An exchange in the Clarence Valley Review letters column on 10 and 17 August 2011:
Ed,
I thought your readers may be interested in a letter I sent to Federal Member for Page, Janelle Saffin in response to her recent circular letter sent to her electorate.
Dear Ms Saffin
I thank you for your letter of 29 July 2011. I note in particular your advice that the tax on the emission of carbon dioxide gas is to be paid by “our biggest polluters – not ordinary Australians”. Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that the tax is to be related to the consumption of electricity produced from burning inputs which emit carbon dioxide in the process of generating electricity. The amount of the tax will be based upon the calculated carbon dioxide emissions.
You indicate that only the biggest polluters will be paying. Much has been said in the press that it is the “500 biggest polluters” who will be paying.
Would you please identify who these 500 biggest polluters are? I would like to know the names of the corporations involved.
One of the difficulties I have is understanding what is a “polluter” and whether that is something that is different from someone who uses electricity.
Can you assist in clarifying the definition of a “polluter”.
It has also been part of the promotion of this tax that it will be replaced with an emissions trading scheme in three or four years time. The emissions trading scheme has not been explained.
However, other questions do arise. Does your government totally rule out the prospect that this tax will be extended beyond the current group of 500 to include other entities? Is that something your government will rule out categorically, absolutely and forever or is it something that your government wishes to keep open in terms of its options?
Once a carbon trading scheme is introduced to whom will that be applied and how will that impact
upon business entities beyond the 500 “biggest polluters”?
Has any modelling been done on how a carbon emission scheme will work and the impact it will have upon:
1. The 500 “biggest polluters”? ;
2. The 1,000 “biggest polluters”? ;
3. Small business generally;
4. Households?
If that modelling has been done, what are the results of that modelling?
We are being asked to endorse your government’s policy on the introduction of a carbon tax on the 500 biggest polluters, but at this stage you have not told us:
Who are these corporations?
What plans you have to extend the imposition of the tax, and in what time frame?
The implications of the proposed carbon trading scheme intended to replace the tax?
In your letter, you emphasize the evil of the biggest polluters by stating “No longer will the nation’s biggest polluters be able to pollute without consequence”.
Logically, if it is a good idea to tax the 500 largest polluters, it must also be a good idea to tax the next 500 and the next 500 after that. If the eradication of some pollution is a good idea, then the eradication of all pollution must be a good idea.
However, it seems that on the basis of the Federal Government policy, only the eradication of some of the carbon dioxide emission is a good idea and the positioning of the government policy has not been explained. Why 500 and not the original 1,000? Is there an implicit recognition that the imposition of the tax will have negative impacts for the Australian economy and Australia households which your government is seeking to mitigate by reducing the number of businesses subject to the tax? You have not explained this aspect of your policy.
I look forward to your early reply.
Peter James
Grafton
ED,
Peter James of Grafton [CVR, Letters, 8 August 2011] complains that there are a number of unanswered questions regarding the Gillard Government’s intention to place a price on carbon and certain other greenhouse gases.
I read his missive with amazement, because answers to every single question he asked is readily available on federal government websites such as treasury.gov.au, cleanenenergyfuture.gov.au and climatechange.gov.au.
Starting with a proper definition of the carbon pricing mechanism, how ‘pollution’ is calculated, how long the levy will be in place, projected price rises over the life of the levy and what reportable greenhouse gas levels a corporation has to emit to finds itself included in the list of polluters to which the levy will apply - right through to Australian Treasury economic modelling, the full text of relevant draft legislation which will go before Parliament in 2011-12 and a broad outline of the foreshadowed emissions trading scheme.
All of this information is freely available at the click of a mouse when people use either their own PCs or Internet access computers at certain council community centres and local libraries.
In all likelihood accessing appropriate government websites will take less time than Mr. James took to write his letter. Of course one has to want to hear the answers in the first place.
Judith M. Melville
Yamba
