The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Emissions taxes and trades

21 comments on Emissions taxes and trades

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Kiashu on July 9, 2008 - 9:29am

I think a carbon tax would be more politically acceptable than most as it's indirect in terms of everyday life. Few people buy bulk amounts of crude oil, raw coal, and natural gas. All of them are processed in some way before everyday consumers use them.

So that raising the tax on them would have an effect on prices, but it'd be indirect and the government would be a step removed from it, like payroll taxes, import tariffs and so on.

You're right that it's not easy to raise any tax, but it'd be easier to raise a carbon tax than an income tax or GST. It's all in how you present the thing. For example, when Canada introduced a GST, you'd buy something and there'd be the price - and only at the counter would they calculate the state and federal sales tax on it. So every time you bought something you were aware of just how many dollars of tax you were paying, which really pissed people off. Thus their federal government went from something like 157 seats to 3 in the next election. Our own federal government in Australia learned from that, and made it law that all prices must include GST.

I'm sure there would be similar lessons to be learned with a carbon tax, that there'd be ways to present it that annoy people, and ways that they don't really notice it.

The annoyance would also be balanced out if they made sure there were sufficient options for people. For example, currently the rate for coal is something like 15.5c/kWh, and for wind it's 21.0c/kWh. If there were a carbon tax of 10c/kWh, then people would say, "oh well, I can change to wind and it'll be cheaper." Likewise if there's substantial investment in public transport. "Hmmm, petrol is $3/lt, but the bus is only 400m away and there's one every five minutes."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Termoil on July 10, 2008 - 4:31am

A carbon tax though would raise the price sure, but would it raise it enough for people to really change their behaviour significantly enough to actually reduce emissions. Did the GST stop people from buying stuff? No. And the way pricing was deliberatley designed to conceal the tax was a bit sneaky but the GST was never designed to act as a brake on people consuming. Thats why they didn't call it a consumption tax.

Carbon taxes have an entirely differnet purpose. Their primary goal should be to get the market to change its behaviour, not necessarily raise revenue. In order to do that you have to take the revenue raised by the carbon tax and effectively destroy it. You can't pump it back into the economy as compensation to the poor consumers and industry who paid it in the first place. The same goes for any money raised by an ETS. Compensation to the miscreants that are the beneficiaries of the pollution is not going to encourage them to change their ways.

Turning off the power or gas after 28 days in the month becasue they have used up their ration, would get their attention a lot faster. But alas we are not the elected PTB so the Termoil plan must remain consigned to an internet footnote here on TOD.

(BTW I think that your personal plan of reducing your own carbon footprint, driven primarily on the morality rather than the economics is is where the greatest impact is to be had.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on July 10, 2008 - 7:12am

The GST wasn't designed to reduce consumption, nonetheless it had that effect for the first several months. This is the pattern with all taxes whatever the ostensible purpose: when you introduce or raise the tax, people drop their spending, when you remove or lower the tax, people raise their spending.

Logically, then, you'd have to bring a carbon tax in and increase it year by year until you'd reached your overall carbon emissions target.

With the revenue you should invest in options to the things which emit carbon. Obviously it's no use making petrol or coal more expensive if people have no public transport and can't change to renewables. Not only is this reasonable and logical, it would also make raising the tax more politically palatable. "Yes, you have to pay another 5 cents a litre now, but the extra $500 million we expect to raise from this is going to be invested in railways - so you don't have to drive. And yes, coal-sourced electricity now costs 22c/kWh, but wind is 21c/kWh, you can always change to that just call up your retailer, and whatever you buy they have to invest in more turbines." Etc.

A ration has the appeal of firmness, but simply isn't going to happen. We Aussies already have a sense of entitlement matched only by Americans, turning the tap off would just make it worse.

As well as reducing my carbon footprint from a sense of morality - some things are right to do whether they do any good for the world or not - I do it to slowly spread the idea that (a) it's a good thing and (b) it's possible to do without living in a cave. Having such ideas spread makes it politically easier to bring in measures like carbon taxes at government level. Ideas are powerful things. Things seem impossible, but people just keep talking about them as though they're possible, then others decide they're possible, and then they happen.

Change is like a cup with a tap dripping into it in the dark. We never know when, but eventually a single drop will cause the cup to overflow. Things like this