Carbon tax

[Gazza]

Rising fares will send some riders back to their cars. Please can the Brains Trust tell me how from next week how paying this tax will see the council reduce emissions?

The main cost of fares is wages FWIW. A marginal increase in fuel costs won't change much in terms of fares really.

[justanotheruser]

Yes it is fair, but I don't have the data for others. The point I was trying to make is that we are trying to reduce CO2, but we exempt what is a net much larger producer, but then attack what is seen as an easy target. That single producer uses about 2.5% of Australia's power, the Households combined use 15-20%.

this just does not make sense. you claim one business alone uses 2.5% of all power in Australia. Are you really trying to tell me that if every other business in Australia was added to that then it would come to less than 15-20%? Come off it thats a joke to even suggest that. A fair comparison would be to compare average household usage to average business usage. Or compare one single household to one single business. None of this garbage of adding every single household altogether and then comparing it to one single business. No that is not in any way shape or form a fair comparison.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Council carbon protest to Julia

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> What the carbon tax means for motorists

... The most environmentally focused cars on the market will cost more to run from tomorrow when the carbon tax is introduced.

As the reality of the carbon tax - initially set at $23 a tonne - kicks in, motorists seem likely to absorb some price increases, although exactly how much isn't clear.

With petrol, LPG and diesel exempt from the tax, though, it's drivers of electric vehicles likely to be hardest hit. ...

[ozbob]

Carbon tax blamed for fare hike (WA) --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8675.0

[ozbob]

http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=79709

Treasurer and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Tim Nicholls

Sunday, July 01, 2012

Labor's costly carbon tax cuts deep

FEDERAL Labor's toxic carbon tax will cost Queensland jobs and impact business competitiveness, Treasurer Tim Nicholls has warned.

Mr Nicholls said the carbon tax, which will come into effect today, would hit Queensland harder than any other state.

"The tax is forecast to reduce Queensland's economic output (Gross State Product) by almost $10 billion a year by 2020," Mr Nicholls said.

"Disturbingly, the Commission of Audit found that the impact of the carbon tax could see Queensland's bottom line take a $1.6 billion hit over the next four years.

"But this toxic tax won't just impact the Government through higher expenses and lower revenues.

"Taxing our export industries, which are already battling the higher Australian dollar, will do nothing to improve our competitiveness in the global economy.

"The carbon tax will severely harm the state's economic growth, reduce the living standards of everyday Queenslanders and lead to higher electricity bills."

Mr Nicholls said around 100 Queensland businesses would be forced to pay the tax, leaving them little choice but to pass on costs to customers and suppliers.

"This includes many local councils, which will have no choice but to pass the cost of this tax on to ratepayers," he said.

"In its recent budget Brisbane City Council indicated the carbon tax was responsible for 40 per cent of its 4.5 per cent rate increase."

Mr Nicholls said modelling from Queensland Treasury and Deloitte Access Economics, which used the Commonwealth Government's own assumptions, found that by 2020:

• As many as 21,000 Queensland jobs could be lost
• Real wages could be reduced by up to $2,940

He said it was especially disappointing that the carbon tax would take effect on the same day as the Newman Government's first wave of measures designed to deliver cost of living relief.

"While we're working to reduce the financial strain on Queenslanders by reintroducing the principal place of residence transfer duty concession, increasing the payroll tax exemption threshold and freezing the standard electricity tariff, Federal Labor is whacking on a great big new tax," Mr Nicholls said.

"There is no hiding the fact that Queenslanders would have enjoyed a reduction in their power bills this year were it not for the introduction of the carbon tax.

"It's expected power costs will increase by about 40 per cent for small businesses.

"So while the LNP is working to drive down household costs, Federal Labor - cheered on by their state counterparts - seems determined to make things harder for Queenslanders."

[ENDS] 1 July 2012

[Mr X]

zzzzz....

So much doom and gloom from the conservatives. Give it a year and hopefully we will all be able to see past the bullsh%t flowing out of Tony Abbott's mouth about the 'big bad tax'!

[ozbob]

ARA Media Release

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/12-06-29%20Calculations-prove-carbon-tax-will-increase-emissions.pdf

29 June 2012

Calculations prove carbon tax will increase emissions

The Australasian Railway Association (ARA) has posted a webpage today (http://www.ara.net.au/site/carbon-tax-rail.php) illustrating that the carbon tax will increase transport-related carbon emissions.

Rail companies will pay approximately $110 million per year whilst the road industry is exempt. This will be passed onto rail customers and eventually end consumers, through heightened grocery costs. Rail customers may even switch to the more polluting road freight industry which is exempt from the tax, putting more trucks on our roads and more transport-related emissions into the atmosphere.

ARA CEO Bryan Nye said despite producing three times less emissions than road, rail will be required to pay a pollution tax while road is exempt.

"Trains emit one third the pollution of trucks and yet the rail industry is required to pay a $110 million carbon tax each year whilst one of Australia's largest polluters is given a free pass," he said.

"Ironically, the carbon tax, which is designed to reduce pollution levels, provides a financial incentive to switch to trucks which will put more trucks on our roads, and increase transport-related emissions."

The webpage was launched to educate decision makers, rail customers and the general public on the adverse impacts of the carbon tax on rail transport and the likely increase of transport emissions.

"Through the webpage, we are aiming to educate people on the real impacts of this tax," continued Mr Nye.

"Rail freight operators will be forced to pay tens of millions of dollars with the carbon tax and rail customers are understandably unhappy about the proposed price increases. Some are actively considering switching to road which will put more trucks on our road and increase emissions."

The webpage urges Government to reconsider the illogical application of the carbon tax on the transport sector.

"Rail has repeatedly stated its support for action on climate change but we need to raise awareness that the carbon tax will reduce rail's competitive ability, put more trucks on our roads and increase transport-related emissions."

The Rail Industry, through the ARA seeks amendments to the carbon tax to provide equal treatment for road and rail, by either removing the exemption for the trucking industry or providing the same exemption for rail.

"The Government should explain the logic behind taxing the emissions friendly rail sector and exempting the carbon intensive road heavy vehicles," said Mr Nye.

"If the carbon tax is to be effective in reducing pollution, the way the tax is to be applied to rail and not road needs to change," concluded Mr Nye.

[ozbob]

Carbon tax and rail --> http://www.ara.net.au/site/carbon-tax-rail.php

[ozbob]

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/A-message-to-WA-NT-and-QLD-consumers.pdf

CARBON TAX TO INCREASE COST OF LIVING

A message to WA, NT and QLD consumers...

Most groceries and alcohol currently travel by rail from the East to West Coast. This story is equally true for goods going to the Northern Territory and North Queensland. Unfortunately rail operators have been slugged by a $110 million carbon tax bill. Rail operators will need to pass on the added costs of a carbon tax to its customers, which in turn will be added onto the costs of groceries and alcohol travelling to these locations.

The carbon tax will increase the cost of beer, cornflakes and dog food for Western Australians/Northern Territorians/north Queenslanders while the southern states won't have to pay: Yet another tax imposed by the Government that will increase the cost of living pressures.

Worst of all, the carbon tax will actually increase transport carbon emissions. The Government recognised the huge cost of the carbon tax to the transport sector and exempted trucks, yet it failed to do likewise for rail. This will make rail relatively more expensive compared to trucks, meaning more trucks on our roads, more transport emissions, and more costs for rail operators, customers and consumers.

The Rail Industry asks the Government to reconsider this illogical policy, grant the same exemptions to rail as it has to other modes, and ensure that any climate change policy is equally applied across the transport sector.

For more details please contact Ash Salardini on 045759500 or email: asalardini@ara.net.au

[ozbob]

State Labor didn't listen   --> oblivion ...

Federal Labor is not listening  --> oblivion?


http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/abbott_gillard_main.jpg

[ozbob]

Media release 29 July 2011 re-released 1st July 2012

Australia: Carbon price policy still off the rails

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers strongly supported the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in their call for 'Two thirds of the transport budget should be spent on public and active transport and one third should be spent on roads' (1). The carbon price policy recently put forward by the Federal Government actually penalises rail and public transport and favours more transport pollution by cars and trucks.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Australia blunders on with worsening road congestion and road trauma, and public transport poor utilisation and development. In the face of looming oil price rise crises and failing road non-solutions the authorities continue to ignore reality and waste yet more scarce funds and further exacerbate environmental damage and cause massive cost impacts by encouraging more cars and trucks on already congested and damaged roads (2)."

"Time is running out.  The ACF is correct in their call for the funding imbalance to roads be corrected with the majority of funding directed to sustainable transport solutions."

"A carbon price policy that exempts cars, but not public transport will simply mean increased fares for public transport which will in turn drive people back to cars, with the massive flow on cost impacts of increased congestion, worsening pollution and increased health sector costs from road trauma (3). The fact that this is embedded in the carbon price policy means that the policy will actually increase pollution rather than reduce it. This stamps the carbon price policy as stupid!"

"All State jurisdictions are increasingly becoming concerned with this perverse outcome of the proposed carbon price policy."

"We call on the Federal Government to ammend the carbon price policy so that public transport is exempt, in the same way that cars are, and rail is treated equitably with road transport."

"We support the Australasian Railway Association's call for ' ... equal treatment for road and rail, by either removing the exemption for the trucking industry or providing the same exemption for rail .. ' (4).

References:

1. Australia's public transport a poor cousin to roads http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3378

2. Australia faces looming fuel shortages http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/News-release-v4-JG.doc

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6359.0

4. http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/12-06-29%20Calculations-prove-carbon-tax-will-increase-emissions.pdf

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Voters desert carbon tax

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Sour reception for carbon tax

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland's federal Labor MPs face wipeout

[ozbob]

The Australian -->Rail imposes carbon tax surcharge

RAIL operators warn the carbon price could backfire by providing a financial incentive for businesses to move more cargo on to heavier-polluting trucks and drive up the costs of groceries.

Asciano's rail freight business, Pacific National, is imposing a 1.34 per cent "carbon cost surcharge" on rail freight, with the diesel fuel rebate slashed by 6.21c per litre from July 1 under the Gillard government's carbon tax ...

[Fares_Fair]

The Australian -->Rail imposes carbon tax surcharge

RAIL operators warn the carbon price could backfire by providing a financial incentive for businesses to move more cargo on to heavier-polluting trucks and drive up the costs of groceries.

Asciano's rail freight business, Pacific National, is imposing a 1.34 per cent "carbon cost surcharge" on rail freight, with the diesel fuel rebate slashed by 6.21c per litre from July 1 under the Gillard government's carbon tax ...

Utterly ridiculous, the more efficient, more greenhouse friendly method, gets taxed.
This proves the carbon tax to be all about taxes, and less about the environment.

[WTN]

Utterly ridiculous, the more efficient, more greenhouse friendly method, gets taxed.
This proves the carbon tax to be all about taxes, and less about the environment.

And politics about who's likely to have the loudest complaints.

Not only is rail treated ridiculously. Buses are treated the same as trucks (taxed from 2014). Now electric cars are taxed on the electricity used to charge them. Fossil fuel cars get away scot free. Should we make that the only available mode of passenger transport?

[mufreight]

A major road freight operator intends to make a quid while the opportunity exists and has placed in service an additional bloch of B Double's and B trailers to enable the operation of B tripple's to move mainly groceries on the east coast for a major retailer so expect the retail costs of these items to rise, (a) because road freight is more expensive than rail to operate and the increased fuel costs that will arise over time directly attributable to this tax which will reduce the use of rail for two years with cost pressures forcing freight on to the highways then push the impost on to road freight operators after road has considerably increased it long haul market share.

[Fares_Fair]

A major road freight operator intends to make a quid while the opportunity exists and has placed in service an additional bloch of B Double's and B trailers to enable the operation of B tripple's to move mainly groceries on the east coast for a major retailer so expect the retail costs of these items to rise, (a) because road freight is more expensive than rail to operate and the increased fuel costs that will arise over time directly attributable to this tax which will reduce the use of rail for two years with cost pressures forcing freight on to the highways then push the impost on to road freight operators after road has considerably increased it long haul market share.

I have noted during research that Woolworths are a significant utiliser of rail freight between Brisbane and Cairns.
That doesn't preclude any other major chains of course, but Woolies was quoted to me.

[techblitz]

the mining boom is fuelling a lot of business as well as a lot of greed up north.The freight truckers delivering north and other businesses will simply wear the cost and jack thier prices up with minimal impact to thier sales because mines put contracts in place and have almost endless funds.However it is a different story down here where most non mining related manufacturers & businesses will be hit the most. And get ready for more trucks on the road heading north and more inept planning from the powers that be.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Carbon crisis for hospitals

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Battlers set to lose carbon compo as Queensland Government tightens belt

[ozbob]

http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=79847&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Minister for Health
The Honourable Lawrence Springborg

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

SPRINGBORG SLAMS CARBON TAX IMPACT ON HEALTH

11 July, 2012

The Royal Flying Doctor Service will be slugged $361 000 a year by the federal government's heartless carbon tax, according to Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg.

Speaking in State Parliament today, the Minister said that the carbon tax was unfair to the iconic RFDS, the mainstay of medical services in rural and remote Queensland.

In addition to the hefty impact on the RFDS, the Minister said Careflight aerial retrieval services and the Queensland Emergency Helicopter Network in Queensland would be slugged $116 000 a year.

"People across Queensland who rely upon these services are going to be substantially impacted upon," he said. "This is the real hidden cost of the carbon tax in this state."

"When a person gets sick they'll have Julia Gillard propped up on the stretcher right beside them with her hand in their pocket."

Mr Springborg said Queensland Treasury estimated the carbon tax would cost Queensland health a total of $29M a year. "This is a system that is already struggling under a massive deficit it inherited from the former Labor government," he said.

He said that the federal Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, confirmed that the carbon tax would have a 0.3 per cent impact, costing even more than was estimated by Treasury.

"This adds up to $30 million a year - $30 million a year less for employing nurses, $30 million a year less for operations and $30 million a year less for hospital beds in Queensland," he said.

Mr Springborg said the carbon tax was a tax on being sick; a tax on our emergency departments and a tax on surgery.

He said the Labor Opposition in Queensland was nowhere to be seen as their federal comrades inflicted an insidious disaster on Queenslanders.

[mufreight]

RAISES THE QUESTION AS TO WHY SERVICES SUCH AS RFDS AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE BEING TAXED IN THE FIRST PLACE   

[colinw]

Seems to me that the best way to put the budget back in the black is a stupidity tax.  It would raise trillions.

[wbj]

0.3% impact is worth $29M; so total Qld Health budget is $10 trillion!!!  Something doesn't add up.

[somebody]

0.3% impact is worth $29M; so total Qld Health budget is $10 trillion!!!  Something doesn't add up.

Correction: $10bn

Plausible.

[wbj]

Correction accepted.  Of course a total budget of $10B would not have any room for funding a reduction in electricity and gas consumption in it.  Self inflicted cost.

[justanotheruser]

Read the last bit again. "...the Households combined use 15-20%."

Again what I was saying, so you want to attack this single site user because its deemed to be a larger producer of CO2, but ignore all the Households which combined are 7 x that site. The govt is taxing on the basis of size, attacking the small number of large producers. Ignoring the large number of small users. Like taxing Railways but not small truck companies. Taxing large business, but ignoring hosueholds via rebate. The smaller players combined often far exceed the larger players combined, as is the case of rail and smelting industry.

You are still arguing that 15-20% is a higher figure than 80-85%! Surely that is not hard to understand. A percentage of a total means the total is 100% so every single household in Australia combined together produces 15-20% that leaves 80% or more being produced by non-household sources. Also if certain industries reduce their carbon emissions and R&D is done then household emissions will naturally reduce anyway. You say I am attacking a single site user but please feel free to show me a single household that uses the same amount of electricity that that company uses. When you can do that I will acknowledge I'm wrong but common sense (which seems to be lacking) tells you your wrong. With around 1.5 million companies in australia (not including government) and 8 million households lets look at the figures. 8 million households use 20% of electricity. One buinsess alone uses 2.5% according to you. So when you add in the other 1,499,000 businesses that will easily be higher than the total household usage. Therefore it is not a fair comparision.

[#Metro]

1. Households get a rebate because if they didn't they wouldn't be able to put food on the table. The rebate also does not affect people's behaviour when it comes to buying stuff because people care about relative, not absolute prices.

It is true that some industries may leave the country, but that said, we can't really stop that happening. In time though, most countries will probably have some form of Carbon pricing and a company that does choose to leave will also be leaving behind other things that make it good to do business here - skilled workforce, low company tax rates, civilised conditions, etc.

The charges will be a huge incentive to a) reduce emissions and b) research alternatives. It is also effective because it doesn't dictate or specify how a company should reduce those emissions - the company can decide that.

2. This is true and valid, but these flaws are from the political design of the carbon tax, not the fact that it is a Carbon tax. In a democracy compromise needs to be found because there are political, not just economic or ethical factors at play. It is like this because at this time, this how the thing will pass parliament. It can always be amended later.

3. The Constitution of Australia REQUIRES all funds to be dumped into general revenue. End of.

4. Not enough information for me to comment, but I suspect that it is intended as an interim measure

5. Not enough information for me to comment, but I suspect that meatworks will be desperately searching to find ways to lower their emissions!

6. Yes, but similar pricing schemes are rolling out in Europe etc. In time there will be an international market for this.

[justanotheruser]

5) Meatworks shuts down for 3 weeks as this sees it drop below the threshold to avoid the tax. So should my (normal weight) family also stop eating for 3 weeks as well?

If you really want to then go for it although any person with half a brain would know that meat is actually one of the most inefficient ways to produce food and also far from the best way to gain nutrients the body requires. If this is what you come up with there is not much point discussing anything.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Firm's $30m carbon bill

[justanotheruser]

5) Meatworks shuts down for 3 weeks as this sees it drop below the threshold to avoid the tax. So should my (normal weight) family also stop eating for 3 weeks as well?

If you really want to then go for it although any person with half a brain would know that meat is actually one of the most inefficient ways to produce food and also far from the best way to gain nutrients the body requires. If this is what you come up with there is not much point discussing anything.

Are you going trying to say that we should all become a Vegi to reduce CO2 emissions? Oh great ignore millions of years of evolution because of some ideology. 500m people do this in India, spent 12mths India, umm no I firmly cannt see how this is good for the human population as a whole (and refrain from more detailed comment).

JAU, if you are justifing the closure of meat works as being good as we should all switch to being Vegi in the support of a CO2 tax, sorry you have lost the plot.

no just making a general comment that meat production is one of the most inefficient ways to produce food and that it is easier to to get the nutrients you need from other sources. I eat meat but if someone wants to make a stupid comment about commiting child abuse by starving their family just to make a point then I thought I would highlight just how stupid it is!

[justanotheruser]

JAU, then the reference was irrelevent to the discussion and CO2 tax.

just as relevent as your should i commit child abuse comment. Perhaps before you criticise you should see if you are guilty of the same thing.

[justanotheruser]

JAU, then the reference was irrelevent to the discussion and CO2 tax.

just as relevent as your should i commit child abuse comment. Perhaps before you criticise you should see if you are guilty of the same thing.

You are way off track, out of context and I suggest you stop there as I have never made such a comment.

My comment was in reference that it shows how bad this tax is when it forces a food producer to shut down for three weeks to avoid the tax. Then indicated its not like we (my family) can also stop eating for 3 weeks? ie where is the meat now going to come from, answer another meat works producing CO2 either domestic or foreign. (My refernece to normal weight was to prevent stupid comments coming back saying we are probably over weight like many Aussies which I was previously reading about in the paper.)

Your response to the above implied meat was an inefficent source of energy anyway. So great, we are talking about CO2 production/reduction and issues of a tax on idustry and you raise this....

so your asking if your family is supposed to stop eating for 3 weeks simply because one meatworks is planning on shutting down for 3 weeks is not stupid? Considering the options available of course that is a stupid comment. When you say family I assume you have kids so you were talking about not feeding kids. I fail to see how that is not child abuse.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Carbon tax price hike jolts Anglican Church Grammar School electricity bills

[wbj]

School has been able to negotiate discounted electricity supply but can't get a discount on the carbon cost component.  So it appears to have a higher than average increase in total electricity costs.  An extra $70,000 pa is what.... $70 per student pa?  Won't get noticed in the school fees charged for that school to the parents.  And each of its competitors will be paying as much or more electricity costs.  So, what's the point of the story?

[wbj]

School has been able to negotiate discounted electricity supply but can't get a discount on the carbon cost component.  So it appears to have a higher than average increase in total electricity costs.  An extra $70,000 pa is what.... $70 per student pa?  Won't get noticed in the school fees charged for that school to the parents.  And each of its competitors will be paying as much or more electricity costs.  So, what's the point of the story?

Many of the parents at these school are on average jobs, working long hours, sometimes two jobs or going alot to fund their kids education. Agree$70 isn't much, but when you find out you need to find another few hours pay for this reason, it can be a slap in the face.

Very unlikely that "many" of the parents are on average jobs at Churchie.  But those who are will benefit from income tax cuts or child benefit payment increases which will be an order of magnitude more than the additional cost attributable to the carbon cost component of the electricity cost increase.  The original story is a beat up.

[justanotheruser]

School has been able to negotiate discounted electricity supply but can't get a discount on the carbon cost component.  So it appears to have a higher than average increase in total electricity costs.  An extra $70,000 pa is what.... $70 per student pa?  Won't get noticed in the school fees charged for that school to the parents.  And each of its competitors will be paying as much or more electricity costs.  So, what's the point of the story?

Many of the parents at these school are on average jobs, working long hours, sometimes two jobs or going alot to fund their kids education. Agree$70 isn't much, but when you find out you need to find another few hours pay for this reason, it can be a slap in the face.

Considering the tax free threshold for income tax is tripling from $6k to $18k they will easily save more than $70 there. Other benefits receiving an increase this will more than offset the payment. The government is also changing education rebate from a submit expenses method to everyone gets the same amount (possible means testing).