Australia Repeals Carbon Tax 291
schwit1 notes that the Australian government has repealed a controversial carbon tax. After almost a decade of heated political debate, Australia has become the world's first developed nation to repeal carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. In a vote that could highlight the difficulty in implementing additional measures to reduce carbon emissions ahead of global climate talks next year in Paris, Australia's Senate on Wednesday voted 39-32 to repeal a politically divisive carbon emissions price that contributed to the fall from power of three Australian leaders since it was first suggested in 2007.
Pwned (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the Australian federal government is a 100% owned subsidiary of the mining companies. Although the prime minister is a moron in his own right, he's only doing what his bosses tell him to do.
Hardly surprising.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it matters much anyways. Barring a total miracle like Rossi's unicorn reactor it seems we've already passed the point of no return. If you haven't had kids -- don't. As painful as that sounds.
Re:Pwned (Score:3, Insightful)
Not 100% owned. I am fairly sure News Corp have a significant shareholding.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
I am bitterly disappointed in my Government.
Catch the cop-out in that sentence?
Let me help; the government that you're so disappointed with campaigned on and was democratically elected on exactly this platform. They left not one shred of doubt about what they would do with the carbon tax when elected.
The people of Australia have no interest in adopting your energy poverty agenda and it is upon them that your "disappointment" belongs. Take it up with them and stop copping out; either you sell energy poverty to your fellow citizens and make them want decline or quiver in rage while they vote for prosperity.
The other option is to nullify the voters with statism, which I'm sure you'll have no trouble rationalizing.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
We didn't vote this government in, we voted the last one out. I'm so sick of hearing the government talk about how they have a mandate to scrap the carbon tax, and a mandate to gut the NBN (national internet rollout), and a mandate to screw with asylum seeker policy. It's like if I gave you $10 to spend as you please, so you go buy a $10 thing, because I gave you $10. Then the next day you buy another $10 thing, because I still gave you $10. The only mandate Tony Abbott (the current PM) has is to not be Kevin Rudd (the previous one).
You'd think with all his talk of "mandates" that he'd be more supportive of gay rights.
Re:Govt panders to short-sighted voters, news at 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I forgot to add - they *didnt* cut the $222 million school chaplaincy program. The agenda is clear, they are just religious luddites.
Cheer up and take heart in the fact that even in these tough times of austerity they did at least commit to buying 58 more Joint Strike Fighters for $12.4 billion. Cut down on sicence and buy more flying lemons, at least they have a sound strategy.
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a goverment needs to have tax, It is better to tax things that you want to discourage. The carbon tax was discouraging the emission of greenhouse gasses, an unnecessary and dangerous activity, simultaneously providing necessary revenue. Income tax discourages the earning of income.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Australia I sit completely on the opposite side to you then. Personally I am happy the carbon tax is gone and I will be even happier when the MRRT goes as well.
The thing I am disappointed about is that as a result of having a cross bench holding the balance of power in the senate all the spending associated with the carbon tax and the MRRT are not being repealed with them. So the tax base is now lower but the expenditure remains the same. That is more than disappointing, it's stupid.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for renewable energy and sustainable development. But the implementation of the ETS was fundamentally flawed as Australia is too small a market to operate effectively on its own. The sheer number of tax credits and handouts associated with the carbon tax meant it was broken before it even started. If it had been integrated (as opposed to price tied) to the European market there could be been some significant benefits but it wasn't.
And finally what are you talking about the cost of coal being lower than the cost of production? That is just so obviously stupid it's not worth commenting on. Glencore, BMA, BMC, & Rio are not charities! Do you seriously think they are going to produce coal at a loss? There are some mines where cost of production may be higher than a spot price at a given time. But that is because sometimes spot prices tank and mining is done on 20+year time horizons. While the price today may be marginally lower than cost of production it won't be over the effective life of mine.
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
However, if you believe in capitalism this creates a space for an aggressive innovator to come in with new reduced-energy practices/processes, and pass those savings onto consumers, causing the existing players to either likewise update their practices/processes to compete, or have them diminish/die. Such changes don't happen overnight however -- it could take many years for the selective pressure to bear.
Yaz
Re:Battler (Score:5, Insightful)
How come your neighbor New Zealand can do better?
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets make sure that you tell the whole story here. The current government has increased taxes on the HIGHEST EARNERS in the country by 2% for income generated over $250,000. And this is for a period of 2 years. So your statement of "The new government is raising those income taxes again" is a complete and utter fallacy.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you happen to work at the Australia Institute?
I'm so sick of being told that because one party has a majority at one election they have 'a mandate' to follow through on every horrible plan they conceive.
1 - Not everybody voted for them.
2 - They aren't the only party sitting in parliament.
3 - Even if you DID vote for them AND live in one of their electorates you are still entitled to disagree with them on any issue you choose.
Let's not even go down the path of trying to separate the rhetoric of 'power poverty' from all the other contributing factors in power prices.
Did you get your $550 yet? Didn't think so.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:2, Insightful)
An emissions trading scheme is a different strategy? Do you *know* what was just abolished?
1 - From 1st July 2012: a carbon tax priced at $23 per tonne of carbon with a 2.5% increase each year, until
2 - From 1st July 2014 (was 2015 but brought forward a year in 2013) it changes to an *Emissions Trading Scheme*, which was trading at $6 per tonne as per the EU ETS 2014-15.
So what you wanted was ready to go, at a quarter of the impost of the carbon tax, in alignment with other countries ETS either already in place or bringing them online.
here [carbonneutral.com.au]
and here [google.com.au][PDF].
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh the idea has merit. It is why it keeps coming up. However, who eats the cost? We do. We as end consumers eat it.
Who do you think will eat the cost of rising sea levels and dried up water supplies? It certainly won't be the companies that caused the problems in the first place. It will be us again. But those costs will be astronomically higher than a tiny little carbon tax.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Austrailia doesn't exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Good on them that they are voting not to piss in the wind. Specifically, this wind [thegwpf.org].
Even if humans can significantly affect the rate of change of global warming, taxing the most advanced economies is not going to help as much as doing [insert magic policy here] to change the course of the emerging economies which are going down the path that the 1st world traveled half a century ago.
The AGW lobby need to rethink... (Score:2, Insightful)
their strategy.
Forcing people to comply is failing.
I could suggest consentual systems that would have a big impact on our global carbon debt. The politicians won't like them because it won't give them any power.
It will help the environment though.
So... at some level, people are going to have to decide which matters more to them. Power and money or real change?
If you want real change now is the time drop these stupid programs and go with something consensual that will have a real impact.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:2, Insightful)
Two points.
Firstly, the Conservatives didn't campaign (& weren't elected) on repealing the carbon tax alone - there were a number of other issues (border protection, National Broadband Network, etc) in the mix. Reputable polls of Australian voters currently put support for clime change action, and an emissions trading scheme specifically in the range of 60-70%. On the topic of an RET (Renewable Energy Target) specifically, support is at 71% (tai.org.au). So in that context, I don't think it's fair to say that the Conservatives have an iron-clad mandate. It was one of their platforms, but not the only one, and given the polls I think they were elected despite (not because) of it.
Second, by the numbers, they don't have an outright mandate in the Senate. It took three attempts and co-operation from the crossbench to pass the repeal bill. The reality is that they don't have the numbers to pass legislation on their own. I don't care how you spin it - that's not a mandate.
I think, given the discord between public sentiment and the recent actions of our Government, and the fact they promised to be a government of "no surprises", it's fair to have a sense of disappointment at this stage.
Re: it is the wrong way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:4, Insightful)
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
However, if you believe in capitalism this creates a space for an aggressive innovator to come in with new reduced-energy practices/processes, and pass those savings onto consumers, causing the existing players to either likewise update their practices/processes to compete, or have them diminish/die. Such changes don't happen overnight however -- it could take many years for the selective pressure to bear.
Yaz
And here's what the problem is: it's cheaper for the capitalist to simply buy some sort of "exemption" from the government through "campaign donations" or outright bribery. This gives the company a leg up on their competition, then, and the tax simply becomes a barrier to entry into a market that existing players don't have to deal with.
I'll assume that there were industries that donated heavily to whoever had the previous majority in the parliament and were exempted from the carbon tax. Am I correct?
Or how about the other side that we see in America where politically connected "green energy" scams rake in millions?
Re:Dissappointed (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'm so sick of being told that because one party has a majority at one election they have 'a mandate' "
Then move to a non democratic country that adheres to your beliefs, or take one over and be as despotic as you want (all for good reasons, of course - right?).
Personally, I'm sick of people not understanding that democracy doesn't mean "we always do what I want". It's the collective will of the governed. You can campaign, lobby, harangue, whinge, whatever you want to do to convince people your point of view is right, but sometimes you'll be in the minority and you just have to fucking accept it. It won't always be right, it won't always even be GOOD, but ultimately majority-rule is the only morally-defensible form of government for the long term.
There IS a thing called the tyranny of the minority, you know, and if you have a single shred of non-partisan logic, you'll understand why that's more dangerous than the tyranny of the majority.