What is this thing called carbon tax?

[Mike52]

Hmmm, this may sound harsh but seeing that I will in some way be paying for the carbon released into our part of the atmosphere, my agenda is to put as as much fuel through whatever I can and rape & pillage as much country side as humanly possible in what ever time I have left on this planet. I'll let the greenies worry about it out when I'm gone, but until then it's on!
K

Because you ride a dirt bike they have already condemmed you K.
So you may as well  , can,t get into any more trouble.

[Nathan S]

Sky is still up.

[Mike52]

Sky is still up.

Slow process Nathan , sorta like a dripping tap.
Like piranas , nibble , nibble .

[Graeme M]

It's not law yet Nathan.

I watched the PM on Q&A last night and was disappointed that most of her answers condensed down to "The world is warming, we have to do something, the best thing to do is put a clear price signal on carbon, that's what we are doing". That's fair enough but it's not a good answer to those people asking how it will really affect them, or what difference will it make, or why Australia needs to lead. She was also rather mischievous in suggesting that many other nations are ahead of Australia, even using the example of the 10 US states that have created a sort of climate action collective (that's hardly the US as a whole taking action, now is it?). I was tickled to see Tony take her to task on China's commitment to clean up its act when he pointed out that part of that commitment is to bring onstream a whole host of new coal-fired powerstations. She responded that yes, that's true, but they are using new technology and are therefore cleaner. No-one asked the obvious question of why if she can use that as an example of a better way to do things, why does it not equally apply to Australia?

But the one thing that I find really curious is her ongoing rhetoric about making the 'big polluters' pay. They can't go on freely polluting our skies... What? Let me get this clear. The very industries which have contributed to Australia's prosperity - mining, manufacturing, large-scale elctricity generation - the industries that used to be held up as the backbone of Australia's youthful economic success, are now the 'Big Polluters'? As though all of those businesses have been colluding to dupe the country into letting them destroy the environment, and offering little in return? Hmmmm....

I also fail to understand how it is that those various industries that once DID contribute to pollution worldwide - large-scale mining, steelmaking etc - are now, in the first world at least, far less so due to strict controls, strong environmental policies and so on. get caught polluting and companies can be fined or litigated agaist. The problem of pollution in places like London and LA is as far as I know being successfully tackled in those ways.

Why is CO2 different? Particularly when you note that Australia's contribution to that 'pollution' is quite insubstantial in global terms. And it is global tonnages that count, not per capita emissions. AGW couldn't care less who contributed the CO2, only the amount of it in the sky. I think Julia gave these figures last night - Australia contributes 27 tons CO2 per person, China 6. You'll immediately see the difference when you take into account China's 1.5 billion people and Australia's 20 million.

[crash n bern]

Hmmm, this may sound harsh but seeing that I will in some way be paying for the carbon released into our part of the atmosphere, my agenda is to put as as much fuel through whatever I can and rape & pillage as much country side as humanly possible in what ever time I have left on this planet. I'll let the greenies worry about it out when I'm gone, but until then it's on!
K

I'm with you all the way.  When fuel prices soared I went out and bought a Cadillac.  They wont beat me down to a Prius.

[Rossvickicampbell]

so Labour introduced a Mining tax, now a carbon tax.................................

[Nathan S]

You've made some valid points there Graeme.
Some responses to the ones I don't agree with:

1. The big polluters have - and continue to-  contribute to our society. But we've also realised that its not all roses, and this is a moderate way to reign in their pollution output. Its not like they've been told to shut the doors and walk away (despite what Abbott might tell you).
If any of the big polluters really, seriously look like leaving Australia, watch the govt bend over backwards to get them to stay...
We all know that its about bluff at this stage.

The rhetoric about "big polluters" is primarily about making it palatable to the average punter. The policy would be fairer and more effective if they put a (significantly lower rate of) tax on ALL emissions - but that would be political suicide...

2. A tax is actually a good solution from a libertarian point of view. It doesn't force anyone to do anything, so people can choose to continue to be gross consumers if they wish. At the same time, it provides incentive for the average punter to reduce their consumption.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.

3. Why shouldn't Australia lead? Other countries can rightly point out our huge per-capita emissions, and use it as an excuse to do nothing themselves.
Regardless of what you think of Climate Change, there's no doubt that coal, oil and gas are finite resources. When they begin to run out/get very expensive, the countries that are least dependent on them will have the easiest ride.

4. I don’t want to have to change either. I'd love to be able to continue living a life where I can get upset when petrol gets to $1.50/litre, and a 10% increase in power bills is a household catastrophe... but its not gonna happen - sometime in my kids' lifetimes (and probably within my own lifetime), such complaints are going to seem incredibly trivial.
I'd prefer a small amount of pain now, to minimise the real pain later.

[VMX247]

Food for thought = We might need our governing body of the sport more than ever now   
cheers A

[Mike52]

I'd prefer a small amount of pain now, to minimise the real pain later.

Trouble is that it never stops  Nathan.
I have built an almost carbon neutral house and have a small income because I don,t need more.
Last year I had a winge about my rates going up 9.8%.
Up from $1500 a year to $2200 a year . Maths seems a bit sus I know but we were told 9.8% so it must be correct.
We have just been told that this years rates will increase 9.8%.
I am looking forward to getting this rates notice to see the final cost.

I cannot trim down any more Nathan so I guess I,ll have to work more to cover this extra.
Unfortunately CO2 is a by product of most types of work.

[Marc.com]

there's no doubt that coal, oil and gas are finite resources. When they begin to run out/get very expensive, the countries that are least dependent on them will have the easiest ride.

Are they finite resources, oil has been all set to run out since I was a child and it hasn't happened yet. Natural gas seems to be anywhere in WA they dig a hole. im not buying it.

Besides the countries least dependent on carbon fuel.... hmm like Bangladesh and Pakistan seem to have given up a little too much lifestyle for my tastes.

[Davey Crocket]

I read a while ago mArcfx that they will continue to find oil  for another 20 odd years and then they will start to use the reserves which is another 100 odd years...........my great grandkids havent even been born yet (let alone my grandkids).......they'ill all be dead by then.......VMX will be an old digital photo on the wall.......and the world government will be TAXING the fark out of everyone still.......Just enjoy the moment.....ride your bikes....live life and be a 1%er.

[Nathan S]

I said "cheap" oil. The reserves they're finding are going down in size-  the oil is there, but there's not way it will continue to be sold at~ $100/barrel. The old rule of supply and demand, and the rapidly increasing cost of getting each barrel out of the ground will ensure this.

The old modelling of oil reserves didn't account for the westernisation of the world's two most populated counties, either.

I don’t want it to be true either.

Here's another thought: When petrol goes up rapidly like it did a few years ago, does the economy grind to a halt? OK, so oil is only one of the carbon tax' targets, but a 20c/litre increase in petrol price is small compared to the increase from the carbon tax.


Marc, did Bangladesh or Pakistan didn't give up their industrial-era prosperity - they never had it, so your argument is pretty silly.

Mike, have you looked at how much the carbon tax is going to cost you? Sounds like you'll end up in front.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Nathan - not saying it will go this way as I don't have a crystal ball - but many companies will not/can not/won't reduce their footprint (maybe because of the industry they are in) but instead will simply pass the cost on.  I understand that you are not so naive as to think this TAX is going to fix all the problems.

[VMX247]

I believe most of the mining companies are doing the best in being green already..its the middle bloke and the little bloke it may effect more..
I think the mining companies will say "up you government" we wil just produce more and pay ya silly carbon tax..hi ho hi ho, it's off shore we go.... 
The Federal Government's sales pitch on its carbon pollution policy is getting a boost from an unlikely source - the world's biggest privately-owned coal miner.
Peabody Energy is joining the steel giant, ArcelorMittal in a $4.7 billion takeover bid for Macarthur Coal.
That prompted a jump of almost 40 per cent in the share price of the local miner.
Analysts say it indicates that international investors are not being deterred by the carbon tax, and it shoots a massive hole in the argument from the industry's lobby group about the impact of the Government's policy.
Queensland miner Macarthur Coal exports PCI (Pulverised Coal Injection) coal for use in steel-making around the world.
Peabody Energy is the world's biggest privately-owned coal producer and it already has operations in Australia.
Resources analyst Gavin Wendt from MineLife says demand for PCI coal is driving the takeover offer for Macarthur.
"This is the second crack that Peabody of the US has had for Macarthur Coal," he said.
"The company has been interested in acquiring Macarthur for some time and unsuccessful with its previous efforts, but this time it's enlisted one of Macarthur's major shareholders, ArcelorMittal.
"One would imagine that this has given Peabody a greater chance of success."
Peabody Energy and the world's biggest steelmaker ArcelorMittal have offered $4.7 billion for Macarthur Coal, or $15.50 a share (minus the company's next dividend, expected to be around 24 cents).
That is a big premium on yesterday's closing share price of $11.08.
Last year Peabody offered $16 a share for Macarthur Coal, but dropped the offer to $15 amid the mining tax.
That was rejected by China's Citic, Macarthur's biggest shareholder.
Macarthur Coal refused to do an interview with the World Today about the takeover offer, but the company told the share market it will talk to both suitors.
Gavin Wendt says Citic will be the deal maker or breaker.
"Because you have so many big groups of Macarthur registers, so many significant shareholders that wield a lot of clout, you really need the agreement of all of those shareholders like Citic if you're going to be successful," he explained.
"This has been the problem for Peabody or any other potential bidder over the years.
"The thing that Peabody has got going for it is it also seemingly has agreement, at this stage at least, from POSCO (Pohang Iron and Steel Company), which is one of the major shareholders in Macarthur."
The takeover offer has also indicated that investors are not being put off by the carbon tax.
Some mining analysts say smaller miners will be most affected by a price on carbon.
The Australian Coal Association's Ralph Hillman told ABC News 24 that the carbon price will still close mines and cost jobs despite the takeover bid.
"What we're seeing here is a high quality asset selling metallurgical coal, which is a very high value commodity. So it's not astonishing that this should take place, it certainly doesn't prove the carbon tax won't impact industry," he argued.
"What the ACIL Tasman modelling shows, that's the modelling we commissioned, was that high cost mines would probably be at risk of going under because of the tax."
Coal industry consultant, Dr Don Barnett says those claims are exaggerated.
"If you include the impact on [new] projects it could well be true. I don't see that job loss coming from the existing producers today," he said.
Justin Urquhart Stewart, from Seven Investment Management in London, says Australian companies are attractive strategically.
"I think you have to realise that the focus on mining and mining stocks and commodities is still extremely strong," he said.
"Although the global economy appears to be slowing, the access to strategic assets is seen as being absolutely vital."
He says that explains why the mining tax and the carbon tax are not putting off international interest in Australian companies.
"That's just merely an extra tax you have to pay in terms of, to gain entry to the nightclub," he explained with an analogy.
"People want to get into the nightclub because they want to have some of the assets that are in there, but they have to pay extra fees to be able to get in, and that's just the cost of being able to do business."
He says the bid comes amid a rise in takeovers and mergers globally.
"There are a lot of people with a lot of cash around, and they all wish to pick up assets whilst they can," he said.
"So yes, be prepared for more M&A (mergers and acquisitions), and that'll be good for markets overall."

[Nathan S]

For sure. But we've already sat on our hands for years, trying to work out the perfect solution - which doesn't exist.
Let's face it, if there was a way of reducing pollution/consumption of non-renewables that also made us rich, better looking and sexually satisfied us, then we'd have taken it up years ago.
By hitting us in the hip pocket, at least it pushes people in the direction of consuming less, and is more likely to push people into investing in outrageous, unproven technology like insulation or roofing eaves.

More generally, as long as we can convince ourselves that it will all be alright, then we won't consider any change - and in stuff like this, that will mean that we've left it tools late.