this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
62 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4375 readers
94 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
62
‘Why the hell did we ever drop it?’: Labor should push for new carbon tax, ex-Treasury head says (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Some related reading from The Conversation that I liked when I was doing exploratory background reading for some related uni work a few months back:

I thought it was particularly funny how the first of these articles is saying that it is/was a good time to try for a carbon tax again and that the alternatives are essentially inadequate, while the second one says:

[...] Importantly, they found most emissions reduction relied on a mix of policies. The results point to a way forward for Australia, where an economy-wide carbon price is currently politically impossible.

I don't think I made use of that juxtaposition in my assignment but now I can use it to write a comment which four people will read :'D

Whether the author of article 1 is right (it's close to a silver bullet policy and is politically feasible) or whether the author of article 2 is right (it's not both not a silver bullet and politically impossible) I don't know.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I read your comment. I wonder if I'm the first, second, third or fourth reader.

[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 4 points 2 days ago

Thanks for ~~watching~~ reading - remember to ~~like and subscribe~~ downvote and unsubscribe

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You dropped it because you were in minority government and Abbott was raking you over the coals talking about a "big new tax". If I remember, what's his excuse?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

The truth is they didn't drop it, because a carbon tax was never a Labor policy. Both Rudd and Gillard presented emissions trading schemes to Parliament. The difference was in the details of those ETSes, with Rudd's being estimated by his own treasury modelling to not result in any decrease in emissions until 2035. That's why the Greens pushed back and later worked with Gillard to pass a much better ETS that actually showed a decrease from day one.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm fairly ignorant about carbon taxes. How do they work roughly?

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

the government charges carbon emitters for their emissions - this is done in multiple ways, but the gist is big polluters (power generation, industrial, etc) are charged at the source and things like petrol is charged at the pump

as part of taxes, or whatever other means, the revenues from that tax is evenly distributed back to the population

this makes the cost of carbon-heavy products more expensive, making carbon neutral products cheaper relative to them

it also means that if you live a carbon neutral life, you’ll end up paying no tax, and just getting a nice payout to offset the slight extra you paid for eg green energy

carbon trading schemes are different

it’s all very elegant imo, but the language is bad (nobody likes new taxes) and the govt didn’t do a good job at marketing the chunk of cash they were giving everyone

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Well, making necessities more expensive is difficult to sell no matter how it’s packaged. Like it or not, oil is used in everything from transporting food, to growing food, to medicine and supplements, to commuting for work, to home insulation and building, to iPhones and computers. Making those things more expensive, no matter the righteousness of the intention, hurts especially the working classes and the poor. Targeted subsidies to compensate them for their loss is impossible to fairly calibrate, and usually results in even greater political turmoil.

Carbon taxes can work if the country is wealthy and can afford the productivity loss (and the citizens are willing to give up that economic progress and wealth). Given the relatively small size of Australia, and the tiny reduction in global CO2 output relative to the exponentially higher output of China alone, I think most Australians believe the very small ecological benefits are vastly outweighed by the social and economic costs. Such a tax is political suicide right now. Making the cost of housing and transport and food more expensive given current geopolitical events would be highly irresponsible.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Well, making necessities more expensive is difficult to sell no matter how it’s packaged

well that’s kinda the point: in the wash, it didn’t… you paid a bit more and got that money back at tax time… any carbon tax you pay gets evenly distributed across the population, so if your carbon footprint is less than 50% of the counties, you make money

considering the carbon emitted by the top 10%, this is basically wealth redistribution and it helps tackle carbon

[–] blind3rdeye@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

This is why various necessaries were given offsets with the previous carbon tax. Problems like that can be worked around.

[–] Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Let's call it a Carbon Tariff, they're so hot right now.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone -2 points 2 days ago

A carbon tax is political suicide now, thanks Bandt.