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schwit1 notes that the Australian government has repealed a controversial carbon tax.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.
Dissappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Australian, I am bitterly disappointed in my Government. Whilst the rest of the world is ramping up their climate protection measures, our government is ramping up their BIG Industry protection measures. This is the same government that believes that wind farms are an ugly blight on the landscape (and attempting to block many new farms) whilst allowing large coal mines to go ahead. Because a very quiet white propeller on a pole making no pollution is much more horrible to look at that a giant hole in the ground with dozens of house sized trucks dragging out overburden and dumping it in a giant dirty pile.
If you are worried about your access to coal is going to be reduced because your own Government is closing coal mines, don't worry! you can just come and buy a freighter load of coal for less than it costs to remove it from the ground!. And again, don't worry! the trucks used to extract the coal will have all the modern pollution preventing technologies applied to them.. so the environment will be protected.
Outside of the government there is an enormous ground swell of alternative energy research and technologies being installed by Joe Average in their own house.. Much to the governments disgust
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:3, Interesting)
The entire idea is that businesses will strive to become more efficient such that they produce less pollution so that they'll be taxed less.
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. To the businesses in question, it just goes in one door and out the other. You want to use the heavy hand of the tax collector to damage people's behavior in a way that makes them go out less, drive less, spend less, do less? Tax citizens directly, with a very special line item they can't miss, that says "carbon tax, because you exist" - and they'll act. Well, mostly they'll act to elect people who will undo that tax, but they'll act.
Re:it is the wrong way... (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
The same way Ronald Regan and the Iron Lady acted to reduce sulphur emmissions that cause acid rain, international cap and trade treaty. Cap and trade is a market solution proposed and implemented by the founders of the neo-conservative movement, that has actually worked as advertised. The problem today is that influential "conservatives" are sitting on coal mines that could easily become stranded assests ten years from now. Funny how the politics turns itself upside down if you watch for long enough.
Re:Dissappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
LoL,
You are either a crusty old Liberal with their head so far up their arse that lump in your throat is your nose or have no idea how elections are run in Australia.
The Liberal government got in on the narrowest of margins due entirely to a series of dodgy preference deals.
Above that, they didn't advertise their polices, their entire campaign was based on "hate Labor". The Libs didn't even release a fiscal policy until after the election. Thats how bad they were. Their entire campaign was based on flinging shit at Rudd... Nothing more.
Since their election, they've become more unpopular than Labor ever was, it's so bad not even Newscorp can spin it into positive news. Just 9 months into his term and Opposition leader Bill Shorten is preferred prime minister by 10% (Abbot 34%, Shorten 44%) and if Tony Abbott were to call a double dissolution now (as many Australians wish he would) it would be a white wash for the LNP (Liberal-National Party).
Australians feel deceived by the Liberal government for good reasons, mainly because they've continued with several extremely unpopular policies that were either not spelled out before the election or are a complete reversal of what they promised before the election (which wasn't much). The media gagging over asylum seekers, Abbott's constant attacks on the ABC because they told the truth about Operation Sovereign Borders... Why is it any supprise to you that Australians are thinking of Tony Abbot as Australias worst ever prime minister.
As a "person of Australia" (BTW, in Australia we just refer to ourselves as "Australians" not "the people of Australia", keep that in mind the next time you want to impersonate one) I want a sustainable energy policy, the Labor government had several good ideas including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was actually making money that Abbott is determined to axe for no reason other than it was Labors idea.
Please stop pretending you know anything about the current government in Australia, Australians or anything about Australia in General.
BTW, your "statism" quip shows just how out of touch with reality you are considering that is the best attack you could come up with.
Everyone pays but not in the right amounts (Score:5, Interesting)
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things
You are talking about tax incidence [wikipedia.org] but you don't have the logic correct. We ALREADY are paying for whatever cost carbon pollution has but it is spread out equally among all people regardless of their use of technologies that rely on carbon emissions. There is no direct incentive for anyone to worry about emitting less carbon. A tax would create a direct economic burden on those who use more carbon which which in turn will motivate those who use more to try to find ways to use less. If you get more benefit from carbon emission (like a power company or a heavy consumer of electricity) then you should have to pay more of the burden. As it stands each of us has to pay for the effects of carbon pollution in an amount unrelated to the amount we generate.
because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
They already are passing along the cost, just not directly. Instead of paying for it directly, we pay for it through environmental effects. Climate and the resulting weather changes affect crop yields, business patterns, healthcare, etc all of which have very real and measurable costs. But the cause of those costs has zero incentive to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution because they do not have a direct economic cost of their actions. It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons, writ large.