only accounts for a small portion of this. However the cost increase at the generation side will apply some pressure on investors when deciding on what type of generation capacity to invest in. This is where we need the big change to happen, so in that sense the tax should be effective.
And a lot of our coal is already exported (we export way more than we actually use). This is something that will eventually need to be addressed one way or another.
Taxing production will simply make prices increase and certainly doesn’t guarantee a reduction in emissions. All this amounts to is a controversial tax to combat a phenomenon still wreathed in controversy. Not to mention, we’re talking about reducing carbon monoxide here… you know, the stuff that makes things grow? Want to reduce carbon? Plant more trees and stop cutting the forests down. Just because the tax has been instituted doesn’t make it right. Something doesn’t cease to be wrong, or useless, or even damaging, simply because it becomes ‘accepted’.
I think to a certain extent, we are to pay for all the problems we have incurred as a nation, to in effect, prevent further climate change. But all we are really doing is reimbursing the government for their countless financial incompetencies and prolonging the time of earth's extinction. No joke.
However, we are pushing the boundaries up to what each household must pay. I think it should apply to different wages, different financial capabilities and family capacities corresponding with your assets. This is so that those who are financially stable and own a substantial amount of assets, should be paying an amount that corresponds with what they own, likewise with a less wealthier family.
It's only fair for those who cannot afford the increase in cost of living. Australia DOES have poverty. We do not exclude ourselves from this problem. The more we endure with this carbon tax... poverty, employment, bankruptcy will incline. Our economy will fail.
The carbon tax is a retaliation and a quick problem to fix the gaps in the government's budget and solver for climate change. By extracting more money out of people to fix all these problems, is a stupid and materialistic resolution. If you are to raise bars in terms of finances, don't exceed the capabilities of disadvantaged families.
Seriously Gillard, I regret voting you in.
Do the government really think carbon tax can reduce carbon emission?
I totally disagree with it.
Reasons as follow:
1.Carbon tax is for all companies, which means all their cost will increase. As they won`t have cost differentiation, no one would worried about that. All they will do is to transfer the extra cost to customers or employees.
2.Most of the small business will be force to close down, because those giant business have ability to get through the price makeup transitional period, but small business have not. It may leave giant business finally, then monopoly all around.
3.It will also lead to complaints of government. Price goes up, payment goes down and so on. Government has to use the carbon tax to fix these problems.
In brief, no help to the reduction of carbon emission but disrupts the market.
Whilst I support the underlying ethos of moving away from fossil fuels to clean energy and that government has a major role to play in creating a need for businesses and consumers to change.
I can not support it in its current form. I think the best way forward is to start again. Incorporate a no disadvantage to Australian exporters, an impost on imports where a carbon tax or equivalent has not been levied (to set a level playing field in terms of Carbon in the Australian market place) and legislate a requirement for companies to reduce their carbon emiisions. From what I've seen to date, I do not believe a tax or trading scheme will do this.
All companies comply with corporate law, so I can not see why companies could not be required to comply with emissions law.
The act can be amended as we see the results. And, actually, it has a move towards cap and trade built in. Let's see some of the outcome before we talk about scrapping.
This tax may have to be repealed but when is the issue. Governments rush to implement tax bills because revenue is the lifeblood of any government in its desire to redistribute income to its own favoured supporters. But this tax along with others designed to change social behaviour, not solely designed to raise revenue not only needs but must have a sunset clause. If the tax does not achieve what it was designed to do them scrap it and if deemed necessary at the time introduce another one that will achieve the outcome if that outcome is still desirable at the new time. The whole idea of a carbon tax is puzzling anyway. Reduce carbon by reissuing the design criteria for power stations and cars and buildings etc. Oh, and god help us, have a serious debate about nuclear energy and population control. Read this blog in 5 or 10 years time; shake your head and wonder why the carbon tax has not reduced carbon usage. The carbon tax was designed to absolutely reduce our carbon usage not reduce the rate of increase!
I'm not going to debate the reality of man made global warming or, more importantly, the reality of 'potential future catastrophic' damage to our world as a result of climate change caused by man. I would repeal this tax because I am going to suffer regardless of how hard I try to reduce my carbon footprint. I have to use electricity and I need to eat. These things are going to get more expensive and there's very little more I can do to reduce my consumption of either of these. I'm using solar hot water and solar panels and energy efficient bulbs and switching off my TV instead of leaving it on standby. But because I earn over $80,000 I don't get any compensation for the rise in my costs. Why? I'm doing my bit. I ride my bike to work 4 days a week and the other day I catch a train. Why does my salary (a reward for hard work) disqualify me from the income raised by the carbon tax when the guy next door who drives everyday and has no power-saving plans gets a big payment because he didn't work hard at school and wound up flipping burgers for a living.
If an individual has already minimised their electricity consumption (and by the way, fuel isn't included... yet) and other parts of their carbon footprint then the rise in their costs should be minimal. The rise in your costs will be less than the rise in your neighbour's.
There are still other activities that you can do to reduce your footprint, such as switch to a renewable electricity plan and minimise your heating and cooling costs. Look to buy food products that are minimally processed and in season.
Other than that you can afford the cost increase. You've also pointed out one of the major flaws in the package (not the tax itself, but what they're doing with the revenue) - by turning it into a money-go-round they're reducing the incentive to reduce consumption, putting the focus on the handouts rather than how to cut emissions, not spending the money on further emissions reduction mechanisms or subsidies for energy saving products, and further increasing the sense of entitlement that everyone in this country feels.
If you're earning more than $80K I think you'll be OK.
You certainly won't be "suffering".
Electricity price increases from the carbon tax are minute compared to the increases we've had up to now from the billions in the transmissions and distribution networks. And these are cost increases you can't do anything about - they're "service" charges. These increases dwarf anything from the carbon tax/price.
It seems like your issue isn't about the carbon tax but a general frustration with the system - where others in the community supposedly get "hand-outs" yet don't work as hard as you.
I'm saying that when a tax is introduced that is based on the production of carbon (by the power I burn and the food that I eat) but is then redistributed based on income then I have a real problem with that. I'm saying I have no incentive to be greener because the money raised from the tax isn't going back to those people actively making the effort to reduce their emissions.
The tax is targeted more at producers of waste, rather than consumers (as Beetle points out). Thus changing consumer behaviour beyond shifting their purchases to cleaner producers is less of a priority.
To elaborate - the tax is intended to create market incentive for producers to become cleaner, to allow them to compete better against dirty producers, by making it much more expensive to be dirty. To make the maximum profit (or even stay in business), producers must adapt to be cleaner. These cleaner producers will be able to offer cheaper and/or better products (because they will have more cash to innovate, provide quality, whatever) and thus consumers should support them in preference to dirty producers. Et voila – we have a cleaner, greener economy.
In the meantime the market will hit people with higher costs of living. The economic compensation is there to offset this passing on of costs to those less able to afford it - to equalize the load on society, in effect. Those who are over a certain level of income/wealth are deemed to be able to shoulder the burden without compensation – and incidentally they are also encouraged to change their lifestyle to bring down costs, which is a bonus. But this is only a bonus – not the core objective.
That’s the theory as I understand it. It kind of sucks if you happen to be in the no compensation bracket, and to already have made the changes that may have saved you cash (as you have), but that‘s life.
Personally I console myself about the extra cost (I also get no compensation) because I know that fixing climate change is necessary, and this tax is the best step towards fixing climate change that I have yet seen the government implement - or expect to be implemented, at least in the short to medium term. Therefore I am willing to pay slightly increased costs to support it (actually I would pay significantly higher costs – because I think climate change is that big a risk to the future of human civilization and Australia).
I guess it all comes down to sacrifice. As a responsible citizen, we sometimes must make personal sacrifices (hopefully small ones) for the good of society. If we all refuse to make sacrifices because of some unfairness, then nothing changes until it is forced upon us by events beyond our control.
As well as supporting this tax, we should all try and improve our own lifestyle, as you have already done. The more steps we can take to stop or even reverse climate change, the better. I think you can be proud to have done what you personally can already. You set a good example.
If you accept that climate change is real, then we cannot afford to wait until we are forced.
There are two elements here, the tax itself and the use of the proceeds. I share your frustration about the use of proceeds because it creates redistribution of income which has nothing to do with carbon and therefore complicates the debate. But the tax itself does create (moderate) incentives for people to change their behavior. It sounds like your carbon footprint is so low that your cost of living should hardly change at all, but people with a higher carbon footprint will find their costs rising by more and will have an incentive to make more of an effort. This incentive is partly undermined by excluding petrol from the tax but I expect it will be included eventually.
Instead, the corporate puppets overthrew Rudd when he was about to tax huge destructive resource hungry corporations, and replaced it with this tax on you and me.
The whole climate change debate is based on theories, none of it is proven just like the theory we came from apes. I can't believe how easy influenced people are by media believing this lie when you only need to scratch the surface with what is available on the Internet to discover there is little support from the majority of the scientists around the world. Wake up Australia, we are insignificant in the world view and the only thing we will show the world through this is how we will break our economy when the resource boom bubble bursts. Open your minds people, there is something behind this our politicians are motivated by and it is not the future generations!
You claim that the "whole cimiate change debate is based on theories, none of it proven". Then you propose a theory of your own (vis: "there is something behind this our politicians are motivated by" with the implicit claim that this motivation is not about climate change) but you don't offer any proof. Can you not see the double-standard operating here?
I think that opening line says it all. Did we evolve independently of other apes? Did we evolve from dogs? Or, wait for it, did we not evolve at all?
I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by linking climate change scepticism with scepticism about evolution there. That aside, although I can't believe how often this needs to be reiterated, even if there are a number of scientists who don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change (there are I think you'll find not actually that many), there are VERY few scientists actively publishing in the area of climate study who are not largely convinced concerning climate change. If you think there is some sort of conspiracy or groupthink going on you really don't know much about scientific culture. Dis-proving a commonly held theory is the holy grail of scientific publishing. Any scientist who thought they really could convincingly disprove theories of climate change would jump at the chance. To single-handedly cause such a paradigm shift would ensure you a place in the history of science (no to mention some pretty hefty cheques from fossil fuel comapanies) As for ulterior motives from our politicians, surely the Government would have to be mad to push through such an unpopular piece of legislation unless they really believed it would ultimately be for the good. It is certainly not doing their chances of re-election any good at the moment.
All this letter suggests to me is that Darwin was wrong. We haven't evolved at all!
AGAINST (38)
To avoid dangerous climate change Australia will have to do 4 things; reduce domestic emissions, lobby for international action, become a major player in green technologies and address the CO2 emitted by the fossil fuels we export. The carbon tax will help achieve 3 of those and lay the ground-work for the fourth.
Australia is the 7th largest CO2 emitter in the world (although we come 17th when other GHG are factored in). 40% of the world's CO2 emissions are from countries who emit less than us. By that measure we do make a significant contribution and thus have a responsibility to reduce our own emissions. The carbon tax will help achieve real emissions reductions. Of course a 5% reduction (the stated aim) is not enough, when applied globally, to avoid dangerous climate change but it provides the mechanism for further reductions.
Action by any country alone will make little difference in climate change. Global action, whether through a binding international treaty or individual actions by states combined with a range of bilateral and multilateral agreements, is going to be required. A broad emissions reduction mechanism, aka the carbon tax, sets an example, gives Australia leverage in international negotiations and provides a basis for entering into a global carbon market. There's no worse position to be in, in international negotiations, then that of a hypocrite. With an increasing number of countries developing emissions trading schemes (including those with a fixed price like Australia), we can't afford not to be among them. Of course, international action depends on the skills of our diplomats and the willingness of other countries but a carbon tax is a great start.
By making CO2 intensive industries more expensive a carbon tax encourages investment in technologies that are cleaner or more energy efficient. This investment (coupled with targeted government funding of research and development of these activities) should speed the development of these industries in Australia. As other countries seek to reduce their emissions there will be an increase in global demand for these technologies. A carbon tax will help ensure that the Australian economy is well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.
Finally Australia will have to grapple with the CO2 emissions we export in the form of coal, oil and gas. These dwarf our domestic emissions and could potentially play a major role in dangerous climate change if they were all extracted and burnt. The absence of a global agreement could justify unilateral action on our part, but only if we have seriously addressed our domestic emissions (which is where the carbon tax comes in). This is a new area of debate, that I expect to intensify over the coming years.
Of course the carbon tax isn't perfect. There have been many legitimate criticisms, in that it won't be as effective as it needs to be and that the revenue raised (which in my opinion is an entirely separate question than the tax itself) isn't being used to further the goals of the carbon tax. However most of the arguments about the design of the tax are arguments for amendment, not repeal.
Peter Christoff [Coordinator of Environmental Studies, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne]: Since 1990, Australia’s domestic and industrial greenhouse emissions have increased, on balance, by some 4.2%. Its underlying emissions have increased by 28.8%. Most of this change is associated with the unchecked development of coal-fired and gas-fired power stations to produce electricity (+47% in emissions since 1990) and increased transport use (+27%). It is only because emissions from land clearing have been halved ... that Australia has managed to offset this underlying increase and approach its Kyoto Protocol-determined target of 108% above 1990 levels.
As a result, Australia has the world’s highest level of emissions per person ... (http://www.futureleaders.com.au/ebooks/climatechangeebook.php)
http://scepticwatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/network-hubs-green-army.html#christoff
Tax hurts businesses and households
Yes, initially it probably will. Especially 'trade exposed' industries. However, the damage from things like electricity price increases is marginal compared to the increases we have all endured over the last few years which have had nothing to do with the tax. Except for those businesses which pay the tax directly, the carbon tax is actually one of the smallest cost increases they have had to deal with lately.
Tax is pointless
The argument that because my contribution is small I therefore should do nothing is always a bad argument. The same argument can be applied to voting, 'I only have one vote so it doesn't really matter who I vote for', to shoplifting 'If I shoplift a candy bar from a large store no-one will even notice such a minuscule financial loss'. The point is that when collective action is needed to achieve something, that means individuals have to act. Just because you are not sure whether everyone else will do the right thing doesn't absolve you of your obligation to make your contribution.
Badly designed
This is not really a good argument for repeal but for amending the legislation to fix whatever specific problems there are. The idea of taxing consumption, not production, (i.e. extending the tax to imports and exempting exports) souns like an excellent amendment which should not be difficult to make.
The timing is bad
There is not likely to be a better time anytime soon.
If we delay implementation, economists seem to agree that this will make implementation more expensive when we do come to implement a price on carbon emissions. 3. Australia's economy is actually doing quite well compared to most other nations. (another reason why we should be leading the world in emissions reduction)
The tax is illegitimate
I won't get into arguments about the so-called "lie" but in a way this argument is probably true. While there certainly was a 'mandate' in 2007, popular support has fallen so much that this can no longer be considered to have the support of the Australian people. The only response to make here is that sometimes leadership involves just that, taking people where they ought to go, not just where they think they want to go.
23 years of debate in Parliament and 35 separate inquiries. At last a price on carbon is on its way, as ALL major parties promised in 2007. That's democracy in action. Great effort to get such a diverse group of pollies together and agreeing on a way forward - from inner-city greens, country conservative independents and funny old Tasmanians. It's a start. Bring It On.
We can't afford not to implement this tax and trading scheme. It's years overdue and Australians will barely notice the price-wise. Yes Gillard is a poor PM but in this case has done an exceptional job bringing vast stakeholders together in the most difficult of circumstances. And against the most vitriolic lies we've ever seen.
Tax Hurts Businesses and Households? Wrong. There'll likely be a 0.7% inflationary impact. Less than 1/100th. Compared to other policies (eg, Iraq war) the cost is tiny. Even compared to, say, upgrades to our electricity networks - $45b over 5yrs which has been signed sealed and delivered. Didn't hear anyone complaining about that one and it will likely DOUBLE electricity prices in 5 years.
Tax is Pointless? Yes we emit 2-3% of global total. We also only had 0.0001% of troops in WW1 and WW2. Was Gallipoli pointless? This argument is repulsive. (Why don't we all just throw our litter into the street as we only contribute 0.0001%?!)
The tax is badly designed. The tax isn’t perfect but certainly it’s the best we have. Pricing carbon is the best way to reduce emissions, and this is backed up by any economist worth a cent. Yep, the price will likely fall when the trading scheme starts but this is why there’s a floor – to prevent a crash.
The timing is bad. Um… Let’s look to the science for that one. I think we’ll find it’s well overdue. Bugger the GFC, it’s a relatively tiny hit financially to finally start doing something about emissions. Plus we can now start investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency with some certainty.
The tax is illegitimate.
Bollock bollock bollocks. Clearly it wasn’t what Gillard had intended before the election but the hung parliament changed the rules. How many times does this need to be explained to people? Let’s look at all the alternatives. Firstly, the one we have, was Gillard bending to Greens and allowing a short-term 3-year carbon fixed price (tax) before the emission trading scheme (which she had promised). The other alternative was Abbott literally saying he’d even “bend over” to Windsor and Oakshott to get power (“The only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd have to give serious thought to it” http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-failed-to-sway-with-a-bum-rap-20110827-1jfs5.html). The third was we go to another election. And probably another hung parliament. Welcome to the new paradigm people, pollies will have to negotiate with smaller parties for power, like they do in most democracies.
Clearly this tax has some flaws. In particular it fails to address the risk that polluting activities are pushed offshore at the expense of Australian jobs and no benefit to the environment. But in my view the best approach is to improve the current tax incrementally. Repeal would result in confusion, uncertainty, and an equally imperfect replacement which would probably be abandoned in favour of another carbon tax at some point in the future.
Uncertainty is crippling for business, much more so than a price on carbon. Most businesses can handle a carbon price by passing it on or by making small changes to their practices. But imagine planning a new power station or factory and not knowing whether there will be a price on carbon or some other government policy.
The reason that repeal would increase uncertainty is that I expect we will eventually have a carbon tax anyway. There is widespread agreement among economists that a price on carbon is the most efficient way of reducing emissions because a carbon price enables markets to decide how best to allocate resources rather than letting governments make those decisions.
Finally, to those who point out that Australia produces only a small amount of global emissions, my question is this: Does our small size mean that we are entitled to keep increasing our emissions while other countries have to cut theirs? That doesn’t seem right to me. A global effort only works if every country does its bit.
Certainly I think the tax could use some ammendments, but these can be identified and implemented over time Yes, uncertainty is actually more damaging than a small increase in costs, which is all the tax will be for most businesses And your point that collective action only works if everyone, even the small players, do their bit, is a point that very few people seem to genuinely be able to understand.
For too long the business side of the economy has been getting a free ride on pollution while the consumer pays by loss of quality of life. Producers should pay a price for the right to pollute - which will give them incentive not to as well as compelling consumers to make choices that reflect the impact on our life support system.
Firstly, there are three problems with how the issue has been presented:
1) The arguments presented aren't really nuanced enough to inform (other than to catalogue common opinions). This sort of oversimplification is a common problem with any discussion related to climate change: to be able to really understand and comment in a meaningful way, you need to take the time to really understand the detail.
2) There is a common and obvious argument missing on the "For" side, which is: "It should be repealed because climate change is not a threat, and therefore the carbon tax is unneccessary".
3) For those who, like myself, believe that climate change does pose serious risks that need to be addressed, the issue isn't really framed with sufficient precision. The decision about whether it should be repealed depends on what the intended replacement is: the Coalition's plan or something entirely new.
If we are talking about going back to the drawing board and replacing it with something that no political party is currently proposing, then that is an interesting discussion, but it probably doesn't have much to do with what is likely to happen our short term future. So for the rest of my post, I will assume that the issue is whether we should repeal the carbon tax and replace it with the Coalition's plan. My current opinion is no, because, in spite of the problems with the current carbon tax, I think the Coalition's plan is worse. (Perhaps we could have a related YourView discussion where we look at the Coalition's plan in detail.)
For those who are interested, here are my comments on the "arguments" that have been presented:
FOR:
1) The tax hurts businesses and households.
The design of the scheme is "intended" to hurt businesses and (relatively) wealthy households that are unable or unwilling to change their energy consumption behaviour. Having said this, there is a lot of compensation being provided to help industry to transition to cleaner and/or more efficient energy usage. Compensation is also being provided to the majority of households (which may be better off in some cases). I personally suspect that the impact will be negligible, but let's monitor it and see.
2) The tax is pointless.
If you accept that action on climate change is needed, then this simply isn't true. Will it solve the global climate change problem on its own? No. However, it will give Australia some credibility in climate change negotiations, and it will result in cleaner energies being more cost competitive (meaning we should be able to transition to non-greenhouse-gas sources of energy faster).
3) The tax is badly designed.
I would agree that it has been seriously compromised. I believe it is less bad than the current Coalition alternative, and that it can be incrementally improved to something that might someday be reasonable.
(The idea of taxing consumption rather than production is an interesting one, but completely academic unless one of the political parties is prepared to put it on the table).
4) The timing is bad.
If you think the risks of climate change need to be addressed, then it is pretty hard to argue for further delay. Is there likely to be a better time in the near, medium, or long term?
5) The tax is illegitimate.
I can understand this point of view, particularly if your decision to vote Labor in 2010 was based on the understanding that there would be no carbon tax. I would be pissed too. It sucks, but it is not unprecedented behaviour (by either Labor or the Coalition). I happen to think that the carbon tax is the best policy option on the table at the moment, but if there was an opportunity to vote for a major party that would consistently behave more ethically, then I probably would, even if they had an inferior policy (unfortunately I don't think this option is open to us at the moment).
AGAINST:
1) The tax is the best way to reduce global warming.
This is probably overstated. You can say that most experts seem to think that a price on carbon (either a tax or an emissions trading scheme) is the most cost-effective way to go. In the sense that the Australia carbon tax is a price on carbon, it fits in with what is currently considered best practice.
Note that experts also acknowledge that it might make sense to supplement this with other forms of action (regulations, subsidies, R&D, etc.) depending of the individual circumstances of each country. Although the carbon price is the main feature of the Government's "Clean Energy Future" package, they are also using some of these other forms of action as well. The Coalition plan relies on other forms of action (mainly subsidy) without a carbon price.
2) The tax helps usher in in a new economy.
Probably true.
3) Repeal would create business uncertainty.
Agreed. The threat of repeal also creates uncertainyy.
4) The tax would be too hard to unwind. 5) Repeal would be a budget nightmare.
Possibly true, though we'd really need to see a detailed proposal to judge.
The carbon tax is already self-repealing. From July 1 2015, it stops in any case, and becomes replaced by the emissions trading scheme that is already built in to the legislation, and which was, arguably, approved by the electorate. The easiest way to 'axe the tax' is simply to do nothing but wait.
Some economists predict that the price of emissions permits will fall once the fixed price period (ie. the tax) has concluded. The price will fall even further if the price floor is removed.
This raises a problem. If the tax is in effect removed, what happens to the expenditure measures that the tax is funding. The will either need to be cut (not popular as they're essentially tax breaks), funded from new revenue (ie. new taxes - not popular) or funded by the removal of other programs (which is how successive governments have gotten our budget into its current mess - spending too much of government revenue as tax breaks, and then having to roll back social programs when actual revenue falls).
This could lead to other programs designed to reduce CO2 emissions being cut. The end result is an expensive administrative exercise that doesn't have its intended effect. This is why the price floor should not be removed.
We must begin to tackle climate change for our future generations. The carbon tax is as good a way as any to begin those changes, and it can be fine tuned later on if need be. This issue most certainly should not be used as a political football.
While the carbon tax may not be the best option proposed, from what I understand it is the best option currently on the table with a chance of going anywhere. It should position Australia for cleaner industry, provide us with a more credible voice on climate change to other countries (since we now have visible action to address it), and should also position us to join other carbon markets as they emerge.
Most of the current grumbling against the tax is, I think, standard change resistance and knee-jerk fear, along with a good dose of demagogic manipulation of the public by vested interests. I have seen few well thought out objections to the tax in the media or elsewhere as yet (though Beetle's argument on the support side is not bad).
Revoking the tax will undermine Australian credibility, throw industry into uncertainty, and waste time and resources that would be better spent elsewhere. All with little proof that the tax is actually a bad thing!
In conclusion, the tax may require some tweaking, but let's give it a fair chance before backing away from it. If you accept the science of climate change (which I do) then we need to stop dithering and take some strong action, even if it is not perfect action - and this is that strong action!
The emotional side of me screams "anyone older than my kids has no right to oppose action to address climate change". But let's put that aside and look at the problems with the arguments in favour of repeal.
The tax hurts businesses and households less than opponents would have us believe. The inflationary impact is expected to be moderate – less so than the introduction of the GST, and we survived that. Significant compensation further reduces the impact. Also, any plan to repeal the carbon tax should take into account how much the proposed alternative hurts businesses and households, either in the short term (costs of an alternative plan) or in the long term (costs of inaction).
The tax is not pointless; it's an important starting point. If all it does is prepare our economy for even stronger action in the future, that's valuable in itself. Perhaps Australia's action will only make a small difference initially, but that's no reason that we should instead favour inaction or schemes shown to be even less effective.
If the tax truly is badly designed, the solution is not to throw out the tax – the solution is to fix the design. Perhaps we should be taxing consumption rather than production, but if we allow that to be used as an argument for repealing the tax, we run the risk of having either no carbon reduction measures in place at all, or measures that are less effective and/or more costly. Furthermore, if we are destined to have a different scheme in future that taxes consumption or addresses design flaws, the easiest way to get there is by changing the carbon tax, not by repealing it and starting from scratch.
Let's say the timing is bad. (I disagree; I think it's overdue.) Chances are, if we wait till later, the timing will be worse. Both in terms of our ability to tackle climate change, and our ability to succeed in global markets that are shifting towards economies based on renewable energy.
Illegitimate? Implementing an important policy when you realise it's infeasible to stick to a past election promise is not necessarily undemocratic. Perhaps politicians need to be more careful about what they promise, but a promise alone should not prevent them from doing what's right for the country, so long as there is evidence to support the changes they introduce.
This is a very real issue, the most important of our time, yet much of the press and the Opposition have deliberately acted to prevent serious discussion. There is diminishing understanding of the issue, or even of scientific methodology, yet it is imperative that governments act to change the way our economies work. It is courageous to do so, yes, but really no administration with any sense of responsibility could do otherwise. It is a fine balancing act to change our systems without causing discruptions to our lives, and it is the ultimate irony that the government should be villified for doing so, and the Opposition praised for obfuscating to the extent that the electorate no longer understands either cause or cure, or that Abbott's alternatives are fantastical and, at best, unlikely ever to be put in place.
It is the government's responsibility to correct an externalisation.
Historically, businesses have been able to dump waste into the atmosphere for free.
This has led to artificially low prices.
We require some mechanism to make polluters pay, and economists agree that a market-based approach is the most effective.
Pristine planet for rent. No humans please. And why not? Because we have to be the most selfish creatures in the Universe. The carbon tax is one of the few noble attempts to leave a still inhabitable planet for our children and their children. A vote to repeal the tax is a vote for selfishness and complete indifference to the health of generations as yet unborn. If you want to see what happens when we care only about cash and to hell with the environment, hop on a plane and visit China. Or eastern Europe. Then come back here and be grateful that we have a few politicians and policy-makers who care.
It is not rocket science. If we tax something then there will be less of it. It is great public policy to tax stuff like cigarettes and alcohol. It makes sense to tax carbon dioxide if we are serious about stopping climate change.
I support moving Australia to a cleaner, greener economy as quickly as possible. We are not alone as a nation in doing this, as has been peddled by the media and 'shock jocks'. Generally people don't seem to realise that once the 'tipping point' (for the amount of carbon dioxide equivalents) is reached finding sustainable solutions to the global effects of a warming planet will be extemely challenging, if not impossible in an equitable way.
What is done is done. It is now too late to annul the legislation, but not too late to seriously create renewable generation of electricity. Keep in mind that electricity when used is non-polluting and is the cleanest form of energy available for mass distribution. The problem lies in the generating techniques - coal and gas and diesel oil all produce carbon emissions when burned. Water, waves, wind and solar do not. North of the Tropic of Capricorn is the wet end of Australia; the land slopes to the south; the south (Murray Darling Basin in particular) is short of water; running water can be easily turned into fast-moving jets (like your garden hose); hydro electricity is created by fast moving water turning turbines which turn generators. In time, sufficient hydro electricity would cause coal generated electricity to become too expensive to compete and thus uneconomic. Coal fired generation would cease and electricity would be classed as a 'clean fuel'. Forward thinking is a necessity if the so-called carbon problem is to be overcome. And just to add an impossibilty, the carbon tax should have been started at $2.00 per tonne: no compensation: I doubt any current politician would adapt the current legislation to bring the levy down to such a reasonable level. So we are stuck with it - unless we manage to elect members to our parliaments who were capable of governance, rather than politics. To do that, the voters need to choose their candidates themselves. Ho Hum!
Environmental devastation - including global warming - poses a threat to our longterm prosperity, and possibly survival. We are living so very, very unsustainably... how long have we got left before some sort of crunch comes? This tax is a step in the right direction. Even if it is flawed it is better than nothing. As time passes measures like these will evolve - or be superceded - by better ones. Changing nothing about how we operate as a society is the most dangerous - and in the longterm, costly - thing we could do.
Australians are renowned world-wide as leaders - at an individual level, in most fields of endeavor, we have world-class leaders. In addition to the many good comments made against repeal of the tax, I would like to expand on the aspect that relates to international bargaining. It has been said by many against the repeal that having a C-tax on the table would give us credentials in the discussions regarding combating AGW, which would be a great thing as Australia is one of the highest per capita CO2 emitters in the world, not to mention that we enable others such as China to create enormous carbon debt. Not only would a C-tax improve our credibility but, as a small western country and one mostly insulated from the GFC, we would serve as a great proof-of-principle for other countries to use in their deliberations about such approaches to CO2 reduction.
Another point I'd like to address: taxing consumption vs production. Taxing a product is different (ie, consumption) to fining those who emit pollutants (ie, CO2 production), which is what a C-tax does. Placing the onus on the polluter to clean up their act or pass the cost onto those who buy their products gives other producers, who avoid the C-tax by being more energy efficient, an edge in price that will be quickly realized in consumer behaviour. Simply applying an additional tax to any given product would require tracking the source and by administratively impossible to manage; far easier is to penalize consumption of carbon fuel, which is relatively easy to determine.
The use of price signals to shift consumer behaviour is elementary. Continued production of CO2 on the current scale is going to irrevocably alter the climate to the enormous detriment of the human species (and many others), and all because CO2 emissions are allowed for free, but will cost us all dearly: the most disastrous externality of all. Repealing the Carbon dioxide price would be the act of a seriously disordered mind, and a gravely misled populace.
I think Tony Blair put it well. Let's say it turns out that human-generated carbon has, actually, had no impact on global warming. But that we go ahead and reduce polluting with carbons anyway. Then the worst case scenario is that we lose 1% of GDP growth for a couple of years (that's the chancellory estimates). But we end up with much cleaner air. It's not much of a downside. Sure, let's adjust the tax, and let's move towards cap and trade (which is embedded in the legislation), but let's not turn back. There can only be good things ahead.
I strongly support this tax despite having good reason not to. No politician should ever consider imposing a tax without the words to inspire us. We think that small target, risk aversion and ride it out to show the sky hadn't fallen in politics wins the day. That might have worked BO (Before Obama) but not today. Rather than defending a psuedo alliance with the Greens, scream "I have a dream" and draw attention to the non-believers. The Coalition should be ridiculed for their empty chair at the negotiation table, not those at the table negotiating. Give me inspiration not a plan. For more on this see this talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/simonsinekhowgreatleadersinspireaction.html.
We are at serious risk of adverse global warming unless we drastically and immediately reduce our carbon emissions. The evidence is clear and that debate is more or less settled. So, the remaining question is how we can reduce carbon emissions. I believe that financial incentives (like the carbon tax in question) are necessary in order for any change to occur.
Some maintain that Australia is so small that our actions could not possibly make any difference on a global scale. I disagree. While our emissions may be small in comparison to those of larger developed countries, incentives like the carbon tax will drive Australian industries to develop carbon reduction technologies, that we will later be able to export to the rest of the world. This is our opportunity, and the time to take it is now.
I have heard scientists fortell global warming for at least the past 20 years and was convinced long ago. But many are shouting that our contribution will make no difference. What short memories people have or they are young and have not been told about the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica - close to Australia. It was found that the fluorocarbons used in friges and aerosol cans was starting to destroy the ozone layer. There were of course disbelievers then, but a solution was found and many businesses had to make extensive modifications. This is what the carbon tax is intending to do. There will be job changes (not necessarily job losses and only in the medium term anyway). Surely we who belong to homo sapiens (the wise?)can work to ensure that pollution is reduced which is what the tax on polluters is all about.
Did you know that just last year the ozone hole was the fifth largest on record? Did you know there's been no meaningful trend in the size of the hold since the ban of CFCs in Montreal. Those same scientists that told us how to fix the ozone hole predicted a partial recovery by now. If it turns out they were wrong and banning fluorocarbons had no meaningful effect on the ozone hole will we learn anything by it or just sweep it under a rug and pretend it never happened? It's easy to make a change with good intentions but try and find someone to take responsibility for it when it goes wrong.
When social needs are in conflict with personal benefits then the proper role of government is to level the playing field and create new rules of the game that all must follow to enhance the welfare for all. For example, no import company would agree to absorb the cost of inspecting containers before they are shipped to Australia because it would increase the cost of their products/services. But if the government requires this of all companies then the company will comply because everyone must pay the same "tax." Similarly a carbon tax is a reasonable approach to deal with a serious problem and it ensures that everyone shares in contributing to the solution in one way or another. Many will argue over how best to impose a carbon tax, some might argue it is not the most efficient way to confront global warming but no one can argue we don't need to address the problem of global warming.
It's a global issue. So global entities, like nation states, are the ones who need to make judgements, collaborate and act. Isn't it also a good thing that Australia leads the world here?
The Carbon Tax is but the start. We are moving to a world where we recognise the madness of consumption. Have you yet begun to realise how short human life is in comparison to the world we inhabit? We could be the first generation for years to begin to leave the World no worse for our presence. For many in the developed world new gadgets and products seem to be our drivers. We don't give a thought how they were produced. More particularlily we don't care who produced them, or what the producers had to do to make them. Just so long as we have them. Among othe things the Industrial Revolution wrought change in human consumption. Unfortunately in order to produce the products born of the revolution we plundered the earth, filled the skies, and changed nature's balance. People in all nations are awake to these changes. The Australian Carbon Tax, good or bad, can only assist the people of this nation consider their consumption of energy, and some may think of the Earth. If we were the only people on Earth making this change that would be enough for others to see how we are doing it. As I've indicated others are already asking WHY? Here is an answer to the first part of HOW? There are legal hinderances to its repeal others can discuss, but the Carbon Tax must not be repealed for it is a start toward recognising the insanity of unchecked consumption.
Tired of issues not being honestly handled. There is no way for energy costs to go but up, since there are too many of us, and we all want too much. Hopefully increasing the cost of power and fuel will lower demand, in much the same way, but in an opposing direction, that a few extra dollars in the pocket around elections seems to be able to swing votes.
I remain to be convinced that reducing CO2 emissions will save the planet - reduced population and overall consumption of resources are needed to achieve this. However, the carbon tax will go some way to pushing society in the direction of sustainable living, particularly if it evolves to a trading scheme as in other countries. The overall costs on the individual are minimal. The "top 500 polluters" will feel some pain, but will offset this with government compensation and operational change. Rescinding the tax would be a nightmare. I expect an elected Liberal government will transform the system into a trading scheme and rename it rather than scrap it altogether.
It's pretty simple: we need to lower emissions. How do you create a change on any issue, let alone one as large as this? You put a monetary value on it. Carbon emissions need a price. Yes we are one of the first to do it. So? What is wrong with being a leader instead of a follower? Will the tax be 100% fair and efficient? No. Will it be administered smoothly and perfectly? No. But we have to start somewhere. Being close to the GFC is no excuse to delay this start. There will ALWAYS be a reason to delay starting it. And the sooner it's introduced, the sooner we can start refining it and making it fairer and more effective at what it is designed to do: reduce emissions. Consumers will pay, that is how market mechanisms work. But the idea is that, once those costs are factored in, consumers in a market economy can weigh up how much one company is charging them, for everything, compared to how much company B charges them. And then they move. If neither company is forced to factor in how much it pollutes into it's profits, the polluting continues ad nauseum.
Although it would have been better to have no carbon tax to begin with, now that its in it would be too complicated to take away.
Unless something is done to control carbon emissions we will be irreversably destroying the only planet we have. I am no expert but I am happy to take the advice of experts that the use of a carbon market is the way to go.
I don't agree with the tax - I think it has many flaws, and doubt it will be effective in its stated aims. I do think, though, that once it has "bedded down" repealing it will just create more problems than it will solve. In any case the tax is a temporary measure as Australia moves to a carbon market.
It may not be perfect, but it is a start, and a start that the ignorant reactionaries of the Coalition would deny us. They clearly care nothing for my grandchildren's future
Politically I think it was bad timing to have this tax while everyone who is not benefitting from the mineral boom is hurting.However we must act quickly to to make our lives more sustainable because to risk our future based on climate sceptics opposition is more dangerous than not to do so.I don't believe the tax will lead to any drastic financial burden on our lives- in fact less than the gas hikes we seem to accept more passively than the present hysteria.The next 12 months will support the government claims.Just because the other polluter nations are not as responsible as us is no excuse for us not to act responsibly.Hopefully our actions will add voice to the great amount of humanity that has no political clout. Great ideas throughout history have never been accepted unanimously..
Having recently returned from a visit to the West coast of Tasmania the long-term impact of human activity on the environment is shockingly evident. Mining at the Mt Lyell copper mine commenced in the 1880’s and subsequently millions of tonnes of sulphuric tailings and huge volumes of acidic, metal-rich water entered the Queen and King River system each year to 1995. Dissolved copper concentrations 1000 times the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council guideline are recorded in the river system. The acidity and dissolved metal concentrations have increased to levels highly toxic to aquatic life. In fact, both rivers are pronounced “dead” with animal and plant life unable to survive in this wasteland of human enterprise and engineering ingenuity. The cost to rehabilitate the rivers is beyond the fiscal imagination and Nature will require a thousand years to undertake the work herself.
Mankind can no–longer pursue notions of progress that render the environment extinct and particularly not when the primary objective of the activity is to generate obscene personal wealth for a few individuals at the cost of future generations.
Terrence, I largely agree with "where you're coming from" but generating obscene personal wealth is only one objective of mining activity. All the coal and iron ore being ripped out of our landscape are going to provide energy and build infrastructure, goods etc.. Arguably these are the primary objectives, and generating wealth for a few individuals (and many foreigners) is unfortunately the way our economic system currently works.
Because the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and this is (unfortunately) the best start possible, politically
Sometimes the easiest things to see can be the hardest things to realize, This is just the beginning and a direction the whole world will eventually walk and follow, It is only logical to create a base for employment that will evolve from the innovation that has now been given the chance to manifest through it's commerce. That in time our children and our children's children in one way or another in every walk of life from the city's to the farm's, be making a living from. It's a bridge to the future and the beginning of the journey to the future begins with the first step
Appeasement has its cost. Appeasing the owners of the political parties - that is the coal companies will destroy our way of life on this planet
It would defy logic that burning all of that fuel would not have negative impacts on the world. What is wrong if Australia does teh right thing early, we should proud of that move.