Carbon tax

[ozbob]

From the Herald Sun click here!

Welcome to the new cost of living under Julia Gillard's carbon tax

Welcome to the new cost of living under Julia Gillard's carbon tax

    Stephen McMahon
    From: Herald Sun
    July 07, 2011 12:00AM

FAMILIES will be forced to pay $200 a year more after the carbon tax hits day-to-day bills, new economic modelling by the Baillieu Government reveals.

Everything from buying a parma-and-pot to having a haircut is tipped to rise as small business struggles under the new tax.

Modelling seen by the Herald Sun shows the cost to the state's economy will run to $2.5 billion.

This is based on the estimate of a $25 a tonne carbon tax.

Annual electricity bills for families are tipped to hit between $1500 and $2000 - depending on running gas or electric hot-water systems - an increase of about $200 as a direct result of the carbon tax.

And small-business operators will be hit with increases of between $220 for a suburban clothes shop and $875 for a country hotel.

A pizza shop faces a $550 hike in its power bill, pushing it to about $5550 a year.

Farmers also will be hit. The average dairy farm could get annual electricity bills of more than $10,000 - an increase of almost $1500.

This modelling is based on the effect of the tax before Federal Government compensation.

Hospital and transport systems are also forecast to face cost pressures with badly needed money being spent on the tax rather than operations and new trains.

Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said the $2.5 billion carbon tax bill for Victorian families and businesses was only the start.

The report warns Victoria's public hospital system will need to find an additional $13.6 million to cover higher electricity bills, the equivalent of almost 3000 fewer operations.

The modelling also forecasts the state's strained public transport system will be hit with a $14 million bill by the carbon tax.

Victoria will be hit "first and hardest" as a result of reliance on coal-fired electricity plants in the Latrobe Valley, which provides about 90 per cent of the state's electricity.

The Hazelwood plant, which emits about 16 million tonnes of CO2 a year - about 3 per cent of national emissions - faces a potential bill of $400 million.

The federal climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has admitted electricity prices would rise up to $5 a week, based on his suggested price of $25 a tonne.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard will announce the rate of the tax on Sunday and has promised nine out of 10 families will get tax cuts or increased welfare, or both, to compensate and that three million people will be "better off".

The State Government has not ruled out forming a coalition with the Liberal-led governments of NSW and Western Australia to oppose the tax.

Victorian Council of Social Service acting chief executive Carolyn Atkins said unless there was a fair compensation package, ordinary families would struggle.

She is calling for an increases in the pension, allowances and family tax benefits for low-income households to help compensate for the rise in energy bills.

Ms Gillard has promised she will make a national tour to sell the carbon tax after it is made public on Sunday afternoon.

[Golliwog]

What a crock of an article. Appears to be scaremongering about price rises, it makes one small mention that these figures are based on the effect of the tax before federal government compensation.

[shiftyphil]

Some details coming out:

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/23-carbon-price-but-fewer-pay-20110706-1h2nd.html

Price is $23 a tonne.
Reduced to about 500 companies (mostly by exclusion of fuel).

Reduction in diesel fuel rebate for miners.
New efficiency standards for cars to be tightened.

[Zoiks]

Remember kids. This is the start.
2 Important points to make out.

1. Blame Abbott for the watered down version of the plan. If he was not so self obsessed and actually listened to those pesky scientists and silly economists, we might actually have a much better plan.
2. This price on carbon is still much better then the CPRS which would have done SFA until after 2020

[Fares_Fair]

1. Why blame Abbott, he's not the government ?

If the government has backed down on issues then blame democracy.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

If it wasn't for the delicate balance in goverment with the Red Blue and Green and the Independents I doubt if it would have gotten this far. 

Compromise to a point is reasonable, but once it gets to the silly stage, might be better to start again.

[shiftyphil]

1. Why blame Abbott, he's not the government ?

If the government has backed down on issues then blame democracy.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

The government has to get it through parliament, so they have to compromise to make it acceptable.

Abbott could have negotiated with the government to get something acceptable to his party, or taken up the offer of a seat on the committee - but he refused.
Whether or not that would have lead to a better or a worse outcome is not known.

We'll find out exactly what we get on Sunday, and hear endless dissections of it for an eternity after.

[Zoiks]

1. Why blame Abbott, he's not the government ?

If the government has backed down on issues then blame democracy.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

True, but he is a big part of the parliament.
Now you could say that he is simply defending the fact that Gillard has no mandate. I refute this for 2 reasons. 1 - Clearly everything changed after the election, Gillard did not want a tax, just a straight ETS which would not be a 'lie' but the fact we have such a delicate parliament, compromises must be made. 2 - Abbott has built himself upon his refusal to accept the mandate from the 2007 election.

Abbott had a chance to join the committee, had a chance to have his say. Instead, he chose the path of denying climate change even exists and then telling economists that they are idiots when they pretty much all say an ETS is the way to go.

IF he had been on board for the ETS and IF it had strong support from both sides, we COULD have gotten a much stronger system. Sadly even though people say they hate negativity, the polls show otherwise.

PS. I am not defending Gillard. She is not exactly my cup of tea. But I think she has done alright considering the situation she is in.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

8th July 2011

Carbon tax a con?

Greetings,

Favouring car transport over public and active transport is madness.  Political compromises with respect to the carbon tax seem to be corrupting the process, and in any case fuel prices will rocket and the 6 cents / litre will become largely irrelevant.  The Public Transport Users Association in Victoria has summed it up well.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org


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

PTUA Media release

http://www.ptua.org.au/2011/07/05/carbon-price-equal-treatment/

Cars, public transport must have equal treatment under carbon price
July 5th, 2011 (Federal funding, Media releases)

The Public Transport Users Association has called on the Gillard Labor Government to ensure public transport users are not penalised relative to motorists under a future carbon price.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated on Sunday that motorists' fuel purchases would be excluded from a carbon price in perpetuity.

However, the government has not made any guarantees about the effect on public transport costs. If electricity and fuel for trains, buses and trams is subject to a carbon price, as seems likely, public transport operators and authorities may be forced to pass the cost on to passengers through increased fares.

"This could create a perverse situation where train or bus travel is subjected to a carbon price while car travel is not," said PTUA Secretary Tony Morton.

PTUA calculations indicate that with a carbon price of $25 per tonne of CO2, a Melbourne public transport user could be paying $1.28 extra per week. By comparison, if the same carbon price were applied to petrol, a motorist could drive 200km a week before paying the same amount. [1]

"We fully agree that transport must be included in a carbon pricing scheme to ensure all sectors of the economy participate in reducing our greenhouse emissions," Dr Morton said. "However, we cannot accept this being done in a way that distorts the market in favour of petrol-powered private transport against all other forms of transport. A kilogram of CO2 from a public transport user and a kilogram of CO2 from a motorist should be treated equally – either both are in, or both are out."

Dr Morton said the PTUA understood the reasons for leaving petrol out of the scheme. "People are labouring under historically high oil prices, which are only likely to increase further. So it's understandable to have a cent-for-cent reduction in fuel excise as the carbon price is applied, to ease the transition away from oil dependence. But governments are kidding themselves if they think they can overlook public transport users in their urge to placate the motoring lobby."

The PTUA has proposed that Federal funding be provided to public transport operators, equivalent to the amount they will pay under a carbon tax. "It's long been understood that the Federal government has as much reason to be involved in public transport funding as it does to be involved in road funding. A little extra – less than $100 million a year on our estimates – will get us closer to a level playing field."

Dr Morton also drew attention to Australia's ballooning "road deficit". "The cost of road transport to the Australian public is $17 billion a year more than is recovered in motoring taxes and charges," he said [2]. "The government already gives back in tax concessions nearly three-quarters of what it collects in fuel excise."

* * *

[1] PTUA estimates that Melbourne train, trams and buses emit 600,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, based on service-kilometre figures in Victorian budget papers, and Federal Government figures for electricity and diesel emissions factors. At $25 per tonne, the carbon tax bill of $15 million is 2.5 per cent of an estimated $600 million in annual Metlink revenue. A 2.5% fare rise corresponds to $1.28 extra per week for a Zone 1+2 commuter travelling on Myki Money and paying $51 per week currently. Motorists' costs are estimated assuming fuel efficiency of 10 litres per 100km and a 6c per litre carbon tax.
For more energy use figures see www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml

[2] See www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Labor's clean power play

[ozbob]

Herald Sun --> Greens' free ride in carbon debate

[ozbob]

From Australian Transport News click here!

Time to get busy on road pricing, Carr tells transport lobby

Time to get busy on road pricing, Carr tells transport lobby

By Brad Gardner | July 7, 2011

A Coalition of transport groups is being challenged to marshal its resources in support of a radical overhaul of existing road user charges.

Former NSW Premier Bob Carr put the onus on public and active transport groups to champion the debate on convincing governments to do away with the fuel excise in favour of a user-pays scheme proposed by former Treasury boss Ken Henry.

In his wide-ranging taxation review last year, Henry proposed variable congestion charging and a road pricing model to reflect the congestion, road-wear and environmental cost of a vehicle. Henry also called for trucks to be tracked by GPS and billed based on their mass, distance and location.

Carr told the Emerging Crises Summit, organised by groups from the rail, bus, cycling and environmental sector, the technology is in place to track heavy vehicle movements and to implement variable charging.

"Here is the challenge. The Henry report is out there as we're looking at a phenomenal growth in pressure on our road system from a growth in road freight," Carr told the Emerging Crises Summit.

"Is it possible for advocates of public and active transport to begin constructing arguments to push this debate? To get motorists to change their position, to have motorists not resisting distance pricing but motorists actually saying to government, 'We think there might be less congestion and for many of us we will be paying less'."

Carr raised the possibility of using case studies to convince motorists of the benefits of a user-pays system, such as an end to registration fees and a fuel tax. He says advocates must also address "crucial" questions.

"If this were to come in do we hypothecate the revenue raised for public and active transport?" Carr says.

"Are there ways of protecting low-income groups and is there an argument that the public will accept?"

According to a new poll unveiled at the summit, only 35 percent of respondents supported a user-pays system compared to 36 percent who opposed it. The survey of more than 1,500 people found 43 percent supported congestion charging, while 37 percent opposed it.

The summit brought together seven associations under the banner of developing policy solutions to congested cities, an ageing population, climate change and energy challenges.

The coalition includes the Australasian Railway Association, the Bus Industry Confederation and the Australian Local Government Association, along with the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Heart Foundation, the Cycling Promotion Fund and the International Public Transport Association.

BIC Executive Director Michael Apps says the level of support for a user-pays system is "massive" considering there has been no debate on the issue or any attempt from government to educate the public.

Apps says it is time the Federal Government took a leadership role on road pricing reform by advancing the recommendations outlined in Henry's taxation review. He believes a debate focused on educating the public will deliver strong support for change.

ARA CEO Bryan Nye says the task is before the coalition in light of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's decision to exempt households, tradespeople and small businesses with light commercial vehicles from paying a carbon tax on fuel.

"When are we going to get a brave government that is going to start looking at road pricing if we can't even include petrol pricing in a carbon tax? And that's going to be the challenge that I think we are going to face," he says.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Gillard acknowledges Australians worried over tax

Gillard acknowledges Australians worried over tax
July 9, 2011 - 11:56AM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has acknowledged many Australians are worried as she prepares to sell her carbon emissions tax plan to the nation.

Addressing 600 delegates at the NSW Labor State Conference in Sydney today, Ms Gillard reassured families and pensioners they will be looked after under the tax due to be implemented next year.

"Most people will find that when all is said and done, they are not a cent behind," she said.

"And many will come out ahead."

Details of the tax will be revealed by the federal government tomorrow, ahead of Ms Gillard's televised address to the nation later that evening.

Ms Gillard said today that the government's plan to price carbon came from "deep within Labor's progressive roots".

"From July 1 next year the freedom to pollute our skies must cease," she said during a 22-minute speech.

"Two decades of denial and delay will come to an end.

"Polluters will have to pay."

Ms Gillard told delegates the science on climate change was clear.

"And friends you know we must lead because the science says we must and friends we've know that for an awfully long time," she said.

Ms Gillard said federal Labor won't be knocked off course by opposition to the tax.

She accused the coalition of a "cynical campaign of fear" against the tax.

The setting of a price on carbon - expected to be $23 a tonne - was a historic act, she said.

"We will cut pollution, we will protect the household budget, we will protect jobs."

Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told the media at the conference at the Sydney Town Hall the nation was entering a critical period.

"It is a critical period for the nation and we're in government not to just sit there and occupy the treasury benches," he said.

"We're in government to make a difference to people's lives."

Mr Albanese said Ms Gillard's speech was inspirational.

"This package tomorrow will be extremely important not just for this generation but for generations to come," he said.

"The prime minister's speech outlined her passion and her commitment was there for all to see.

"And I think we'll be seeing that right around the country, door to door in coming weeks."

School Education Minister Peter Garrett said Ms Gillard's speech was "brimming with the positive opportunities that lie ahead".

"The warmth of feeling here in town hall is a very strong indication of what a great job the prime minister is doing," he said.

Asked about the mood in cabinet ahead of tomorrow's announcement, Mr Garrett said ministers were keen to prosecute the government's position.

"Putting a price on carbon pollution means our economy will start to do the job for us we know it can do," he said.

Mr Garrett said he'd be wearing out his shoe leather to sell the tax.

But Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes said he will wait for the detail of Sunday's announcement before deciding his stance on the tax.

"I'll look at tomorrow's details. We obviously have 130,000 members who will be affected by tomorrow's announcement," he said.

"We will look at that all of next week.

"I'll be visiting all the major steel works and smelting facilities around the country.

"And then on July 18 our national executive will meet and we'll be making a decision then."

Federal MP David Bradbury said the government faces an enormous challenge selling the tax.

"This is an enormous challenge, I don't think any of us understate the magnitude of the challenge," he said.

Ms Gillard also on today urged NSW Labor to learn from its March 26 state election defeat and undertake the reform necessary to rebuild the party.

"Gathering here today we understand reform begins by understanding what happened in March - a defeat as bad as we've ever known," she said.

AAP

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gillard-acknowledges-australians-worried-over-tax-20110709-1h7hz.html

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Re: Carbon tax a con?

10th July 2011

Greetings,

The big day for some.  The ridiculous exempting of petrol for cars from a 'carbon tax' is a major flaw, simply sends the wrong signals from day one.  If you want people to change behaviours you don't simply compensate them and expect changes.   Appeasement of the independents has corrupted the process.  Lets face it if the independents were not there petrol would have been included. Ho hum ...

Cheers
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

8th July 2011

Carbon tax a con?

Greetings,

Favouring car transport over public and active transport is madness.  Political compromises with respect to the carbon tax seem to be corrupting the process, and in any case fuel prices will rocket and the 6 cents / litre will become largely irrelevant.  The Public Transport Users Association in Victoria has summed it up well.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

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

PTUA Media release

http://www.ptua.org.au/2011/07/05/carbon-price-equal-treatment/

Cars, public transport must have equal treatment under carbon price
July 5th, 2011 (Federal funding, Media releases)

The Public Transport Users Association has called on the Gillard Labor Government to ensure public transport users are not penalised relative to motorists under a future carbon price.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated on Sunday that motorists' fuel purchases would be excluded from a carbon price in perpetuity.

However, the government has not made any guarantees about the effect on public transport costs. If electricity and fuel for trains, buses and trams is subject to a carbon price, as seems likely, public transport operators and authorities may be forced to pass the cost on to passengers through increased fares.

"This could create a perverse situation where train or bus travel is subjected to a carbon price while car travel is not," said PTUA Secretary Tony Morton.

PTUA calculations indicate that with a carbon price of $25 per tonne of CO2, a Melbourne public transport user could be paying $1.28 extra per week. By comparison, if the same carbon price were applied to petrol, a motorist could drive 200km a week before paying the same amount. [1]

"We fully agree that transport must be included in a carbon pricing scheme to ensure all sectors of the economy participate in reducing our greenhouse emissions," Dr Morton said. "However, we cannot accept this being done in a way that distorts the market in favour of petrol-powered private transport against all other forms of transport. A kilogram of CO2 from a public transport user and a kilogram of CO2 from a motorist should be treated equally – either both are in, or both are out."

Dr Morton said the PTUA understood the reasons for leaving petrol out of the scheme. "People are labouring under historically high oil prices, which are only likely to increase further. So it's understandable to have a cent-for-cent reduction in fuel excise as the carbon price is applied, to ease the transition away from oil dependence. But governments are kidding themselves if they think they can overlook public transport users in their urge to placate the motoring lobby."

The PTUA has proposed that Federal funding be provided to public transport operators, equivalent to the amount they will pay under a carbon tax. "It's long been understood that the Federal government has as much reason to be involved in public transport funding as it does to be involved in road funding. A little extra – less than $100 million a year on our estimates – will get us closer to a level playing field."

Dr Morton also drew attention to Australia's ballooning "road deficit". "The cost of road transport to the Australian public is $17 billion a year more than is recovered in motoring taxes and charges," he said [2]. "The government already gives back in tax concessions nearly three-quarters of what it collects in fuel excise."

* * *

[1] PTUA estimates that Melbourne train, trams and buses emit 600,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, based on service-kilometre figures in Victorian budget papers, and Federal Government figures for electricity and diesel emissions factors. At $25 per tonne, the carbon tax bill of $15 million is 2.5 per cent of an estimated $600 million in annual Metlink revenue. A 2.5% fare rise corresponds to $1.28 extra per week for a Zone 1+2 commuter travelling on Myki Money and paying $51 per week currently. Motorists' costs are estimated assuming fuel efficiency of 10 litres per 100km and a 6c per litre carbon tax.
For more energy use figures see www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml

[2] See www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces big tax breaks to one million Australians

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> $15 billion in tax cuts for low and middle income earners under carbon deal

[ozbob]

I am taking part in a teleconference briefing by Deputy Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne on the carbon price package later today.  Should be interesting.

Not sure if the tax cuts are going to do much for infrastructure funding in the near to longer term.  Must be some savage price impacts expected.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

$15 billion in tax cuts for low and middle income earners under carbon deal
Phillip Coorey
July 10, 2011 - 12:31PM

Low and middle-income families and singles pensioners and other welfare recipients are the biggest winners from the carbon price while those on generous incomes will bear almost the full brunt with next-to-no assistance.

Unveiled at midday today by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, a package of $15 billion in tax cuts and increased benefits mean 4 million households will receive more in compensation that the carbon tax will add to their cost of living.

A further 2 million households will be no worse off by being fully compensated, while another 2 million will receive something.

Of the nation's 8.8 million households, only 700,000 receive nothing.

The scheme will operate as a fixed carbon price of $23 from July 1 next year, and move to a full emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015, when the market will set the carbon price.

It excludes petrol and is not revenue neutral as first forecast. It will cost the budget $4.2 billion over four years and will erode the forecast $3.5 billion return to surplus in 2012-13 by $530 million

The increases to the cost of living, estimated to be 0.7 per cent, will result from the nation's top 500 polluters passing on their costs of having to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit.

Figures released today show the average hits to households will be $9.90 a week, or $515 a year, whereas average assistance will be $10.10 a week, or $525 a year.

Electricity will rise by $3.30 a week, gas by $1.50 a week and food bills by an average 0.80c a week.

The tax cuts, worth $8 billion, will result in 60 per cent of earners receiving an annual tax cut of at least $300, or about $6 a week.

The tax cuts will operate by lifting the tax-free threshold from $600 to $18,200 on July 1, 2012, and to $19,400 in 2015.

This will remove 1 million people from the tax system and be worth $600 a year from somebody on $20,000, and $303 for somebody on $65,000.

On incomes over $80,000 the tax cuts disappears to $3 a year, or 6c a week.

For example, a single earning $85,000 will receive $3 a year from the tax cuts but face a $463 increase in the cost of living.

Family circumstances vary widely depending on the number of children, whether thee are one or two salary earners, how much each earns and total income earned.

For example, couples on dual incomes of up to $95,000 a year with one child aged five and another 12, will be better off. The family will receive $759 a year in assistance – combined tax cuts ad family benefit supplements - whereas the impact of the carbon price will be $615.

The same couple earning $100,000 will be fully compensated.

Families on combined incomes of up to $200,000 can still receive compensation if one of the income earners earns less than $80,000 and qualifies for the tax cut.

However, a family on $180,000 combined or more, and not eligible for either tax cuts or family benefits, receives only between $3 and $6 a year and faces an average increase in the cost of living of around $1000.

Pensions, family tax payments, the dole, student allowances and other benefits will increase by 1.7 percent a year.

The first-full year benefit will be paid as a lump sum in May and June next year, before the carbon price starts and then in fortnightly instalments from 2013 onwards..

This will amount to $338 for a single pensioner, $110 per child for a family which receives Family Tax Benefit Part A, $69 for a family which receives benefit Part B

As promised, fuel used by motorists, small business vehicles and tradespeople will be exempt for good.

So too, will be diesel and other transport fuels used in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry.

Other heavy on-road transport – vehicles weighing over 4.5 tones - will not be exempt and will pay a effective carbon tax on fuel by having the reductions in excise it currently receives being clawed back. But this clawback will not start until July 1, 2014, providing temporary reprieve for truckies.

Off-road heavy vehicles, predominantly those used in the mining sector, will have their excise clawed back by about 6c a litre when the scheme starts on July 1, 2012.

Excise on aviation fuels will be increased to reflect the impact of a carbon price. These increases will add $930 million to aviation fuel bills over the first four years of the scheme. The clawback of excise reductions will save another $1.9 billion, meaning the total savings on fuel will be $2.8 billion.

This will help offset the cost to the budget which will still be a hit of $4.3 billion over four years.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/15-billion-in-tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-income-earners-under-carbon-deal-20110710-1h8in.html#ixzz1RfNiikgL

[ozbob]

No specific mention yet where rail and public transport sits in all of this mess.

[O_128]

Is anyone going to explain the point of this when people are getting it all back?

[ozbob]

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/

The Australian Government's comprehensive plan for securing a clean energy future. The plan will cut pollution and drive investment, helping to ensure Australia can compete and remain prosperous in the future.

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

What really concerns me is with the massive compensation to all and sundry, infrastructure development will stall.  IA is dead in the water ..

[ozbob]

Transport fuels

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/transport-fuels/

Households, on-road business use of light vehicles and the agriculture, forestry and fishery industries will not face a carbon price on the fuel they use for transport. Some businesses which effectively pay no fuel excise will face an effective carbon price, through changes to the current fuel tax regime. Heavy on-road vehicles will not face a carbon price from the commencement of the scheme. The Government intends to apply a carbon price on heavy on-road vehicles from 1 July 2014, but notes this measure was not agreed to by all members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

On-road use by households and light commercial vehicles

Households and on-road commercial vehicles 4.5 tonnes and under currently pay the full rate of excise. They will continue to pay excise under current arrangements but will not also pay a carbon price on top of this.

Off-road business use

Some businesses effectively pay no excise on the fuel they use off-road, as their excise is offset under the fuel tax credits scheme. An effective carbon price will be imposed on some businesses through reduced fuel tax credit entitlements and reductions to the automatic remission of excise on gaseous fuel used for non-transport purposes. The current fuel tax regime provides fuel tax credits that remove or reduce the incidence of fuel tax from business inputs so that fuel tax falls primarily on non-business consumers and light commercial vehicles. By reducing existing fuel tax credits by an amount equal to the carbon price, the Government will impose an effective carbon price on businesses liquid and gaseous fuel emissions through the existing fuel tax regime. Fuel tax credits will not be reduced for the agriculture, forestry and fishery industries. Therefore, these industries will not pay an effective carbon price. The fuel tax credits will remain at 100 per cent of the effective fuel tax for these industries.

Calculating the fuel tax credit reductions

As different fuels emit different amounts of carbon when they burn, the fuel tax credit changes for petrol and diesel will be determined according to their specific level of emissions. Fuel tax credit changes for liquid fossil fuels other than petrol and diesel will be based on the diesel emission rate. Fuel tax credits changes for gaseous fuels (such as Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)) will reflect the effective carbon price, based on their specific emission rates. Fuel tax credits for businesses will be reduced for fuels acquired after 1 Jul 2012 by the amount of the fixed carbon price as set at the beginning of each of the fixed price years from 2012-13 to 2014-15. When Australia moves to an emissions trading scheme in 2015-16, the fuel tax credit changes will be determined on a six-monthly basis, based on the average carbon price over the previous six-months. Table 1 lists the relevant fuel tax credit reductions per fuel type over the three year transitional assistance period. Figures are in cents per litre except for CNG and LNG which are in cents per kilogram.
Table 1: Fuel tax credit reductions Fuel Fuel    2012-13    2013-14    2014-15
Petrol    5.52    5.796    6.096
Diesel and other liquid fuels    6.21    6.521    6.858
LPG    3.68    3.864    4.064
LNG & CNG    6.67    7.004    7.366
On-road business use: heavy vehicles

Heavy on-road vehicles (over 4.5 tonne gross vehicle mass) will not face a carbon price from the commencement of the scheme. The Government intends to apply a carbon price on heavy on-road vehicles from 1 July 2014, but notes this measure was not agreed to by all members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

Gaseous fuels such as LPG, LNG and CNG used for on-road transport will not be subject to an effective carbon price as their eligibility for a fuel tax credit is reduced to zero due to the Road User Charge.
Non-transport use of gaseous fuels

Non-transport LPG and LNG receive a remission, and non-transport CNG receives an exemption from the excise and excise equivalent customs duty imposed on gaseous fuels so that effective tax only falls on gaseous fuels for transport use.

To ensure consistent coverage of non-transport use of gaseous fuels, such as emissions from bottled LPG and reticulated gas, an effective carbon price will apply through a reduction in the automatic remission or exemption of excise.

Under the Government's plan for a clean energy future, the fuel tax remission or exemption for the non-transport LPG, LNG and CNG will be adjusted on a 'cent-for-cent' basis equivalent to the carbon content price on the fuels, had the gaseous fuels been subject to carbon pricing.
Aviation, marine and rail transport

As aviation fuels do not receive fuel tax credits, domestic aviation fuel excise will be increased by an amount equivalent to the carbon price on an annual basis over the fixed price period to provide an effective carbon price for aviation. From 1 July 2015, aviation excise will be increased on a six-monthly basis, based on the average carbon price over the previous six months. International aviation fuel use is not subject to fuel tax and will therefore not be subject to an effective carbon price.
Table 2 Carbon price impact on aviation fuel, cents per litre      2012-13    2013-14    2014-15
Carbon price ($/tonne CO2-e)    23.00    24.15    25.4
Aviation kerosene    5.98    6.279    6.604
Aviation gasoline    5.06    5.313    5.588

Note: impact based on emissions of the fuel only, does not include impact from other refining based emissions or energy costs.

The current rate of excise on aviation (both aviation kerosene and aviation gasoline) is 3.556 cents per litre. Over the period the excise rate for aviation kerosene would rise by 6.604 cents per litre to 10.16 cents per litre in 2014-15, and the excise rate for aviation gasoline would rise by 5.588 cents per litre to 9.144 cents per litre. The vast majority of fuel used in aviation is aviation kerosene.

Marine and rail transport effectively pay no excise on the fuel they use, as their excise is offset under the fuel tax credits scheme. The Carbon Pricing Mechanism will impose an effective carbon price on those activities through reduced fuel tax credit entitlements in the same way that it applies to off-road business use.

Other fuels

Due to their zero-rating for carbon emissions, renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel will not be subject to a carbon price. Similarly, non-combustion fuels such as solvents and lubricants will not face a carbon price.

Supporting new fuel efficient vehicles

A new wave of vehicles are becoming available that are cleaner and cheaper to run. Under new standards being introduced from 2015, all car companies will be required to reduce emission levels from vehicles they sell by introducing better technologies and adjusting the range of models they sell in Australia. The Government is working with the automotive industry to set the emission levels that will apply under the new standards. In addition to helping make a reduction to Australia's carbon pollution from transport, this initiative will deliver real cost savings for motorists through improved fuel efficiency in new vehicles.

The Green Vehicle Guide and the Fuel Consumption Label are two other initiatives supporting Australians to make better informed decisions and help consumers choose vehicles that use less fuel and have lower emissions.

Cutting transport emissions

The Government is also working to cut pollution by improving our transport systems. Since late 2007, the Government has committed over $7.3 billion to modernise and extend urban passenger rail infrastructure to provide genuine alternatives to private car travel.

The $60 million national smart managed motorways trial will help improve congestion, lower pollution, and expand the capacity of existing road infrastructure networks. Managed motorways use new technologies to create a more consistent level of motorway performance, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Government will continue working with the aviation industry to reduce its emissions.

Further information

For further information, call 1800 057 590.

[ozbob]

From the National Times click here!

Payouts help shield Labor from political heat

Payouts help shield Labor from political heat
July 10, 2011 - 1:29PM

Opinion

The Gillard government is taking modest steps to protect the planet from warming, but they're nothing compared to the steps it's taking to protect itself from political heat.

Overall, the carbon tax will raise $17 billion in revenue over the next three years, and the government will make payouts worth $20.7 billion.

Where will the extra $3.7 billion come from? The planned budget surplus is to be trimmed accordingly.

The carbon tax  of $23 on each tonne of carbon emissions is the equivalent of an average tax of about 10 per cent on energy across the economy, officials said.

But as this tax pushes up some prices, more than two-thirds of households will receive compensation from the government at a rate of at 100 to 120 per cent.

The scheme essentially redistributes money from the 500 biggest carbon-emitting companies to these four million lower-income households.

Another quarter of households will be given partial compensation for the carbon tax which takes next July. And only one household in 12 - the highest income earners - will receive no compensation at all.

There is a stark contrast between the government's bold missionary call to save the earth on one hand ("to do the right thing by the nation" as Gillard said today) and its careful solicitude to the hip pocket of the voter.

These conflicting impulses are on clear display in the 36-page government booklet titled Supporting Australian Households. While it opens with the urging that "Australia needs to cut pollution," four pages later is an invitation to self-interest under the headline "How much will I get?"

In addition, the government intends to give a tax benefit to small business, plus compensation to the steel, coal, manufacturing, food processing and other industries, plus a new $10 billion investment fund to promote low-emissions technologies.

Farmers will be exempt, and also stand to benefit by earning carbon credits.

The carbon tax will have only a modest impact on the overall economy. The Treasury estimates that it will push up inflation by a one-off 0.7 per cent, crimp growth in national income per head by a negligible 0.1 per cent a year and make no difference to the number of jobs created over the next decade.

And it will have a modest impact on carbon emissions, which are projected to be 5 per cent lower than 2000 levels by 2020. The most important change is that it does start to set Australia on a path to find more energy-efficient ways to do business. It sets up the machinery for repricing carbon intensity according to progress in the rest of the world.

But with Tony Abbott willing voters to get angry about it, Gillard fears that it will have a very big political impact. The size of her anxiety is measured in the generosity of the compensation.

Peter Hartcher is The Sydney Morning Herald's political editor.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/payouts-help-shield-labor-from-political-heat-20110710-1h8jv.html

[ozbob]

Statement by Campebell Newman LNP Leader

http://candoqld.com.au/news/leader-of-the-lnp/queensland-doesnt-mine-tim-tams

Queensland doesn't mine Tim Tams

Queensland doesn't mine Tim Tams

    Written by  Campbell Newman

LNP Leader Campbell Newman said that while PM Julia Gillard says the Labor/Greens carbon tax won't hurt Australians "one cent", Queensland could lose thousands of jobs.

Mr Newman said CQ University research has forecast 6300 jobs based in the Central Queensland mining and mining services industry were at risk from the carbon tax which Julia Gillard promised we would never have.

"This modeling shows 6300 jobs could go in Central Queensland alone – but what about the rest of Queensland?" Mr Newman said.

"At least someone has done modelling.  Treasurer Andrew Fraser has claimed that Queensland Treasury hasn't done any work on the job impact of the carbon tax on Queensland resources industry.

"The Queensland Resources Council predicts that the coal industry will be out of pocket by $10 billion.

"It's hard to swallow that the Premier as federal president of the ALP wasn't in on the planning – and didn't know it would hurt our resources sector.  The Greens have been releasing details for days – yet the Premier in one of the tax's battleground states is claiming ignorance.

"When was the Premier briefed?  Why has she kept silent? And why haven't the Labor Party done modeling on how this tax will affect Queenslanders?

Mr Newman said that the State Labor Government had failed Queenslanders by failing to stand up to Julia Gillard and failed Queenslanders by not doing any economic modelling to determine the affect on our state.

"Premier Bligh has never stood up for Queensland.  She has always put the Labor Party and politics ahead of Queenslanders.

"While the PM might protect chocolate biscuits from the tax – it will cost families and pensioners every time they boil the kettle for a cup of coffee or tea to enjoy with them.

"The Bligh government has repeatedly hiked up the cost of electricity – and the cost of driving to the supermarket for groceries is costing more with increased petrol, rego, and other running costs due to ALP policies.

"And Queenslanders will never forget the extra cost to the family budget due to Queensland Labor's political dirty trick of wiping out our state fuel subsidy after the last election.

"This carbon tax is another case of creative accounting by the Labor Party.

"The CanDo LNP team is opposed to the tax because it doesn't deliver any real benefits to Queensland families or industries.  We will fight for Queensland to protect jobs, cut waste and deliver better cost of living outcomes."

[Golliwog]

What's he babbling on about? How can you do any modelling and expect it to be accurate before they've announced the details of it?

[ozbob]

How does carbon pricing work?

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

'Millions' worse off under package - Abbott

'Millions' worse off under package - Abbott
July 10, 2011 - 2:58PM

Millions of Australians will be worse off under the federal government's carbon price package and it won't even cut emissions, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said today.

The government announced in its package that carbon will have an initial price of $23 per tonne, with the revenue it raises being used to compensate households and assist industries during the transition period.

Mr Abbott said: "What is the point of all of this ... if millions of Australians are going to be worse off, we not actually going to cut our emissions.

"This is a Labor-Green carbon tax, and it's going to drive up prices, threaten jobs and do nothing at all for the environment."

He said the government boasted that 90 per cent of Australians would receive compensation and that 40 per cent of households would be overcompensated.

"I think all Australians are capable of translating pollie-speak," he said.

"What that means is that 10 per cent of households will get absolutely nothing, and that 60 per cent of households will either be worse off or it will be line ball."

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said the financial year was only 10 days on and calculated that the budget was already $2.7 billion worse off.

"It's going to be costly, it's going to complex and it is relying heavily on a 'trust me' factor," Mr Hockey said.

He said Australians were going to pay heavily either indirectly or directly.

"There is nothing in here for what is an amazingly complex new regulatory system for every business, and it's going to have an impact on confidence, it is going to have an impact on sovereign risk," he said.

Mr Hockey said he couldn't identify how many new public servants were going to be employed to deliver this reform, but there were six new commonwealth bureaucracies and 22 new programs and funds that needed to be run.

AAP

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/millions-worse-off-under-package--abbott-20110710-1h8ki.html#ixzz1Rfxz9Bpm

[#Metro]

"This modeling shows 6300 jobs could go in Central Queensland alone – but what about the rest of Queensland?" Mr Newman said.

Is this the same modelling as the Clem 7? Ha ha ha!

[ozbob]

Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade
The Honourable Andrew Fraser
10/07/2011

Statement from Treasurer Andrew Fraser

The Bligh Government has always supported action on climate change.

We believe that putting a price on carbon is the most economically responsible way to do that.

But we have always made it very clear to the Federal Government that we won't support reforms that aren't in the long-term interests of Queensland.

The Prime Minister's announcement today is a strong step forward in the fight against climate change.

It puts a price on the pollution emitted by the country's biggest polluters, and compensates the vast bulk of households for any costs passed on.

In particular, the compensation buffer for low income earners and the reforms to the tax free threshold will help millions of Australians.

The Queensland Government lobbied hard to see households compensated, and also to ensure things like agriculture and fuel were excluded and special arrangements are put in place to foster the development of the LNG industry.

We support the coal industry being given assistance, particularly to develop new technology.

We will also continue discussions with the Federal Government around the impact on the value of the taxpayer owned electricity generators. Initial estimates show that the asset value of the generators is likely to decrease by around $1.7 billion.

This is a complex, major economic and environmental reform that requires in-depth analysis.

The Government will assess the reforms in detail and identify its impacts on Queensland.

Our economy may be reliant on the coal and LNG sectors, but we are also a state that includes natural wonders like the Great Barrier Reef and the Daintree Rainforest.

A clean energy future will be of particular benefit to Queensland, which is why we must act now.

It is disappointing that our political opponents will not take the time to assess these reforms in detail.

They will choose a scare campaign over a policy debate every day of the week.

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

[ozbob]

I am taking part in a teleconference briefing by Deputy Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne on the carbon price package later today.  Should be interesting.

Not sure if the tax cuts are going to do much for infrastructure funding in the near to longer term.  Must be some savage price impacts expected.

Questions I have forwarded for the briefing.

1.

Why have the Greens supported no carbon tax on fuel for cars but tax on fuel for rail?

This means that public transport is now disadvantaged.  The cost of congestion, road trauma and even more environmental impacts from cars is going to accelerate.

What sort of dumb policy is this aspect of the carbon tax?

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

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

2.

Will there be any funds left for Insfrastructure Australia?

The level of compensation to business and all and sundry means nothing left for infrastructure development that is needed.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

[ozbob]

ARA http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/Carbon%20Tax%20Punishes%20Emissions%20friendly%20Rail.pdf

Sunday 10 July 2011

CARBON TAX PUNISHES EMISSIONS-FRIENDLY RAIL

According to the Australasian Railway Association (ARA), the carbon tax, released today at
Parliament House will have a perverse effect on rail transport, essentially punishing
environmentally friendly rail and rewarding heavy vehicles.

While freight and passenger rail will be exposed to additional costs on diesel fuel and
electricity prices, the exemption of heavy vehicles to 2014/15 and the blanket exemption on
petrol will give the more emissions intensive road sector a huge leg up.

The ARA supports initiatives to reduce global carbon emissions and believes transport has a
significant role to play. Transport is the third highest source of CO2 emissions in Australia
and currently accounts for more than 40% of households' total energy use,
Mr Bryan Nye, ARA CEO, said the ARA has been a strong advocate for including the entire
transport sector in the carbon price. The exclusion of heavy vehicles from a carbon tax until
2014/15 is very disappointing.

"Rail supports action on climate change. However, under this scheme, rail, which is
considerably less emissions intensive, will have to grapple with significant increases in its
costs, while the more polluting road vehicles are exempt," said Mr Nye.

"This carbon tax will essentially make public transport more expensive compared to private
road vehicles. I can't see how this is meant to reduce emissions, it is ludicrous."
The carbon price will cost the rail industry in excess of $100 million dollars for energy costs
alone.

"The rail industry was willing to pay this impost if it was fairly applied across the transport
sector. Unlike heavy road vehicles, we will see no exemptions for our industry despite being
3-4 times less emissions intensive," said Mr Nye.

"Heavy vehicles have received a free pollution pass for the next two years. But in two years
time they will be charged for the pollution they cause so I would encourage those using
freight transport to consider this when making their long-term transporting decisions and
initiate a move to rail."

The lack of investment earmarked for sustainable transport options is another concerning
element of the carbon price package. A carbon price that does not provide low emissions
transport options will simply increase the cost of transport without reducing emissions.
"We recently conducted a comprehensive survey on public transport. Out of 1510
participants surveyed, 72% believed that some of the carbon tax revenues should be used
for sustainable transport infrastructure such as public transport. It is strange that the carbon
price announcement provides little in the way of low-carbon transport options. We urge that
funds set aside for clean technologies be extended to the transport sector," said Mr Nye.
As a service provider to trade exposed industries, we support measures that minimise
adverse outcomes to our international competitiveness. Whether these are adequate will be
for those industries to determine.

"At the end of the day, the rail industry wants to see action on climate change. What we
object to is how the carbon price will operate within the transport sector. It is currently
penalising the low-carbon transport options.

"It's not too late to rectify some of these issues. I urge all parties to rethink the application of
the carbon price on the transport sector to ensure a level playing field. As a priority, heavy
vehicles must be included from the beginning of the scheme," concluded Mr Nye.

-ENDS

[ozbob]

Media release 10 July 2011

Australia: Carbon tax policy has a major flaw

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 has said the failure to treat all transport modes equally with the introduction of the carbon tax penalises the sustainable transport mode namely rail, and suggests that the Carbon Tax is just desperate politics rather than decent policy.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The carbon tax penalises rail but promotes road transport.  This will lead to further out of control congestion, massive damage to roads, escalating health costs as road trauma increases, and does nothing to lower the carbon foot print of the transport sector."

"Of real concern is how such a flawed decision can be part of a well planned, well considered policy.  It suggests that the rest of the Carbon Tax Policy may well be suspect."

"We support the Australasian Railway Assocation's call to rethink the transport implications of the carbon tax (1).  The plan with respect to transport as presented today is perverse, illogical, and anti-environment."

Reference:

1. http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/Carbon%20Tax%20Punishes%20Emissions%20friendly%20Rail.pdf

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

I am taking part in a teleconference briefing by Deputy Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne on the carbon price package later today.  Should be interesting.

Not sure if the tax cuts are going to do much for infrastructure funding in the near to longer term.  Must be some savage price impacts expected.

Questions I have forwarded for the briefing.

1.

Why have the Greens supported no carbon tax on fuel for cars but tax on fuel for rail?

This means that public transport is now disadvantaged.  The cost of congestion, road trauma and even more environmental impacts from cars is going to accelerate.

What sort of dumb policy is this aspect of the carbon tax?

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

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

2.

Will there be any funds left for Insfrastructure Australia?

The level of compensation to business and all and sundry means nothing left for infrastructure development that is needed.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

With respect to first question:

Greens said their preferred position was not to exempt fuels eg. petrol, but it was a political decision. They intend to adopt a different strategy of ramping up fuel excises for the more polluting fuels.   They did say that heavy public transport vehicles to be exempt.  Still doesn't address the inequality and stupidity, particularly from a party that is allegedly pro-rail ...

Second question was not answered.

[frereOP]

My point was that we are now seeing quotes like this

More than 80 per cent of those polled supported an increase in federal government funding for public transport and 87 per cent wanted government investment in public transport to address the issue of traffic congestion in major cities.

that will have the advisers scrambling to understand what they have missed!!!

Yes, but WHO is going to pay for it?  Politicians get elected to reduce taxes (Tony Abbot syndrome) but then can't afford to pay for essential infrastructure so prices go up instead.  We then end up in the situation we have in Qld where we are paying for our massive infrastuctre investment via the non-tax routes (ie higher water, electricity and public transport prices and toll roads).  The result of that is that everyone complains about the cost of living being too high.  Still, they can all afford the second car, the plasma TV the iPad, the lastest smart phone and the annual overseas holiday.  I think it's time we got real.  If politicians make their bed, they need to learn to lie in it - and lying is what they do best.

.

[mufreight]

A resounding no on this latest episode of Government duplicity and stupidity.  
If there was a genuine intention to reduce polution to protect the environment the Government would be immediately funding works like the Inland Rail Link, the construction of the CRR, the upgrading and duplication in part of the NCL and the upgrading of the Mt Isa line and other works to move both freight and passenher movements off road to more environmentaly friendly rail.
Instead we see a thinly veiled tax grab that has now itself been compromised in the sake of political desperation in an attempt to retain power.
And no FrereOp I disagree with your comment about politicians lying well, they are even incompetent at that, their stock in trade.

[Fares_Fair]

My point was that we are now seeing quotes like this

More than 80 per cent of those polled supported an increase in federal government funding for public transport and 87 per cent wanted government investment in public transport to address the issue of traffic congestion in major cities.

that will have the advisers scrambling to understand what they have missed!!!

Yes, but WHO is going to pay for it?  Politicians get elected to reduce taxes (Tony Abbot syndrome) but then can't afford to pay for essential infrastructure so prices go up instead.  We then end up in the situation we have in Qld where we are paying for our massive infrastuctre investment via the non-tax routes (ie higher water, electricity and public transport prices and toll roads).  The result of that is that everyone complains about the cost of living being too high.  Still, they can all afford the second car, the plasma TV the iPad, the lastest smart phone and the annual overseas holiday.  I think it's time we got real.  If politicians make their bed, they need to learn to lie in it - and lying is what they do best.

Hello frereOp,

Just as a footnote, I and my family do not have (or do) a single item you mention here.
I do take your point however.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

Wow, theres some nut jobs out there. Such as http://www.no-carbon-tax.org/ who are starting a 1 million airconditioner pledge, the gist being run your aircon 24/7 for 6 months in protest to the Carbon Tax.

[Mr X]

I saw that site and assumed it meant getting RID OF 1 mil air cons instead and I was like ooo

But turning them on 24/7? What a dick move

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Carbon tax backlash in national plebiscite hosted by News Ltd websites

Courier Mail --> Julia Gillard hits the road to sell carbon tax to sceptical Australian public

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

11th July 2011

Re: Australia: Carbon tax policy has a major flaw

Greetings,

Yesterday I listened to the teleconference briefing by Deputy Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne on the carbon price package.  
I sent in two questions:

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

Why have the Greens supported no carbon tax on fuel for cars but tax on fuel for rail?

This means that public transport is now disadvantaged.  The cost of congestion, road trauma and even more environmental impacts from cars is going to accelerate.

What sort of dumb policy is this aspect of the carbon tax?

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

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

2.

Will there be any funds left for Insfrastructure Australia?

The level of compensation to business and all and sundry means nothing left for infrastructure development that is needed.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

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

With respect to first question:

Greens said their preferred position was not to exempt fuels eg. petrol, but it was a political decision. They intend to adopt a different strategy of ramping up fuel excises for the more polluting fuels.   They did say that heavy public transport vehicles to be exempt.  Still doesn't address the inequality and stupidity, particularly from a party that is allegedly pro-rail ...

Second question was not answered.  Does this now mean that IA projects are now dead?

It is a major issue that rail is being impacted but road isn't.  It compromises the entire Carbon tax policy in my opinion, because it is a major major flaw.

A policy that promotes car use but penalises public and active transport is IDIOTIC, to say the least.  A policy that favours the continuing truck mayhem and disruption of roads, over safe, environmentally cost effecient and sustainable rail  is IDIOTIC!

The transport policy must be changed.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

Media release 10 July 2011

Australia: Carbon tax policy has a major flaw

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 has said the failure to treat all transport modes equally with the introduction of the carbon tax penalises the sustainable transport mode namely rail, and suggests that the Carbon Tax is just desperate politics rather than decent policy.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The carbon tax penalises rail but promotes road transport.  This will lead to further out of control congestion, massive damage to roads, escalating health costs as road trauma increases, and does nothing to lower the carbon foot print of the transport sector."

"Of real concern is how such a flawed decision can be part of a well planned, well considered policy.  It suggests that the rest of the Carbon Tax Policy may well be suspect."

"We support the Australasian Railway Assocation's call to rethink the transport implications of the carbon tax (1).  The plan with respect to transport as presented today is perverse, illogical, and anti-environment."

Reference:

1. http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/Carbon%20Tax%20Punishes%20Emissions%20friendly%20Rail.pdf

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
/quote]