Australia repeals carbon tax, BHP says move will help competitiveness


Australia repeals pro-environment carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, the first time a developed nation has made such a U-turn.

Australia is one of the world's largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters due to its reliance on coal-burning power stations to power homes and industry, but the country's voters blame the climate laws for rising energy bills and living costs.

The tax was voted out even as it appeared to be working in reducing carbon emissions, according to The Guardian.

BHP CEO says repealing the "mis-designed" carbon tax would be important in increasing Australia's competitiveness; J.P. Morgan analysts have estimated that the removal of the carbon tax, together with repeal of the government's mining levy, would boost its valuation on companies such as BHP and Rio Tinto (NYSE:RIO) by as much as 6%.

Australia's repeal may reverberate internationally ahead of global climate talks next year, when major economies like China, India and the U.S. will consider global greenhouse targets beyond 2030.

From other sites
Comments (9)
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1899) | Send Message
     
    We might be witnessing a great u-turn by the developed world in general, coming to understand the fraud of the climate alarmists. This has always been simply a transfer of power from people to leftist government and activists.
    17 Jul 2014, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • jmjjmj1
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Totally agree, we should Sh!t all over the earth, scorch. Why should we care we won't be here in 100 years!
    17 Jul 2014, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • The Mighty Wart
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    By taxing polluters you are effectively taxing economic agents. These are entities that keep the world moving.

     

    It’s impossible to generate growth without polluting as we rely so much on fossil fuels. It’s impossible to fulfil all current human needs without polluting. Every economic activity has at the bottom of the chain few hundred barrels of oil.

     

    So the challenge here is to discriminate between standalone polluters and producers. This is very difficult I’m afraid and not always straight forward.

     

    A carbon tax will only generate inflation while doing very little to reduce pollution. It will have to be implemented world-wide as individual countries will not shot in their foot themselves and put them in a disadvantage when compared to other more lax countries. This is a gargantuan task. To really do something about it a new economic system must be brought forward, otherwise this is all futile.

     

    A new economic system can be implemented locally so it doesn’t have to rely on World consensus. Not only that but it’s more sustainable than taxing an economic activity. Taxing is a wealth transfer from one agent to normally a government. A new economic system will create wealth and not just simply transferring it. Tackling pollution is not a matter of transferring wealth from polluters to non-polluters. Tackling pollution is about producing things in a different way or producing different things all together and the economic activities that sustain this.
    17 Jul 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Capt Jack Daniels
    , contributor
    Comments (1466) | Send Message
     
    The carbon taxes are a joke. Welcome to the delusional ecological future where polluting toxic devices will monitor a persons and their animals respiration and flatulence to charge them some arbitrary fee.

     

    Sounds like Australia didn't like the bogus inflation and higher costs associated with such a ruse that is carbon taxation.
    17 Jul 2014, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • VelcroWonderCat
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
     
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change case for "global warming" or "climate change" is based on smoke and mirrors. There is no evidence that changes to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have affected the climate. It is all a magnificently managed red herring, manifested in leaked emails that prove (among other things) falsification of data, a coordinated and vast propaganda campaign, attempts to silence the contrary conclusions of peer reviews, and efforts to scare governments through political pressure into funding more research into their completly bogus "scientific conclusions".

     

    The ex-Soviet bloc and many Asian countries haven't bought into it and are laughing at the rest of the "developed" world for buying into this hoax (and in many cases profiting handsomely for it). Perhaps the worm is turning now that there appears to be one (apparently) sane developed country out there. Well done, Oz!
    17 Jul 2014, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • funguide
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    The polluters should pay for the harmful externalities they create. Anyhow a tax is only an incentive for innovators to come up with new technologies and the government was supposed to be using the money to help fund research.
    On a sidenote Abbot supports a tax on gasoline so that his BHP corporate lobbyists are happy.
    17 Jul 2014, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Zoltan Ban
    , contributor
    Comments (967) | Send Message
     
    On principle I agree with you that a price should be paid for environmental exploitation. Problem is that environmentalists failed to take the concept to the next step and realize that unilateral self sacrifice is not the appropriate method of implementation. It does not lead to a global cut in emissions. It mainly leads to a flight of capital to places that are free of such burdens, punishing and ultimately destroying the economy of those who decide on accepting unilateral self-sacrifice for the greater global good. The environmental movement is the victim of its own idealism.

     

    If you are interested in understanding this issue I recommend you read my very badly and self-edited written book called "Sustainable Trade" which is dedicated to this problem. It may be badly written, but it is far better than the badly thought out strategy of environmentalists to drive certain societies towards voluntary self-sacrifice, which so far proved to be ineffective and harmful to the existing goodwill of humanity to try to tackle environmental problems.
    19 Jul 2014, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • DougRk
    , contributor
    Comments (1899) | Send Message
     
    Great reply zoltan. Indeed, the self-sacrificing societies of the West undermine all of our desires to keep the environment clean. For as the West loses economic clout, the fate of the world passes into hands that aren't as kind in guidance.
    23 Jul 2014, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • khaz
    , contributor
    Comments (158) | Send Message
     
    Hey $50 AUD per month back in my pocket, but electricity will still be twice the going rate in the US.
    17 Jul 2014, 11:39 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs