arguments con

Right: Woolworths supermarkets, it is claimed, would pay as much as ten million dollars a year in carbon tax. This would, in turn, force up food prices, according to carbon tax critics .

Arguments against Australia introducing a carbon tax

1. A carbon tax will cause the cost of living to rise
It has been claimed that one result of a carbon tax is that the cost of living will rise. Carbon-producing industries will be taxed and are likely to pass on the cost of all or some of that tax via increased charges to the consumer. Thus, it is assumed, as a result of a carbon tax the price of products such as electricity will increase.
In addition to this, there is likely to be a general flow-on effect. All those goods which are produced using electricity will also increase in price as manufactures pass on their added costs to the consumer.
This point has been made by the lobby group 'Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax' which states on its website 'Electricity prices will skyrocket; the price of everyday goods will increase'. An editorial published on March 5, 2011, in the Daily Telegraph opened with the claim, 'One thing is clear about the carbon tax debate: everything is about to get more expensive.'
While the Government is yet to state the price of the carbon tax, it is estimated that under a $26 a tonne carbon price power bills will increase $300 a year and petrol prices would rise 6.5c a litre.'
A national survey of 500 food and grocery retailers has shown that 83 per cent intend to pass on the cost of a carbon price in higher prices. Though a carbon price is yet to be determined, Woolworths, for example, could be faced with a potential annual carbon bill of about $10 million a year, based on a carbon price of $26 per tonne, which industry experts and the Opposition are using as a rough guide.
On February 24, 20011, Mark Coulton, the Liberal member for Parkes stated, 'A carbon price will be forced on the energy sector, transport, industrial emissions and waste, which experts predict will translate into a steep rise in living costs...'
On February 23, 2011, John Alexander, the Liberal member for the federal seat of Bennelong, stated during a parliamentary debate on a carbon tax, 'This tax will not only hit your home, it will hit every single item you purchase, every business that you deal with, every price that you pay - this will be the tax that keeps on taxing.'

2. Under a carbon tax the economically disadvantaged will be worst affected
It has been claimed that a carbon tax is inequitable because it will function like a consumption tax, affecting the unavoidable expenses of all sections of the community, irrespective of their capacity to pay. This is in contrast to a tax such as income tax which is scaled so that the highest tax rates are paid by those on the highest incomes.
This point has been made as one of the arguments on the Internet debating site, Debatepedia where it is stated, 'Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. Because energy consumption would be taxed equally across social groups with a carbon tax..., the costs of the tax would disproportionately affect poor groups.'
Similarly, John Alexander, the Liberal member for the federal seat of Bennelong, has noted, 'Despite all the variation of this constituency [Bennelong], the one common thread is that the residents and businesses are struggling to make ends meet.
[Theirs] are not complaints about the prices of luxury items but concerns about the cost of items that are absolutely essential for survival: food, electricity, gas, water and petrol-not to mention increasing rents and mortgage interest rates. These struggling Australians talk to me about their problems because it is the obligation of government to implement policy agendas to minimise the impact of rising prices and work to prevent a further decline in the quality of life of those who elect us as their representatives.'
Scott Driscoll, the National President of United Retail Federation, has stated, 'To wave through a new broad-based tax on basic living expenses when people have faced devastating natural disasters and massive increases already in electricity, water and petrol is simply cruel, unreasonable and unnecessary. It will push overheads up dramatically for retailers and small businesses and will be passed on to consumers...'

3. A carbon tax will damage the Australian economy and cause a loss of jobs
It has been claimed that one of the consequences of a carbon tax is that the Australian economy will be damaged and Australian jobs will be lost. It has been suggested that this will happen for a variety of reasons.
One is that some employers may be forced to retract their businesses because of the cost of the new tax and will therefore put off staff. BlueScope Steel has warned that if a carbon tax is implemented, it could lead to plant closures and the loss of 15,000 jobs. The company has claimed the tax would force closure of its Port Kembla steelworks in New South Wales unless the government offset the $300 million to $400 million per year in additional taxes the company expects to pay at a $25 a tonne carbon price.
Another possibility is that increased costs to consumers will result in reduced consumption and so businesses may cease to be viable as their customer base contracts.
It has also been suggested that some businesses will move out of Australia to operate in countries that do not have a carbon tax and therefore the jobs they created will go offshore. Thus the chief executive of BlueScope Steel, Paul O'Mailey, has argued, 'If you tax the local steel producer, you are basically saying we want to encourage imports of steel and hide the carbon overseas.'
Relatedly, retailers may begin to import staples like food from countries without a carbon tax and thus jobs would be lost in agriculture. This point has been made by Scott Driscoll, the National President of United Retail Federation, who has stated, 'the very real threat is that the tax will deliver ... a severe blow [to] the food and retail sector adding ... enough pressure to see more food imports from areas such as Asia and South America inevitably [resulting in] the loss of food production in Australia which is fundamentally a national security issue.'
It has also been claimed that overall the Australian economy will slow. Currently we are an economy with a heavy reliance on electricity generated through burning coal, as this becomes more expensive, it has been suggested that investment in Australian industries will drop off and that employment will correspondingly contract. The independent think tank , the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has stated, 'The planned carbon tax regime (and opposition to nuclear generation) makes significant new power plant investment impossible. This lights a slow fuse under the economy's growth potential.'
The Opposition leader, Mr Tony Abbott, has stated, 'A carbon tax of about $25 a tonne would close 16 coal mines and cost 10,000 jobs in coal mining (according to Access Economics). It would cost 24,000 jobs in mining generally (according to ACIL). It would cost 45,000 jobs in emissions-intensive industries (according to Frontier Economics).'

4. Many people do not accept either that climate change is occurring or that it is caused by human activities
A carbon tax is unlikely to be acceptable to the many Australians who do not believe that climate change is occurring or, if it is, that it is primarily the result of human activity.
In a survey conducted by Essential Media and published on December 6, 2010, it was found that only 45% of those surveyed believed that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity (down 8% since last surveyed in November 2009), 36% thought we are just witnessing a normal fluctuation in the Earth's climate (up 2%) and 19% din not know (up 6%).
Such scepticism has been feed by climate change critics such as Lord Christopher Monckton, a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer, formerly a member of the Conservative Party, and now deputy leader of the UK Independence Party. While in Australia in January 2010 Monckton said of then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposed emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 'It will destroy the economy of Australia and it will do it without the slightest immeasurable [sic] difference on the climate. This is a policy as near to total lunacy as I have ever seen.' Monckton does not believe that the world's temperature is rising. Nor does he believe that human activity has any significant effect on climate..
The influence of such views can be seen in former liberal politician Nick Minchin who has stated, 'I personally remain to be convinced that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are, quote, the main driver of the degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.' Minchin was the leader of a group of Liberal politicians who destabilised the leadership of former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull because Turnbull supported Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme.
The acceptance of such views among the Australian electorate can be seen in a letter published in the Adelaide Advertiser on March 2, 2011. The letter writer, Colin Brooks, asked, 'How can the message be sent to politicians, economists and soft-subject scientists that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that man's emissions of that gas have never been shown to have caused any significant rise in global temperature?'

5. The tax will have no significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions
It has been claimed that an Australian carbon tax will have no significant impact on the level of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. This claim has been made on two bases. Firstly that it is unlikely to succeed in significantly reducing Australian greenhouse gas emissions and secondly, that even if these emissions were to stop completely this would have no useful effect on world greenhouse gas emission rates.
Critics of a carbon tax for Australia argue that it will damage our economy without reducing climate change. The independent think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has stated that the proposed tax, although burdensome and damaging is not sufficiently large to force reinvestment in different forms of power generation.
In a media released issued on March 2, 2011 and published in The Age, the IPA stated, 'The price itself, while severely harming the carbon-intensive, coal-based generators, would not force their premature departure from supply, which would be necessary to leave a gap for new gas generators.'
The IPA Review in September 2008 included the following response to Kevin Rudd's proposed emissions trading scheme, 'Australia contributes 1.1 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Our contribution is dwarfed by big emitters like the United States which contributes nearly 21 per cent, China which contributes 17 per cent, and Russia which contributes just over 5 per cent.'
The IPA believes, therefore, that even if Australia were to stop producing any carbon dioxide this would have negligible impact on the world's carbon dioxide levels. The Review stated, 'Even if we entirely eliminated our carbon footprint, the impact on the global total would be statistically insignificant. Reducing emissions would do nothing for the Murray-Darling Basin, or the Great Barrier Reef, or Australia's rainfall patterns, even if human-induced climate change was the culprit. What matters for the environment are global emissions, not Australia's emissions.'

6. The Labor Government has no electoral mandate for a carbon tax
Democratic political theory holds that contesting parties or candidates put their policies before the electorate so that if the voters like these policies they will indicate this at the ballot box. An elected government is then said to have a mandate to put its policies into effect. This means that its policies have been endorsed by the electorate at the last election and so, within a democracy, which is government based on the will of the people, these policies should be acted on.
Julia Gillard and the current Labor Government has been criticised because at the last election both Julia Gillard and the Labor Treasurer, Wayne Swan, stated that under a Labor government there would be no carbon tax.
On August 16, 2010, in the lead up to last federal election, Ms Gillard stated, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The week before, when asked about a carbon tax, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan replied, 'We have made our position very clear; we have ruled it out.'
The Opposition has made it plain that they consider this means that the Government has no right to impose a carbon tax during its current term in office. During question time in Parliament on March 1, 2011, the Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey stated, 'They [the Government] have no mandate for a carbon tax.'
Critics of the government's apparent change of policy claim that a carbon tax is only being introduced because it has been demanded by the Greens. The Government needs the support of the Greens if it is to continue to govern as it does not have a majority in the House of Representatives.