Carbon tax in Australia 1. Introduction The society of the modern day and age is characterized by a wide array of elements, such as unprecedented levels of technologic development, ongoing fights for human rights and societal development, but also high levels of environmental threat. The global warming phenomenon has, for decades, been assessed with importance and reticence alike. While some would argue the severity of the raising global temperatures, others would attest that global warming was a make belief phenomenon. Today however, as science has proven the existence of the phenomenon, more measures have to be taken to ensure environmental stability. One means to increasing environmental stability is represented by the reduction of the carbon print. In other words, emphasis is placed on the reduction of the carbon consumed with the scope of decreasing the negative environmental impact onto the environment. Within Australia, this endeavor has been approached at multiple levels, one notable effort being represented by the creation and implementation of a carbon tax. At this level then, the focus falls on the assessment of the tax and its short and long term impacts on the tourism and hospitality industry. 2. Carbon tax introduction The first talks about the introduction of a carbon tax in Australia commenced years ago, but it was not until 2012 that the tax was actually implemented. The introduction of the tax in the country was explained by the fact
For the last two decades, the increased use of fossil energy caused the environmental problems. The evidence of global warming, like drying rivers, extinction of species, melting of glaciers, became more often around the planet. The climate change became a threat to healthy environment and prosperity of humanity and wildlife, and the world community started searching for solution to combat climate change. In 2008 British Columbia introduced carbon tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reduce global warming. Starting from $10 per tonne of CO2, the price was increasing annually till it reached $30 per tonne in 2012. During that period British Columbia was reducing harmful emissions and improving economy comparing to the rest of Canada. However, since the price rise on carbon stopped in 2012, no improving changes in cutting emissions, economy, and overall quality of life have been noticed. In this essay I will persuade that British Columbia should continue gradually increase price on carbon tax to the level where it will significantly cut the use of dirty energy, provide enough investments into the green projects, and support low-income families.
Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa law and economics professor and chair of the green economy think-tank Sustainable Prosperity suggests that British Columbia’s per-capita fuel usage had fallen more than 4 per cent compared with the rest of Canada and its economy (Ebner, McCarthy, 2011) Evidently it is reducing the amount of green house gasses emitted by fossil fuel use. However this is not the concern many had with the introduction of the tax, but the concerns were focused upon the externalities caused by this and the effects it would have on the economy. Three years since the carbon tax introduction and the Provincial level of GDP has remained approximately the same, (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner) With the provincial level of GDP remaining around the same, this suggests that at the very worst the carbon tax has had no negative effects to the provincial economy. Furthermore the tax also promised to remain carbon neutral and promised to cut corporate and private income tax. British Columbia has become the province with the lowest income tax regime and the lowest corporate tax regime (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner). Although the carbon tax is being praised by many, it still faces concerns as many still argue the ineffectiveness of the tax and what that means for the province.
Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions have historically been steadily increasing. However, in recent years this trend has stopped - the emissions rate has steadied. The Australian nation has been emitting in the range of 250,000 to 450,000 thousand metric tons greenhouse gases per year from 1990 to 2010.
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
Countries around the world have agreed that to avoid potentially dangerous climate change, global warming stay below 2 degrees C. This means that every country, including Australia will need to significantly increase their efforts to reduce emissions. Currently, Australia’s per capita emissions are among the highest in the world, however, there has been recent progress in decarbonising its economy. For example, greenhouse gas emissions have remained stable while economy size has almost doubled. (Pathways to deep carbonisation).
This essay has outlined all the current positive aspects of Australian society, but we need to address the future and the sustainability of our environment for our grandchildren. The federal government is addressing this issue by introducing a carbon-trading scheme. This carbon trading scheme, where the tax on carbon producing goods and services go into a positive influence on the environment, for example planting trees. The Australian government is following leads by other countries in this circumstance.
Australia’s carbon tax led to a drop in electricity sector emissions by as much as 17 million tons (9%). Many contend that the effects would have been more
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.
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
Indeed, if we accept the danger of global warming to be a real and present one, then the question of how to address it must be given serious consideration. Research conducted from as early as the 1950s through the present has afforded us a solid understanding of its causes. In the most basic sense, the problem lies in the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels such as carbon and oil which leads to the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). Gases such as CO2 are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) which accumulate in the atmosphere. GHGs can
The Government of Saskatchewan has agreed to implement a carbon tax consistent with the federal carbon tax plan. The carbon tax is a big win. It is a new source of revenue for the government. It is important to how the $2.5 billion should be allocated in efficiency and equity.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution machinery and surface temperatures have been on the rise. Some may argue that the increasing temperatures are strictly due to the rise of machinery and less strict efficiency standards. The U.S has been debating what methods are efficient for combating increasing emissions some argue that a carbon tax has many positive impacts some say if one were to be adopted they would need reforms. This paper will dive deep into the the effects of climate of change and whether or not a carbon tax can fully help to decrease these emissions.
From an environmental perspective, it is apparent that the world is starting to realise that increases in tourism are having a negative impact on the environment. This is due to increases in energy consumption, which in turn heightens the effects of global warming (Neto, 2002). There are many controls that governments are trying to put into place, such as flight rationing (Liverpool Business School, 2009). However, it can be argued that these have not really begun to have a significant effect on tourism, as they are still insufficient to dampen demand. It may become a problem in future years, as the number of controls is likely to increase. Perhaps the largest environmental factor would be natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina (Cashell, 2005) and the tsunami that hit Asia in December 2004 (Birkland, 2006). These will impact negatively on people’s confidence in visiting places that have been hit severely by such disasters.
The Australian government has introduced a carbon tax that certain categories of stakeholders do not agree with. The opponents of the tax state that it is likely to lead to reduced numbers of jobs (ABC, 2012). In addition to this, the carbon tax is considered to increase the cost of living. The country's government considers that the carbon tax is necessary in meeting Australia's climate modification requirements (BBC, 2012). The government also states that individuals with lower incomes are likely to benefit from certain incentives. The accommodations industry in Australia produces $84 billion to the
Thesis Statement: Global warming is a growing concern of scientists and researchers who believe that it is a serious problem for our planet. The concerns and research have also been questioned and have even been called myths. Millions of people find themselves affected by these weather pattern changes and are concerned for their futures. Activists on both sides of the argument are very passionate and not afraid to attack each other in every way they can. There are many questions that are still not answered, however, we continue to see drastic weather changes to Earth. We must go beyond the arguments and learn as much as we can to stop what could possibly lead to the destruction of our planet, our way of life and our future.