Hey guys I was doing my oral topic on the dangers of the internet but decided to change to the issue of the Carbon tax. If you can give me some tips, corrections and strategies I will appreciate it alot. The ending is dodgy also :/
Here we go:
Carbon Pricing:
Good afternoon class,
Today I will be talking about the recent issue which has been argued for several weeks, the proposed Carbon tax. On February 24, 2011, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (together with her government's Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet,) announced that as of July 1, 2012, Australia would have a 'carbon price'. This means that those companies producing goods that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will be taxed. The tax is intended to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and Australia's contribution to global warming. The Prime Minister gave no detail as to the precise size of the tax. Nor did she give any detail as to how consumers (to whom the cost of the tax would be passed on in increased prices) would be compensated. It has also not yet been explained how businesses will be assisted to make the transition. Firstly, I would like to ask you the question, Are you for this Carbon tax, I am definitely against the proposition of this tax due to the promise that was made before; the labour government had said that no such tax will be introduced to Australia anytime soon.
Many say that a Carbon tax will create jobs, but these constant taxes the government is creating is also a way for people to be bankrupt which is not a good experience to live with. A carbon tax will cause the cost of living to rise. Carbon-producing industries will be taxed and are likely to pass on the cost of all or some of that tax via increased charges to the consumer. Thus, it is assumed, as a result of a carbon tax the price of products such as electricity will increase, like it is not expensive already. In addition to this, there is likely to be a general flow-on effect. All those goods which are produced using electricity will also increase in price as manufactures pass on their added costs to the consumer.
This point has been made by the lobby group 'Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax' which states on its website 'Electricity prices will skyrocket; the price of everyday goods will increase'. An editorial published on March 5, 2011, in the Daily Telegraph opened with the claim, 'One thing is clear about the carbon tax debate: everything is about to get more expensive.' While the Government is yet to state the price of the carbon tax, it is estimated that under a $26 a tonne carbon price power bills will increase $300 a year and petrol prices would rise 6.5c a litre.' A national survey of 500 food and grocery retailers has shown that 83 per cent intend to pass on the cost of a carbon price in higher prices. Though a carbon price is yet to be determined, Woolworths, for example, could be faced with a potential annual carbon bill of about $10 million a year, based on a carbon price of $26 per tonne, which industry experts and the Opposition are using as a rough guide.
Under a carbon tax the economically disadvantaged will be worst affected: It has been claimed that a carbon tax is inequitable because it will function like a consumption tax, affecting the unavoidable expenses of all sections of the community, irrespective of their capacity to pay. This is in contrast to a tax such as income tax which is scaled so that the highest tax rates are paid by those on the highest incomes.
This point has been made as one of the arguments on the Internet debating site, Debatepedia where it is stated, 'Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. Because energy consumption would be taxed equally across social groups with a carbon tax..., the costs of the tax would disproportionately affect poor groups.'
A carbon tax will damage the Australian economy and cause a loss of jobs: It has been claimed that one of the consequences of a carbon tax is that the Australian economy will be damaged and Australian jobs will be lost. It has been suggested that this will happen for a variety of reasons. One is that some employers may be forced to retract their businesses because of the cost of the new tax and will therefore put off staff. BlueScope Steel has warned that if a carbon tax is implemented, it could lead to plant closures and the loss of 15,000 jobs. The company has claimed the tax would force closure of its Port Kembla steelworks in New South Wales unless the government offset the $300 million to $400 million per year in additional taxes the company expects to pay at a $25 a tonne carbon price. Another possibility is that increased costs to consumers will result in reduced consumption and so businesses may cease to be viable as their customer base contracts.
It has also been suggested that some businesses will move out of Australia to operate in countries that do not have a carbon tax and therefore the jobs they created will go offshore. Thus the chief executive of BlueScope Steel, Paul O'Mailey, has argued, 'If you tax the local steel producer, you are basically saying we want to encourage imports of steel and hide the carbon overseas.'
My final argument will be based on the effectiveness of this tax: The tax will have no significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It has been claimed that an Australian carbon tax will have no significant impact on the level of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. This claim has been made on two bases. Firstly that it is unlikely to succeed in significantly reducing Australian greenhouse gas emissions and secondly, that even if these emissions were to stop completely this would have no useful effect on world greenhouse gas emission rates. Critics of a carbon tax for Australia argue that it will damage our economy without reducing climate change. The independent think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has stated that the proposed tax, although burdensome and damaging is not sufficiently large to force reinvestment in different forms of power generation. In a media released issued on March 2, 2011 and published in The Age, the IPA stated, 'The price itself, while severely harming the carbon-intensive, coal-based generators, would not force their premature departure from supply, which would be necessary to leave a gap for new gas generators.' The IPA Review in September 2008 included the following response to Kevin Rudd's proposed emissions trading scheme, 'Australia contributes 1.1 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Our contribution is dwarfed by big emitters like the United States which contributes nearly 21 per cent, China which contributes 17 per cent, and Russia which contributes just over 5 per cent.'
All in all, there is no positive outcome for this tax, yes it is true that it reduces greenhouse gases, but things cannot always be solved with money. If we, as the Australian people want to make our environment cleaner, we should not just pay up to the government to clean our environment, we live in it, so we must put in some effort to prevent this ongoing issue.
Thank you.
Home
Help
Search
Login
