Thread: Carbon Tax. Well someone had to bring it up!

Yuk! Sounds like I am becoming what I despise... Read/see one thing and respond/do another... Sort of like Juliar and Labour versus public opinion on the Carbon Tax.

Which reminds me, I didn't vote for it, did any of you?

Mr Abbott carbon solution will cost twice as much as a carbon tax for the same reduction in emissions going by the Federal Treasury analysis.
The analysis has been released following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
Of course, Mr Abbott will say that they are wrong and economist are unreliable, but they are the same that worked under the Howard and will work under Abbott if he win an election

Quote:
Both major parties have committed to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

The Treasury analysis says the Coalition's direct action plan would be more expensive because it forgoes opportunities for cheaper, international sources of abatement and would be generally less effective.

The modelling says a carbon price of $62 a tonne in 2010 dollars would be the cost needed to abate 159 million tonnes in 2020 from the direct action plan.

The cost would be $29 a tonne if international market-based permits were used.

Real gross national income would be cut by 1 per cent in 2020 under a direct action plan compared with a reduction of 0.5 per cent using a market-based mechanism, Treasury said.

The Government wants a carbon tax on big polluters up and running by mid-2012 with a starting price of $23 a tonne.

It will then transition into an emissions trading scheme with a floating price three years later, in mid-2015.

The Coalition has stated its direct action plan, funded entirely from the federal budget, would cost $10.5 billion in its life until 2020.

But after the release of the modelling on Friday, Treasurer Wayne Swan said the Coalition's scheme would cost the budget at least $48 billion in the period.

"This would mean that the average Australian household will have to pay an extra $1,300 in taxes," he said.

End of Quote

Throughout this thread there have been a number of people saying that the carbon tax will ruin (rooned?) the steel and coal industries.

On the previous page, I posted a summary of an independent report which says the coal industry will be fine and the steel industry will be BETTER off with a carbon tax.

I find it interesting that all the previous posters seem to have gone to ground...?


[rant/on]
I am by no means a fan of the current government. However I also don't like inaccuracy or BS - which has been perpetuated ad nauseum in the carbon trading debate. I also can't stand one-eyed supporters of the opposition (leader), who claim the budgie smuggler wearing iron-man wannabe can do no wrong.
[rant/off]

p.s. - I hope this thread doesn't get moved to the soapbox. Let's keep the debate civil.

With the events since last election and the stuff up from both parties I believe that both sides of the political spectrum have complete lack of talent.

The main problem with Abbott and his main team is that every time that make a blunder regarding finance they say that they are correct and the Federal Treasury is wrong or dodgy.
If one day these politicians are in power; what are they going to do? Sack the entire department?
Are also going to close the CSIRO because their Scientists are all wrong?

I only wish that in the near future both parties are going to have more capable people in the parliament and that Abbott and his financial team going back to the back benches or private industry.

Actually isuzurover I only just saw your posts.
Ive been to busy trying to cover my arse with the effects of halving production at bluescope, you know the place that is going to be better off with the carbon tax?
Lets examine your statement. they got out of export for several reasons 1 of which was the carbon tax.Problem is they are to scared to say this as they are getting 100million in advance to pay the redundancies!
Currently it will have a 95% reduction from $53taxper ton of steel to $2.60/ton of steel and would have cost bluescope alone AFTER rebates over $13 million dollars a year(5.3 million tons production and they lost $200million last year), now they have halved production it will cost them $6.5 million.
The reason they cut production in half , laid off 1000 employees and about 6-800 contractors was the other 1/2 of production , about 2.6-2.8 million tonnes was pure export and with the high dollar and the full carbon tax of well over $23 per ton CO2(x 2.3 per ton of steel=$53) aimed to hit in 4-5 years there was never going to be any profit in it anymore.
Chucaro and isuzu rover here is the real killer, because of that stupid carbon tax and the high dollar combined with poor policy we have in 1 move increased global CO2 emissions by a minimum of 1.8million tons.
BSL makes steel and emmits under 2.3tons of co2 compared to china and india (who will fill that gap of 2.6 million tons) who emmitt well over 3tons of CO2 for every single ton of steel. (pg 112 bsl report)
One steel now, before the carbon tax, is being advised by banks and investors it would make more money exporting the iron ore rather than processing it here. Do you think this will improve with a further tax to pay?

We should have followed chinas lead and brought in the resource rent tax BUT only applied it to exports, rebate it to local companies who process the raw materials here! This would boost local manufacturing and drive employment and increase skills.

Originally Posted by frantic

Actually isuzurover I only just saw your posts.
Ive been to busy trying to cover my arse with the effects of halving production at bluescope, you know the place that is going to be better off with the carbon tax?
Lets examine your statement. they got out of export for several reasons 1 of which was the carbon tax.Problem is they are to scared to say this as they are getting 100million in advance to pay the redundancies!
Currently it will have a 95% reduction from $53taxper ton of steel to $2.60/ton of steel and would have cost bluescope alone AFTER rebates over $13 million dollars a year(5.3 million tons production and they lost $200million last year), now they have halved production it will cost them $6.5 million.
The reason they cut production in half , laid off 1000 employees and about 6-800 contractors was the other 1/2 of production , about 2.6-2.8 million tonnes was pure export and with the high dollar and the full carbon tax of well over $23 per ton CO2(x 2.3 per ton of steel=$53) aimed to hit in 4-5 years there was never going to be any profit in it anymore.
Chucaro and isuzu rover here is the real killer, because of that stupid carbon tax and the high dollar combined with poor policy we have in 1 move increased global CO2 emissions by a minimum of 1.8million tons.
BSL makes steel and emmits under 2.3tons of co2 compared to china and india (who will fill that gap of 2.6 million tons) who emmitt well over 3tons of CO2 for every single ton of steel. (pg 112 bsl report)
One steel now, before the carbon tax, is being advised by banks and investors it would make more money exporting the iron ore rather than processing it here. Do you think this will improve with a further tax to pay?

We should have followed chinas lead and brought in the resource rent tax BUT only applied it to exports, rebate it to local companies who process the raw materials here! This would boost local manufacturing and drive employment and increase skills.

To paraphrase the institute that produced the report - there is a need to differentiate the effect of a high $AU on the steel industry from the carbon tax. They are completely separate.

It is irrefutable that bluescope (the company) will be better off post carbon tax than pre carbon tax.

Originally Posted by frantic

.................................................. ..............
We should have followed chinas lead and brought in the resource rent tax BUT only applied it to exports, rebate it to local companies who process the raw materials here! This would boost local manufacturing and drive employment and increase skills.

I agree with you in doing something along these lines but both parties are not prepared to protect the Australian industry like France, China, USA, etc.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Throughout this thread there have been a number of people saying that the carbon tax will ruin (rooned?) the steel and coal industries.

On the previous page, I posted a summary of an independent report which says the coal industry will be fine and the steel industry will be BETTER off with a carbon tax.
......

And, in a nutshell, you have summarised the fundamental problem with the carbon tax. The coal (and to a lesser extent the iron and steel industry) are Australia's principal contribution to global emissions. The fact that the tax will have little or no impact on these industries shows that the tax is not fit for its declared purpose (to reduce global emissions of CO2). It may or may not reduce Australia's domestic emissions, but these are small compared to that contributed by coal exports - it is simply a bookkeeping exercise to reduce Australia's apparent emissions, and moving to an emissions trading scheme will make this even more so.

Any "solution" to Australia's carbon emissions problem that does not greatly reduce the scale of Australian coal mining is simply window dressing.

John