- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.
The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.
In an open economy, business tax revenue is not proportional to tax rate. It is not inelastic. There are consequences of increasing the impost on businesses that must compete in an open environment.
Back in 1990 Australia came 10th in the world for per capital CO2 emissions at 16 tonne per person.
By 2000 we'd climbed to 8th at 18.6 tonnes each. By 2005 we'd maintained our 8th position at 20.3 tonnes each, but the USA was now at 9th. In 2011 we're back to 9th (USA 10th) with 19 tonnes each. In 2011 China per capita CO2 emissions were only 7 tonnes each. Seems a bit unfair to be saying we can pump out nearly 3 times s much as the Chinese and therefore don't need to do anything because we're just 1.2% of the global total (yet just 0.35% of the worlds population. The world avg in 2011 was just 4.9.
As for the current carbon reduction scheme affecting trade exposed industries, well they got the majority of their permits for free, so the impact was minimal to them, and in some cases they were able to make money on selling their excess permits.
I'd argue quite often the reason energy intensive companies have shut down in Australia is because they had not invested in worlds best practice plant and production techniques. I'd also argue it is because of the short sightedness of our politicians that has caused the fixed cost of the electricity networks to sky rocket, and with the gladstone LNG plants now sucking out all available gas the east coast market now has to try and remain competitive when gas prices will just about triple over the next few years.