Australia Should NOT Be Taxed

The main source of the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels, causing 75% of the increase.

The result is that humans are adding ever-increasing amounts of extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer.

A cap-and-trade program sets a maximum level of pollution, and distributes emission permits among firms that produce emissions (Carbon Tax, 2013). The purpose of which is regulation of specific emissions by stationary and mobile sources, and setting a specific level which all emitters are re-quired to meet. Cap-and-trade possibly has less of a direct economic component to it than the other alternatives to reducing emissions described due to the ability to trade permits versus the expendi-ture of resources improving technology, with some arguing it is to the detriment of the environment. As stated in the article found in Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda, by Ashford, N. et al., 2008, “being a market-based instrument, ‘the cap-and-trade option suggests that at least this form of MBI may be more environmentally effective than the usual command-and-control alternatives, in addition to being more economically efficient.” (Ashford, N. and Caldart, C., 2008, p. 908).

Since the proposal, some provinces have adopted the carbon pricing policy in order to encourage the companies to reduce their carbon emissions. Other provinces are still being resistant to the idea mostly because they are skeptical about the economic impacts. A successful example of province that applied this policy is British Columbia. Ian Bruce and

Recent scientific evidence indicates that humans have upset the carbon cycle, leaving more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, burning biomass such as ethanol and wood, creating cement and releasing other chemicals into the atmosphere is upsetting the natural flow of carbon.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the nation by surprise in October 2016 by stating that each province in Canada will need to adopt a carbon pricing scheme by 2018. In addition, Trudeau added that the only other option for the provincial governments will be to impose a cap and trade system in order to follow the Paris Agreement. Countries that follow the agreement must set their own targets for reducing the carbon gases that they emit into the atmosphere. The main goal is to sustain global warming to be under two degrees Celsius. (Paris Agreement Paragraph 2). Revenues made off of the carbon tax will remain with the provinces and territories of origin. With this taxpayer money, each provincial government can decide how the tariffs are distributed.

First we should understand how the carbon cap and trade system came about. The system of carbon cap trade used to be known as ‘emissions trading’, the alliance of free-market republicans and renegade environmentalists got the system adopted as national law in 1990 as a part of the Clean Air Act, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain, which is triggered by vast clouds of sulfur dioxide

CAP and Trade is a cost-effective method for reducing emissions. The world’s largest implementation of Greenhouse gas trading system is the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and they have been environmentally ineffective. The result of price crash non-stability in California and Quebec are also environmentally ineffective. In 2016, the emphasis was on EU ETS’s fourth phase (2021-2030) which was what the European Commission, presented changes for. The purpose of the presented changes is to bring the cap into line with the EU's 2030 objective, reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions to at least 40% nationally by 2030. The EU provides a better goal of free allocation rules and further supports low-carbon innovation and energy sector transformation. To meet the legal requirements and to compensate for excess pollution EU ETS should reduce GHG emissions, and buy emission allowances in the carbon market. They could also reduce GHG emissions

In Australia, there is an emerging consensus that the government should take further actions to help mitigate and combat climate change. The current most accepted policy by government is the introduction of a carbon tax followed by an ETS in 2015. However we are focusing on the carbon tax in this essay and not the ETS. Here is a brief explanation of the dynamics of a carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on energy sources, which emit carbon dioxide (Co2). Therefore, carbon taxes address the problem of negative externality. Externalities are the subsequent effects when individual production or consumption of a particular good or service imposes costs or benefits on others. Therefore negative externalities are effects, which pose harm to others without their direct interaction (Basic Economics 2011). However, usual market practices and transactions do not reflect these cost and benefits in the prices involved in the transaction, or take into account in their transaction decision. Therefore this is a form of market failure. By imposing a cost on these negative externalities, the hidden cost can be addressed. Ultimately the purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and therefore reduce

In February 2011, the Australian federal government declared a scheme to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1, 2012. Implementing this scheme has generated a controversial debate between Australians. The term “Carbon tax” refers to an environmental tax forcing polluters to pay per ton of carbon which they release into the atmosphere. This essay will provide the economical, social and political implication of carbon taxes, also with its introduction who will benefit and who would suffer.

In recent years, the climate change has been one of the hottest topics since there is an increasing number of consequent impacts influencing the healthy ecosystem and the life of living creatures who are inhabiting in the planet. In fact, according to a range of scientific reports, human activities have been regarded as the main factor causing the global warming and the fluctuating global climate change. In other words, as a huge amount of technologies, such as steam engines that use energy generated from combustion of coals to do works that cannot be done by human forces, has been invented by scientists, it does bring a more efficient way of living but also many side effects into our daily life as well. However, carbon pricing is considered

However, the Gillard government has instituted one fairly radical and controversial policy: the new imposed carbon tax which took effect on July 1, 2012. The tax requires 500 of Australia's top polluting companies to "pay a fixed price, starting at Aus$23 per tonne, for their carbon dioxide emissions for the first three years. The mechanism would then shift

The Hamilton Project, CATO Institute, Stanford and Harvard all agree that policymakers should set the price of the carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon (P=SCC). The Cato institute defines SCC or the social cost of carbon as “the present‐discounted value of the net future external damages from an additional unit of carbon dioxide emissions” (Murphy). This is one of the key concepts that is examined when it comes to economic and/or environmental policy decisions regarding CO2 emissions. This in turn means that a hypothetical carbon tax would be equal to the environmental and social negative externalities that are produced by each additional ton on CO2 emissions (marginal cost). The Hamilton project gives a hypothetical tax scenario of $16 per ton and increasing by 4% per year or so in accordance with the inflation rate. The reason for the incremental increase is because $16 is still far below the Government’s central estimate of $23 and below Canada and British Columbia’s carbon tax policies (“New”). Starting at a lower rate will allow for the gradual assimilation into this new tax policy, if it were implemented.

Since the government regulates how much emissions are allowed, emissions will never rise past their cap. Contrary to that, the carbon tax has a chance to incentivize emissions even lower than a set goal, but, there is no guarantee. Lower emissions mean cheaper everything, allowing for greater profit margins. Also, carbon taxes provide a broader scope in terms of emission reductions (Carbon Tax, Baumert). On the other hand, emissions trading systems would be more suited for all six GHG included in the Kyoto Protocol. Such systems have been already applied and have achieved success in low-cost SO2 emissions. Phase I units reduced SO¬¬¬2 by 57%, while phase II reduced the by 14% after 2000

Carbon Dioxide emissions are destroying earth's environment, minute by minute. Humans play a big part in the addition to the carbon in the air. Every car on the road produces carbon dioxide into the air, as well as the factories worked in, also release carbon dioxide. However, nature also contributes to the increase of carbon dioxide. Wildfires are an attribute to greenhouse gas in the air that is almost uncontrollable by humans. When acres of land is burned, the smoke releases carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon Dioxide takes over the oxygen levels that humans need in order to live and breath. Carbon Dioxide is a gas that is absorbed from the air through plants during the process of photosynthesis. Trees are important in the regulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. A newspaper article, The New York Times, states, “Wildfires also release carbon dioxide, one of the main drivers of climate change, and reduce the number of trees available to absorb carbon dioxide, a double whammy for the atmosphere” (Schlossberg). Trees and forests help maintain the level of this gas, by releasing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, wildfires interrupt the receiving of carbon dioxide. When a forest catches on fire, the substance that absorbs the greenhouse gases are burned down. Not only are the wildfires releasing millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide, there is no longer a product to take in the toxic gas. Therefore, more greenhouse gases are released than absorbed,