Do You Like This Story?
gillard UPDATED: The Carbon Tax Cheat Sheet

Julia Gillard announces details of the carbon tax.

 

 

UPDATE: So it’s official. There’s going to be a price on carbon (colloquially known as a carbon tax). The Senate has to pass it still but that won’t be an issue with the new Greens senators in place. The package of bills, which includes assistance to the steel industry and low and middle income earners, will become law on July 1 2012. The bills passed in a narrow vote 74-72.

Protestors called the passing a ‘sad day for democracy’ and Ms Gillard said Tony Abbott and the Opposition were on the ‘wrong side of history’.

We’ve got a cheat sheet we wrote at the time of the price announcement which should get you across the basics.

 

Here’s the original cheat sheet:

Carbon Sunday came and has almost gone and we’ll begin the week with all the details of the Gillard Government’s carbon tax, which they are calling a ‘price on pollution’.

We’ll recap the basics below so you know what’s what, but first let’s get some thoughts from the major players, starting with a concise Prime Minister herself.

Julia Gillard said: “The essence of this could not be simpler. We will require around 500 big polluters to pay a price for the carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere. At the moment they can do that for free.  Because something they used to do for free now costs them money they will innovate, they will change, they will find a way to reduce that bill and in doing so will reduce emissions. This plan has been modelled by the same people who modelled the GST. They were right then and they have done the modelling this time around.”

Tony Abbott said: “If this is such a good package, why won’t she [Gillard] take it to an election? Why won’t she take it to an election soon? It’s socialism masquerading as environmentalism. I think this package is going to compound the trust problem which has dogged the Prime Minister ever since she politically assassinated Kevin Rudd.”

Barnaby Joyce said: “The Greens run the Labor party now. This is some biodynamic sensitive new age policy written by a bunch of people who probably wear koala suits. Labor’s own plan says emissions will still go up and they will buy permits overseas. People are going to be poorer, it’s as simple as that.”

So, we announced a carbon tax. But what happened really?

This is the crux of it. Today the Prime Minister announced a price on carbon of $23 per tonne which would be charged on some of the biggest 500 polluters in the country, revised down from an earlier 1000. This price per tonne of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will increase by 2.5 per cent each year until the carbon tax becomes an emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015. What this basically means is that for now, the Government sets a price on pollution. In three years, the market will decide what that price is worth and the Government will simply set a cap on how much pollution our economy is allowed to create.

What’s the aim here?

The carbon tax is supposed to – and only time will tell – cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and by 20 per cent in 2050. It is hoped this will be achieved by the cost incentives to big industry, forcing them to get creative in ways to reduce their impact on emissions released in to the air. These targets are modest. Some would call them pretty small and weak. Many have called them ‘an important first step’ in transitioning to a low carbon economy. Basically, it’s not much but it’s a start.

The scheme will apparently reduce carbon emissions in the air by about 159 million tonnes by 2020. That’s the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road, the Government says.

carbon pollution UPDATED: The Carbon Tax Cheat Sheet

.

So will everybody be paying a lot more money now?

According to Treasury modelling, not really. The average household costs rise will be about $9.90 per week according to the Government, but the average compensation directed back to those households in the form of tax cuts and other benefits will be worth $10.10. That means households will, on average, be 20 cents better off per week than before the carbon tax started. The Prime Minister says more than 50 per cent of the money raised from the tax will go back to households in the form of compensation.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon said this was ‘incredibly inefficient’ and the Government was effectively ‘robbing Peter to pay Peter’.

What kind of compensation will there be?

About $15 billion in tax cuts for low and middle income earners.

Let’s list:

The tax free threshold will be tripled to $18,200 in 2012. This is pretty sneaky (but welcomed by many) welfare to work reform, separate from the issue of carbon but designed to help relieve cost pressure. This will rise to more than $19,000 later.

1.7% increase to the pension and family assistance benefits and payments.

  • Up to $110 per child for a family that receives Family Tax Benefit Part A.
  • Up to $69 extra for families that receive Family Tax Benefit Part B.
  • Up to $218 extra per year for single income support recipients and $390 per year for couples combined for people on allowances.
  • Up to $234 per year for single parents in addition to the increased family payments they receive.

Tax cuts for workers earning up to $80,000 a year worth up to $300.

$300 annual low income supplement.

Some 8 million households will receive  some form of assistance, and for 6 million this will mean they are able to meet cost rises. Another 4 million will be better off. So that’s 9 out of 10 homes that will get some assistance.

The Government has made this assistance calculator available so you can test your own carbon tax exposure, or lack thereof.

What does the tax cover?

The tax covers about 60 per cent of polluting industries but will not cover agriculture or petrol/light on road vehicles. Farmers won’t have to pay it, but they will receive incentives for every tonne of carbon they save from entering the atmosphere.

What help is there for industry?

About $9.2 billion is being made available to ‘emissions intensive, trade exposed’ industries such as coal and steel to help them make changes with out losing their competitive advantage.

A $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund new clean energy technology has also been set up.

Will it work?

This is the kicker. The debate today was not about whether climate change was real or not – the Opposition also concedes it is – but whether the carbon tax is the right way to go about addressing the human induced elements of it. Or whether it’s a harebrained scheme that won’t even work.

The jury appears to be out.

The real question as to whether it works or not is: is there any incentive to change? If the cost pressures are calibrated just right between pinching big polluters but not knocking them out of business altogether, then the catalyst for greener change might kick in.

Conversely, if the compensation is too high there will be no incentive for change at all.

What do you think? Did the Government hit the nail on the head or is the price on carbon a big swing and a miss? What would you have them do instead? And are you happy with the tax breaks?

Want a quicker rundown by video? This GetUp video will help get your head around it:

Comments

Comment Guidelines : Imagine you’re at a dinner party. Different opinions are welcome but keep it respectful or the host will show you the door. We have zero tolerance for any abuse of our writers, our editorial team or other commenters. So if you’re rude, mean-spirited, snarky, aggressive, defamatory or bitchy, your comment will be deleted (so will any replies to the original comment – so don’t bother arguing with rude people, instead just hit the ‘alert moderator’ button).
And if you’re offensive, you’ll be blacklisted and all your comments will go directly to spam. Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re going to be – cool. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation…

Use your profile to comment: Or, comment as a guest:
(Max file size is 150kb & jpeg's only - if you need help resizing go here »)

278 Comments so far

  1. Brooke willmott

    I think it good that we all get assistance, how ever the cost of living is not easy now how will most off us benifit with this carbon tax? With cost of hydro / power food bills it’s all expensive food will go up and how will it be $9.90 more each week in expenses. Just because we all get couple hundred a year. How is this going to help I reckon we going need a payment to help with the economy like they did couple years ago, I think people going be worse off I think every one should should have equal help, not to mention Tasmania public health system is s**t and as a prime minister how come no money gone into our health system ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. Shannon

    My solar array and I have an offset of about 2 nett tonnes per quarter, will I, and people like myself be getting $23 per tonne credit somewhere? I’m not going to get *any* off the other assistance given that I don’t have a family, I’m not a small business, I’m not a heavy polluting large business, I’m not old, and I rely on greener public transport so don’t buy petrol.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  3. Eternal Guy

    There is not 1 degree, 1 net job in this package , we will pay more and they will have a guarrantee of charging us as it will be on our power bill where we all have to pay or the lights go off.
    Please could someone post Julia Gillard real resume instead of the one she left out with her times in the Socialist Alliance days.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  4. Anonymous

    Ther is so much wrong with this explaination that it would take too long to try and correct it but to start with even the government admits (when not lying to the media) that it will not reduce CO2 production. That will still increase here in Australia and will increase at a greater rate outside of Australia directly because of this tax. Bad policy poorly and dishonestly implemented.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  5. Steve Payne

    $23 dollars a tonne? But Mr Rabbit said it was weightless!!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  6. Anonymous

    I have just used the governments estimator (the link on this page) and discovered that I will be at least $400 worse off per year under this change. Yippee! Considering that under their standards, in this estimator, my family is considered ‘middle income’ and that we are a fairly average family of four I would suggest that there is a fair amount of furphy and spin accompanying this tax suggesting that most of us will not lose out and that some of us will even be better off. $400 isn’t chicken feed. It makes it even harder to swallow considering that I live in a place where I suffer the damage of the big polluters (coal mines) on a daily basis but know how much they are rolling in money and that the arrogance of them suggests that they will be laughing at this carbon tax and won’t change anything meaningful. I’m not sure what the solution is but can’t say I’m fantastically happy that now the big miners will take even more of my money while they continue to do vast amounts of damage. If they actually cared for the good of all they would be contributing more to the roads they damage with the coal trucks, the medical facilities that they over run with workers who fly in and fly out (and therefore don’t contribute to council coffers etc with rates), the schools that have the kids playing outside in the vapours and fine particles that regularly come from the mines in the forms of big yellow plumes etc. If they charge higher prices to make up for the higher charges then I can’t see it making much difference to them other than some admin differences. Watch for the prices of things to go up, ostensibly to pay for the carbon tax, but when in reality there is just a huge amount of capitalising on an opportunity going on. Gee I’m looking forward to when all this starts…! I am not sure what the solution is – I just don’t relish this one. This may well be the best thing we can do to get them started but I’m not holding my breath.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. Flutterby

    I’m not going to comment on the merit of a carbon tax here.

    What does disgust me is the shabby way it has been brought in….

    wait till a member of the senate is turned out and then call a snap vote.
    That’s just shameful.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  8. D

    To those of you who think business will just pass the cost of the carbon tax on and make no change. You don’t understand the longer term reaction that business and consumers will have to this cost. That is that they will look to and develop more efficient way to do business because consumers will react to the increased cost of goods and services by spending less. If you want some examples of this here are a few. Take the increased development of more fuel efficient vehicles in the last 10 years, this is a reaction by vehicle manufacturers to consumers demand for a lower operating cost and as greater volume of these vehicles are sold then the lower the cost of these vehicles. The same forces that has driven this example will drive the need to reduce carbon polution, it will just take a little time and that is why the Government is providing compensation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Flutterby

      ….and I’d really like to have 2 cheaply priced Prius’s in my driveway – but I don’t.

      Market forces are not the best things to rely on as retooling takes significant amounts of money and business will always take the cheaper easier route – sourcing offshore to avoid the tax (and killing what remains of our manufacturing industry).

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  9. Nora

    I would love to see an article from Clive Blazey on Mamamia about the importance of growing your own food to tackle climate change :-)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  10. Anonymous

    I really don’t give a crap about carbon and the environment here in Australia. I think the whole concept is blown way out of proportion and I would fight it all the way if i was an MP>
    Ridiculous to pass the costs on yet again to us, this is one of the most expensive countries to live in in the world ( and I have travelled and lived all over) and now it is going to be even worse.
    A sad day for Australian business and consumers :-(

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • and that post was from me, I was not logged in :-x

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • D

      If you think its so bad go an live some where else, I for one think the government taking action on carbon pollution is a good. I study business and everything I have read says the sooner we start to address carbon pollution the less it will cost us. So go you good thing Julia I’m right behind you.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Bradley

        Just like a human shield. Very handy when Kevin calls, knife in hand.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Kate!

      I hear Somalia is a pretty cheap place to live. Why not move there?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • dosh

        Well said Kate! :) Too much unfounded whinging going on..

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • dosh

      mamamiafan,
      Ignorance is a big problem in Australia – This is what is sad. If you’ve travelled and lived in many countries as you claim, then it should be more evident to you (than to most Australians at home), how strong the Aus. economy is because you have first hand experience. Things were cheaper in the countries you visited because the Aussie dollars in your wallet have more purchasing power than most world currencies. Its a good thing that Australians who travel overseas can buy products “cheap” relative to travellers from other countries..who might find the same products “expensive” because their currency is not as strong.

      People are protesting so hard, about something that hasn’t even started yet, so if there’re effects(if at all) they haven’t got them yet. But what tops the definition of bizarre, is that most of those protesting will have a net gain from the scheme and will be better off – Fact. The rise in prices as a result of the carbon tax – 0.7% rise on average, will be neutralised by the permanent compensation the gov’t has pledged to give, which in some cases exceeds their exposure levels resulting in a “profit”. If you have exposure of $435 when the carbon tax starts, and the gov’t compensates you $620 – you’re better off by $185, more than you needed. I fail to understand how this is a bad thing. The truth is I think most Australians of sound mind would see a gain as a good thing – its obvious that it is. Turns out The “toxic” carbon tax is not so toxic after all..

      Sometime back an independent survey was carried out that revealed that Australians are amongst the most ignorant people of all the developed countries.. I don’t know about that, but I have to say, the reactions of so many people about the carbon tax, jogged my memory back to that survey and made me consider its validity on a serious level…because the majority of comments are ignorance in full swing. Its like the surprisingly high numbers of people in Australia who refuse to get their babies vaccinated because they don’t want to “risk harming their kids”. Many of the comments here are a collective winge-fest fuelled by ignorance.

      This is sad because at the end of the day, Australians and Australia lose. The opposition are power hungry, they only care about geting your vote as the priority, so far its all going to script. “Life will be very expensive, that jobs will be lost” etc. The price rise will only be 0.7%, an extra $9.90 in expenses a week of which you’ll get compensated!…so the impact to you will be almost nothing, IF at all!

      Its not by accident that Australia was the only country in the world to survive the Global Financial Crisis without scars. Here’s the Classic example of an Abbott and co. that tried to make the gov’t look bad to get your vote, a crazy lust for Power:
      All the policies that the gov’t put together at that critical time to get Australia through the GFC were Brutally opposed and trash-talked(understatement) by the opposition. There was lie after lie about how bad it would get for Australians if the rescue package went through. And all for what? Imagine that, sacrificing what’s good for the country for personal ambitions – to get into gov’t. If Abbott and co. had their way, and the policies didn’t go through as they hoped, your time abroad would have been considerably more expensive (weak Aussie Dollar) – Fact. and depending on your status – low, middle, or high income earner, you might not have a job because your company or business would’ve collapsed at the time. It would’ve been a nightmare scenario with so many unemployed people, and Australia would be in the same category as the UK or a milder version of the US economy – Bad in every way you look at it.

      Abbott and co. are upto the same tactics again…only this time its not with the rescue package, its with the Carbon Tax Policy. Make it look like the worst thing on the planet. They’ve done a pretty good job of it. Abbott has such a lust for power, he will do whatever it takes to be prime minister. Don’t fall into the trap of someone who only cares about his own ambitions of becoming the “Man” in Australia, as a priority over what’s good for Australia.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  11. fender4eva

    George Osborne, the British Chancellor said ” We are not going to save the planet, by putting our country out of business “. I make no further comment……

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Mabol

      Lucky it won’t put the country out of business then…..

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • dosh

        That would have to be the perfect response:) Well said Mabol.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  12. BatGirl

    Well done Julia, this the first thing you have done that I can feel proud of! Something needed to be done, you cant please all the people all the time.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Sarah

    For people interested in learning more about a price on carbon, lowering Australia’s carbon emissions and the other programs that will help address climate change there is a conference in Melbourne in early Nov (less than 4 weeks away) called Carbon Expo 7-9 Nov. http://www.carbonexpo.com.au
    The program includes the who’s who of the business world talking about the price on carbon – how it will work, how it will effect business, how to be ‘carbon price ready’, how to make changes in your business.
    There will be a panel of CEOs talking to Sky News David Speers about how it will effect their company – the panel will include CEOs from Qantas, GE, AGL, Santos and Delta Electricity.
    Other sessions include what is happening in China, how to measure your carbon emissions, how you can make a difference etc. It’s aimed at the business sector but is of general interest to anyone who can attend.
    We have to do something to address our carbon emissions – so I congratulate the Govenment on this bold step … time will of course tell all !!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  14. Too funny

    Treasury’s own modelling tells us that emissions won’t drop unless companies buy carbon credits offshore. In other words, no amount of incentives are going to reduce carbon emissions here in Australia unless companies offset those emissions on paper only. Treasury says 80% of reduced emissions are going to come from buying those credits from China or India that will ecrue those credits to sell by burning the coal we sell them that produce our carbon emissions in the first place.

    This is extremely funny. does anyone else see the funny side that emissions will reduce on paper only while we are paying more for goods?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emission-reductions/

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • MissMel

      I’m interested to see what happens when the ETS starts up in Australia. Will the credit notes becomes void/obselete? I don’t think anyone has really thought that far ahead though…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • bowerbird

        Carbon credits are an integral part of an ETS. The basic difference between that and the ‘carbon tax’ is that the latter sets the carbon price, whereas in the ETS the price is set by the market.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • bowerbird

      You are misinterpreting that graph. What it is saying is that with a price on carbon, emissions will drop by 80% from 2000 levels by 2050. Of this reduction, a proportion (less than half) will come from reductions sourced overseas. The treasury modelling finds that this is more cost-efficient than trying to reach the targets domestically alone.

      Without a price on carbon, our emissions will rise by 82% in the same period.

      You also don’t understand how carbon credits work.They are not generated by burning coal bought from Australia or anywhere else. They can only be generated by actual reductions in emissions.

      If you’re truly interested, have a look at the actual report (the link is under the graph that you have linked to) rather than cherry-picking and misinterpreting a single graph.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Too funny

        ‘Abatement sourced from overseas’ is printed to the right of the graph pointing to the blue coloured area. That is pretty straight forward. I don’t see 40% anywhere.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • bowerbird

          The blue coloured area represents less than half the total reduction.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • Guest

        I’m afraid your understanding is also a little limited:
        - firstly, net emissions will drop by 80% by 2050 but gross emissions (the number of tonnes Australia actually emits) will be bascially stable, ie no actual reduction in the tonnes of CO2 emitted. The difference will be made up from buying permits overseas. This is of course quite a big drop compared to business as usual but not an actual reduction. It obviously does depend on being able to buy essentially unlimited quantities of permits from overseas. If we can’t buy enough of them or they are more expensive than the modelling suggests, the scheme will be much more expensive and economically damaging than forecast.
        - Secondly, you are simply wrong in saying that permits can only be generated by actual reductions in emissions. Most domestic permits will be created by government – it will say Australia can emit x million tonnes this year and release x million permits into the market. Overseas (and some domestic) permits can be created from a variety of sources including the Clean Development Mechanism which does indeed involve introducing new technology to cut emissions below business as usual, forestry credits from planting trees to soak up CO2 and permits from overseas schemes which we see as comparable. In Australia though no one will be able to “generate permits from actual reductions in emissions” – in this case you simply need fewer permits to meet your emissions liability.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • bowerbird

          Perhaps its my limited understanding at work, but I can’t see any reference to gross and net emissions in the report containing that graph.

          I was talking about credits, but I take your point that Too funny was, in fact, referring to the emissions permits. Either way, China and India do not ‘accrue’ permits to sell by burning coal.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • D

        Great comment there is so much misrepresentation of the facts and we know that given an incentive to change, change will occur and occur rapidly, business will react rapidly to a price on carbon.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • JustMe

          Hate to break it to you but no they wont change, they’ll just pass the increases on to us, why do you think the government are trying to bribe us with increases to pensions, tax breaks etc….

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  15. Bradley

    The question is, after reading this update which song by late 60′s/ early 70′s band Blood, Sweat & Tears am I thinking of ?

    Seriously, young Rick….that period of employment with the Queensland Labor Minister was not wasted. I dips me lid to you. You were taught well.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  16. rainbow

    fantastic news!

    sure we will be out of pocket, but thank god we can say to our children and grandchildren that we did something about climate change.

    a win for science!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • rainbow

      ps. gotta love that women who thinks the CSIRO and Bureau of Metereology are corrupt!!!

      where is the Rachael Dunlop of climate science when we need her?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  17. Kate

    Sorry to be a ninny but I haven’t completely get my head around the way the tax will work- can somebody help me out? So the companies are taxed on their emissions. And it’s assumed that they’ll just raise their prices and pass this cost onto consumers to offset this (?). So I understand the concept that the consumers will then be compensated by the government- but I don’t understand how the companies end up with any incentive to go for the cleaner energy options. Or is it that if they do go for clean energy, they’ll be able to charge less and therefore be the more competitive option for consumers?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • alyssakt

      Julia Gillard said: “The essence of this could not be simpler. We will require around 500 big polluters to pay a price for the carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere. At the moment they can do that for free. Because something they used to do for free now costs them money they will innovate, they will change, they will find a way to reduce that bill and in doing so will reduce emissions.”

      “The Prime Minister says more than 50 per cent of the money raised from the tax will go back to households in the form of compensation.”

      A lot of the other 50% goes into technology that the big polluters will be able to use once it’s developed, reducing their emissions and reducing the tax they’re paying to the Government.
      Consumers can also talk with their feet – by choosing different companies that are greener, who may not have been as competitive before this scheme.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • bowerbird

      Kate, as I understand it, its all about competition. This is where climate science meets market economics. High-energy emissions currently have a competitive edge because they don’t have to pay for what is a very big cost of production – the damage caused by their emissions. By incorporating that into the price, it gives low-emissions technologies the competitive edge (and more realistically reflects the actual costs of activities). As they increase their market share and continue to develop technologically, cleaner energy forms will become cheaper still, and eventually, hopefully *take over the world* ;)

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  18. Loz

    5% by 2020 doesn’t seem like that much when you look at how much stress this Carbon Tax seems to be causing.

    I have to say I’m concerned – and who is guaranteeing that the ‘big polluters’ are going to cut emissions?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • kiwichick

      doing nothing however means the emissions would continue to rise

      compared to BAU the reduction is approximately 25%

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  19. Janey

    The bill has now been passed and we know that nearly half the Libs (who supported Malcom Turnbull when he was challenged) believed that a carbon price/market mechanism was the best way forward. So, by my calculations that means that a significant majority of the house support this model as a cost-effective way in playing our part to combat climate change and give the planet a chance. I really feel for those MPs who have to toe the party line and listen to Abbott’s negative blathering on a daily basis. You’ve got to hand it to him though,cos he’s managed to get all the sound bites necessary to scare those Australians who can’t be bothered to read below the headlines.

    It was a momentous day yesterday and there is still so much to do but it’s a great start. Jane Caro summed it up nicely on Twitter: “Delighted we’re finally doing something about climate change. Now, like GST and Votes for Women, we’ll hardly mention the carbon tax again.”

    By the way, the look on Malcolm Turnbull’s face was priceless following the vote!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • kiwichick

      feel sorry for malcolm
      i met him once when he came out to our farm ( re irrigation water)

      probably the only conservative worth saving

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  20. Vicky V

    ‎”There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. The woman is a liar. How dare she put more pressure on already struggling families and try to pass if off as “helping the environment”. I think it is fair to say that democracy in Australia died yesterday.
    Australia’s carbon tax saves 0.000463933% of the worlds CO2 output. The only thing this tax will benefit is the governments back pocket at the cost of many families well-being.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Beatrice

      John Howard also once declared that he would not introduce a GST. He lied. We have all adapted to living with a GST.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Guest

        Correct but you don’t mention (or perhaps, charitably, are unaware) that when he changed his mind he took it to an election, got a mandate and then had it opposed by the ALP anyway. A lot of us would be a lot more comfortable with the carbon tax if Julia’s change of mind had occurred in the same way so she had a mandate(or if she hadn’t made that stupid promise in the first place – I bet she wishes she had her time over). Here’s one for the ALP supporters on this site of whom there seems to be one or two – why was it wrong for the Libs to vote against Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme (for which he, unlike Jules, had a mandate) but right for the ALP to vote against JHo’s GST?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • An Idle Dad

          Howard may have won the election, but over 50% of the Australian population voted against him. Not over 50% on the two party preferred, but over 50% in total. Not really a stunning mandate.

          The Greens and Oakeshott both took a carbon price to the election and to form government, Labor adopted this policy.

          As Tony Abbott said in 2005 “When I made that statement in the election campaign I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this, but obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions.”

          From the horse’s mouth.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Guest

            Interesting concept of mandate theory that it depends on the size of the vote. Usually it is taken to mean that the incoming government a) forms government and b) in its election campaign promised to undertake a particular reform. But given that you think it’s related to the size of the vote, presumably you would agree that Tony Abbott (who looks like having an even bigger swing than the Howard slide of 96 and certainly more than the Ruddslide of ’07) will have a mandate for repeal?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              Well under that definition The Greens had a clear mandate to introduce a carbon tax.

              Mandate problem solved.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
    • Leah

      Democracy didn’t die. Australians voted in a minority government where the greens and independants hold the balance of power. This legislation is the result of the Labor government needing to compromise with those MPs, as a minority government.

      This IS democracy. This is the consequence of the democratic right of Australians to vote. This is what we wanted, and a minority government is still an affective government. I’m not convinced its the catastrophe everyone seems to think this is.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Kate!

        Well said Leah. I am tired of the Julia-bashing that seems entirely grounded in the fact that leading this government requires compromise with the independents and greens that we voted in. Personally I feel very comfortable with a government that doesnt believe it has a mandate to ignore minorities.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Leah

          Thanks, I’m glad someone else agrees. I’m actually really glad we have a minority government at the moment – with two parties so similar, I think we need the influence of the little guys, and I think we need a break from the rubber stamping that goes on when the government have complete control. A government that has to answer to independants is better checked than a majority government.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  21. Empty re-bates

    We get nothing back from the government. This will affect us by about $1000 a year, plus the flood levy. I am a stay at home Mother and I’ll have one child in kindy next year ( one at school) and the kindy fees are increasing$10 a day, so that another $100 a month. My husband hasn’t had a pay rise in 5 years- can someone please explain where this extra money is going to come from?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Bradley

      A top hat. That’s where magicians hide most of their repertoire.

      Rabbit next.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Luc

      If you don’t get anything back from the government, why not? You should be entitled to 50% back on the childcare payments, whatever your income.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • angeants

        You are only entilted to the 50% child care rebate if you meet the study, training or work requirements (i.e not full time stay at home mums/ dads).

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  22. Anonymous

    Does this mean that the Gillard government is ‘hoping’ that the big polluter companies will change and find a better way to reduce the bill? So now we’re depending on these big companies to change their current procedures? It sounds like Gillard is putting a lot of hope and faith in these companies to change and it doesn’t sound like she is 100% sure they will. Therefore prices will go up and up, because I personally don’t think that these companies could care less about the environment if they are already doing what they’re doing. I guess we just have to wait and see..

    Hey guys, if I’m wrong please tell me!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • That is my biggest disastisfaction in the current model – that they cant guarantee that this ‘carbon price’ will lead to significant change. If the model was something like ‘every polluter, by 2020 needs to cut their emmissions by 30%’ it would be an incentive for positive change, but currently there isnt one…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Zoe

        History shows that change does create innovation and large companies have the money to lead this change. Others will follow suit.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • I honestly hope you are right :) i have no problem paying, its just that I really want to see changes come of it all.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • An Idle Dad

      Now that the price of carbon will be factored into everything, when you buy your next electrical item, you’ll probably check the energy consumption and factor it into your decision making process.

      That’s exactly what happened with fridges over the last fifteen years. Fridges are so efficient these days that had to invent the ‘sixth star’ in the five star rating.

      Consumers drove more effiencent fridges because we knew it woudl cost less, and industry followed.

      The next time industry looks to use more electricity, they’ll make a similar decision. Companies that produce electricity will know people will want to buy low carbon electricity, so invest in it more. Competition will crush any producer that doesn’t follow suit.

      It worked in the past, it’ll work in the future. Except of course Tony is swearing to reverse it, so businesses won’t be able to make these decisions just yet – which will cost us more.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  23. Alley Cat

    A bit of an aside… why are people so threatened by Abbott’s campaign against the carbon tax? Is it because they are scared he may have a point? It’s his job as Opposition Leader. In my opinion, he’s doing it well.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  24. Dosh

    Tony Abbott has done a better job demonising the carbon tax, than anyone in Government has done explaining it. Many Australians – ignorant Australians, perceive the tax as a tax on them – like an income tax…even today. It was a fatal mistake by the government from the beginning to let Abbott and his crew get away with their scare campaign of the then new policy, and not counter with facts and information. The media can only report what happens..

    - Day after day, Abbott was in a different suburb of a different state of Australia, doing his meet and greets talking about jobs being lost, and the price of things going over the roof because of the “toxic” carbon tax. Where was the government’s advisor on this! – The government HAD to counterpunch the opposition’s scare campaign with facts, and information, but they failed miserably to do so. They are now facing the inevitable consequences – Julia Gillard is perceived as an “evil witch” and is the most hated woman in Australia.. And why? what has she done that is oh so evil? I mean some of the banners people parade against the prime minister..”ditch the bitch”, etc so much hate.. why? – the carbon tax is not even law yet.. answer = an aggressive Abbott scare campaign that has gone unchallenged for months.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Luc

      I agree – I totally see this as a failure of Labor’s spin doctors.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  25. Pingback: Say Yes | Top 6 Climate Myths Busted on Mamamia

  26. jb expat

    This will work about as well as removing OB fees from Medicare which Labour did because the Labour government decided OB’s charge too much and this was the best way to encourage them to lower their fees. Did that work? NO – it just made having a baby more expensive. Encourage industry to reduce pollution with tax benefits. More direct and targeted without this wishy-washy transfer of money based on some arbitrary income thresholds.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Steve

      Rewarding industry with tax cuts won’t be as effective, because they might just be happy to keep pumping pollution for free, so there really isn’t any ‘incentive’ for them or consumers to change. Why be an apologist for polluters? With direct action, taxpayers will have to foot the bill to cover the tax breaks given to polluters.
      There is nothing ‘wishy washy’ about making the top 500 polluters pay for the CO2 they pump into the air. It’s actually quite direct in targeting the source of the biggest pollution. Market forces are more efficient in driving change, the end goal.
      Yes, pricing carbon pollution will become more costly for using energy and products from companies which will have to clean up after themselves now. Thats why it makes sense to provide assistance to people more impacted to help offset the extra costs of a price on carbon.
      Smart high income earners will probably start choosing options which are more cost effective too (and less carbon polluting).
      To be effective, both schemes will cost you and I. Direct action pretends it won’t.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  27. robnlee

    The compensation will be used up in an instant. Will Julia keep compensating as prices inevitably rise? The carbon tax is wrong because it is a penalty that will be passed on and magnified down the trail to the consumer, with no necessity for the polluter to change. Why wouldn’t Julia go down the incentive path and make it more attractive for polluters to change, saving consumer grief. The tax and the compensation package are unfair.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  28. Chesca

    What I am frustrated about is that everything is being discussed in the public forum is such a short-sighted way…

    The main arguments Tony Abbott is spinning off are in relation to the cost of living and jobs. Number 1, if we keep treating the world the way we are are, food is going to be harder to come by and prices will be driven up. Already we are on the brink of a food crisis and this will only get worse unless we take decisive steps.

    Similarly with energy – the resources we have now are not going to last forever, and we will need to innovate eventually…why not do so now and save ourselves soaring prices in the long run?

    And just one last thing while I am on my soap box, people keep going on about how Australia is the only one doing anything and why are we the only country to do this…etc. etc…am I the only one who is actually proud of my country for being pioneers in this area?

    I’m still no expert and maybe the climate tax is not the right route, but something is certain, we need action and I am pleased that the government is actually taking a step.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Smiley

      I share your frustration, Chesca, of the short sightedness in the public forum.
      The world’s resources are under stress, especially water, food, energy and the environment. The world is a closed system, so pollution accumulates and interacts with nature.
      I am proud of Australia too, for trying to do our bit for the planet, even though some are still whinging, kicking and screaming against us helping.
      The overlooked fact is that climate change policies are gradually being implemented around the world – NZ, Europe, even some provinces in China and the USA. It is a difficult process to gather momentum, but Australia will be in a better position as a role model, to persuade other countries to try once we have a policy implemented.
      Adopting a good climate policy earlier will give as an edge over slower economies to respond as the costs of non-action become more pronounced.
      The policy is right, and it is time to act. Our future depends on it.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  29. KittyKat

    I just think they have gone about this all wrong.

    Forget the climate change debate. Forget the term “carbon tax”.

    Why not simply talk about the fact that industry needs incentives to look into alternative fuel sources? Not because of global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it. Simply because oil, coal and gas are finite resources – isn’t it sensible to look for other options? Wouldn’t it be great to have world leading, job creating R&D programs right here looking at what our options are for future fuel sources? Preferably without creating an atmosphere of fear and dread about our future?

    I wanted to hear more about the work John Hewson had been involved in extracting methane from household waste – something that worked, but wasn’t commercially viable because there was no carbon tax… there must be a way to make the research pay off, to make the hunt for alternative fuel sources worthwhile and profitable – because until it is, how can you expect industry to be interested?

    I am too confused about all the possible ramifications to be decided about whether the “carbon tax” is a good idea or a bad one – I just think from a marketing it to the nation perspective they have really ballsed it up.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  30. Holly spirit

    Only useful idiots and labour voters can ever believe anything that Julia Gillard says. Every time she opens her mouth only lot of “hot carbon pollution” comes out. So if not for any other reason she should keep it shut. If carbon is a pollution than oxygen, hydrogen etc. must be also pollution. That is just about as right as the “carbon pollution”. Why is it that our beloved government is only listening to their chosen scientists and reject the rest who say that there isn’t any man caused Global warming. If there is any climate change at all it is just a natural phenomena and there is nothing we can do anything about that. Governments like Taxes which people don’t like paying, but if they can persuade you that by paying taxes you would save the World some useful idiots may happily start paying more taxes, and that is what the whole comedy is all about. That’s why Julia will keep 50 percent of the Carbon tax. Get it????

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • I am neither….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Kate

      I’m also neither. Also, the “chosen scientists” that the government are “only” listening to, are actually 97% of climate scientists, who say that climate change is real. The media portrays the debate as if professional opinion is divided 50/50, but it’s not. Nowhere near.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  31. crystalanne83

    I find it interesting, that some people are worried about job losses.

    Joe Hockey PROMISED on QandA that if Liberal win the election, the first thing they will do is cut 12,000 jobs in public service.

    That worries me WAY more. Don’t believe me? Here is the transcript…

    “Joe Hockey: Well, for a start 12,000 public servants in Canberra will be made redundant over a two year period immediately upon us being elected. Well, you asked. I’m sorry. You know what, you have to make hard decisions and let me say to you we will make up…”

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3248763.htm

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Ella

      Exactly!!! And what about all the job growth?! Money put in to R&D will creat jobs as will companies that produce low carbon goods….
      On a personal note I know that my dad’s company who currently employs 40 people will definitely be employing more people over re next few years due to the increased work the carbon tax will create

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Holly spirit

      I for one would be happy if all those Public service bludgers are kicked out. I would save a lots of money on my taxes. They do nothing useful for society at all, except terrorize public they are suppose to serve public, not terrorise!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • crystalanne83

        Ummm… I find your comment rather offensive. I am a public servant and I can safely say, I don’t terrorise anyone!

        Public Servants actually do heaps of useful things, such as Medicare, Child Support Agency, Department of Veterans, look after superannuation, indigenous matters, immigration, Foreign affairs and so on and so on.

        There are plenty of people in the public service who work hard to serve their government and Australia. It is really unfair to say that we are all bludgers.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • politicaltarot

        There are plenty of bludgers and useless people in the private sector too.

        Besides the public sector employs people like nurses, police, teachers, ambulance officers etc…or perhaps you don’t need those?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • An Idle Dad

        I’m with you Holly. Look at those government bludgers cleaning up the oil spill in NZ and desperately trying to prevent the private industry ship from breaking in two.

        I mean, who needs fish in the ocean and a clean beach? Bludgers, that’s who! The NZ government should simply leave industry to do the right thing and collect the insurance money. After all, after a few decades those beaches will probably clean themselves! The money the NZ government is spending right now would be better if it was in the pockets of every New Zealander.

        Plus the NZ government is charging – CHARGING – the Captain and navigator with crimes. That’s just public servants terrorising private industry and the public. I predict that no ships will ever try to go to NZ again unless someone does something soon.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  32. Two Mummies

    I am happy with the carbon tax, I am happy to be doing something on a National level to combat climate change.

    What I am not happy about is the constant whining and carping of Tony Abbott and co. For god’s sake get over it…you lost the election already!

    Instead of boring us all senseless with same old repetitive dribble of No, No, No why don’t you put up your own COSTED policy. Do tell us exactly how you can achieve the same reduction without taxpayers spending a single cent? Or how industry will just magically become better environmental citizens without any incentive from the government?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Jimmy

      Here here! Tony Abbott has done everything to cripple the good effect this could’ve had for his own personal goal of achieving government, and yet he’s still offered no explanation as to how HIS carbon policy wont cost Australian’s.
      All he has said is it will be paid for by savings in the budget… 10.5 billion dollars worth. Well Mr. Abbott – if you can save that much, then spend it all on a Carbon policy you have not released any details on, then isn’t it costing us anyway? That money could’ve gone to schools, or the ailing health system? Or a decent pair of boardshorts for yourself?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  33. Gig

    This has to be the worst decision by an even more worthless government. A tax on nothing but the air we breathe out, based on a faulty premise that the Earth is overheating. Even worse than that is the way this inept government has hoodwinked the younger generation into believing that the sky is falling. That our Holden cars and meat pies are a threat to the planet, that our way of life is somehow detrimental to the global climate.

    What a way to start the new century. A whole generation bowed down in the fear that we are destroying the planet.

    Dispensing with the rhetoric for a moment, consider this. For every government-funded scientist who agrees with this premise, there are as many, or more, independent academics who disagree. Nationally and worldwide.

    As recently as yesterday, on national TV, the world renowned scientist Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that a tax of this nature will have no effect on the climate, especially if instituted in Australia only. That’s one example.

    Gillard’s sponsored climate ‘experts’, palaeontologist Flannery and economist Ganaut have publicly admitted that this policy will not reduce the climate’s temperature by one jot in the next hundred to a thousand years.

    It bears thinking about while you listen to an ever increasing fear campaign based on nothing more than false information and a need to raise funds by a beleagured government looking for ways to stave off their ever increasing debt.

    Financially, let’s look at the figures. The Gillard government is proposing to compensate low income earners, pensioners and all those in need. This sounds good until you read further and find that this compensation will be far and above what the tax raises. Originally, this tax was proposed as being ‘revenue neutral’, meaning that money in, equalled money out. Now the government admits there will be a shortfall. And that’s in the first year. This tax, if continued, will become a black hole.

    So we have a government implementing a tax which will hurt the economy, does nothing to affect the climate, yet racks up a debt that future generations will have to pay for.

    The kicker for me is the proposed 2015 introduction of an ETS, an emissions trading scheme. This is the most ridiculous of all notions. Polluting companies will be able to ‘offset’ their carbon emissions by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from those that have apparently cut back on emissions. This is where the scheme gets really sneaky. These companies can buys those credits from anywhere in the world.

    They then resume business in Australia, without paying any carbon tax. So at this point, the government could conceivably run out of climate tax revenue, while polluting companies continue on as usual, but send their ‘pollution tax’ overseas.

    We not only lose, we lose twice.

    Has Gillard really thought this through?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • rozyblatmanlerner

      The CHILEAN VOLCANO spewed out enough CO2 to set back the world 100 years as far as the carbon footprint is concerned…..I am not convinced about anything regarding our ‘socalled carbon footprint’. A whole lot of scare mongering if u ask me……

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Craig

        Hi Rozy. Please provide your reference. I did a search and could only find one reference, but then in the next sentence she started waffling on about leaving it in gods hands, so I lost confidence in her research.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • kevin

        Wrong! Volcanos emit way less CO2 than human activity. Do the research.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Zoe

        What if we have got it wrong and we try and create a better world for nothing….

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Craig

      Hi Gig. Working out global warming is not some black art done by shifty scientists looking to extend their grants, even you at home can do it. Get some graph paper, the kind they use in high school (or did in my day). Now plot the average temperature on it for the last 100 years and draw a median (average) line on it. After doing this look at the direction the line is heading. It is going up. This means temperature is increasing. It’s not hard.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • “For every government-funded scientist who agrees with this premise, there are as many, or more, independent academics who disagree. Nationally and worldwide”

      That is so blatantly not true that I have simply lost any amount of respect for anything you have to say. Which is a pity, because even though I don’t always agree with you Gig, you at least seem to be able to articulate your argument without resorting to hyperbole, generalisations or untruths…you just crossed the line into Andrew Bolt territory I’m afraid.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • fender4eva

      Gig, for Christ’s sake put the guitar back in it’s case, and go for Abbott’s job. We need you, to talk some sense into these twerps…….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • politicaltarot

      Um, it’s not a tax on the air you breathe! It is a tax on the 500. Biggest. Polluters. For the millionth time. It’s also not going to decrease the temperature on it’s own, any fool should know that. It’s about INVESTING the money raised in renewable energy and training people to work in those industries.

      Personally, I like clean air.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Annette

        Hear, hear Laura! At least someone went to the trouble of actually reading Mia’s very useful and informative cheat-sheet before launching into an uninformed diatribe based on the exact media scaremongering hogwash that Abbott has been using so well. What he and his ilk don’t get is that Australians are heartily sick of being used and abused by big industry and big business. Most of us would welcome a bit of well-directed socialism… He us so out of touch it’s scary.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Happymum

      I wish I could thumbs up your comment a billion times Gig.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • fender4eva

      Gig, Gillard doesn’t need to think things through. Bob Brown does that for her……… You know Bob Brown, our defacto Prime minister ?….

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  34. missmel

    Does anyone know the figures on how much carbon emission Australia contributes to the world total?

    I agree that small changes are needed across the board from every polluting nation but are we just a novelty on the world stage? Or will our “first step” actually mean something.

    This is one piece of public policy I’m still undecided on…just trying to gather the facts…once again, thank you Rick for helping my quest to be better informed on these important issues :)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • An Idle Dad

      Hi Missmel,
      Here’s a graphic showing world emissions by country from this year (click on the picture.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#

      Australia isn’t insignificant, but not with the two big boys, China and the US.

      So, is the carbon price the best piece of legislation ever? No? Is it the best we can hope for under the current political climate? Yes.

      A trading scheme works better than a price on carbon because while a trading scheme does the same as a carbon price in making poluting products more expensive, a trading system ALSO makes cleaner products cheaper.

      While Australia only contributes 1% of world carbon emissions (some estimate more, some estimate less, but lets just use that figure as a middle ground) what we do contribute is more carbon emissions per person than any other country.

      For example, the Australian population is only a third of the size of the UK, but we produce the same amount of carbon in total. China, the world’s largest emitter in total volume has 1.3 billion people compared to Australia’s 22 million.

      While our politicians point at China and say ‘you must cut your emissions’ they point at us and say ‘each Australian citzen produces three times as much CO2 as a Chinese citizen, you are a rich nation, surely you can cut back a little’.

      Now, their ‘do nothing’ argument doesn’t stand up. And if we create or improve new technologies, we can sell it to them.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • PK - Australian Expat in CH

      Of course Australia plays a huge role!

      You should be happy that an attempt is being made to clean up the environment.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  35. I’m just wondering…has anyone changed their minds about the CT and the ETS and the compensation package now that all the figures are out there? Anyone come to the realisation that Tony Abbott’s fear campaign was just that and nothing else…or, on the other hand, anyone else now more worried about all this now that the details are out?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  36. Hi

    I am on a disability pension and a bit confused. I know I will get an additional payment for the carbon tax but why am I being taxed at all? Why not just take that extra payment and put that towards carbon tax?
    Can anyone help me understand that? Essentially I am getting extra money from the government to hand back again?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Rick Morton

      Well you won’t be taxed directly, that’s the thing. The tax is on the polluters and the money given back to you is as compensation for the price rises they will pass on to you in the form of electricity, gas, food price rises etc.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Hi

        Thanks Rick,
        That makes way more sense than what I thought!
        Cheers for the response :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • An Idle Dad

      The plan is to reduce carbon emissions by 2050, not by July 1st 2012.

      The compensation is so you, and other low earners (if you don’t mind that tag) aren’t smashed by the additional cost. You shouldn’t be punished for making logical financial decisiions you made before there was even talk of a carbon tax.

      The point is, though, that all future decisions you make will now have the cost of carbon built in. So the chances are, you’ll make decisions that are not only better for you and the environment, but make logical financial sense.

      That bit of extra cash means that next time you buy a fridge, you’ll have a little more money to perhaps afford the fridge that uses less energy.

      It’s not a merry-go-round of cash, it’s designed to slow the transition to a low-carbon economy.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Hi

        Thanks An Idle Dad,
        You and Rick have cleared up my confusion, I really appreciate your response.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  37. spin-free-zone

    This may explain why I am confused

    An excerpt from
    Bjorn Lomborg:

    The main climate economic models show that to achieve the much discussed goal of keeping temperature increases under 2C, we would need a global tax on carbon emissions that would start at nearly $100 per tonne and increase to more than $3700 per tonne by the end of the century.

    This would cost the world $40 trillion a year by 2100, according to calculations by noted climate economist Richard Tol. But all in all, this spending would be 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it seeks to prevent, according to mainstream calculations of expected damage.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/a-carbon-tax-cant-save-the-planet/story-e6frgd0x-1226091913862

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Craig

      Where do these figures come from? I couldn’t find any reference but did see on Wikipedia Richard Tol did recommend a carbon tax to help stimulate investment in alternative energy sources.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • spin-free-zone

        The main climate economic models

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Craig

          You’re just repeating the same original un-cited quote you initially did. I assume you are a high school student. By the time you get to year 12 or university you need to provide evidence to back up claims or else you will fail. I will let you off this time. D+.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • spin-free-zone

            Ask the author of the article. It sounds like he refers to the same ones that Ross Garnaut refers to.
            I believe those exact figures are in Garnauts report.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Amy

              I have from a credible source that Spin-free Zone has no source

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
          • Alana

            Craig, this is exactly what I have to say to people that quote rubbish on the Carbon Tax. I say “what is your source? Is it a credible source?”

            Usually they are quoting the unreliable information from Mr Abbott or 2GB!

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
  38. spin-free-zone

    Still more confused.

    We now have as official Gillard Government policy that the emissions from petrol used in cars and small trucks are OK; but the emissions from diesel used in semis are evil.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • rainbow

      are you one of those young libs that get sent to bomb websites like this one with anti-ALP spin?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • spin-free-zone

        Pure grassroots here I’m afraid. I run my own business and make it a priority to cut through the spin to work out whether to close up or put everyone on casual or downsize.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • nenebe

        I’m pretty sure this site is currently being bombed with Labor members – so much concise information !!!???

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  39. spin-free-zone

    Oh just a bit confused. If this carbon dioxide is so beneficial to industry, why isn’t it higher at say $100 per tonne.

    And if it is so right and great, why the $4 billion over compensation? The govt will compensate $4billion over what it will recieve.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Craig

      It is not over compensation but will be used in R&D for cleaner renewable energy sources. You could have found that out yourself in 2 minutes, you need to try harder. C-.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • spin-free-zone.

        Craig did you know that treasury hasn’t even modeled the package.
        Chrisitne Milne just confirmed it.
        Unlike you i havn’t taken for granted what the government has said, I investigate because my livlihood depends on it.

        So if treasury hasn’t costed it yet then how come they can tell us how much Tim Tam are going to cost?

        I would say that maybe you should do your homework before you go handing out grades.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  40. spin-free-zone

    Julia Gillard and Greg Combet keep refering to California as the ideal economy that is leading the charge on a carbon tax. They say australia should follow it’s lead.

    Well California doesn’t have anywhere near the blanket carbon tax this government wants to introduce and the one it has is in the proccess of being dismantled.
    California is broke.
    Great example!

    P.S. What’s with those dirty smoke stacks. They don’t exist anymore. The white emmission that you do see today is steam. Just water vapor. Carbon dioxide is invisible and odourless. It’s a gas

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  41. Pete

    Bring on the next election please.
    I am so sick and tired of Julia and her crazy tirades. I would almost be better off now not doing any overtime at work (single income 2 kids) and getting free handouts from the suckers like me on higher incomes paying the extra tax. Working harder for a better income should not mean that we have to pay more for those on a lower income.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • So Pete, would you swap places with the person on a lower income?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Pete

        J-J, I’ve earned my spot in the foodchain with hard work and study, so why would I wan’t to do something as stupid as that ? My original point I was trying to make is that everybody should contribute equally to the cause of saving our planet. What incentive do the lower income families have to reduce their carbon footprint if they are going to be more than reimbursed for their increased costs?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Well, why didn’t you say that in the 1st place? I’m still not sure I agree with you, but your 2nd comment was much more reasoned and well argued than the 1st.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • Grammar Police

          I am surprised that with your study, somewhere along the line you did not learn that ‘want’ does not have an apostrophe.
          The (low) standard of grammar and punctuation in our carbon-priced society never ceases to amaze me.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • An Idle Dad

          The point is not to smash everyone next year, but introduce the cost of carbon in a slow and sensible fashion and drive lower emissions through market forces over time. 2050 is a long time away.

          Yes, low income earners will be compensated, but they don’t have the give in their budget to absorb a cost increase.

          What they will find, thoguh, is now every future financial decision they make will have the price of carbon built in already. They’ll make difference choices than today.

          Those at the high end, can change their habits with much more flexibility than low income earners, so get less protection from market forces.

          Saying things like “everyone should contribute equally” is like saying “everyone should pay the same tax rate”. It fails all economic tests. Yes, even conservative-side-of-politics tests.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • WillaWay

          Why should everyone contribute “equally” when we start off very “unequally”in how much we benefit? Low income earners are often trapped into being less energy efficient because of unequal income distributions in our society. e.g. can they afford a low emissions fridge, or have to settle for the cheaper one with higher emissions, or 2nd hand? If your argument is that low income earners deserve to earn so much less than higher earners, you’ve lost me. Pay inequality has been increasing rapidly over the last decades, and for no reason. Trickle down does not work. Just the rich paying themselves more and the poorer among us can go hang. Taking measures to cut carbon is often a privilege of rich individuals, just as it is easier for rich nations. Why do higher income earners deserve their higher incomes so much?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  42. Anna

    Our combined income falls into the middle income bracket, and while we certainly struggle to pay our bills week to week (cost of living significantly increased by having 3 children under 4!), I am satisfied that this carbon tax is the right thing for Australia to do
    right now. It’s only a very small step, but better than doing nothing. I think the govt has done the best they could under difficult circumstances.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  43. Two Mummies

    Be good if the calculator included a bit on solar panels. Our panels means we are saving, on average, over $800 a year. By including information on savings generated by solar panels people would be encouraged to go solar.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Kris2040

      What do they cost to have installed, TwoMums?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Flutterby

        Solar panels cost several grand. How much depends on how many you put on.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  44. Imelda

    As always, my husband and I are part of the “1 in 10″ that will be worse off, we don’t have kids and we earn more than the required amount to benefit from the increase to the tax-free threshold or to gain any rebate.
    I actually feel quite impassive about this – we have come to just expect Australia to get more and more and more expensive, with the cost of living in Sydney far exceeding comparable international cities. Every time Julia announces something, we KNOW we will not benefit, as we don’t fit into the neat ‘have kids’ or ‘low income earners’ bracket. Don’t get me wrong, I know this means we are relatively financially fortunate, however just like the people with kids, we have a mortgage, we have bills, cars, rates and the rest of it – just for once it would be nice to see savings handed out across the board, not just to the people with kids or who earn less than $80K. Doesn’t seem to get you far in this city anyway…..
    As far as the actual ‘carbon’ tax idea….will it work? We don’t know, but I don’t see the harm in attempting to persuade polluters to reduce their pollution? Even if it’s not going to make it or break it, it certainly can’t hurt to do what little we can to reduce the rubbish that goes into our atmosphere can it?
    As far as the ‘world watching’ – I have to agree with an earlier comment that, after living for years overseas, I barely saw Australia on the news at all…..so I doubt whether in fact the ‘world’ is watching. Perhaps they mean that the ‘green’ party equivalent of other developed nations are watching to see what happens here….not necessarily the wider community in general.
    There’s just something a bit condescending about Julia herself – I cringe when I hear her say “I know….budgets are tight” – do you, Julia?? It’s a bit like she’s trying to relate to the everyday man of Oz, but really, sitting up there in the Lodge, how can she? She knows, because her government keeps putting pressure on family budgets. How about looking into Australian retailers and figuring out why we pay 50 to 100% more for comparable products than in the US and UK? Surely with the strong Aussie dollar we can’t continue to blame import costs? That would be helpful, Jules.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Ash

      I’m in the same boat, Imelda! No kids, income just over $80k – I too have come to expect that the government will not benefit me at any point.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Monica

        You are benifited by reduced carbon immissions and a healthier environment.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Anna

      I agree 100%

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • therecipebinder

      We’re also in the same boat as you and Ash. We earn “too much” and have no kids. Using the governments cost estimator, we’re WORSE OFF by $634.

      I know I shouldn’t complain (the carbon tax is to help save the environment after all and that is something I do support!), but in a year where Husband was made redundant soon after we bought a house and we stuggled financially for a little while (while the in-laws kept asking to borrow money since they thought we made over $200k – nowhere NEAR what we earn!!!), it just kinda feels like a kick in the teeth.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Janey

        If you’re going to be $634 worse off, you and your partner obviously earn decent money and as many other posts have pointed out, perhaps you could look at ways to minimise that gap between compensation and payment by reducing your energy consumption or becoming more discerning about the products/services you buy and use. This is about changing business and individual behaviour. I love it when people say that they want action on climate change but then the next question “are you willing to pay for it?” and they say no. How do we think we can do this without imposing penalties on big polluters? I know a lot of people argue that they work hard for their money etc etc and shouldn’t have to carry the burden with extra tax but you know what, people on low incomes also work hard for their money – they just don’t get as much of it! If we truly want to effect change, it’s going to hurt the hip pocket for those of us fortunate enough to be in a position to bear some of the load and help out those who aren’t.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anni-F

          So…………$634 – that adds up to around just over $12 per week – maybe you could cut out a takeaway meal/coffees/movies….etc – that should balance it out……..seriously – how hard would that be?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • therecipebinder

          I understand we all have to chip in and pay for it – I’m just a tad grumpy that it’s so much considering we try and do as much as we can to reduce our carbon footprint (ie: install rain water tanks, use solar power, plant our own veggies/herbs, don’t bother with a clothes dryer, use energy efficient appliances, turn off everything not being used, etc.)

          I know plenty of people who do nothing to try and reduce their carbon footprint (think boat, caravan, quad bikes, the clothes dryer on, the heater on, 4 TVs for 3 people, etc.) yet they are only going to pay a quarter of what we have to pay.

          I guess it just doesn’t seem fair sometimes when we try so hard to do the right thing plus it’s been a bad year for us financially with the redundancy and some major health expenses.

          I think I’ll go make a cup of tea and be grumpy in silence. I’ll be over it by tomorrow. :)

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Imelda

            I totally agree – my friends laugh at some of the environmentally aware, or cost aware things I do, like unplug the microwave and other plugs during the day (or when not in use), carry a water bottle with me everywhere instead of ever buying water, have a Bokashi bin to reduce the amount of food scraps that go into the rubbish……I just feel like it would be great to occasionally see that ‘savings’ or ‘benefits’ were equally distributed among Australians. I feel like I am continually being penalised for having sought an education and job which earns me an amount the government considers to be ‘too much’………….whilst my friends with kids who buy plastic, disposable EVERYTHING and couldn’t possibly consider hanging clothes out on the line instead of conveniently drying them in the dryer while every light in the house is on will be rewarded.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
    • Faybian

      Well we earn too much to get anything off the govt. either. We do get a childcare rebate of 50% of after school fees for 2 afternoons/week, which (while still better than a kick up the bum) ends up being very little and that is it. It’s not just non parents. Anyway, the public hospitals an ambulance would take you to will cost nothing, or the Uni you could attend will be part paid for by the govt.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Mabol

      Imelda,

      Wealth disparity is increasing in Australia, the increases in wealth in the top 10% easily offsets this relatively small contribution you are being asked to make. I think it has been suggested that tax reform to alleviate the rising cost of living pressures on the poorest in society has been incorporated in this tax.

      It always ‘seems’ that the top income earners are being slugged with more responsibility – but in reality that is usually not the case. Tax reform is periodically needed to make sure that the top 10% don’t end up with virtually ALL the money and power. And at the moment as I have stated, wealth disparity between top and bottom earners is *increasing*. So any more financial responsibility on your behalf is an illusion.

      And even if it was, then there is the fact that people who have the most wealth – often have consumption patterns and lifestyles that place a higher burden on the environment – thus it is only fair that they contribute a little bit more to compensate for this. (Not to mention that there is a clear correlation between the resources that one has been born into and financial outcomes – hard work is often a necessary but not sufficient condition for later wealth).

      And I think your statement about cringing over Julia Gillard’s statements because she living in the lodge is a very low tactic and completely unfair and unsubstantiated. Whatever you may say about Julia Gillard, (I can feel a bit ambivalent myself)- she has an *exemplary* record of supporting labour rights in this country and I believe even has a background of using her skills as a lawyer to support immigrant workers who are poorly treated and being taken advantage of.

      She has every right to make comments empathising with budgets of low income workers and I think anyone to suggest that she is not being genuinely empathic in this case is misinformed.

      Please have a thought to the thousands of millions of people in the world that have no resources at all to deal with the extra vulnerabilities they will be exposed to by shifts in climate (like the millions starving to death in Africa) – when you make your small contribution that isn’t even offsetting proportional increases in the top wage brackets.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  45. robyn

    Why should Gillard take it to an election, Tony Abbott?? Regardless of whether or not I/we voted her in, she’s our PM and her party is in government, and that’s the job of the government – to make changes to our laws and systems based on facts and intelligence that they have. I understand that we probably won’t be privy to all of the details about why they have arrived at the decisions they have, and nor do I expect to – I probably won’t understand all the nitty gritty anyway, so I just expect the bigger picture details. What I do know is that Labor didn’t come to this decision all by themselves, and that there were clearly a lot of other people (climate scientists, energy industry, financial people etc) advising them on this issue who are neither Labor nor Liberal nor Greens politicians.

    I’m actually quite offended that he thinks we are so stupid to want to be whipped into a frenzy around this and demand an election – I may not know everything, but I definitely know that an election is not a solution.

    If government was expected to take every decision they make to election then we would be spending a lot of time at the polls, and a lot of our taxpayers money putting on these stupid elections.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • its_just_me

      He’s asking for it to be taken to an election because she promised at the previous election there would be no carbon tax.

      I think her words were “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,”

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • robyn

        Fair point. However the fact that she promised no carbon tax wasn’t the deciding factor in me voting/not voting for her at the election, so clearly I’m not the person Tony Abbott is trying to appeal to ;)

        I just don’t think that spending $30M+ on an election is a good use of taxpayers money. I’m sure the majority of people would vote based only on their own personal situation (how much money they would get back in handouts) and not on what they think is best for the country/environment/future – that’s pretty clear based on a lot of the comments below. This debate is really bringing out the selfishness in people.

        My situation – our HH income is over $150K and we have a child on the way. We get no handouts from the government, and I don’t expect any, because even though we have a MASSIVE mortgage and a couple of cars, and we like to go on holidays and eat out, that’s our choice and we try to live within our means. The CT is going to cost us about an extra $800 or more a year, but we’re planning on using the next 11 months to make changes to our energy consumption and savings where possible. From our personal perspective, this is something we should have started to do a while ago and it’s not until we get our gas/electricity bills each quarter that we decide we need to do something to lower them!! So I’m happy I now, I kind of feel like I’m being forced into making an effort :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • An Idle Dad

        Tony “Iron Clad” Abbott should have called an election himself, it seems.

        http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1761.asp?s=1

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • nenebe

        And the clue there might be that she is not ‘leading’ the government – the Green’s are – maybe she is not lying afterall……….just a thought!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  46. An Idle Dad

    I am a very, very concerned citizen.

    When Paul Keating introduces Compuslary Superannuation, basically adding 9% wage costs to every working person in Australia, the economy is going to be destroyed. People will have to lay off workers left right and centre. Obvious, isn’t it?

    There is no way, that following this socialist hidden tax is introduced that Australia will have 16 years of economic growth. I foresee that by the turn of the century, we will all be RUINED!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Pfffttt….super me no annuations!

      What about the GST. There’s no way those “so-called” tax-cuts being offered by Howard and Costello are going to compensate me for the accumulated price-rises generated by the GST. That’s why we’ll all be RUINED!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • An Idle Dad

        Medicare! MEDICARE! Free health care for everyone? Introducing Medicare will RUIN the Australian economy by 1986. Thank God the Liberals are going to dismatle it as soon as they are in power.

        ** OK, I’m showing my age here **

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • And don’t forget how bad floating the dollar will be…could you imagine the uncertainty of not having our dollar linked to the $US…? The $AU will never ever be worth more than the $US…mark my words…!

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • An Idle Dad

            Five day week? ROOOENED.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • The Vote for Women? RUUUUIIIINED!!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Of course, things have all gone down hill since we invented the wheel…

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • An Idle Dad

              Slavery. Getting rid of that was a mistake. I wouldn’t need air conditioning if I could simply tell the person I own to waive a gaint palm frond over me and get me mohitos.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Mabol

              We didn’t get rid of slavery. We simply sent it to the third world and renamed it ‘labour’.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Kris2040

              LOL!!!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Ella

              Hahaha thanks for giving me a laugh on my first day back at Uni this semester!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  47. sometimeskaren

    According to the calculator, my family will be worse off by $3 per week.

    Given that electricity prices are set to rise by about that much per week, I figure if I tweak my use of the dryer and heater, I might just come out ahead.

    If your family will be worse off under the scheme I suggest you spend the next 11 months figuring out how to reduce your energy consumption. Isn’t that what’s at the heart of the tax anyway?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Absolutely! You snooze, you lose!

      Families that change their energy demographics are going to be winners under this new scheme…

      Families who whine and complain and do nothing will achieve nothing…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • majikstasia

      But, many of us already lowered our use of electricity over summer and what did the electricity companies do? RAISE PRICES ANYWAY cus they didn’t earn enough…! its a loose loose

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Kris2040

        So vote with your wallet – change companies!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • iisneeno

        Theres no point changing electricity and gas retailers… if they don’t get you from the usage per kWh, they will charge you a higher DAIL Y SUPPLY CHARGE. Every retailer is the same.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • oopsyboops

        thats the point. The cost of electricity is going up anyway irrespective of a carbon tax as it is an ultimately untenable and finite industry (coal fired that is). So change. Get solar. Use gas or a heat pump. Turn of your plasmas. Buy appliances that use less power. The tax should generate interest in these industries so ultimately they will be cheaper.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  48. katehunter

    The whole carbon tax thing does my head in. Prices have always gone up and it seems a new tax will be a convenient scapegoat. Oppositions, manufacturers and retailers will be able to blame everything on the Carbon Tax. It will be the Ricky Ponting of the economy. Are we world leaders or are we mugs? I’m not convinced this tax will have a measurable impact on the atmosphere in our lifetime. But maybe that’s not the point? If it gives a leg up to clever people working on clean energy sources then it has to be a good thing. I’m holding my breath and hoping for the best.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Susan

      It does my head in too.

      Realistically though, we have been like kids in a lolly shop with regard to the the things we take out of the ground and the things we put in the air.

      I think our bill to the environment is long overdue to be paid for.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  49. Noelle

    I’ll be $319 better off per year under the carbon tax. And even if it cost me twice that, I wouldn’t care (and I’m a part-time working masters student).

    People are always scared of new things, especially when it’s got the word ‘tax’ attached to it (GST, anyone…?)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  50. Flutterby

    I see lots of soundbites from last night, except the one important one….

    The Nature study stating that the difference we make to global warming is one 4000th of a percent (no, I have not mistyped the 0′s).

    Do I want a better future for my children – of course, but the carbon tax is not the way to go.

    Given the slight impact we make, I don’t think we should be leading the world. I think we should wait until there is a proven model to follow. Australian industry will not retool, it will be cheaper to sack people and pass on the cost.

    In the next 2 years, my energy costs will rise 16% under a carbon tax (this year, it’s my state government putting the 6% in there). I already use the least amount I can. I have solar – next they will stop the rebate and buying my power back off me, like they did in NSW.

    Public transport will sky rocket. How is that good for the environment?

    The government was too gutless to go through with the mining tax, so they go for the soft target – the people.

    How can we trust this government? The Flood Levy was supposed to be a one off at the end of the tax year – now, I’m paying it as I go. Had I paid it at the end of the year, it would’ve been lost in other rebates and write-offs, now, I have to suffer every fortnight.

    I recycle, I am frugal with energy, I have solar heating and panels. Next up is a worm farm and chook run and a vegie patch. I’d much rather see incentives than penalties to change behaviour.

    Fiddling with the tax brackets will not make a scrap of difference. As for touting the economic modellers for GST – bad move. That tax has become an incremental one and started the massive cost of living we have today. My city is 4 times more expensive to live in than New York!!! The days of the “Livable City” are over.

    As for the world watching us – the world doesn’t even know Australia exists. We barely rate on their international news.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

So, we have $1000 to give away... oh, would you be interested? Well step right this way.

To go in the draw to win, just LIKE us on Facebook, enter your email address and tell us in 25 words or less why you love reading Mamamia.

Close this popup



Full Terms & Conditions