Cheers as Australia's carbon tax hits parliament

Sep 13, 2011

Cheers erupted in Australia's Parliament House after Prime Minister Julia Gillard presented her bill for a new pollution tax she hopes will help counter climate change.

The deeply divisive levy will mean the nation's biggest producers of will be forced to pay to pollute from July 1, 2012 -- initially at a fixed price before moving to a market-based trading scheme.

"It's time to deliver the action on climate change we need," Gillard on Tuesday told the House of Representatives.

"To act on climate change. To cut ."

Australia, one of the world's worst per capita and a major exporter of coal, has long grappled with how to combat and previous bills to introduce schemes have been defeated.

Gillard has the numbers to get her Clean Energy Bill 2011 through parliament, but it is bitterly opposed by the conservative opposition which argues it will be ineffective, impact on jobs and increase the cost of living.

Thousands have protested at rallies nationwide against the levy, accusing Gillard of lying when she said ahead of her narrow August 2010 election win there would be no under a government she led.

Gillard acknowledged there had been years of heated debate but said most Australians now agreed carbon pollution was changing the climate and harming the environment and economy in the process.

"Today we move from words to deeds. This parliament is going to get this done," she said.

The government hopes the tax will help lower emissions by 80 percent of 2000 levels by 2050, thereby helping slow global warming and save natural treasures such as the .

The bill, due to be voted on on October 12, provides for a fixed carbon price for three years, starting at Aus$23 (US$23.8) per tonne of carbon pollution, before moving to a cap and trade emissions scheme in 2015.

The government has pledged to use much of the money raised to provide tax cuts, increase family payments and invest in clean energy.

Gillard, who was cheered by the public gallery after making her statement, urged lawmakers to accept the carbon price.

"The final test is this: are you on the right side of history?" she asked.

Explore further: Environmentalists criticise Australia reef protection plan

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia sets carbon price to fight climate change

Jul 10, 2011

Australia Sunday announced plans to tax carbon pollution at Aus$23 (US$24.74) per tonne to help battle climate change, as it moves towards an emissions trading scheme similar to that of Europe.

Australia begins selling pollution tax

Jul 11, 2011

Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard began Monday the mammoth task of selling a bold new tax on carbon emissions to sceptical voters, in a battle that could make or break her fragile rule.

Australia to unveil pollution tax

Jul 05, 2011

Australia will unveil the full details of its contentious pollution tax within days, Treasurer Wayne Swan said Tuesday, promising help for households facing higher energy bills.

Australia pollution tax wins crucial backing

Jul 08, 2011

Australia's controversial pollution tax looked all but certain to pass after a key lawmaker confirmed that he would support the package, which aims to reduce emissions blamed for climate change. ...

Australia cuts number of firms liable to new tax

Jul 07, 2011

Australia has halved the number of companies needing to pay a contentious pollution tax from 1,000 to about 500, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Thursday, stressing only big business will be hit.

Study backs Australia pollution tax plans

Jun 09, 2011

A government-backed study of pollution reduction policies among Australia's major trade partners Thursday backed "price-based schemes" as most effective, boosting Canberra's carbon tax plan.

Recommended for you

Study urges 15-year plan for low-carbon growth

1 hour ago

The world can save both financial and environmental costs by shifting toward a low-carbon economy over the next 15 years, a high-level panel said Tuesday ahead of a UN summit.

Specialized species critical for reefs

13 hours ago

One of Australia's leading coral reef ecologists fears that reef biodiversity may not provide the level of insurance for ecosystem survival that we once thought.

Projections for climate change in Vermont

19 hours ago

Here's your northern Vermont forecast for the rest of this century: Annual precipitation will increase by between a third and half an inch per decade, while average temperatures will rise some five degrees ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.8 / 5 (18) Sep 13, 2011
Yes, she lied to get elected.

Tax and redistribute, its the socialist way -- as is lying.
toyo
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2011
This article is yet again another non-science-related article.
It has no place on this forum.
Politicians who have climbed onto the Global Warming band-wagon and have splurged billions on 'climate science' to justify their new taxes have drawn otherwise reputable scientists into disrepute.
The publication of this article furthers this regrettable trend, giving Julia Gillard's pronouncements some semblance of scientific validity.

...and the article does not mention the rowdy scenes in the gallery by very vocal dissenters... so this is not even a balanced news report...
Shame on you, Physorg!
Egnite
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2011
I'd agree dogbert, our politicians do the same in the UK. Sell you the world in policies then commit to none of them once voted into power. (EU referendum for one)

The government hopes the tax will help lower emissions by 80 percent of 2000 levels by 2050, thereby helping slow global warming and save natural treasures such as the Great Barrier Reef.


That sums up CO2 tax beautifully! Sweet FA science but plenty hopes and possible helps, which sound a bit far fetched to say the least and certainly more like someones belief rather than a fact. I hope they pass this so we can see how badly it fails and make the naive populations in other countries realise paying taxes and hoping will get you nowhere!
Gezza
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2011
The truth is that the anti-carbon tax protests in Australia have only gathered hundreds of people not thousands as the article states. As for the pro-carbon tax rallies in Australia, they have gathered thousands of people. Unfortunately, the Murdoch press does not report on these protests/rallies with the same coverage. At the end of the day, Australian people want this. The tax will only affect the top earners. And the money raised from the tax with go towards Green Industries. Our manufacturing sector could do with an investment of cash and an increase in jobs.

Here's an interesting article on the Carbon Tax and the state of politics in our country.

http://heathenscr...dilemma/
222wekebu
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2011
Every nation needs to understand what you do effects all of us. The US needs this type of law, but greed prevents it.
dogbert
3 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2011
Gezza,

The truth is that Julia Gillard had to lie and promise not to do this to get elected. If Australia wants this, why did she have to lie?
Gezza
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2011
Dogbert,

The Labour Party, who she is leader of, did not get elected. She had to form a coalition government. She stated that, if her party won the election then there would be no Carbon Tax. The Labour Party didn't win the election. So, who lied?
Gezza
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2011
Also Dogbert,

Most of the votes that the Labour Party lost at the last election went to The Greens. People who were upset about the Emissions Trading Scheme being dumped by the Labour Party voted Greens instead. Google it, dude. Its common knowledge. Off the top of my head, I think it was a 12.5% increase to the Greens. Thats a big swing. Now, she has formed a government with a Green Party MP. She has to take their views in mind when forming policies. That's democracy.
Nanobanano
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2011
Also Dogbert,

Most of the votes that the Labour Party lost at the last election went to The Greens. People who were upset about the Emissions Trading Scheme being dumped by the Labour Party voted Greens instead. Google it, dude. Its common knowledge. Off the top of my head, I think it was a 12.5% increase to the Greens. Thats a big swing. Now, she has formed a government with a Green Party MP. She has to take their views in mind when forming policies. That's democracy.


I'm an American, and I wish our political parties were banned or something. Our congress is gridlocked over everything along party lines, and nobody has a large enough majority to actually do anything, so essentially for this entire term congress is a powerless do-nothing.

The Republicans and Tea Party have lost their minds, BTW, so hopefully some people will wake up and quit voting for these retards.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2011
"Tax and redistribute, its the socialist way -- as is lying." - DogberTard

DogberTard apparently believes that people who pay taxes should have every penny of that money distributed back to the people who paid the tax.

In other words, DogberTard thinks that all taxes should be abolished.

This would be the end to governance of course. His world would then be ruled by corporate dictate.

I have little doubt that he really believes this, because he really believes and has publicly endorsed many idiotic things.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2011
"I'm an American, and I wish our political parties were banned or something." - Nano

You have only the American people to blame for that.

If you vote for a TeaTard, expect to be ruled by a Tard.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2011
"Politicians who have climbed onto the Global Warming band-wagon..." - ToyoTard

That Global Warming band-wagon is called SCIENCE my little Tard boy. Science.

Now you go get your wagon and roll yourself over to the children's playground where you belong.

Adults have serious work to do.

jamesrm
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2011
Please people, if you are so inclined, start reporting posts made by "Jimmy neutron repulsion" as abuse (self in his case) as they are getting more rambling, pointless, off topic and repetative, spam of the lowest order

I had a soft spot for him early on, plugging away with his idea, but now...
emsquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
Every nation needs to understand what you do effects all of us.

So clearly you must believe that all developed or developing nations which exhibit overpopulation and/or sky-rocketing growth rates (growth rates exceeding a few tenths of a point for sustainability) should immediately have to put into effect 1 child policies, right?

And that all nations must regulate and manage their uniquely possessed resources to the benefit of the world, right?

And that it's impossible for all nations of the world (many of which don't allow freedom of speech, religion, or education) to agree on a singular course of action that is "best" for everyone, because everyone has different goals and ideals, right?

Okay, just checking.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
Vendi_Don'tCareion,

Tax and redistribute, its the socialist way -- as is lying.

DogberTard apparently believes that people who pay taxes should have every penny of that money distributed back to the people who paid the tax.


Try not to lie, Vendi. I did say that lying was an attribute of socialists upon which you immediately made up lies about me.

Only an idiot or an anarchist believes that there should be no taxes. Taxes are necessary for roads, defense, etc. I am not against taxes.

I am against taxing those who work to distribute those funds to those who won't work. I know that you get those "feel good" emotions when you play Robin Hood, but forcing people into poverty is never good. Socialism does not improve the state of the poor, it seeks to impoverish everyone.

Fair taxation for necessary services is good. Unfair taxation to further some socialist fantasy utopia is bad.
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
I am against taxing those who work to distribute those funds to those who won't work.


If you believe social programs only distribute to people who "won't work" then I think you have a warped view of who and what the lower third of the population is really dealing with.

In reality, many of the people you mock end up working much harder than you probably ever have in your ignorant life, and the only people who benefit from it tend to be those who are already wealthy.

The government pays the earned income credit and refundable tax credits because people simply cannot make enough money to have an honest living on what employers pay them.

People are expected to work full time and pretty much stay in school their entire lives now to keep up with technology, just so jackasses can pay them what amounts to an inflation adjusted income equaling about 1/4 of what they made in the 1960's, while owners and CEOs get richer and richer.
Nanobanano
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
Land value scams and currency scams are absolutely destroying our country.

I just want to give you an example. I guess about 50 years ago, my grandparents bought 40 acres of land AND a house, and then a few years later they built a new, state of the art (for the 1960's) 3 bedroom house, which is still standing. The old house was not sold, but was just converted into a chicken coop. Then they somehow found time to build and own a roughly 3 bedroom equivalent camp down on the river, with modern plumbing and everything. He was a 5th or 6th grade dropout and an offshore mechanic, she was basicly just a stay at home mom, and somehow managed to leave 40 acres, 2 houses, and $180,000 behind after two heart attacks.

Today, an offshore mechanic couldn't buy 40 acres and two houses the SAME SIZE in this area with his entire life income.

It's called "Reaganomics": cut taxes on the wealthy top 10% and allow them to accumulate 90% of the wealth, and then it's normal people's fault, eh?
Nanobanano
4.8 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
And he paid CASH for everything. They never had a loan in their lives. Paid cash for houses. Paid cash for labor. Paid cash for new cars.
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
And another thing I remember, he actually started out working doing LOGGING, not as a mechanic, making something like a dollar per hour. I'm not sure when he started off shore, but I know he was retired before my oldest memories.

That about sums it up.

It's not even possible for "normal" people with high school or college education to accomplish that in today's world, except the odd extreme stroke of genius or luck, because everything is a rip-off and there are so many regressive taxes and fees on normal people if they try to do anything to get ahead..
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2011
Now, productivity and technology have improved exponentially, so this slightly masks many things, but in general, relative to what the average U.S. worker accomplishes now on the job site, they actually only get paid literally a few pennies on the dollar compared to decades ago: eight workers in a factory instead of 100, and they produce 10 times as much product, but inflation adjusted get paid 1/4th as much, but the Republicans want to complain about social programs? REALLY? Even as business owners and CEOs make scores of times more income and 100's of times more accumulated wealth than a few decades ago. Really?

it's the low income and middle income people's fault for not working hard enough? REALLY?

did your dumb ass REALLY say that?

You must be a Rick Perry or Ryan Paul fan.

My God, get a life idiot.
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
My God...

What was just shown on the Rachel Maddow show was absolutely shocking and horrifying.

The republican audience in that debate..the comments by Perry and Ron Paul...

These people, including the audience, are EVIL, just plain evil.

The republican allegedly "pro-life" audience cheered and shouted out "yeah" when the candidate was asked whether a 30 year old without insurance should die if he's sick and unable to pay for medical help, or in a coma.

This is the allegedly "Christian" conservative party in this country.

They are absolute evil, and certainly know nothing about real Christianity.

I know, I'm in the wrong place, but then again, I'm banned from all the churches and allegedly "christian" forums anyway, but THIS republican attitude is nothing short of satanic. It's about as anti-christian as anything could be. It's absolutely shocking how insanely evil the republican PEOPLE, not just the candidates, have become in the past several years.
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
You know what?

I'm 30 years old, and I'm having quite a lot of bad luck and bad health lately, and those bastards, and especially their own AUDIENCE, just told me literally that my life doesn't matter and doesn't count to them.

I don't know what my response is supposed to be to these lunatics. These people are like the NAZIs or something: just toss the sick and unfortunate and other undesirables in the trash.

Admittedly, Ron Paul wasn't insane enough to say that, but a significant number of people in the audience cheered and shouted "yeah!"

Does the first ammendment give that bastard the right to essentially threaten normal people's basic inalienable RIGHT to life?

Who do these lunatics think they are, and how did it come to this that the pro-life party is in reality the pro-death panels party?

I wish we had cameras on the audience. The republican people in this country have become monsters..
astro_optics
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2011
This TAX will be short lived...no worries mate:)
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2011
Nanobanano,

Quite a rant there.

My grandfather and father both started with nothing and did well much like your grandfather. I have worked hard all my life trying to get ahead. When I was a child, I worked hard on the farm. I started working off the farm when I was 13 years old. I have never stopped working. I haven't done as well as my grandfather and father either.

You know why? Because the social programs (War on Poverty) beginning in the 60's and the general socialization of America has created so much dependency and taxes that the working person generally cannot do what your parents and my parents did. Where one man could support a family and the wife could be a stay at home mom, we became a society where both father and mother have to work just to get by. Single mothers, of course, have become dependent on the government hand outs and we have many more poor single parent families because marriage reduces the government dole.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
Why do you want to increase the dependency and poverty? Why not return our country to the state which allowed your parents and mine to succeed. Why not return our country to the state which allowed people to pull themselves out of poverty instead of the state which now forces good people into poverty?

You state that you are 30 years old and imply that you have no medical insurance. Why? You appear capable of working. You appear reasonably intelligent. Why do you think someone else should pay for your medical care? From your story, I expect that your parents did not expect anyone to take care of them. Neither did my parents. How did you turn out so different from your parents?
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
I know, I'm in the wrong place, but then again, I'm banned from all the churches and allegedly "christian" forums ...


Why are you banned from churches and Christian forums? My experience with churches is that they will accept just about anyone who wants to change. Do you get "banned" because you are disruptive or disrespectful? I can't imagine any other reason. You use terms like "My God", so I must presume you know about God and therefore you must know what church is about, so why are you being banned?

You don't have to answer this, but it is surreal to hear someone say that they are banned from churches.
Gezza
not rated yet Sep 14, 2011
Astro,

You're right, the Carbon Tax is only around for a few years. It will be replaced by an Emissions Trading Scheme, where the price on Carbon will be dictated by the market. The Carbon Tax was always going to be a temp thing, until the ETS is phased in in either 2014 or 2015.
Jotaf
not rated yet Sep 18, 2011
"Why do you think someone else should pay for your medical care?"
You've already paid for it, by paying taxes your whole life. Paying taxes gets you roads, public safety, school and university education, but not health care at public hospitals?! The absolutely, most basic thing ever -- your life?! Get your priorities straight.

Back on topic: It's courageous of her to actually do something. Every country is in a deadlock, no one wants to be the first to actually invest in preventing climate change, because you only need a few countries in denial to nullify the effect of the policies of all others. And the temptation is great to just forget long-term goals, cheat and get rich -now-.
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2011
It's courageous of her to actually do something.

I suppose it takes a certain amount of courage to lie to your supporters in order to get elected. It would be more courageous to keep your promises.

And the temptation is great to just forget long-term goals, cheat and get rich -now-.

Yes, having gotten elected, the cheating and getting rich now part seems to be the agenda.
Deesky
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2011
I suppose it takes a certain amount of courage to lie to your supporters in order to get elected. It would be more courageous to keep your promises.

She didn't really lie. Her party didn't win the last election outright - it was hung parliament, so she needed to form a coalition to get the majority, which included a handful of regional independents and the Greens party which is far left/socialist. Because of this, she had to play to their tune on certain policy fronts, the introduction of carbon trading being one of them.

Had she won office outright, she would not have introduced the scheme.

The other thing to note is that in the election prior to the last, both major parties (and the electorate) were united in introducing an ETS, and that it was the Greens that scuttled it at the time (as they thought it didn't go far enough). Oh the irony! Is it any wonder politicians can't get a clear majority any more - both sides stink!
Jotaf
not rated yet Sep 18, 2011
Yes, having gotten elected, the cheating and getting rich now part seems to be the agenda.


You know what I'm talking about. One of the excuses for not mandating carbon limits is that if only a few countries cheat and decide not to do it, the whole effort is lost, and the honest countries lose competitiveness. So we keep driving towards a head-on collision because nobody wants to chicken out.
Jeddy_Mctedder
not rated yet Sep 18, 2011
the only good argument for carbon taxes are to substitute for import tariffs that should exist but don't.

free trade is not free because the u.s. manipulates the price of oil to subsidize 'free trade'. eventually as oil prices get higher imports will get costlier, and 'free' trade will cost a lot more. so....

jeff rubin, convincingly proposes that carbon taxes are needed to basically accelerate the process by which the market tells the world that all this cheap oil is getting more expensive, because one day , it will be more expensive.

it's cheaper and simpler to tack on a 10% import tarrif to ALL physical goods or 'value added' , because that stuff is only cheap because shipping is cheap. why bother with all the wasteful beauracracy that would be necessary to evaluate 'carbon cost' of shipping of different products. just slap on the tarrif , simple, bright line rule, no bearacracy and rules to game.
----international agreements are bunk. real carbon tax = unilateral tarrifs
Bob_Kob
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2011
Cheers from all the money the government will get. Swears from all the taxpayers footing the bill for a problem that does not exist.