Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision to scrap the carbon tax weeks before their upcoming major general election on Saturday is obviously a political move that hopefully will save the Labor Party at the polls. But the unpopularity of the previous Gillard administration imposed measure was already obvious even a few months back, with cash bonuses of A$100 per child and A$250 per pensioner being handed out to ease the impact of the tax. Rudd said the move would cut average household electricity costs by A$4 weekly and would slash A$3.8 billion from the federal budget over a four year period.
As reported, the new plan is to shift to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) linked to the European ETS a day after the carbon tax expires on June 30, 2014. Based on current prices, the move would shift the price of emission permits from A$25.4 per ton from July 2014 to around A$6 per ton, saving business and industry billions in carbon costs. The price is currently at A$24.15 a ton. Rudd is relying on his center-left Labor party, with support from the Greens. The Conservative opposition, if they win the elections, have promised to scuttle all carbon efforts altogether.
Prices for carbon, such as that from carbon taxes and indirectly from measures to spur renewable energy, like the Feed-in-Tariff, are never popular. In the Philippines, while a Renewable Energy law was passed in 2008, the FiT was delayed by significant opposition from industry and free market economist groups. In California, industry groups such as the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the Western States Petroleum Association argued an announced cap-and-trade measure was another reason for businesses to relocate out of state. Japan and China have announced their own measures to curtail carbon, but so far no significant failure of their mechanisms have been reported.
In hindsight, reductions to the price per ton of carbon might have saved the Australian carbon tax, but in light of the elections, Labor is taking no chances but not totally ditching carbon either. Undoubtedly, this failure in Australia will (and is already) be used by opponents of carbon measures everywhere.
Unfortunately, the timing is not good. Noticeable to long-time observers of carbon financing is the shift from the single unifying Kyoto Protocol treaty to one that has fragmented into many measures like carbon tax (such as the Australian one), cap and trade, and other schemes. While another attempt at a global treaty will again be done in 2015 using the Durban framework, to take effect after Kyoto expires in 2020, at present all efforts are fragmented and previous failed COP attempts to reach a global treaty do not make reaching a new one look promising.
What needs to happen is a rejuvenated effort to really educate the public worldwide that whatever measures are implemented, there will be birthing pains. They may initially hit the pocket hard and entail sacrifice, but not sticking to carbon emission schemes will cost us more in the long run. Cutting carbon is not about once a year feel good parties to switch off lights for an hour symbolically. It is, like many good medicines and cures, going to hurt a bit and require work, but the results will be well worth it.
© Japan Today
5 Comments
Login to comment
Tamarama
Industry will have an incentive to work towards cleaner, greener technologies if it is going to save them dollars. Likewise, households will start to be a little more conscious of super-consuming power and energy if their excessive habits cost them too much money.
Without measure like the carbon tax in place, industry and households cannot be relied upon to be responsible and curb their carbon footprint.
I support the carbon tax, but the Liberals are going to win this one and it will be scrapped.
sangetsu03
Ironically enough, the IPCC is beginning to question how much effect CO2 has: "The Economist is reporting IPCC draft estimates of climate sensitivity of CO2 saying; "climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises".
The problem is that the climate has stopped getting warmer, despite steadily increasing amounts of CO2.
If the IPCC says the science is too uncertain to blame CO2 for global warming (or the current lack thereof), it is rather illogical for states to levy carbon taxes, particularly under the current economic conditions.
almxxx
Convincing people to change their ways to prevent future disasters is like trying to convince people to eat a prudent diet that may not be the tastiest, in order to prevent some future illness they may or may not develop. But in fact they will develop them. If I am deprived of small pleasures, how do I know I will feel other pleasures to replace them? Businesses that are now in control do not want to risk loss of control through changes.
Jerome_from_Utah
I recall the "greenhouse gas" theory in school back in the late 1950s. What I failed to notice at the time was the absence of a quantifiable value. It is now known that CO2's value is tiny compared to water vapor; so, if you are looking for a real relationship, how about the ocean temperatures as well as moisture coming from terrestrial sources? Then, there is some "inconvenient" history. The production of CO2 was lower during the Medieval Warm Period than during the Little Ice Age that followed it. Think of all those people lighting fires to keep warm. Finally, the ice cores and mud cores tell an interesting tale: CO2 increases tend to precede cold periods. So, maybe something else is at work such as solar cycles.
Are people really still listening to the rantings of Al Gore?
presto345
80 percent of the IPCC membership have had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies and its [ICPP] president is an economist. Was the report composed by the other 20%?