The introduction of a carbon price has been one of the more controversial decisions from the federal government’s Clean Energy Future plan. John Kirk will be keeping a close eye on where the revenue raised from this tax goes.
Do we need a price on carbon emissions? In my opinion there is no doubt that it is necessary. The big question is how to make sure Australia derives the most benefit from funds raised through the tax.
The only way we as a community will begin to understand the ramifications of our individual carbon emissions is to have a price put on them. Will this stop us from using electricity, driving cars, or continuing to use products that require intensive carbon emissions? Not if history is an indicator.
We have always found those extra few dollars to continue using those things we see as essential to our comfort and convenience. Hopefully though, it will make us more aware of the cost of our impact on the environment.
More importantly though; how is the government going to use the revenue from this tax?
The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee’s recommendations on the Carbon Price Mechanism were released by the Gillard government in February. Following this, on Thursday 17th March, Ross Garnaut released a paper on carbon pricing as part of the update of his 2008 Climate Change Review commissioned by the government.
Both these papers outline options for revenue use. Current thinking is to use a substantial amount of the revenue to offset the cost of the carbon price to households; another portion will be used for research into low emission technologies and the remainder to offset costs to emission intensive industries.
Australia has a very high per capita level of emissions. We need to dramatically reduce our emissions by using cleaner energy sources.
I am not one of those people who would suggest that we stop using air conditioners or other conveniences of modern technology. I believe that investment in new low emission technology and clean energy is the answer to reducing our emissions. This, in conjunction with a program of carbon sequestration, is what is required.
Technology is potentially available in Australia to produce enough clean energy to provide for our requirements, but an investment in R&D and infrastructure is necessary to facilitate the development of the clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, wave, and geothermal.
Sequestration methods such as planting more trees, algae farms, and underground storage of CO2 are equally important to reduce current levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
There have been great advances in energy efficiency in appliances and other technologies and there should be encouragement to manufacturers and customers to upgrade to new low energy products.
The answer is not simplistic and involves much more than a price on carbon. Hopefully the government will use some of this revenue to fund organisations that will put their research efforts into finding the required solutions.
John Kirk recently graduated with a MBA from The University of New England and is currently studying for an MBA (advanced) in Corporate Sustainability with Southern Cross University. John has more than 30 years experience in the print industry, having acted as a representative at both state and national levels as a Director of ACFIPS Industry Training Advisory Board and as a member of the Sector Advisory Committee for Innovation Business Skills Australia. John is interested in sustainability, corporate social responsibility, futurism, and developing people. For the last 7 years he has sat on the corporate social responsibility committee for a major corporation.
power parters
March 17, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Renewable energy
Renewable energy has always been here but no one ever questioned why it was never part of a legislation that implemented clean energy from the governement downwards. It all starts with small, lifestyle changes that build a reliable future. http://www.turnonthesun.com.au
John Kirk
March 18, 2011 at 12:13 am
Legislation
Yes it would be ideal if government at every level would support the introduction of clean energy initiatives. In an ideal economy we could see councils mandating that every new building had solar energy built into its design. Low energy lighting could be mandated. Buildings would be built with energy saving being a key aspect, perhaps even 5 or 6 green star could be manadated for new buildings. Government would supply a smart grid that could handle the energy economy. States and Federal would combine their jurisdictions on energy production and the large carbon emitters would not have the lobbying power that they do. It is unfortunately not going to be the case in the short term, I believe that drastic measures will only be taken by government when it comes to the realisation that without clean energy Australia is in danger of major climatic change.
Philip Argy
March 18, 2011 at 8:42 am
What cost? What benefit?
This may be too simplistic an approach, but no-one seems able to explain to me what impact any given price will have on consumption of any given greenhouse gas – no-one seems to have done any demand elasticity study.
And, more importantly, no-one has been able to correlate any reduction in greenhouse gas emission by Australia with a reduction or retardation in global warming.
So where does that leave me? First, let me be clear that I am in no doubt that Earth is in a global warming cycle, and I’m not even in doubt that mankind’s activities are making a substantive contribution to greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and therefore to global warming. BUT, and it’s a huge BUT: my understanding is that if Australia tomorrow reduced to zero its entire greenhouse gas contribution, the consequential effect on global warming would be negligible!
Surely it’s not too much to ask for a cost benefit analysis? What will it cost every man, woman and child in the country, for how long, and what will be the benefit? Altruistic as I normally am, it does not extend to introducing competitive impediments on our economy if our major trading partners are not sharing that pain and if the impact on global warming is negligible. Is it seriously suggested that we should subject ourselves to a fiscal burden in case it helps to persuade others to be equally masochistic? Well, if that’s the plan, let’s make our introduction of a carbon tax or ETS or any other scheme SUBJECT TO our major trading partners doing likewise. But to go it alone just makes no sense whatsoever – we talk about doing it for our kids but all we will achieve by going it alone is to ensure that our kids are poorer in a still warming Earth thanks to those who are smart enough to watch us self flagellate.
And oh yes, can we please have this debate without labels like sceptic and denier being thrown around. I just want someone to give me a half decent argument in support of what the government has proposed.
I’ll even start you off. I see benefit in creating incentives to invest in alternative energy technology, and there’s even the prospect we could get a competitive advantage if we do that right. But how is a carbon tax the optimal way of incentivising that R&D effort? It might be better, for example, to offer those people a fee-free super-patent valid for 50 years. I don’t know. But one thing is for sure, the hopelessly inadequate debate to date, and the political correctness that intrudes whenever it is attempted, leaves me totally opposed until a cogent case can be made out for the direction the Government and The Greens want to take us!
John Kirk
March 18, 2011 at 10:06 am
Cost analysis
Phil,
Whilst I have only had an opportunity to scan the paper by Ross Garnaut it would at first glance seem to cover some of the questions you have raised. I intend to go through the whole paper and would appreciate your opinions and comments.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers.html
Regards
John Kirk
Philip Argy
March 18, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Basic premise doesn’t support flying solo
Garnaut’s basic premise is the key problem I have with going it alone. He admits that all of the modelling he relies on "presumed that Australia would play no more and no less than its proportionate part in an effective global effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. A set of principles was defined to allocate the mitigation burden across countries and to calculate Australia’s proportionate part in an effective international effort.".
Self evidently, that material cannot support the go solo proposal.
GraceJ
September 21, 2011 at 4:44 am
Price on Carbon!
I completely agree John; we need to put a price on carbon so that Australians begin to understand the ramifications of there individual carbon emissions.
Putting it boldly, our planet is in an environmental emergency, and without taking action now against Australia’s large polluters, in a few years it may be too late. The proposed carbon tax would force large companies to become accountable for their emissions.
But we need to make sure that the revenue is being spent back into the community, by furthering other environmental ventures or by giving back to households.
According to the Gillard government, “All the revenue raised will go to households, industry and supporting the programs for tackling climate change”. Labor has said 9 in 10 households will receive assistance through tax cuts or payment increases to help ease the pain of the carbon tax. On average, it will cost households $9.90 per week but they get $10.10 per week in assistance, and according to the government this assistance is permanent and will increase. Which in my eyes is a positive thing, yet more still needs to go back into environmental causes. I can’t find anything showing how much of the revenue will go back into supporting programs for tackling climate change.
Fighting climate change is vital! Let’s hope the government will continue to support climate change after all the hype!
Barbara12
October 4, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Real science on the carbon tax
Here is a link to some real science on the global warming discussion. With a little reasearch you will soon find the truth and facts that the news and government are not telling you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQ
Davo1966
June 7, 2012 at 3:48 am
Getting our value from the revenue
I realise that this comment from myself is comming from a ordinary man in the street and may be very simpistic and naively so, but on this whole topic of taxing carbon and the resulting revenue that it generates, can the powers that be not use this revenue to put in place modern, progressive and technologically advanced green infrustructure.
So, one example that sticks in my mind is this. Reduce the man in the streets dependancy on coal/gas powered power stations by using the revenue generated to put solar panels on on all homes. All person who earn less than X dollars annually get theirs gratis and then prorata the subsidy further according to wealth of the person or family, thereby allowing homes to aquire all their power needs from the sun.
Another thought to run parallel with the previous thought is to offer juicy incentives to businesses that go green.
Another thought, all government buildings be retro fitted so that they depend entirely on solar power for all of there power needs.
My point been, take the money and plough it into opposing infrustructure (to the old carbon spuing infrustructure).