Environment, International, Politics, Society

Australia Repeals Carbon Tax

200px-Tony_Abbott_-_2010220px-AlfedPalmersmokestacksIn a major setback to effort to combat climate change, Australia’s Abbott government has secured a repeal of the carbon tax. It is the first major country to rollback on the basic environmental protection. Abbott’s government is suggesting that it will pay corporations not to pollute — a proposal that would cost a huge amount and environmentalists insist is unlikely to be successful.

We have previously discussed the radically anti-environmental policies of the Abbott government, which has turned a country that was once a leader in environmentalism into the leader of the countermovement.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Environment Minister Greg Hunt rejoiced in the repeal, which was held up by determined opposition in the legislature. It ultimately passed the Senate by 39 votes to 32.

Carbon tax programs force companies to internalize part of the costs that they externalize in production and gives an incentive to companies to find ways to cut back on such emissions. The Abbott government insists that it can achieve the same reductions by direct payments to corporations – a position that environmentalists do accept and others believe would be too costly if it were to be used to achieve real reductions.

This is an area where I agree with President Obama and admire his continued efforts internationally to create a united position of major nations. Our own country continues to lag behind efforts to curtail these pollutants. However, the position of Australia has already been a rally point for countries like China with appalling environmental records.

Source: SMH

33 thoughts on “Australia Repeals Carbon Tax”

  2. Max-1 – “Jimm22,
    I give you an interview and I can keep giving you links to FACTS…
    Germany just produced 75% energy needs FROM renewables.

    Instead you give us rhetoric:
    “Jim22
    Max-1, Wind energy doesn’t produce base load needs. 75% of Germany’s power comes from non renewable sources.”

    Care to link your set of facts?”

    Ahhh, let’s see…. This is is from your own article.

    “As a whole, in 2013 renewables met 25% of Germany’s domestic electricity demand.”

    Do you even read what you post? You really don’t understand base load energy. Presenting an article from a biased site where someone writes base load is a fallacy doesn’t make that a fact.

    I’m all for alternative sources, but how about we stop subsidizing all forms and also have the govt. get out of the way on others and we will see what the market says is truly the best way to go. I would love to have my own small scale LFTR.

    Lastly, John Oliver? Really? Yeah, John Stewart with an English accent.

  3. Oh, the other John Oliver…
    Bennet, Tester Introduce Bill to Ban Members of Congress from Becoming Lobbyists, Close Revolving Door
    http://www.bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/bennet-tester-introduce-bill-to-ban-members-of-congress-from-becoming-lobbyists-close-revolving-door

    To solve for the problem of outsized lobbyist influence and to close the revolving door, Bennet and Tester have proposed aggressive lobbying reform, which would:

    Place a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from becoming lobbyists;
    Increase the statutory staff restrictions on lobbying from one year to six years;
    Ban lobbyists from joining Congressional staffs or committee staffs that they lobbied for six years;
    Create a more accessible website for public reporting of lobbying activities;
    Require substantial lobbying entities to report on the non-lobbyist employees they have who are former members of Congress or former senior congressional staff, and describing those employees’ job responsibilities; and
    Increase the maximum penalty for violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

  7. Jimm22,
    I give you an interview and I can keep giving you links to FACTS…
    Germany just produced 75% energy needs FROM renewables.

    Instead you give us rhetoric:
    “Jim22
    Max-1, Wind energy doesn’t produce base load needs. 75% of Germany’s power comes from non renewable sources.    ”

    Care to link your set of facts?

  10. Jim22,
    Please note that the following article is three years old…
    Renewable energy can provide baseload power – here’s how
    http://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221

    The myth that renewable energy sources can’t meet baseload (24-hour per day) demand has become widespread. After all, the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and there’s no sunlight at night.

    But detailed computer simulations, backed up by real-world experience with wind power, demonstrate that a transition to 100% energy production from renewable sources is possible within the next few decades. The baseload issue can be solved by reducing baseload demand,having some renewable energy sources that can supply baseload power and increasing the proportion of flexible peakload plant in the generating mix.
    (continued)

  11. Jim22
    The Myth of Baseload Power
    http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/myth-of-baseload.html

    Mark Diesendorf from Australia’s Institute of Environmental Studies has this to say: “Opponents of renewable energy, from the coal and nuclear industries and from NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) groups, are disseminating the fallacy that renewable energy cannot provide baseload power to substitute for coal-fired electricity. Even Government Ministers and some ABC journalists are propagating this conventional ‘wisdom’, although it is false. The political implications are that, if the fallacy becomes widely believed to be true, renewable energy would always have to remain a niche market, rather than achieve its true potential of becoming a set of mainstream energy supply technologies.

    The refutation of the fallacy has the following key logical steps:
    (continued)

    Speaking of marching orders…

  12. Groty

    I don’t agree with the assertion that the U.S. is not doing enough.
    …
    =========================
    The larger problem is a matter of psychology, not a matter of goody-goody competition or financial philosophy.

  13. BD,

    Your ineligible president is a cigarette smoker.

    You appear to be saying that he is dumb. I could be wrong.

    Thank you. I rest my case. Empty suit decided.

    While we’re at it, let’s write a law imposing a tax on those pesky volcanoes. And while we’re at it, let’s throw in deep ocean emissions and asteroids; maybe cattle flatulence. We could tax the hell out of those cows and they probably wouldn’t even know it. The stupider the target the better, right? Kinda like ambulance chasing trial lawyers. What’s the per capita carbon “footprint” of super yachts, limousines and Learjet’s? Oh, oh, Those are usually owned by smart liberal people. That could be a problem.

    Wait a minute. You mean nuclear power plants aren’t pollution-in-waiting? We should impose a forward-looking tax on nuke plants. Damn we’re on a roll. This is not good government, this is great government, great big government. Let’s go have a big party to celebrate, at taxpayer expense of course. We can call it a seminar, no a symposium – together, drink – we like to drink, right? We’ll keep it to $100k plus per diem and transportation, just a small one, we don’t want to abuse those “deep pockets” of the unsuspecting taxpayer, or do we?

    Oops! Volcanoes are like corporations. I forgot. Corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do. Do volcanoes pay taxes? Let’s have the IRS do an audit of Mt. Saint Helens just to find out; to intimidate it, give it a come-to-Jesus moment, that’ll make it fork over some revenue.

    Here’s a plan, see what this would do:

    Reduce the global population.

Comments are closed.