23 September 2010

A Carbon Tax Back in Play Down Under

Australia's politics over climate policies continue to churn. From ABC News:
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has given a clear sign the Federal Government is prepared to consider introducing a carbon tax.

Before the election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard ruled out using a tax to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Greens advocate a tax as an interim measure and the chief of BHP has also endorsed the idea.

Mr Combet says the Government is determined to put a price on carbon and the new parliamentary committee on climate change will consider all options.

"In the political reality in the formation of the Government, the circumstances are a bit different than we anticipated," he said.

"It does mean that alternative policy options will come onto the table; we will be looking at the various options for the development of a carbon price as I said and we'll thoroughly subject them to proper evaluation.

"Things will be stress tested, the proper modelling and work and expert advice will be done, but serious work  will be performed to try to develop the best possible option for this economic reform."

6 comments:

kluukko said...

What do you think about Fee-and-dividend, proposed by James Hansen:

http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/new-poll-shows-americans_b_377142.html

Paul Biggs said...

Carbon is priceless - a valuable resource.

eric144 said...

"But the Greens advocate a tax as an interim measure "

Before a carbon trading system is introduced.

Bill Kerr said...

"A general carbon price - most likely a carbon tax - is needed if only to counter the crazy-quilt risk from the balance of power Greens and country independents"
Worried about big slugs? Try a carbon tax

Send a copy of The Climate Fix to Michael Stutchbury Roger, he's halfway there!

Ron Broberg said...

Roger, if policy is primarily about values - then does the climatic results of climate policy really matter in the political arena if the thing that the electorate values most in climate policy is simply to have a sense, a feeling, that they are trying to do something about the problem? The actual climate results of the policy won't be known for generations. Is there any reason to suppose that the electorate would favor effective-climate-policy over feel-good-climate policy? Is there any reason to place a higher political value on effective policy as opposed to feel-good policy?

Ir'Rational said...

See how this plays with the electorate.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.