Australia PM endorses Carbon Tax
Frankly Australia is way ahead of the US on the issue of climate change and what needs to be done. In fact it is probably higher on the political agenda in no other country. The reason is that they have already 'seen the future' and it is frightening. In the last few years they have had floods, droughts, fires, and agricultural devastation — all associated with changing climate to one degree or another.
Plus they are keenly aware of sea level rise (SLR), likely due to their singular prominence as the only island continent. The famous Great Barrier Reef has already had its share of climate change impacts and warnings — to be covered again separately. New South Wales (NSW) is one state that has already taken aggressive steps to anticipate SLR into their planning, zoning, and building permits.
The news of the day however is that the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard has now endorsed a carbon tax as the most effective way to get off of carbon based fuels associated with greenhouse gases and climate change. This is big news in Australia and elsewhere (San Francisco press coverage.)
They have studied and debated this issue for several years. It has been at the top of political discourse, not near the bottom as in the US.
While no one likes taxes, sober study has brought their government to the conclusion that a simple tax on carbon emissions has several virtues:
- Directly puts a societal cost on things like burning cheap coal — the worst in terms of adding to the greenhouse gas level.
- Puts the decision out in the market as to how best to adjust energy production, taking greenhouse gases into account.
- Avoids the potential manipulation, delay, and profiteering that has already been demonstrated as going along with schemes like "Cap and Trade."
- It is simple and direct.
Where governments decide that a carbon "tax" provides the best the most efficient vehicle, there are then 3 broad options for how to implement:
- Additional source of revenue, possibly with specific purpose for revenue (e.g. funding low carbon energy research)
- Replacing other general tax programs, e.g. income tax or sales tax (VAT, etc.)
- As suggested by famed scientist Dr. James Hansen, implement as a "carbon fee and rebate" where the cost of carbon is attached in an escalating formula at the point of resource generation (e.g. coal mine, oil well, etc.) and then the revenues are distributed to the residents/taxpayers as a distribution to adjust for the higher energy prices they will be paying.
To be sure, this is not simple, nor painless. But it does have some real arguments in its favor. There is still a lot of controversy and discussion about this bold new move in Australia. Many of us will be watching to see what happens next. If nothing else, PM Gillard deserves admiration for taking a bold stance that does not avoid the tough question of HOW are we going to drive the shift in energy sources needed to insure that our planet does not reach the levels of CO2 FAR beyond the current 394 ppm.
Recall that many scientists now think we need to get back to a MAXIMUM of 350 ppm to have a climate that is even remotely consistent with life as we know it. Just to put that in perspective, CO2 has ranged from approximately 180 – 280 ppm for the last 3 million years or longer.