Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By I-filed - 5 May 2012 150

Are different arms & factions of the feds talking to each other? One lot who weighed up the carbon tax politics clearly felt that we’re a safe enough locality to add li’l ACTEW to the Clean Energy “dirty list”. Can it be a coincidence that this will hit supposed safe-Labor-seat voters in the guts?

Confusingly, another arm of the gubmint apparently decided we were wavering vote-wise and in need of pork-barrelling, hence the Manuka Oval lights announcement the other day.

Here’s the regulator’s punishment list.

So, fellow average-income-earners-not-getting-any-compensation, get set for extra nasties and carbon tax cost imposition way beyond the official calculator’s risible “$8 a week”.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
150 Responses to
Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
31
HenryBG 8:21 am
07 May 12
#

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

Wailing about “Surfdom”, “the Antichrist” and accusing Tim Flannery wanting “power over us” are not questions and are not reasonable.

Or was this florid gem meant to be reasonable:

three thousand delegates flying in on CO2-spewing, Gaia-killing, death machines known as “planes”.

The problem with kooks is they take their nutty ideas so very seriously.

Report this comment

32
pajs 9:37 am
07 May 12
#

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

The way to understand this is to think about the natural carbon cycle. For example, plants decay and emit greenhouse gases, but new plant growth can take that up. The emissions cycle through the biosphere. Kind of like having a fishpond where the evaporation from the pond matches a trickle in of new water. The pond level stays the same.

What happens when you do things like release fossil carbon into the atmosphere is you add extra carbon that the natual carbon cycle can’t handle, leading to carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere. In the case of the fishpond, you’ve turned up the flow rate into the pond. Sooner or later, the pond overflows.

Australia is part of turning up the flow rate ane we need to do our bit to reduce emissions.

Report this comment

33
Jim Jones 9:56 am
07 May 12
#

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

The only ‘debate’ is about questions 5 and 6.

Sadly, the ‘debate’ has been hijacked by nutsacks who keep dragging us back to question 1, so nothing gets done.

Report this comment

34
davo101 10:00 am
07 May 12
#

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 2: is it being caused by humans?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 3: should we worry?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 4: should we do something about it?

Don’t know. This is the point where we leave the confines of science. Science can give us information about the feasibility of trying to do something, how much it would cost, how much it would save, the chance of success, etc, but it tells us nothing about if we should bother to try and do anything.

PantsMan said :

Question 5: what should we do about it?

Once again don’t know. The safe option would be to try and avoid the problem because our understanding of the consequences is limited but equally, perhaps, we could just leave it to future us to worry about.

PantsMan said :

Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

Bit of a pointless question as the carbon tax is only an interim step on the way to an emissions trading system so it only has a limited life anyway.

Report this comment

35
rhino 12:45 pm
07 May 12
#

HenryBG said :

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Of all the garbage in Australia, Canberra produces 1%.

Of that, *your* street produces 0.1%.

So why do we bother collecting garbage from *your* street?

/scratch head?

If we could reduce our emissions and make Australia immune to any climate issues through our own local action then that would be equivalent. But it’s more like everyone in canberra is dumping their rubbish on your front lawn every day so you try to reduce the amount of your own rubbish that you dump there.

Report this comment

36
rhino 1:00 pm
07 May 12
#

HenryBG said :

As pointed out above, the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effects of the already-introduced GST.

I disagree with this. That was based on the CPI at the period immediately after the release of the tax. If you look at the graph of the CPI at the time of the GST release, it spiked heavily for a very short period and then settled back to normality. Is that estimate (with a lower spike figure) a peak spike level or the actual medium to long term estimated increase in CPI? I suspect it would not be an equivalent figure. That spike is fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things, as it is just the adjustment to the new tax, not the lasting effect of the tax.

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system. This made administration for all of the hundreds of thousands of businesses in Australia and the ATO much easier and therefore made conducting business more efficient and so our society more productive. Things like bread and milk are not taxed, which is nice. And it taxes consumption (on things other than the bare necessities of food), rather than just income. It allows funds for the states in an organised manner.

Report this comment

37
welkin31 2:08 pm
07 May 12
#

CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing.
“Implications of the Globally Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Temperature for the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget: Integration Using a Simple-Model”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Quote from the Abstract – [The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.]

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
Nino Cullotta was right.

Report this comment

38
davo101 2:17 pm
07 May 12
#

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Instead of scratching your head perhaps you should spend some time reading up on the carbon cycle.

Report this comment

39
devils_advocate 2:22 pm
07 May 12
#

The carbon price (under a cap and trade system) is fundamentally different from the GST. This is because the price of a tonne of carbon will be set by markets, not the government.

The real risk associated with carbon trading is when the futures markets become sufficiently deep and liquid, and the speculators get involved.

People whinged and moaned before the GFC when the short-sellers started targeting capital-strapped financial entities and effectively forcing sell-downs. The difference is, equity markets don’t have a *direct* effect on the real economy.

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation).

Hopefully there will be an active market in shorting the carbon credits but often there aren’t enough counterparties to even allow complete hedging for people that need the credits, let alone enough shorters to stop speculative bubbles emerging.

But I just console myself with the fact that if it all goes to hell I won’t be the first one over the cliff.

Report this comment

40
dtc 2:34 pm
07 May 12
#

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Report this comment

41
VYBerlinaV8_is_back 2:54 pm
07 May 12
#

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

Report this comment

42
devils_advocate 3:06 pm
07 May 12
#

dtc said :

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

Well, not really – my point was that unlike the majority of other commodities, the price can be artificially driven up/overshoot due to the actions of investors. Carbon credits will share many aspects of a normal commodity, but will also have many (imo dangerous) characteristics of a financial instrument.

I realise that economic theory posits that cap and trade is more efficient as it allows abatement by the least cost avoider, but due to the risk of irrational bubbles, I think the safer and more pragmatic outcome is the tax (with a flexible tax rate to target set caps).

Report this comment

43
HenryBG 3:14 pm
07 May 12
#

rhino said :

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system.

And yet I still paid stamp duty last time I bought a house…..one of the taxes that was supposed to have been removed….and everytime anybody asks me for money they give me the option of paying a smaller, GST-free amount, or of getting an invoice. So much for “simpler” and “fairer”.

In any case, revenue collected from carbon emitters who are currently dumping their pollution in the atmosphere for free will be offset by lower taxes on all of us. It’s not aimed at being a net revenue raiser, so it’s not going to have much impact: by increasing taxes on CO2-emitters and handing that revenue back to the consumers, the consumers have the option of paying for the increased prices OR paying for cheaper alternatives.

And as pointed out, its effect will be a fraction of the effect that the GST had on the economy.

Report this comment

44
HenryBG 3:17 pm
07 May 12
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

Not aware that the word “common” has any part to play in the definition of the word “pollutant”.

But we know you’re not raising a genuine concern, you’re just repeating some anti-science fluff as generated by Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch and his dishonest media organisation and Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective.
More fool you.

Report this comment

45
pajs 3:22 pm
07 May 12
#

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

How can something as common as carbon be considered a pollutant?

By understanding what ‘pollutant’ means. A thing doesn’t need to be hazardous or toxic tobe a pollutant. The wrong amount of something, in the wrong place, at the wrong time can be a pollutant. Think about noise as an example. Or how you can pollute a river, killing off a lot of species, by releasing water into it from the base of a dam where the temperatures are too low (thermal pollution). Or ozone. Ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing, but ground level ozone is air pollution.

So, stuff can be a pollutant if it is as rare as noise, water, ozone or CO2.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site