Shareswatch Australia

Australian stock market investing, ASX charts, analysis & market forecasts.

Shareswatch Australia header image 2


Carbon, a new tax and Gillard’s Lifeform Levy

February 27th, 2011 · Greg Atkinson · 33 Comments

The recent announcement by Julia Gillard that she is breaking an election promise and will attempt to bring in a Carbon Tax should come as no surprise to anyone. It is simply a reflection of the madness that is the Greens/Labor Party alliance and another example of a policy developed by a Government hooked on spending and raising taxation.

First let’s reflect on what the Government proposes to tax – carbon.  According to those who believe mankind is chiefly responsible for heating the planet carbon is now public enemy number one and carbon dioxide (the gas we breath out) is now a pollutant.

If CO2 is a pollutant then nature itself is major polluter as anyone who understands the carbon cycle will appreciate.  But you won’t hear much about the carbon cycle from the Government or the Greens because it doesn’t quite fit in with their tax plans.

Besides the Prime Minster is not really into science as we found out when the Government’s chief scientist announced plans to resign recently.  Climate change is apparently something Gillard is passionate about but she failed to find the time to sit down and have a one on one meeting with her own chief scientific advisor.  But never fear, she had time for union officials and party donors so the ‘important’ issues where not ignored.

A carbon tax certainly has the potential to raise a lot of money for Gillard and Greens Party leader Bob Brown, who appears more like the Deputy Prime Minister every day.  After all carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the earth’s crust and one of the most abundant in the universe.

Let’s also not forget that carbon is found in all known lifeforms so since Gillard does not like the word tax (e.g. the flood tax is a ‘levy’) I suggest we call this tax on everything the Lifeform Levy.  To me more accurate it is a tax on lifeforms we know of,  non-carbon based aliens will be exempt of course.

So what is the tax suppose to achieve?  Well apparently if you place a tax on carbon emissions then this will make companies find ways to lessen their emissions so that they can effectively pay less tax.

But there are exemptions, for example the agriculture sector will get a free ride because it’s apparently special.  You see there are good carbon emitters and bad carbon emitters.  Science does not decide which sectors go into the good basket or the bad basket – politicians do.

This means plenty of other deals will be done and already the coal industry is warning of job losses and asking for support.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wayne “the inflation genie slayer” Swan reckons the carbon tax will not cause any major pain for anyone and according to a report in The Australian:

Mr Swan said “every single dollar” raised under the tax would be returned to assist individuals, households and business who will be impacted.

Source: Treasurer Wayne Swan refuses to rule out petrol tax

Okay, so let’s think about what Swanny has said very carefully.  If a carbon tax is implemented and then every single dollar is handed back,  then what is the purpose of the tax in the first place?

What incentives will there be for individuals or businesses to reduce their carbon emitting ways if they effectively get compensated for the impact of the tax in the first place?  We already know that higher electricity prices have not cut demand so why should a carbon tax work?

Energy providers are also likely to get some help from the Government and/or they will simply pass the cost of the tax onto consumers via increased energy prices.  Since Australia is still stuck in the technological Dark Ages nuclear power is not on the table, so there is unlikely to be any major carbon emission reductions to be had in what is the biggest single source of greenhouse gases in the nation.

Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power can all generate some of the electricity needed but the fact is that these sources will struggle to cope with the increased demand for power in Australia as the economy and population grows.  So that means more fossil fuel power plants will be needed at some point and up will go carbon emissions again.

So the lifeform levy or carbon tax makes as much sense as a dog chasing it’s own tail.  More worryingly is that the situation is unlikely to improve since the Greens are out and about spreading misinformation about nuclear power supported by much of the mainstream media which fails to challenge their assertions about nuclear power based on 1970’s era technology.

Already there is talk about increasing taxes on petrol which the Government has failed to rule out and even if they did, who could believe them?  How ironic it is that the same crowd who criticised the Howard Government for not doing anything about petrol prices is now about to implement a tax that will, in one way or another, push up petrol prices.  I wonder what the petrol commissioner will do…arm wrestle with Bob Brown?

The Gillard Government has simply lot the plot. It’s bad news for investors, it’s bad news for business and if the public wises up they will realise it is bad news for them also.

In just a few short years the Rudd & Gillard led Government has taken a budget surplus, wasted it and then racked up  a mountain of debt.  What is there to show for all the billions of dollar spent?  Not a lot when you think about it.


33 responses so far ↓

  • 1 scottmuz // Feb 27, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Same old misanthropic Green agenda.

    Make the poor and those who have the temerity to breed, pay for their sin in the form of higher energy (which feeds through to the price
    of everything).

    I really fear for the future of Labor in Australia.

    They’re getting pulled more and more into
    supporting green policies that punish working people (support for which is supposedly their foundation).

    Abbott must be jumping for joy.

    Sadly Australia needs a strong Labor party as a bulwark against left wing extremism (just like it needs a strong Liberal party to as a bulwark against the rise of One Nation type extremism).

    scottmuz.

  • 2 Greg Atkinson // Feb 27, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Inflation hurts the poor the most which makes you wonder what core values the ALP is following these days. If the Government seriously wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions they would not have spent billions on school halls and a heap of other useless projects over the last few years.

    Want to cut energy waste? Then upgrade the electrical transmission grid, invest in public transport, build some nuclear power plants and use technology.

    I don’t think the mining companies would object for example to a nuclear power plant located near mines so that could be a good place to start, i.e. switch as much of the mining sector over to nuclear power and then you will really start to make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

    Seriously the lack of imagination shown by the Greens/ALP is frightening.

  • 3 Niall // Feb 27, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Greg, you’re an ideologue, which invalidates your treatise from the very outset. I’m encouraged however by your claim that Australia

    “needs a strong Liberal party to as a bulwark against the rise of One Nation type extremism”

    however you & I know that it’s far too late for that, at least under ‘one-vote Abbott’.
    Climate Change instigate by human industrialisation is a reality no matter how you cut it. The longer science looks at the issue, the more data in support of anthropogenic influences is gathered. You seek categorical proof in a system which has more impactors than man and believe you have a sacrosanct position. That equates with catholicism claiming a sanctified place in all creation for humanity being the only intelligent form of life in the Universe. Just how arrogant do you wish to be?

  • 4 Greg Atkinson // Feb 27, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Hi Niall,

    Firstly the quote you have posted is not mine so I will leave Scott to deal with that if he wishes.

    As for climate change what we know for sure is that it has been happening for millions of years. What we don’t know is how much recent human activity is contributing to the fairly recent changes in climate and that is even acknowledged by the most ardent supporters of AGW.

    How much we don’t know is quite clear from the range of predictions spewed out from various climate models.

    The undeniable truth is that even if humans were not on the planet the climate would change.

    Science is all about looking for questions to answers and debate. It’s not about politicians, rocks star or media types etc. telling us when the science is settled.

    Personally I think AGW theory has some gaping holes in it as do many highly qualified climate scientists. If that is arrogance, then so be it. (or did you mean ignorance?)

  • 5 Niall // Feb 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    no, I always mean what I write, Greg. Arrogance defines what I perceive very well. Yes, climate change has been occurring on this planet for 4.5b years give or take the geological time frame. What your kind deliberately choose to ignore is the 300 year period of human industrialisation and the scientific data which clearly displays the effects on atmospheric makeup over that period. Now, I challenge anyone to prove that the dramatic rises in greenhouse gas emissions over 0.00000666 percent of this planets reasonably assumed existence to be due to anything other than the actions of the one lifeform capable of producing those emissions.
    Surely you’re not going to attempt to lay the blame on the few & sparse volcanic eruptions over that period, given that data of emissions for those few eruptions exists and doesn’t come even close to the impacts of human industrialisation.
    We disagree, and likely always will while ever you & your kind obtusely avoid the pertinent issue. Human induced climate change.

  • 6 Greg Atkinson // Feb 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Let me quote Ricard S. Lindzen – professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.”

    Is he arrogant too?

    You can read more about his comments here: The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

  • 7 JasonD // Feb 28, 2011 at 4:18 am

    I acually agree with setting a carbon trading system, but do not see why it needs to be as complicated as the one the ALP/Light Green Parties wish it to be.

    Why not place a carbon cost value amount on every block of land and a carbon limit

    eg: my house is a standard house it may have a carbon value of 600 carbon-wangos the limit for a standard house is 1000 carbon-wangos than would give me 400 carbon-wangos that i can trade back to the local council for offset against my rates (BIG VOTE WINNER HERE) or can be traded with another resident (Trading System establishe)you can also have your carbon value decreased if say you put in a solar hot water system, etc

    And each year for the next 10 years the limit decrease by 5%

    So you have

    1) vote winner (polies happy)
    2) trading aystem started (market happy)
    3) 50% decrease is carbon limit (greens and light greens happy)
    4) inject another value into a house (households happy)
    5) add a trade fee for the local councils and they get another source of revenue instead of sucking it out of the residents (another win happy)
    6) incentive to upgrade or improve carbon footprint (several groups happy)

    simple and effective, but then the PM does not get the money or the control so i gguess thats what she is really interested in.

  • 8 Greg Atkinson // Feb 28, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Hi Jason, why not just increase the GST? The GST is a tax on consumption and it gives people a choice. The more you consume the more you will be taxed. The money raised could them be pumped into green energy projects (including nuclear power) and public transport.

    This would seem fair since consumption in modern nations basically equals CO2 released.

    Also an increased GST would require no new tax or bureaucracy and it would be relatively easy to make sure the money was being spent correctly.

  • 9 Niall // Feb 28, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Spurious claim, Greg – University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU)emails have been proven to not be of the concern denialists wanted to claim. Yes, the science is not perfect, but it moves ahead with every study. Evidence the Min,Zhang,Zwiers & Hegerl report on northern hemisphere precipitation rates in last month’s Nature. Conclusive proof of human induced climate change impacting on rainfall events.

    The ultimate arrogance in my view rests with those, like yourself, who flatly refuse to address the possibility that industrialised humanity can impact on global atmospheric & oceanic ecosystems to the long term detriment of all life on the planet.

  • 10 JasonD // Feb 28, 2011 at 7:40 am

    Its an otion but rather indirect, i was thinking it should go down to more of a local level and land owners. just look at the flood levy about 20% has been given away as bribes to the light green party. you increase the gst then it flows back to the states and they piss it up the wall like in queensland and its non functional health payroll system

    i dont know it may be my attitude today but i would rather see market forces control it rather than the government they just have to set up the market

    as far as nuclear power goes thats been a long term ban by the political parties along with uranium mines and exporting of said uranium which is another joke

  • 11 JasonD // Feb 28, 2011 at 8:06 am

    Niall, the fact that humanity produces gas and contributes to the detrimate of the planet is no surprise to anyone and its not just the so called green house effect, but a lot of other areas on the planet as well, which is fogoten by the light green people.

    I think the debate about the level of impact and its effect is up for debate.

    For example one of the arguments is about the polar ice caps are melting, well they have been doing that for 1000’s of years in Captain Cook’s time he navigated a large island in northern Canada which today can not be done, it was also done 400 years before that.

    So yes that we contribute and yes we should all be encouraged to reduce the level of carbon we produce, and the foot print we leave behing

    On a more local issue they keep telling us that we need to set a price on carbon otherwise we will be left behind, does any other nation have a carbon price or a trading system in place that is working? I personally dont know of one, could be wrong???

    I personally think this is a social experment like the free trade argument, where we turn up with bat and ball but no one else is on the field to play… so end result we as a country end up screwing ourselves again

  • 12 Greg Atkinson // Feb 28, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Niall, if you are going to launch personal attacks on people then please get your facts right. I have never said human activity does not increase C02 levels or that human activity does not adversely impact the environment. I invest in and develop eco-friendly/renewable energy technology and probably spend more of my time working to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions then you do.

    What I question is some of the science behind AGW theory and the extent to which humans are heating up the planet, as do many other people including highly qualified climate scientists like Richard S. Lindzen.

  • 13 Ross T // Feb 28, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Come-on people – Never get between a politician and a great big tax – you will get flattened by the canberra public service! You only have to watch Bob Brown drooling over the cash he’s about to gouge out of our most efficient power suppliers to see the main reason for this new tax. Lots of monuments to Bob will be built that will ultimately sit like Tim Flannerys geothermal pipe dream – big fat sinkholes of taxpayer cash wasted for zero, zilch, nothing. PS – Tim what are you going to do with the radioactivity?
    Secondly don’t forget the independents are slavering like pigs at the slop trough waiting for their turn at the money. All this is game set and match with the Greens in charge of the senate so we really have no choice but to suffer until the next election.
    Combet is about to spend 6months to “negotiate with industry” learning how to scam the taxpayer and “protect the ALP voter” (ie he hasn’t got a clue how to do it yet!) – wait and see the results – once the details are known tnen the whole ETS scam will become evident.

    As for global warming – it is snowing at the Oscars! (oops yet another stuffed prediction) I suppose the rise in temparature has nothing to do with volcanoes, earthquakes and the sun.
    Just what are we going to use for power when the inevitable cold snap hits us – solar power? wind power? – ask the europeans how well their alternative power worked during the snow.
    Putting all our eggs in the global warming basket has already cost us lives in the Victorian fires and the Queeensland floods, how many more deaths will it require to satisfy the green altar of stupidity?

    As for Carbon Tax, when will a journo have the guts ask Bob Brown why he is taxing his green tree’s food!

  • 14 Dave // Mar 1, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Nial, I think that downplaying volcano s doesn’t help the climate action debate. I instead point out that by denuding the Earth of trees we humans have destroyed natural sequestration processes.

    Jason D, that’s a humdinger of a carbon trading policy you propose do you mind if I cut and paste it? Also most countries in the developed world have carbon trading including Australia, however they are state based. The US has 3 or 4 state based trading platforms with more on the way. If enough states do it their way, the red tape will be enough to make it go federal. All countries in the EU have been trading for years.

    Ross T, too much of any substance is detrimental to life. The ark left the shores of Indecision, Procrastination and Indignant Delirious Interference ( IPIDI ) during Kyoto. It is about to disembark on the shores of Action. There may be a squall or two in rout, but we will get there. Better to catch one of the last launches to join the ark, than to wave frantically from the sinking shores of IPIDI.

  • 15 Greg Atkinson // Mar 1, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I would truly like to understand how the carbon tax will do anything but end up creating a huge paper trail and make money for investment bankers etc.

    The carbon tax is already off to a bad start since one sector of the economy i.e. agriculture is exempt so any scientific basis for the tax has already been dropped. Is the tax suppose to reduce greenhouse gases and if so, why is agriculture exempt?

    I know the loony Green’s will say we all need food so that why agriculture is not going to be hit with a carbon tax but what about housing and clothing? Aren’t they also just as essential as food?

    My biggest objection is I don’t see how the carbon tax will reduce emissions. A tax on petrol has not kept a lid on Australian’s love affair with the car and not even toll-ways keep people off the roads so why would a carbon tax which Swanny says people will be compensated for reduce CO2 emissions?

    I suspect it is a tax grab and that the Government will end up pocketing a significant amount of the money raised.

    Let’s be serious here, if climate change was really a major priority for the Government they would not have sent $900 cheques out so people could buy imports, instead they would have already have funnelled that money in renewable energy or improving public transport.

    Finally I think Professor Bob Carter sums up the situation perfectly:

    Instead of analysing the global warming issue – about which, more below – press commentary continues to endlessly recycle tired, stale, sanctimonious and entirely misleading clichés about carbon pollution, climate change and energy efficiency. Everyone, it seems, has a strong opinion, yet almost none of these opinions are grounded in the empirical science facts that society used to view as the essential basis for good public policy decisions.

    Source: Shhsshh … don’t talk about the science

  • 16 JasonD // Mar 1, 2011 at 8:05 am

    All the more reason that a trading system needs to be an open market and every one gets it including farmers still stick by my version of the trading system…. hummmm may need a new name carbon-wangos just does not cut it

    Why not get the asx to open a new board 🙂 the wango index

  • 17 Ross T // Mar 1, 2011 at 8:16 am

    Climate doom? – sounds good if you want to scare governments into making the wrong decision and build more monuments to minority groups stupidity.
    Just think if the planet keeps warming then we can continue to feed our ballooning population, if is starts cooling then we are in (big) trouble. Typical example – all the floods in QLD are (caused by global warming) and that is doom and gloom because houses got trashed, however suddenly the farmers have 3 years of soil moisture available to grow crop that they didnt have before and the dams are full for irrigators.

  • 18 Dave // Mar 1, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Greg, anybody quoting Carter is probably still on the old debate, it’s moved on from wether or not to do something, but instead what thing will we do.
    My feeling is that should the opposition fail to enter the negotiations and endorse the out-come then Australia will get a better more ethical result though a Greens negotiated process. Business will have only a marginal say in the result.
    Should the process fail before the next election and Liberals are returned, their abatement scheme seemingly will come directly from individuals pockets since they tend to prefer reduced business tax s and inputs at the expense of people.

    On Carbon tax the idea is basically this:
    Governments tend be the investors in energy infrastructure themselves then sell them off when they are on their last legs. By providing incentives (carbon abatement schemes) Investors are free to invest long term in greener utilities rather than governments fronting the money. By collecting income from abatement the government is able to smooth out the transitional infuences.

    Dave s picks going on long green stocks PAX, IFN, ORG, SOO, PTR, LYC, GXY and CFU.

  • 19 JasonD // Mar 1, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Well where do i start

    do you really believe that the government will do that, all evidence and past history says a big no, and thats either party including the light greens

    a transperent market method would be more appropriate and more effective.

    I got clients begging me for green investments there just is very little for them to go into and even less quality managers that know what they are doing.

    There was a company some 15+ years ago (forget the name at the moment) that had developed a filtration system that was so good it could turn shit water into drinking water yet thanks to government blinkers and red tape they moved the entire operation to the US

    All this will do it put in a tax that will be wasted on usless feel good do nothing projects.

    Here is another one the town of Toowoomba in Queensland, now this is a town that has had water restrictions for over 20 years so they know the hardship caused but such things, they had a little vote last year to include light recyced water into the main water system, they actually voted a huge NO! (amount 80%)

    So frankly i hold little faith that either party would produce anything that could achieve a workable result.

    stil stand by my original idea of a market method where every one has to participate couple that with an education push to alter the general public opinion on such technology.

  • 20 Greg Atkinson // Mar 1, 2011 at 10:49 am

    For the record and just before anyone launches into me for not caring for the planet etc I would like to point out that I do actually work with green/eco-friendly tech. In addition to investing (and losing) in the sector I am also the lead designer/developed of a solar and wind power for ships called ‘Aquarius”.

    If anyone is interested they can read more about this fuel/emission reduction system for ships here:

    Eco Marine Power Proceeds with Development of Aquarius Solar and Wind Power System for Ships

    Anyway I agree with Jason’s comments about green tech investing in Australia. Quite frankly I would have zero chance of getting something like the Aquarius off the ground in Oz and hence the reason I am up here in Japan.

    The reason I would prefer an increase in the GST is that I believe the way to tackle a whole range of environmental issues is by using technology so we can all live cleaner and greener. Funds raised say by an increase in the GST could then be channelled into a sovereign wealth fund and used to invest in infrastructure and green technology etc.

    Having said that, I think if the Government stopped wasting money there would be enough money to kick-start a fund without any carbon tax or GST increase, especially if they bailed out of the NBN and let the private sector do the job.

    As for Bob Carter, all I can say is I prefer to listen to climate scientists rather than politicians.

    P.S Jason, I do see merit in your market idea, I am just not sure that I trust the markets 🙂

  • 21 JasonD // Mar 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

    fare call

    The market method would only work if everyone was in it no exclusions like the current proposal with farmers the first ones to get an exclusion (i am certain there will be others)

    And dont get me started on the NBN

    The future fund is already there another option is to cut the waste and set up a sub fund in there… i will say i dont know much about the future fund

  • 22 Greg Atkinson // Mar 1, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Jason that’s another problem I have with the carbon tax..why is a farmers CO2 okay but not say a company that makes clothes?

    For sure there will be more deals done. The coal industry is already screaming about lost jobs and the need for Government help so we can also expect the car makers to line up and a whole heap of other industries to join the queue as well.

    So around 13% of Australia’s CO2 emissions are already untouchable even before the policy details have been unveiled. I bet we get to 25% very quickly..any guesses what the final number will be?

  • 23 Biker Pete // Mar 1, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    “…ask the europeans how well their alternative power worked during the snow.”

    Biking through Europe for four months, their alternative energy systems looked pretty good to us, particularly where we rode through some towns which were almost totally solar/wind reliant.

    We’re about to install our _eighth_ Solar Electricity System, thanks to much lower interest rates than we ever expected.
    Our tenants love it. Many are carrying credits forward….
    ie., no cost whatsoever for their power.

    Now we’ve put SES on all north-facing roofs, we’re now putting systems on all west-facing roofs.

    I used to think that new high-tech nuclear power stations were the answer. Now leaning towards increased subsidies / rebates for solar electricity and solar HWS. 😀

  • 24 Greg Atkinson // Mar 2, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Biker solar panels don’t work too well in poor weather or at night and that’s a major issue. Wind again can’t be relied upon to provide power all the time so while they are an important part of the energy mix we need more reliable sources of energy as well. Of course you store excess power from wind and solar sources in batteries but that becomes costly.

    Even nations in the Middle East where the sun shines brightly are building nuclear power plants.

  • 25 Biker Pete // Mar 2, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    “Even nations in the Middle East where the sun shines brightly are building nuclear power plants.”

    Yes, I’m sure their intent is entirely peaceful, Greg!
    (Pretty difficult to Nuke Ya Neighbour with a solar panel…
    or a windmill.)

    “…you (can) store excess power from wind and solar sources in batteries…”

    Well, in all systems we’ve erected:

    * It’s fed straight into the grid…

    * We buy power for 22c per unit…

    * We sell it for up to 47C per unit… .

    Kid you not, every tenant family is ecstatic.

    I’m not arguing that sun and wind can do it all, though these systems are far more efficient and effective than they were when I first put up a SES a decade ago. Within another decade, who knows?

  • 26 GoWest // Mar 3, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I have no problem with solar power; however these subsidies will only last while there is a Carbon Trading market to pay for them. Given the state of carbon markets, we would have been far smarter to fund solar/wind subsidies on the gold market, then at least we could afford the current give-aways.
    Effectively the government and power suppliers are borrowing money to pay the credits, so this government is going to force carbon tax with its ETSversion3, and power costs will triple.
    However solar power has demonstrated that consumers are not the power company prisoners that everyone assumes. All it takes is some smart company like CFU to come up with a cheaper alternative power solution and the whole solar support system will be undercut and fall to pieces. The next 3 years will prove it one way or the other

  • 27 Senator13 // Mar 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Let’s not forget that these Feed in Tariffs have been scaled back in the Eastern states in a big way. Also, what is not widely reported, the Renewable Energy Certificate price has fallen in a fairly big way making Solar in Australia less viable.

    I think I also recall a report where in Germany the government subsidies for solar panels had to be cut or removed all together because it was costing them too much.

    Another problem with Solar panels is when you try to use it for multi-storey buildings it becomes less efficient. You have twice (or more) the building area to power yet still only the same surface area for panels. Making solar not so viable for office blocks and two story houses ect.

    I still like the idea of solar hot water and solar electricity on an individual household level but as far as a power solution for an entire city it has a long way to go yet.

    I have a problem with current ETS’s being described as a “market based” solution. It is not a true market when the government is setting the price and forcing people to use it via its taxes and regulations. If you have a look around at the so called ETS’s around the world that the Government is using as examples – there is not very many and the carbon price has either collapsed or is very low. Much lower then what the governments own reports have said a price needs to be to have any kind of impact what so ever to reduce emissions.

    So the government is either going to need to set the price higher then what the “market” has it at or is going to be too low to do anything. Either way on a global scale I do not think it will do anything at all except slug business and individuals with just another tax.

    The government are so keen on new taxes because of their spending spree and they are using the environment as an excuse to hike taxes.

  • 28 Biker // Mar 3, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    We’ve locked the state government (Liberal) into ten-year-contracts for our supply of power to them at 40c + 7c per unit.

    Remember, too, all eight systems are pre-Carbon Trading policies.
    The next series may be more generously subsidised by the Feds, although subsidies are set to be reduced by $1200 in July.
    That may not happen, of course.

    Solar Hot Water Systems are now standard on all our projects, as are reflective tint windows.

    All made possible because our interest rates, budgeted at 9.45%, fell outa-the-sky… and of course by both federal (Labor) and state (Liberal) grants and rebates… .

  • 29 Greg Atkinson // Mar 4, 2011 at 8:51 am

    The bottom line is that carbon already has a price as it is factored into the products we buy or the energy we use. So what the Government is messily trying to do is say that CO2 is a pollutant (which it isn’t) and then slap a tax on it because of that.

    If that’s the case what about the real nasty gases like toxic air pollutants. Here is a list of 188 of those from the EPA in the US. See: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html

    Can see you CO2 on the list? No? Neither can I.

  • 30 Greg Atkinson // Mar 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Here we go, the deal making has already started. The heavy polluters will be compensated…well those where the votes are will be that is. See: Coal jobs safe with us: Greg Combet

  • 31 Senator13 // Mar 6, 2011 at 8:05 am

    With agriculture and coal out or subsidised – it is plainly just a tax grab. Nothing more.

  • 32 Greg Atkinson // Mar 7, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Rio says they need more compensation and now the Unions have entered the fray: See: Unions demand jobs plan in return for supporting carbon price proposals

    As each day passes the carbon tax becomes more confusing as Government Ministers contradict each other. For example Swanny reckons every cent of the tax/levy/scheme or whatever it is will flow back to compensate business & individuals but as reported in The Australian today:

    “A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said some of the money raised by the carbon tax would go towards industry adjustment, but it was too early to say how that would occur.”

    So is industry adjustment considered compensation or not?

    Trust me on this one, this carbon tax is going to be a complete debacle.

  • 33 Greg Atkinson // Apr 17, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Well as predicted on this site, the carbon tax is a flop. From The Australian today:

    “LABOR will revise down its carbon tax revenue estimates following a crash in the European carbon market, at a likely multi-billion dollar cost to the federal budget.

    The EU’s carbon price sank to 2.55 euros ($A3.24) in trading overnight, as legislators rejected a proposal to save the market from collapse.

    The federal budget currently assumes a $29 carbon price in 2015, when Australia’s carbon trading scheme is linked to the EU carbon market.”

    Source: EU carbon collapse deals blow to Australia

Leave a Comment

*


 


This site is not intended to act as any form of financial or investment advice.  © 2008–2017 Shareswatch Australia — DisclaimerCutline by Chris Pearson

 

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. Whilst we endeavour to keep the information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. Please seek professional advice before making any investments.