Search

Add your comment

Andrew, You wrote above, "Those who bothered to do minimal research will understand that under Australia's carbon price mechanism businesses that have significant carbon costs, and have to compete with international companies, will be compensated 66 or 94.5% of their carbon costs. I.e. carbon costs will not be significant for companies that compete with international companies. What does this mean in real world terms: Nickel produces - the clean ones will be overcompensated (receive money), the dirty ones will be a minimal carbon price. Ditto for all emissions intensive trade exposed industries." Next time you want to accuse someone of shoddy journalism, at least try to understand how business investment works before speaking nonsense, mate. Here is why I say this: The Emission Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) arrangement attempts to act as a Coles or Woolies-type discount coupon to so-called "exposed" industries, by saying "but you'll have a 66% or 94.5%" discount on the carbon price for five whole years!" Labour pols argue that this should be considered a "benefit" under their plan. But. EITE fails to take into account two major problems, a) long-term investment uncertainty factor; and b) indirect carbon price pass through costs. In the first problem, businesses invest in major plant on the basis of life of asset costs and benefits. The EITE scheme leaves as an open question how businesses will be treated under the scheme after 2017. All else being equal, in the absence of any guidance by Canberra on this issue, businesses are forced to consider the worst-case scenario into their capital modelling. This means that plant that might otherwise be considered a sound investment stands the risk of being reconsidered as an investment risk. Again, all else being equal. The second problem is where businesses cannot pass indirect carbon costs through to customers because those companies sell resources that are traded on worldwide indexes (e.g., NEWC coal prices; or LME copper, nickel, and aluminium prices). Already hammered by high FOREX rates and flat index prices, such businesses now have to suck up additional carbon costs that their suppliers pass on through to them, but cannot then pass on to their international customers. Their costs increase but their profits do not. But, being the genius you seem to be, you already know this. Unlike emissions that caused acid rain and smog (CO, NOx, HC, SO2, etc.), no one has been able to demonstrate a direct linkage between CO2 emissions an an immediate impact on a community's public health. When clean air laws were amended in the US and other countries 20+ years ago to make coal fired power stations clean up their smog and acid rain emissions, the general public in first world countries did not have to be convinced that lowering those pollutants was a bad thing to do. But Julia et.al. had to shell out a baker's dozen of "gimmes" to various voting constituencies to get them to agree to a tax on carbon. On top of this, the carbon tax will - not may - result in a capital flight from Australia to other countries where exposure to carbon costs is lower or else nonexistent. And when jobs dry up as capital investment in Australian-based operations drops, what, pray tell, will you have actually accomplished, other than killing one more nation's economy? China (being the example you used above) will not export electricity to Australia, but it will continue to offer favourable conditions for manufacturing and metal refining industries, as well as primary resources industries. What you claim we won't be paying in lower energy costs from China will be taken up by the fact that more and more Australian investment (and the jobs that come with it) will go offshore. But no matter, it's working out great for Tasmania, isn't it? That's why they have to have so much of WA and Queensland's GST allocation...hmmm.