Blog 13
Please describe the carbon tax plan that was recently approved in Australia
Then compare and contrast this plan with the carbon tax proposal in Washington
Based on your opinion, which plan would you implement on a global scale if you were given the choice? Why?
Firstly, the Australian Carbon tax was enacted in 2012 and then eventually repealed two years later in 2014. At the moment, Australia does not have a carbon tax. However, the carbon tax that was in effect cost companies $19.60 (US) per one metric ton of carbon. Once the carbon tax was repealed carbon rates began to increase.
ReplyDeleteThe carbon tax proposal in Washington presents a $15 (US) per metric ton in July of 2017 and then a 3.5% increase until the price reaches $100 per metric ton of carbon. Washington would be the first state to pass a carbon tax.
Washington's plan would probably work better on a global scale because it would gradually penalize the companies more and more for producing carbon dioxide.By doing this, hopefully the companies that could originally afford the tax will no longer be able to afford it and the production of CO2 will decrease.
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016)
In 2012 Australia enacted a carbon tax that called for a $19.60 tax per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The tax was repealed 2014. In Washington, the proposal includes a $15 per ton fee starting in 2017. The fine will eventually become $100 per ton by mid-century. If I were to implement one on a global scale I would implement Washington’s plan. Since climate change will only get worse as time goes on, it makes sense to charge companies more the longer they emit carbon. Only highly profitable companies will be able to afford the tax and over time it could cut into profits so, they will be forced to find alternative energy sources. Since the price for emitting carbon dioxide will gradually increase, companies that could originally afford the tax will no longer be able to and the production of CO2 will decline.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
http://inthesetimes.com/article/19592/why-the-left-doesnt-want-carbon-tax-washington-i-732-climate-change-ballot
Currently, Australia does not have the carbon tax. However, when it was in action, it costed under 300 businesses and companies $23 for every ton of pollution they produced. According to the NYTimes, the carbon tax proposal in Washington would start at $15 per metric ton next year, increase to $25 in 2018 until it increases to $100. This will result in lowering the states sales tax and giving up to $1500 in tax credits to low-income people. I believe that the proposal for Washington would be the best because it will help lower the amount of carbon that we use because businesses will soon not be able to afford it. This will also help our society to start thinking about how we can change the way we impact our environment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-01/carbon-tax-takes-effect/4102830
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAustralia repealed carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse-gas emissions in 2014. The tax required companies to pay $19.60 per ton of carbon that was released. According to the Wall Street Journal, Australia is one of the world’s largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters because they are so reliant on the burning of coal in order to produce power. As the WSJ notes, “In 2011, daily emissions per head amounted to 49.3 kilograms (108 pounds), almost four times higher than the global average of 12.8 kilograms, and slightly ahead of the U.S. figure of 48.2 kilograms” (WSJ).
ReplyDeleteThis can be compared to the current carbon tax proposal in Washington, known as Initiative 732. This proposal is attempting to accomplish a lot of things. A few that are significant to note include: “promote clean energy by making it cost-effective”, “make polluters pay for dumping carbon pollution into the sky”, and in general, “make the state’s tax system more fair for everyone” (Yeson 732). According to the New York Times, “The tax would start at $15 per metric ton next year, increase to $25 a ton in 2018 and then rise gradually over a few decades until it hits $100 a ton in 2016 dollars” (NYT).
I would choose to implement the carbon tax proposal in Washington because it is calling for a gradual process. I think it is extremely fair to increase the taxation rate as time goes on. Additionally, it only seems fair to charge companies an increased rate based on the period of time in which they emit carbon. Furthermore, this tax proposal seeks to punish highly profitable companies, which ultimately will decrease the amount of carbon emitted.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbon-tax-1405560964
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
https://yeson732.org/
The original carbon tax Australia imposed required businesses to pay $19.60 per ton of carbon released into the atmosphere, as the emissions coming out of Australia were much higher than the global average. 80% of Australia's electricity is derived from the use of coal. Australia repealed the carbon tax in 2014 and as a result, carbon emissions have grown. However, the cost of living in Australia has gone down, as well as lower cost in electricity and increase economic growth. In Washington, the tax begins at a rate of $15 per ton in July of 2017 and increase to $25 July of 2018. There would also be a 3.5% plus inflation each year until the tax reaches $100. This carbon tax plan would decrease the state sales tax from 6.5% to 5.5%. I think that the Washington carbon tax would be more effective on a global stage rather than the Australian carbon tax plan because the changes would take place over a gradual period of time. Also, I believe that the Washington plan delves into the economic affects of the tax and tries to reach a balance so the revenue from before and after the tax would be neutral.
ReplyDeletehttps://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016)
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax
http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbon-tax-1405560964
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2083303,00.html
The carbon tax plan in Australia came into effect in July of 2012. The purpose was to incentivize large companies to distance themselves from high carbon emitting practices. If they lowered their carbon emissions then they would pay less in taxes. 6 months after the tax was imposed, carbon emissions were down 9%, showing it was effective during its time. While Australia no longer has the carbon tax, the average rate of $23 would coincide with the rates the new tax proposal would be at. It would start at $15 and rise all the way to $25 by 2018. This does not count inflation, which would continue to change the rates (maxing out at $100). On a global scale, I think the Washington tax proposal would be more effective. People generally like increasing increments of pricing more than a flat tax based on emissions.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
As one of the largest economies of the world and one of the highest greenhouse gasses emissions, Australia attempted to enact a carbon tax in order to reduce the countries carbon footprint. This carbon tax was for companies that were emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 annually. The carbon tax had a large and negative effect on the Australian economy due to the dependency Australia has on coal power. Imposed on companies, the tax cost about $23 for each ton of CO2 that was emitted. Not very different from Australia’s former tax, there is a tax being presented in Washington State that would lead to every ton of CO2 emissions costing $15 per year with the price gradually increasing to $25 two years later. There are a few differences in these two taxes. The first being, the Australian tax is specifically for high emitting companies whereas the Washington tax is for emissions released by any person or company. A second difference is that the Washington tax leads to lower state sale taxes unlike any financial benefits produced by the Australian tax. In my opinion, I would implement the Washington tax due to the connection to further tax deductions and due to the widespread decrease of CO2 emissions rather than simply reducing those from companies. I believe the Washington tax creates many more possibilities for growth whereas the Australian tax simply crippled the economy.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/59388d77-a9b5-4e4c-87b7-d732baf7c45b/files/factsheet-how-carbon-tax-works_1.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
Australia does not have a carbon tax plan right now. However, in 2011, Australia passed a carbon tax that would require top polluters to pay $19.60 for every ton of carbon that they pollute. This tax would increase by 2.5% each year. However, the government also planned to allocate $9.8 billion in rebate money to high polluters. In Washington, there was a carbon tax proposal that would start at carbon being taxed at $25 per metric ton, but would eventually go as high as $100 per ton, in today’s money. I would implement Washington’s plan globally because it would force businesses to find carbon alternates. It would be too costly to maintain current carbon usage, so business worldwide would have to change their ways. The Washington plan would benefit the environment more than the Australian plan, which would, in the long run, save the world money in terms of trying to recover from the consequences of climate change. The Washington plan may seem very expensive, but it's a necessary prevention measure to avoid further environmental catastrophes and the high costs that accompany those catastrophes.
ReplyDeletehttp://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2083303,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
The carbon tax plan that was approved in Australia was first instituted in 2012 and repealed the act two years later in 2014. Currently, there is no carbon tax in Australia. However when the proposal still stood, the tax level that was imposed on the companies were $23 per ton which equates to about $19.60 per U.S. ton of CO. When the carbon tax was imposed, the fees on on the gases produced were high; since the carbon price was introduced, the intensity of the emissions have reduced and there was a much greater use in renewable energy. The plan with the carbon tax proposal in Washington is that the tax would start at $15 per ton moving toward $25 in 2018 in which it would gradually increase until it hits $100. The money collected from the tax would go into lowering the state’s sale tax, eliminating a business tax on manufacturers. In my opinion, the plan I would implement on a global scale would be Washington’s plan because gradually increasing the carbon tax will push companies to a limit where they have to be careful in the amount of gasses produced by the companies. This will also reduce the amount of CO2 produced. The best part about Washington’s plan is that not only do they impose a carbon tax, but they are willing to create a balance in which they will reduce the sales tax of the state, creating a balance in the economic market.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
Australia has the highest per capita footprint in the world so it is no wonder that they needed something to be done. What they chose to implement is a carbon tax that would make Australia’s most polluting companies pay a carbon tax of $23 per metric ton of carbon dioxide produced, with a 2.5% increase above inflation from July 1st 2012. The revenue generated will be balanced out in the investment of clean energy sources, compensate and support jobs in the affected industries, and returned to the lower income citizens through changes in tax thresholds and pensions. However, Australia’s carbon tax has been repealed. The USA proposed a carbon tax somewhat similar to Australia’s where the tax would start at $15 per metric ton and increase to $25 a ton in 2018 with a gradual increase over decades up until it hits $100 in 2016 dollars. Once again this money would be given back to lower income residents and used to lower the state sales tax but in contrast, it will not go to investment in clean energy which should be a priority. I would implement the USA carbon tax because the more gradual approach gives time for companies to adjust to minimize their cost thus making it more industry friendly. Furthermore, with the possible of increase to $100 dollars, it really incentivises companies to look at the long-term possibility of “going green” because it will save them money.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-could-be-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
A carbon tax was implemented in 2012 by the Austrian government, and by 2013-14 Austria's Carbo tax had risen to about 24 dollars per ton of carbon produced. The resources gained from the taxes were to be used on generating clean sources and cleaning up the damage, however the act was repealed in 2014, and to this day there is no more carbon production tax. Washington's sales tax was more goal orientated, because it had a constant rising price from 15 dollars on in order to make more people not want to pay it and look for cleaner ways of production.
ReplyDeleteI think the Washington plan is bet here. it would give people time to figure out the logistics and spending necessary behind finding cleaner ways of production and it would penalize those who didn't change even harder. I think this plan would help to motivate more people to clean up their business rather than to fight until the end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
Deletehttps://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/59388d77-a9b5-4e4c-87b7-d732baf7c45b/files/factsheet-how-carbon-tax-works_1.pdf
In 2011 Australia introduced the Clean Energy Act. This act was essentially a carbon tax. The tax was $19.60 (US) per one metric ton of carbon. The act was repealed two years later in July of 2014. Since the act has been repealed, carbon emissions have increased. The carbon taxed proposed in Washington would basically work the same way as the Australia tax. The tax would be $15 (US) per metric ton in July of 2017 and then a 3.5% increase until the price reaches $100 per metric ton of carbon. This is more money per metric ton than the Australia tax. Also the tax in Washington would increase as time went on. This gives businesses time to adjust to the tax. I believe the Washington tax is a better plan on the global scale because the higher tax on carbon will help reduce emissions by a greater amount than the Australia tax. Reducing carbon emissions is the first step to help stop global warming and keeping our planet healthy.
ReplyDeletehttps://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016)
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
Australia passed its carbon tax legislation in 2011. From that point on, all of the country's biggest polluters where charged around 24 US$ by the tonne. The law was aimed to making big money businesses more energy efficient and environmentally conscious. The act was repealed in July of 2014.
ReplyDeleteWashingtons proposal is that there would be a $15 tax per ton of carbon emmision in the month of June, and $25 in July. There will also be 3.5% inflation per year till the tax reaches $100 per ton. The tax would be phased slower for farmers and non profit transportation providers. This tax is to remind families and businesses to reduce their emissions of gasses and fuels.
I feel that the US' carbon tax plan is better than Australia's. The Washington proposal will give time for organizations to find an alternative solution to CO2 emissions. The rising tax would also give a feel of urgency to these organizations to find a permanent solution so they don't have to keep paying the high tax.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/australian-carbon-tax-plan-moves-forward
Originally, the carbon tax plan enforced in Australia began in 2012. Forcing a restriction on the amount of carbon that could be produced from emissions into the economy of Australia. The taxation law claimed that they must pay $19.60 per U.S. ton of carbon dioxide. Currently, Australia does not have a carbon tax law enforced, because it was repealed in 2014 in order to lower the cost of businesses and ease the cost of living within the economy.
ReplyDeleteIn Washington, the economy has proposed that the carbon tax law shall be implemented in July of 2017, called Initiative 732. This initiative has a carbon tax of $15.00 per metric ton as the beginning tax rate in 2017. Increases by 3.5% each year until the carbon tax reaches $100 per metric ton. The economy proposes to enforce and follow this taxation law in order to reduce the emission of carbon emissions nationwide, cleaning the environment by reducing greenhouse gases.
Given the choice, I would implement Washington’s carbon tax regulations in order to better the environment in the long run. The introduction of market norms in regards to carbon emissions raises awareness within society. The tax law becomes a normal part of their lives, as the tax increases annually every year, as do other tax fees within the government. This will appear normal to families in society, making it simpler for the economy to thrive off in increase in tax and a decrease in carbon emissions on a global scale.
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016)
In 2012, Australia implemented a carbon tax that affected over 300 companies operating in the country. The tax charged these businesses $22.60 per ton of greenhouse gases they emitted. The act was repealed in 2014 as a result of lost jobs and an increase in energy prices.
ReplyDeleteWashington state is taking a similar approach in their proposed carbon tax. Their plan, named Initiative 732, would start by taxing $15 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted, and gradually increase over a few decades until it reaches $100. The plan calls for the tax revenue to be used to reduce the state sales tax.
Based on both of these proposals, I believe the Washington plan would be more effective on a global scale. Their plan starts at a lower price ($15), which allows policy makers a chance to evaluate its effectiveness while not crippling economic output (like the $22.60 tax did to Australia). The tax increases can be gradual over time which will allow companies to adjust accordingly. I believe the Washington plan finds a good balance between environment and economy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
The carbon tax previously collected in Australia called for a $19.60 (US) tax on each metric ton of carbon emmitted. This act, as of 2014, has since been repealed. Washington's plan is to begin with a $15 tax per ton of carbon, but then each year to increase this tax by 3.5% per ton until the tax reaches $100 per ton. Globally, it is difficult to say which one would be more effective. On the one hand, a gradually increasing tax would encourage nations to taper off of carbon emissions. However, it is very possible that only well developed nations would be able to afford this tax increase, and it would only harm the less developed countries. In this way, a flat rate tax would work better for less developed countries, who cannot be as flexible with their industry.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
In Australia they passed a $19.50 tax on carbon emissions. This was passed in 2012 and was repealed in 2014 so Australia no longer has a carbon tax. The tax in Washington, if passed, would start with a $15 per metric ton tax, increasing at a rate of 3.5% a year until the tax reaches $100 per metric ton.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the supreme leader of the world, I would instill the Washington Tax because it is a very aggressive strategy that will increase incentives to invest in sustainable energy over time. If we were to keep the boundaries between countries and attempt to pass a carbon tax on an international level, in a perfect world I would hope the Washington Tax would pass, but a tax much like the Australian one or perhaps a less aggressive tax would be more viable. Then, as time went on, we could increase the tax much like the Washington Tax, so I would argue that on an international level we should pass a flat tax much like the Australian one, then eventually we can make the decision to raise the tax rate based on the impact of the flat tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
The repealed carbon tax in Australia, was less well received than it could have been and has been internationally because it was only applied to the largest businesses who produce carbon dioxide in Australia, and didn't apply broadly to the more general population. The carbon tax in Washington could work better because as it incentives industries from decreasing their carbon output, instead of creating tax that solely applies to an industry, and it applies to the whole population of the state. Because it applies to more of the community, it seems as if it would be a more effective tax on a global scale, as it increases over time and creates incentives for individuals and corporations to decrease their carbon emissions, as to not be affected by the higher tax.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.future500.org/tale-two-carbon-taxes/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
In 2012, the Australian Carbon tax was put into action, but was shortly repealed two years later. This tax called for a $19.60 tax for each ton of carbon dioxide that was emitted in the country. Carbon emissions were subject to whether or not the tax was currently in action. When repealed, emission rose. Similarly, Washington is proposing a $15 tax for each metric ton of carbon, starting in 2017. In addition, there will be a 3.55 increase on carbon until the final price reaches $100.
ReplyDeleteWashington’s plan is a more practical one because it is a more gradual increase in tax, thus slowly taxing the companies. Eventually, the companies that were once able to afford and emit carbon will no longer be capable of doing so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAustralia implemented a Carbon Tax on January 1st, 2012, which pushed for $19.60 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the air. This carbon tax was eradicated two years later on January 17th ,2014. Australia’s carbon tax also imposed climate-equivalent fees on methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons because Australia proved to be one of the main emitters of carbon dioxide nation-wide. This tax particularly had impact on electricity generation, stationary energy producers, mining, business transport, waste and industrial processes. This means a wide amount of Australian citizens were being taxed, which was seen to be a problem. The collection of capital was prioritized over furthering the fight against climate change agenda. The Washington Carbon tax differs greatly from that of Australia's. The tax would start at $15 per metric ton next year, increase to $25 a ton in 2018 and then go up to $100 after a few decades. The money gained through the implementation of this tax would lower the state sales tax, giving up to $1,500 in tax credits to low-income residents. Australia had a fixed amount that saw a minor increase in accordance to inflation, while Washington wants to purposefully increase the tax every couple of years hoping to decrease superpower company and smaller company emission of carbon dioxide. If it was up to me, my plan would mirror that of Washington's because it would add rigidity to the climate change agenda. Many in politics have failed to take climate change seriously, therefore we must force it upon them. This means forcing major companies to abide by rules that are inevitable, distasteful, but have a positive impact on the entirety of the world.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/#Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
Starting in 2012 Australia implemented a carbon tax that there would be a charge of $19.60 per ton of carbon emissions. This was in efforts to help try and reduce carbon emissions by making greener options less expensive and therefore preferable. Unfortunately this act was repealed two years later to help with the economy and lower the cost of businesses. In the United States there has been a proposed carbon tax to charge $15 per metric ton of carbon emissions and increase over the years to $100. This differs from the carbon tax in Australia in the way the law would be enforced and regulated, but the reasoning behind it is relatively the same. I am in favor for the carbon tax because it will heavily encourage businesses to seek out different energy sources that are more environmentally friendly. The economy would need an adjustment period but after a while the economy will adjust and alternatives to carbon will become more affordable as its popularity increases.
ReplyDelete