Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew.wilson
Curious on others thoughts about this issue...
Do you support it?
Would a Carbon tax be a better idea?
Is the government doing it the right way?
What do you think of the Garnaut report so far?
Is the coalition being idiotic by opposing it largely for the sake of opposing it?
Should big emittors be getting free permits?
Does this defeat the hopefully added benefit of the scheme, making cleaner technologies more viable?
Are we deluding ourselves when we whinge at the thought of relatively small changes to try and tackle serious issues?
Should the govt be spending those millions on solar rebates instead of an ad campaign?
Is 'Carbon Pollution redcution scheme' the stupidest political speak you've ever heard? 
) |
A revenue neutral carbon tax is a better alternative to a trading scheme. The difference is like comparing trade quotas with border tariffs.
A trading permit system is going to be a whole new bureaucratic nightmare, and there will be huge rent seeking costs, as micaros mentioned, and lobbying efforts by industry with various justifications - as seen by the EU ETS. A carbon tax on the other hand could probably draw on the existing expertise and infrastructure of the ATO with less marginal admin cost additions.
Most importantly, the tax can be made revenue neutral and leave consumers and the government no more worse off than before (the cost is merely transferring tax costs from certain industries and economic sectors to others, namely, polluters).
So we could use the carbon tax revenue to reduce income taxes (the worst tax, IMO), land taxes, GST, company tax, etc.
The 'market' (and I use that term loosely) aspect of tradeable permits exists in a carbon tax as well. The objective and effect of both is to put a price on carbon, and thus create a price incentive to use less and innovate ways to use less.