Julia Gillard: Australia Will Decide On Carbon Pollution Pricing In 2011

CANBERRA, Australia — Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Monday her government would decide next year how to charge Australia's major polluters for the carbon gases that they emit in a bid to curb the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

Gillard's plan to fast-track Australia's introduction of financial penalties for polluters came hours ahead of a United Nations climate change summit in Mexico starting on Monday that will consider how the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be replaced after 2012.

Australia and the United States had been the only industrialized countries to refuse to accept their Kyoto targets on reducing their carbon emissions until Gillard's center-left Labor Party was elected to govern in 2007.

The new Labor government under then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd immediately signed up to Australia's reduction target, but Rudd this year shelved until 2013 his plan to make polluters pay for permits to emit carbon gases.

Gillard, who replaced Rudd in an internal Labor coup in June before the party was returned at August elections to govern for another three years, said she was confident that her government would decide next year how to make polluters pay after a committee of lawmakers and experts reports on the best strategy to do so.

"2011 is the year Australia decides on carbon pricing," Gillard told an economics think tank.

Labor's previous attempts to make polluters pay have been thwarted in the upper house, the Senate, where the government does not hold a majority. The conservative opposition argues that families would pay the cost of pollution and has promised to never charge polluters.

Australia is one of world's worst carbon polluters per capita because of its heavy reliance on abundant coal reserves for power generation.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has downplayed the prospect of a global agreement being reached at the U.N. summit at Cancun.

Beginning Monday, 15,000 government delegates, environmentalists, business leaders, journalists and others will gather in the meeting halls of a Caribbean resort in Cancun for the annual conference of the 193-nation U.N. climate treaty.

Australia's climate change ambassador Louise Hand will lead the 35-strong Australian delegation before Combet heads to Mexico in the second week of the summit to take over.

Comments

[silverwolf13]

08:17 PM on 12/06/2010

One cheer for Australia. Now let us know when they plan to stop selling coal to China.

[dixdarlin]

10:14 PM on 12/02/2010

It only took the catholic church 300 years to admit Galileo was right!
Maybe in 300 years, they'll admit Al Gore was right?

[rtb61]

10:41 PM on 11/30/2010

A luxuries carbon tax. You burn for pleasure than you should pay the full cost of repairing the harm you cause and no carbon tax on essentials otherwise the poor end up paying yet again for the excesses of the rich.
So anything between 25% and 100% on jewellery, cosmetics, clothing beyond a defined value, junk food, luxury vehicles, luxury boats, private jets, housing beyond a certain size, residential energy consumption beyond a defined level, tourism (if they are serious), major gambling and sporting events (spectator driven rather than participatory events if they are serious) ie. want to burn the world to feed your ego, then we will burn your pocket book to save it.

[Exusian]

07:27 PM on 11/29/2010

The new issue (dated January 13, 2011) of
Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A
is a theme issue on climate change:
"Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications"
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

You can download pdfs of all of the papers in the issue through tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov 30.

Papers:
- Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world
- Cumulative carbon emissions, emissions floors and short-term rates of warming: implications for policy
- When could global warming reach 4°C?
- Regional temperature and precipitation changes under high-end (≥4°C) global warming
- Water availability in +2°C and +4°C worlds
- Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4°C+ world
- Changes in the potential distribution of humid tropical forests on a warmer planet
- Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century
- Climate-induced population displacements in a 4°C+ world
- Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world
- The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate change

[rougebaisers]

04:16 PM on 11/29/2010

Why aren't we leading the world in healing it? What the hell is it gonna take? Will we lead the world? Hell no we won't.

[LaurieAnn]

03:25 PM on 11/29/2010

Good for Australia.  I hope their government is able to get this approved for the sake of life on Earth.  All nations need do something similar or we will end life as we know it on this planet.

[Anne Mccormick]

07:25 PM on 11/29/2010

it depends. my friends in Australia are holding judgement. unfortunately, this prime minister is not popular in all circles. if these major polluters decide that the amount paid out is so high that they have to let people go; then people like my friends will hold Gillard responsible. They've already told me that if people lose their jobs because of her she wont be voted back in next election. they will make sure of that.

[LaurieAnn]

07:53 PM on 11/29/2010

That is always the trade off.  Business doesn't want to accept lower profits for any reason.

[waz1979]

11:18 PM on 11/29/2010

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/10/26/polling-at-the-moment/#more-8951

Actually the polls still put her in front and, despite what your friends think, shes got alot more likeability that Abbott, and thats enough to win credibility.

[FreedomDawg]

03:24 PM on 11/29/2010

Dare we say the words "carbon tax" and accept that the tax will be equitably applied, with zero exceptions, to all forms of CO2 that are released into the atmosphere - whether by tilling soil, eliminating forests as carbon sinks, using fertilizers, generating power, manufacturing or moving transport vehicles around?

[EagleFury]

03:00 PM on 11/29/2010

This idea will get press until the big bankers and industrial kings of Australia weigh in behind the scenes. Then they'll backtrack and decide not to do anything after all.

[GSR]

04:51 PM on 11/29/2010

In Australia the party or coalition which has a majority in the House of Representatives forms government. The Labor Government passed Cap and Trade legislation in the House in 2010 but it was blocked by the conservative opposition in the Senate.

The Greens in the Senate also voted against it because it did not like the exemptions. Many of the exemptios were inserted into the bill to appease the Liberal Party (the paradoxically named conservative party) The conservatives argued that Australia should not price carbon until the US and China also priced carbon.

The Labor Party, being stymied in the Senate pulled the bill until after the 2010 elections. The left is now back in power courtesy of a knife-edged majority with a Lobor/Greens coalition.

In 2011 Labor and Greens will have 40 Senators and will probably have the support of independent Nick Xenaphon giving the Left 41 against the conservative's 35. The legislation will pass. Needless to say, Murdoch is working furiously for regime change in the Reps before the new majority Left senators take their seats.

[Energywyze]

02:22 PM on 11/29/2010

Will this change anything for the heavy industries that continue to use extremely high energy usage. I would really like to see what this mandate does for the country as a whole. If it works, the US should implement it since there isn't enough incentive either positive or negative to push the large corporations to do something with their energy waste and carbon footprint. We at Energywyze have done evaluations for big companies and most are not interested in being efficient or too afraid to spend just a little for a great result to reduce their carbon footprint. Come see us at http://energywyze.us for a great way to reduce energy waste and become a green corporation.
Tony Z.

[Lance Manling]

01:46 PM on 11/29/2010

I would love to see how they establish price and try to explain how it isn't a tax.

[Exusian]

03:14 PM on 11/29/2010

You can think of it as a tax if you like, but what it is a mechanism to include the external costs of fossil fuel use in the price, something the market mechanism simply does not do.

[Lance Manling]

03:34 PM on 11/29/2010

I would love to see how they determine the external costs of carbon usages. Call it what you will but it is a tax. It is a tax if they are trying to discourage the use of carbon based fuels.

[Exusian]

07:28 PM on 11/29/2010

I have no problem what so ever with calling it a tax, punkin.

[LaurieAnn]

03:24 PM on 11/29/2010

Perhaps the general population of Australia is more thoughtful and caring about their futures than the general population of the US.  We need to do this as well, whether it's a tax or not.

[Lance Manling]

03:37 PM on 11/29/2010

I am sure that the Australians have everything figured out. I am not to keen on the US following the bad example set by the Australians.

Ever notice that there is never any mention what they would do with the money from the tax. I am sure the government will find a good home for it.

[algalsolution]

01:41 PM on 11/29/2010

Our planet will be running out of fossil fuel within 10-20 years. As it does there will be more wars and hardship. The fuel we use today came from ancient green algae. We need to grow more now. Certain strains of green algae can reproduce every 24 hours and can contain 50% oil. It can not be cultivated in open ponds, because of cross contamination. www.algalsolution.com in conjunction with www.solarpriceindex.co.uk have patented a solar powered bioreactor that will save the planet.