I have a question that I don’t believe has yet been asked and/or adequately answered by either side on this carbon debate. How will taxing carbon directly lead to a reduction in emissions?
If this is the primary purpose of the carbon tax, won’t taxing the big emitters, who then pass the additional cost on to end-users, then the government excludes some industries and provides offsets to others, and then pays households an amount to cover the increased costs to them, lead to a net zero effect on emissions?
Climate change is real – of course it’s real. The climate has been changing for millennia. If the government is all about leading the way on climate change then why aren’t they doing something about the continued largescale clearing of the earth’s air-conditioning system/lungs – trees – which are the planet’s carbon ‘scrubbers’? Why isn’t more being done for reforestation? Land-clearing prevention?
If this government is all about climate change prevention why are they cutting the rebate on solar panel installation – a sustainable, alternative energy source? Why are they not doing more about investigating alternative energy sources like in-flow generators, wind farms etc?
If you’re going to use a stick to incentivise big emitters to cut emissions, why don’t you tell them they can’t pass on the tax? Aren’t we just shifting money around?
So the question remains: HOW will taxing carbon directly lead to a reduction in emissions?
Lyn Bishop,
Warwick
