Carbon tax

[colinw]

It also means for Queenslanders that train fares will rise with no benefit to the network or customers.

So business as usual then?

[ozbob]

News.com.au --> Carbon tax to wipe $31m from state finances by 2014-15

[SurfRail]

The irony about modern "clean" diesel bus engines is that they tend to use much more fuel and produce more CO2.  They are much cleaner in the sense they don't spew out sulfur and particulates, but to get the exhaust nice and clean you basically have to cook it to buggery by running the engine very very hot. 

That means more fuel, and a more complicated engine means a heavier bus, again leading to more fuel consumption.  All the additional componentry in buses these days (air-con, electronics etc) all adds up too.  When the Euro VI standard comes out, everything is going to get heavier again.

Gas is easier to burn at high standards of cleanliness, but diesel is more widely available and can be burnt just as "cleanly" these days.  That might not always be the case given the weight and width restrictions on buses in Australia and the ongoing increase in vehicle weights.

In short - we would probably be saving a lot on fuel if we we still running buses from the 1960s, and there is an argument that it may actually be better for the environment as long as the fuel was reasonably clean and low-sulfur.  Not going to happen obviously.

[somebody]

I think that argument would be wrong.

The particulate emissions in particular would be causing a lot more emissions than the CO2 saving.

[SurfRail]

I think that argument would be wrong.

The particulate emissions in particular would be causing a lot more emissions than the CO2 saving.

We would also be chewing up about half the same amount of fuel based on figures I have seen.

It is all moot anyway.

[somebody]

I think that argument would be wrong.

The particulate emissions in particular would be causing a lot more emissions than the CO2 saving.

We would also be chewing up about half the same amount of fuel based on figures I have seen.

It is all moot anyway.

Probably half the fuel, but you only have to increase the other emissions like particulates by a very small amount to compensate.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Qantas lifts fares on all flights

[ozbob]

Herald Sun --> Qantas first to pass Gillard slug to passengers

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Virgin lifts fares to cover carbon tax

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Power groups face huge carbon bill

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Carbon emissions hit a new record

================

So they promote car and trucks, but penalise public transport and rail.  We are governed by fools ...

[Jonno]

Brisbanetimes --> Carbon emissions hit a new record

================

So they promote car and trucks, but penalise public transport and rail.  We are governed by fools ...

But we seem very reluctant to vote in anyone else!!!!

[Mr X]

For who? The Greens? Australian Party?

[ozbob]

Herald Sun --> Carbon tax blow for small shops

[Fares_Fair]

Saw an interesting inteview with Clive Palmer last night on the 7:30 Report.
He is taking a challenge to the high court on the constitutional validity of the carbon tax, in essence how do you tax a gas that literally traverses the globe.
Even the legislation (according to Mr Palmer) acknowledges that it may be problematic to do so.

[Stillwater]

We successfully prosecute individuals and corporations for letting toxic substances flow into the ocean.  The courts don't seem to accept that it is okay to do so on the basis that the ocean currents disperse the pollutants around the world and that we can cop pollution from some irresponsible company in Japan or Thailand by virtue of their waste being sent our way on the ocean waves.   It will make for an interesting court case.  I'd hate to pay the legal bill, but Clive has deeper pockets than mine.

[Fares_Fair]

It will be interesting as it is a real test case.
If you cannot pay the carbon tax, do they then withhold it from you until you do?
No harm if they did.

Oxygen however is a whole other story.

Taxes on gases, carbon is the thin edge of the wedge.

[SurfRail]

I'm no expert on the carbon tax legislation, but surely the trade and commerce, taxation and corporations powers would be more than sufficient to make it constitutional.

There is a very big difference, which a lot of people fail to grasp, between a law that is unconstitutional, and a law which is bad for public policy.  Parliament can't make the former type of law, but it can make the latter.

[#Metro]

I don't understand what the whole problem is.

It's also not a tax. A tax is something you levy on income or the value of something, that's what a tax is. Like land tax or GST or income tax.
This is a "pollution release fee" where you pay for the privilege to put your pollution into the air. Whether it is a gas or not is immaterial.

I don't see calling it a tax any more proper than calling sewerage that comes out of any household a "sewerage tax".
It is a charge in return for a service. If you want to put your parcels of pollution into the air, you should pay for it.

I would be interested to know exactly what part of the constitution this infringes... I doubt any...

[SurfRail]

I would be interested to know exactly what part of the constitution this infringes... I doubt any...

With the Commonwealth Constitution you need to find an enabling power to legislate for anything - the States on the other hand have unrestricted "subject matter" if you like, subject only to any restrictions in the Commonwealth Constitution or territorial limits.

The powers I outlined above look to me to support the legislation, and there does not appear to be any other restriction.

You can also point to the foreign affairs power and any treaty or international obligations we have entered into.  The executive can make more or less any treaty it likes - the foreign affairs power gives the federal Parliament power to legislate to bring us into compliance with those obligations, even if there is no specific other head of power available.

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Australia fails carbon test

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Carbon target scrapped

Carbon target scrapped
Josh Gordon and Tom Arup
March 27, 2012

A PLAN to cut Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next decade is set to be dumped by the Baillieu government on the basis that it would merely lighten the load imposed on other states.

An independent review of the state's key climate change laws, to be released today, has found ''no compelling case'' to keep the target following the introduction of the Commonwealth's minimum target to cut emissions by 5 per cent, to be mainly achieved through Labor's carbon tax.

It said keeping the larger state target operating with a smaller national target would put a disproportionately large burden on Victoria, with no benefit to the environment because other states would do less.

It also concludes that keeping the state scheme in place would distort the national scheme as Victoria did more than its share.

The former Brumby government introduced legislation to cut emissions 20 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 after the failure of the Rudd government's carbon trading scheme to pass Parliament.

In opposition, the state Coalition said it supported the 20 per cent target. After taking power in 2010, senior ministers started describing it as ''aspirational''.

Premier Ted Baillieu has previously backed the concept of a carbon price as the cheapest way to cut emissions. Despite this, his government is opposed to the  carbon tax, claiming it will hit Victoria  harder than other states because of its reliance of brown coal.

State Environment Minister Ryan Smith said there was ''bipartisan support'' for the 5per cent national target. But the government's position on how it should be achieved in the absence of a carbon tax remains unclear, given its earlier support for so-called market-based mechanisms.

Mr Smith said Victoria would do its fair share  on cutting emissions. ''We will look to support practical areas such as improving energy efficiency,'' he said.

The review referred to research concluding that even with a Commonwealth carbon tax, meeting the 20 per cent target would have required Victoria to spend an additional $2.2 billion buying permits internationally to offset state emissions.

The  government also points to the 2009 climate  green paper released by the Brumby government, which said: ''The government does not see any benefit in legislating for a state-based emissions reduction target that is inconsistent with a national target.'' A later Brumby government climate white paper  does not contain a similar statement.

The government says it will retain other climate change initiatives,  including  a four-year climate change adaptation plan and supporting Victorians offsetting their emissions and participating in the national Carbon Farming Initiative.

Labor climate spokeswoman Lisa Neville said dumping the target would ''hurt investment, jobs and the environment. It betrays the trust of Victorians who care about reducing the state's carbon footprint''.

Environment Victoria chief  Kelly O'Shanassy said the  target had been about cutting pollution from the economy and attracting clean energy investment. ''Either the Baillieu government doesn't understand the threat climate change presents, or they are ignoring it,'' she said.

''Either way it's an irresponsible decision environmentally and economically ... Premier Baillieu has caved in to the demands of a handful of polluters instead of acting to protect the environment and the public interest.''

Australian Industry Group Victorian director Tim Piper welcomed the decision, saying it was important for business to have consistency across the country. ''You simply can't have a different requirement in one part of the country, different emissions targets in different states, for industry working across state lines,'' he said.

A spokesman for federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said: ''While a carbon price is the most cost-effective way for Australia to cut our pollution there is still a role for cost-effective state and local initiatives that complement the carbon price.''

''We encourage the Victorian government to support carbon pricing as the most economically-efficient way of tackling climate change.''

Former federal government climate adviser Ross Garnaut said: ''I see no need for separate state emissions targets if there is an appropriate national target and policies to make sure we meet the national target.''

The Baillieu government's move  has been mirrored by the incoming government in Queensland, which is planning to save $661 million over three years by dumping a range of state-based climate change initiatives.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-target-scrapped-20120326-1vust.html

[Jonno]

This is why we need to get rid of State Govt.

[SurfRail]

Maybe they should be phasing out burning brown coal and moving to gas and renewables then?  The whole point of the carbon tax is that dirty fuels are MEANT to be expensive.

[#Metro]

It's not a tax!!!

Pollution Pricing or Atmospheric Waste Dumping Charge is more accurate.

[colinw]

No, its a feel good token waste of time & money which won't do an ounce of environmental good for as long as we remain one of the world's major pushers of coal.

Oooh, we have a carbon price.  Yay, go Australia.  Here, have another 100 million tonnes of coal!

And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of us having no nuclear power plants while simultaneously being one of the world's major sources of Uranium.

[#Metro]

So long as there are buyers, there will be demand for that.
Pricing pollution is the first step. We could stop all coal export tomorrow, but that won't do anything about demand, as it only cuts supply- all it will do is raise the price of coal, which will then give incentive for other coal producing places to ramp up production to fill the breach and bring the price back down.

Total net pollution saved in the process = 0

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> New Premier's carbon tax warning

[#Metro]

They keep using the word carbon tax, and now it is a tax on queensland government... IT'S NOT A TAX!!

Interestingly the Commonweath has the power to impose an excise, so maybe we might get Carbon Excise...


http://www.google.com.au/search?q=What+is+a+tax+erosion+of+latham+definition

There is a interesting paper on what a tax is and isnt - from Bond Uni...


a tax ... is a compulsory exaction of money by a public
authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and is
not a payment for services rendered.

Perhaps one SurfRail could pick over

[somebody]

Call it what you want.  I personally would call it a tax, and I'd call the "fuel excise" a tax. 

Why all these posts on semantics?

[#Metro]

Then the CO2 tax is indeed a TAX. I'm paying more for a service rendered than need be, like saying the GST is not a tax.

GST is a tax in the sense that it is a tax on the value of a good.
What is the value of CO2? It doesn't have a value.

It is a charge to dump waste into the air.

Is a congestion tax a tax?

Language is important as Jarrett Walker points out, because it shapes our thinking and arguments.

[SurfRail]

Perhaps one SurfRail could pick over

I try to keep out of that stuff nowadays - it tends to encourage the conspiracy theorists if they don't have a solid legal background (like a certain candidate running for mayor down here).

[#Metro]

Controls on carbon are much easier and practical than birth controls on the population.
People vote. CO2 molecules don't.

Whether CO2 is "natural" is irrelevant. Death, disease, radioactivity, heat pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, foul smells are all "natural" forms of pollution.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Dumped minister's carbon tax warning

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Lump sum for families to ease carbon tax pain as Gillard Government fights backlash

[somebody]

Controls on carbon are much easier and practical than birth controls on the population.
People vote. CO2 molecules don't.

Whether CO2 is "natural" is irrelevant. Death, disease, radioactivity, heat pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, foul smells are all "natural" forms of pollution.

Problem is the Australian CO2 tax will do very little, if any net benefit to reduce CO2 on the global foot print. They had the chance to at least have a positive impact and blew it!

How do you mean that they could have had a positive impact?

[#Metro]

ie Any reduction in Australia could be near zip and may increase globally, why and I'm not talking about what other countries do or don't, purely policy and actions in Australia on Australian based CO2 including off-shoring any current CO2 production.

Accountability and responsibility means doing our bit and making sure that we don't contribute to making the problem worse.
In terms of public transport, I think this also means a move away from coverage routes and more emphasis on patronage services. Why? I just don't believe that PT is CO2 efficient when you have empty buses running around all day.

So why
- The tax is on trains, not trucks as it provides exception for small business. Why CO2 is CO2, small or big, why does business size come into it. This will drive more freight to trucks and put more smaller fleet owners on the roads who often don't maintain their fleets like the big guys which are more regulated.
- The tax is on rail commuter transport, but not cars
- The tax is on thermal power, then provide subsidy to lower income families. Why is my bar heater taxed and not the guy next door because he earns half as much?
- The tax on industry if it goes off shore and they will and it has started will see production for things such as aluminium go to India and Middle East using higher CO2 energy (India crapping coal), lower operating standards and emissions. There is more to life than CO2 emissions and aluminium is a big producer of CO2e emissions, with Australian producers some of the world leaders for lowest/tonne. The CO2 tax is actually a double wammy, $A is doing enough to encourage reduced cost and energy consumption. After working in Aluminum in Australia, India and Middle East, even with newer technology overseas, I know which smelters I rather live next to.

Yes, under the 'perfect world' model of things, things would be exact and perfect. Trouble is, world is not perfect and politics distorts things because we value efficiency and accuracy but politics also plays a role. The international unequal footing isn't an argument against carbon pricing (let's use correct language here) because under a trade scheme surely they would also have to buy rights to pollute as well, which would even things out.

The bottom line really is this - pollution should be paid for. We don't dump sewerage into the street for free (despite it being completely 'natural' I might add) so why should people feel it is ok to dump their cr%p into our air for free?

[ozbob]

Clean Energy Regulator

LEPID for 2012-13 Financial year

Under the Clean Energy Act 2011, the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) must keep a database known as the Liable Entities Public Information Database (LEPID).

Legal persons will be included in the LEPID if the CER has reasonable grounds to believe the person is, or is likely to be, a liable entity for the eligible financial year.

Persons are liable entities because they meet criteria specified under the Clean Energy Act 2011, not because their names appear in the LEPID.

The LEPID will be updated on the basis of information made available to the CER, such as liable entities' reported emissions and emissions unit information, and changes to the list of liable entities due to individual circumstances such as changes in corporate structure, divestment, expected changes in activity/emissions, liability transfer or joint ventures.

Details --> here!

[ozbob]

From the ABC News click here!

City council warns of carbon tax rate hike

City council warns of carbon tax rate hike

Ratepayers in the largest city council in Australia have been warned that rates will rise as a result of the carbon tax.

The Federal Government yesterday released the official list of the 250 biggest polluters that will pay the tax.

The councils of Brisbane, Wagga Wagga and Armadale in suburban Perth are on the list alongside miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

The issue is causing a new headache for Brisbane Mayor Graham Quirk, just a week after he was re-elected as head of Australia's largest council.

Mr Quirk says he resents the Government's decision.

"It is not just. It is not fair to the ratepayers of Brisbane," he said.

He says the carbon tax will cost the council an extra $50 million over the next four years and that means rates will rise.

"I have no option in relations to this, it will be passed on," he said.

Mr Quirk says he is angry the Federal Government has ignored the city's efforts to offset its emissions.

"I resent this because we have done more than any other government in Australia to reduce our carbon footprint, we have been very proactive," he said.

Wagga Wagga City Council, in the New South Wales Riverina region, has also been included on the list.

Councillor Gary Hiscock says he is not surprised because the council area takes in a large landfill.

But he hopes it will not affect council rates, as $660,000 has already been put aside for the tax.

"We have budgeted for it, we don't want to unnecessarily put fees up for the community, but it's a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment," he said.

"If we can reduce our carbon emission from our waste management centre, it shouldn't have too much of an impact on our ratepayers."

[SurfRail]

Just one more reason to off-load the bus fleet...