Carbon scheme in danger of going up in smoke

Jun 19, 2012
Carbon scheme in danger of going up in smoke
Political squabbling runs the risk of turning the world’s best carbon pricing scheme into the world's shortest-lived.

(Phys.org) -- Australia’s carbon-pricing scheme is a world-leader and shows the way forward for other countries seeking to mitigate carbon emissions, says an expert from The Australian National University. However, political squabbling runs the risk of turning the world’s best carbon pricing scheme into the world’s shortest-lived.

Writing in today’s edition of Nature Climate Change, Dr. Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy in the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, said that Australia’s scheme is notable for its broad coverage of emissions, managed pricing and recycling of permit revenue through income tax cuts.

“The centrepiece of the scheme is a carbon price covering 60 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon emissions from both industry and households. This broad coverage underpins Australia’s national commitment of a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 when compared to 2000.

“The government-determined price of A$23 per tonne of carbon dioxide is also a notable feature. Importantly, the fixed price model helped break some of the political deadlock impeding the adopting of the scheme. It also makes fiscal revenues and impacts on price levels more predictable, and allows more time to prepare for market-based trading. This model could be particularly attractive for emerging permit schemes in China, South Korea and Mexico, because business and governments in these countries are likely to prefer price predictability in particular in the early phases of their schemes.

“Recycling revenue has also been an important and novel feature of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme. The income tax cuts have been the government’s trump card in its bid to rally public support for the policy, though this has fallen victim of poor public communication. Targeting household assistance at lower-income groups directly tackles the most widespread concern about the scheme – namely increases in the cost of electricity.

“And finally, as colleagues at the University of Melbourne also writing in today’s edition argue, Australia’s policy approach to tackling greenhouse gas emissions gives hope that the country can make an effective contribution to international objectives.”

However, Dr. Jotzo warned that the innovative scheme could soon be derailed by partisan politics.

“The legislation of ambitious climate change policy is a remarkable development for Australia, which is the world’s second-largest coal exporter and among the highest per capita emitters.  A decisive factor was the growing awareness that Australia faces severe risks from climate change impacts.

“The government adopted this position, but public support has since fallen, amid a widespread misperception that few other countries are acting to cut emissions and following the end of a long period of drought in Australia.

“However, there is no bipartisan support for carbon pricing, resulting in continued policy uncertainty. The opposition parties now reject carbon pricing, and their leader has pledged to repeal the legislation if and when in power. The issue of carbon pricing has been turned into such a political touchstone that substantial change or repeal is a distinct possibility after the next election, which is due by late 2013.

“If so, ’s carbon pricing mechanism might enter history as one of the best-designed yet shortest-lived policies for mitigation.”

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Related Stories

Combine carbon consensus with income tax cuts: study

Mar 15, 2011

A carbon pricing proposal can find consensus and would allow income tax cuts, as long as industry handouts can be kept in check, according to a new report from The Australian National University.

Native trees will ease the carbon credit crunch

Aug 11, 2011

If Australia stopped logging native forests it would meet almost half of its five per cent carbon emission reduction target for 2020, according to an expert from the Australian National University.

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.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

17 hours ago

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 28

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
2.6 / 5 (31) Jun 19, 2012
It is a stupid and cruel tax legislated by a bunch of liars.
mrtea
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 19, 2012
I assume you mean politicians, lol. That comes with the job. As for the tax, I accept it as necessary, as do many Australians who care about our future.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (27) Jun 19, 2012
It should be repealed. It was enacted by politicians who were elected on the promise that they would not support carbon taxes.

Like all carbon schemes, its goal is the redistribution of wealth.

Socialism its always bad news.
OckhamsRazor
3.3 / 5 (21) Jun 19, 2012
mrtea - anyone who thinks this tax was introduced to benefit the environment is the epitome of naivety. I look forward to the destruction of this farce. There are real ways to do the right thing without overtaxing the people simply to claw back wasted funds and replenish the depleted coffers.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2012
I assume you mean politicians, lol. That comes with the job. As for the tax, I accept it as necessary, as do many Australians who care about our future.


MR Tea - I pity da fool who didn't read up on how the tax works before they commented here! Glad you see it for what it is, regardless of the nature of politicians in general.

If any of you who condemn it want to read about it, here you go.

http://www.greene...ned.html

It makes tremendous sense and as mentioned is a far better way of ensuring reduced emissions than the EU trading scheme. Australia has realized that this is the best way to integrate environmentally friendly policy into their economic system without putting excessive strain on the manufacturing/energy sector.
Jeddy_Mctedder
3 / 5 (21) Jun 19, 2012
WHAT A FRAUD. carbon capture and credit trading schemes are all ---FRAUDS THAT INCREASE AND ENCOURAGE ABUSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES. this is why they are so heavily pushed by banks an governments.

only the moron sheep cannot see this. but that is why the banks are usually so successful with these plots, because there are so many useful idiots out there.
M_N
3.1 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2012
Dogbert is correct. Australia was promised before the last election that a carbon tax would NOT be introduced; this promise was almost immediately broken. The Australian Labor party is facing anhiliation at the next election as a result.
rubberman
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2012
Well Jeddy, humans are involved...corporate minded loophole seeking ones, and politicians...so there is tremendous potential for fraud. Not to mention a non stop verbal assault by ignorant fools who are only concerned with the threat to their own personal luxuries, luxuries which usually require electricity to operate. If executed as planned, the carbon tax would work and Australia would acheive it's goal. If stupidity prevails...you get your way.
Snafu79
4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2012
I'm not sure that the carbon tax will not put excessive strain on the manufacturing sector. For example, Australia's aluminium manufacturing industry. Norsk Hydro, referring to its Kurri Kurri operations, said the long-term viability of the plant "will be negatively affected by a number of factors, including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax". This is one of many companies in the sector considering closure, with possibly up to 60% of the entire industry.

Here's the thing.. This aluminium has to be made somewhere, right? The global demand isn't going to evaporate. So in this particular case, there will be no net reduction in global emissions - they will just be shifted off sure to a country that doesn't put a price on carbon. Wherever in the world aluminium is manufactured, it requires LOTS of energy, so why not focus on real ways to reduce carbon emissions and not chase massive sectors of our economy off shore..
Feldagast
3 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2012
At least they called it a scheme. Where is the money going, all you have to do is follow the money every time to see who is benefiting to see if something is fishy.
tadchem
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2012
"the worlds best carbon pricing scheme"?
IN what sense? The payers (utimately electricity consumers) receive no product or service for their expenditure - only promises that someday the world will be microscopically better - not that the 'carbon reductions' will make a whit of difference in the global CO2 levels. This is only a 'scheme' in the Ponzi sense.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2012

Here's the thing.. This aluminium has to be made somewhere, right? The global demand isn't going to evaporate.


I think that destroying global demand is the real plan.

De-industrialization. A green dead economy.

"FOCUS reminds its readers that the big price driver is not greedy power companies, but government taxes and surcharges, which make up a whopping 45% of the price of electricity. In 1998 the 80 million or so Germans paid about 2.3 billion for various surcharges, taxes etc. on electricity. Today that figure is more than 1000% higher: 23.7 billion!"

http://notrickszo...f-costs/
schwarz
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2012
"
Like all carbon schemes, its goal is the redistribution of wealth."

No, its goal is the reduction of carbon emissions.

"Socialism its always bad news."

Carbon taxes were first proposed by Republicans in the US.
Back when Republicans had integrity.
Terriva
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2012
The main problem of carbon trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.

Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of fossil carbon technologies into less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases, after then.
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2012
But carbon tax as such could have stabilizing effect to the prices of oil, which tend to fluctuate wildly, because they're not apparently driven with supply and demands equilibrium but a speculations - so that the principles of free market cannot be applied to it. It's evident, the price of oil doesn't reflect its actual supplies: the companies mining oil tend to overestimate its actual reserves for not to threat their mining quotas. Therefore free market - which always operates with actual prices only - provides no incentives, how to take account into actual state of strategical reserves of oil. As the result, the prices of oil fluctuate wildly instead of growing slowly. It's similar to selling a water from shallow basin: until the water remains accessible, its price are kept low because of low price of pumping and nobody is forced to seek an alternatives. But when the water gets depleted, it's price will rise suddenly and the world isn't prepared to such a situation.
InterestedAmateur
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2012
OK so under this TAX it's estimated that I'm going to be at least $500 a year worse off. Electrically I run no air-conditioners,no heaters or clothes dryer etc. I recycle, walk/catch public transport and grow my own vegetables. This post is via my work computer and we're VERY green here too.

Can someone please explain how I'm benefiting from this scheme and apart from possibly forcing me to turn off the single energy efficient light I run of a night time how this is going to reduce my carbon footprint?

This is a tax plain and simple whereby hard-working people subsidise the lazy and incompetent to an even greater extent than we have to-date.

There will be zero reduction in pollution, in fact the subsidised can afford to purchase and run more elctrical appliances than they could before so we we may actually see an increase in electricity consumed. That may be good for coal mines and Chinese factories but I see nothing good for the environment!
nuge
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2012
It should be repealed. It was enacted by politicians who were elected on the promise that they would not support carbon taxes.


Yeah, and it's being violently opposed by politicians who said at the same time that they would support Carbon taxes. I don't see your point.
rubberman
5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2012
Ok guys, nuts and bolts for all of you who didn't actually educate yourselves on Australia's carbon tax. The tax is levied against the 500 worst polluting manufacturers, not individuals. The individual pays a higher price for goods/services from these 500 companies because they increase prices to offset the hit they take on the tax. What is SUPPOSED to happen is that any individual making less than 80k benefits from a tax restructuring to offset the hit they take from paying the polluting companies more. The revenue generated from the tax is SUPPOSED to be divided up into subsidies for clean energy, credits to the polluting companies if they reduce their pollution as a type of reward and new job creation. Snafu nailed the main downside, it makes Australian mfg's less competitive on the global market against mfg's in countries who don't tax carbon emissions. If it doesn't fail because of lack of human integrity, it will because no other countries have the balls to follow suit.
rubberman
5 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2012
It is touted as the best "scheme" because if done with integrity and as proposed it accomplishes the goal of reduced emmissions WITHOUT hurting the working class....something all the whiners cry about (somewhat legitemately) when there is talk of taxing carbon. If all countries did this, it would mean a level global playing field for competing manufacturers while simultaneously NOT helping the rich get richer and not placing more burden on the working class. It makes the people who can afford to pay....pay. The Physorg article mentions directly taxing households, according to the proposal, it is ONLY companies that pay the tax. (perhaps one of you aussies can confirm).
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2012
Ok guys, nuts and bolts for all of you who didn't actually educate yourselves on Australia's carbon tax. The tax is levied against the 500 worst polluting manufacturers, not individuals.


And city governments.

"COUNCILS have warned of a likely increase in illegal garbage dumping as residents and business try to avoid a 20 per cent rise in the State Government's rubbish tax.

The Government yesterday confirmed the solid waste levy in Adelaide would increase from $35 a tonne to $42. The cost to dump waste in the country will rise from $17.50 a tonne to $21.

The news has led to calls from political rivals for the Government to dump another planned impost, an 11.4 per cent increase in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty natural resources management levy.

Local Government Association head Kym McHugh said ratepayers were being hit with a $16.4 million bill from the solid waste levy, $19 per house, and the carbon tax would further add to landfill costs."
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2012
Dry waste is a separate issue. The carbon tax has nothing to do with a solid waste levy and was mentioned as an additional variable to be factored into landfill costs. Municipalities are not directly taxed unless for some reason their city council is a corporation (Brisbane is on the list). I don't know about the US, but in Canada we pay to pollute with dry waste. In the city where I live, any more than 1 bag per week of garbage must be affixed with permit tags for disposal...the tags aren't free.
Flcaveman
1 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2012
The rise of COLD FUSION makes oil and coal obsolete as fuel. The US military bought 13 one megawatt units from Rossi. It also makes windmills and PV obsolete . It is 1/4 as expensive as coal to make electricity from COLD FUSION. Why are we still talking about carbon tax. Why not talk about other dinosaurs like T-Rex instead.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2012
Dry waste is a separate issue. The carbon tax has nothing to do with a solid waste levy and was mentioned as an additional variable to be factored into landfill costs. Municipalities are not directly taxed unless for some reason their city council is a corporation (Brisbane is on the list). I don't know about the US, but in Canada we pay to pollute with dry waste. In the city where I live, any more than 1 bag per week of garbage must be affixed with permit tags for disposal...the tags aren't free.


Yup. And now two trucks come around. Each picking up something different.

And both dumping it in the same place.

Just a big con.

As for Australia, its a horror story. There are hundreds of examples of idiocy.
schwarz
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2012
"
Can someone please explain how I'm benefiting from this scheme and apart from possibly forcing me to turn off the single energy efficient light I run of a night time how this is going to reduce my carbon footprint?"

It gets other people to emit less carbon, thereby ameliorating the greenhouse effect.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2012
Can someone please explain how I'm benefiting from this scheme and apart from possibly forcing me to turn off the single energy efficient light I run of a night time how this is going to reduce my carbon footprint?


Reducing atmospheric CO2 is the ultimate goal. We already have way to much of it and it's adversely effecting global temperatures. It's long term too so it effects or will effect your children and the younger generation much more harshly than ours.
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2012
Carbon scheme in danger of going up in smoke


Good.

Now lock up the schemers.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2012
Can someone please explain how I'm benefiting from this scheme and apart from possibly forcing me to turn off the single energy efficient light I run of a night time how this is going to reduce my carbon footprint?


Reducing atmospheric CO2 is the ultimate goal. We already have way to much of it and it's adversely effecting global temperatures. It's long term too so it effects or will effect your children and the younger generation much more harshly than ours.


Any more CO2 and it will get even colder if the last 15 years are any indication.
zinger
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2012
Hahaha, It sucks to be a environazi now doesn't it? Not to much is going your poor bastards way. But look ahead the political pendulum will once again start to swing your way but I don't think it will swing quite as far as it has in the the past, momentum isn't on the side of the huskers anymore.

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.