How would you feel about paying carbon taxes..

Jimmy Garlic

..On all goods and services. Say a 5% carbon tax on everything?. Would people be up for that?.

Macha

In your proposed format, it would simply be a flat tax, and a regressive one. VAT is already too high in this country, in my opinion.

Also, there would be no incentive to reduce the carbon intensity of goods as all goods would be subject to the same carbon price.

Needler

Terrible idea

This is exactly the kind of thing our former minister for the Environment John Gormless would have come up with.

"We need more money since our country is f*cked, lets tell them all they're doing good for the environment by paying this unavoidable tax maybe they won't mind as much then"

Macha

Less of the childish name calling and swearing please, this isn't the politics forum.

Why is it a terrible idea?

Needler

Macha wrote: »

Less of the childish name calling and swearing please, this isn't the politics forum.

Why is it a terrible idea?

Tax has gone up an awful lot in recent years and they plan to push it up even more. all eating into the budget of what people have to spend on new (and more efficient) stuff. If the economy gets worse then the Green industry will also suffer

Maybe they should use the existing carbon tax to cover up for a lower VAT rate on the 10 most efficient fridges, freezers, ovens and so on

It also doesn't make sense that activities that don't even involve carbon would have a carbon tax. If I buy an iron bar wouldn't an iron tax make more sense?

SeanW

You missed a "No, I wouldn't be a happy camper at all" and "Atari Jaguar" option.

Jimmy Garlic

SeanW wrote: »

You missed a "No, I wouldn't be a happy camper at all" and "Atari Jaguar" option.

Don't you want to save the planet?. Your oldskool ways are the problem.

Jimmy Garlic

If we fail to act our ways and traditions will be obliterated by a massive rise in sea level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxKYYK52oTI

djpbarry

Jimmy,

If this doesn't develop into a coherent argument real soon, your thread will be consigned to the archives.

Macha

OK let's try to keep this discussion focused on the merits of a carbon tax.

Needler, do you have any evidence that tax has gone up "an awful lot" in recent years? Would you be happier with the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax, ie the proceeds are used to reduce income tax or VAT?

Just on the iron bar: the aim of the carbon tax is that the polluter pays for the cost that is imposed on society for the carbon emitted for their activities. It isn't necessarily linked to the amount of physical carbon contained within a product* So the production of an iron bar results in a certain amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. This is what is being priced by a carbon tax.


*indeed a high level of embodied carbon in products like wood are to be welcomed as they act as carbon stores, taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

OK let's try to keep this discussion focused on the merits of a carbon tax.

The level of carbon taxes already taken in the UK and the further taxes proposed are crippling a country that's already on its knees by taking out industry:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/8642659/British-jobs-gone-with-the-wind.html#disqus_thread

This article reflects my views, that current policy on tackling "climate change" (why isn't it called "global warming" anymore) is ridiculous for the reasons stated in the article.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The level of carbon taxes already taken in the UK and the further taxes proposed are crippling a country that's already on its knees...

The UK is “on it’s knees”? Really? Cos everything seems fine from where I’m sitting.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This article reflects my views, that current policy on tackling "climate change" (why isn't it called "global warming" anymore...

It’s always been referred to as climate change. Why do people keep bringing this up? The IPCC was named way back in 1988.

Chloe Pink

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

..On all goods and services. Say a 5% carbon tax on everything?. Would people be up for that?.

On this very topic although perhaps it should be in another thread, I find the the survey showing at the top of this thread rather skewed; it asks
"
Would you happily pay to help save the planet?"
And only gives two options:
"Yes, it is our duty to pay up.
No, I wouldn't be happy about it but I would take it on the chin for the sake of the planet."

There is no option for:
"No, I wouldn't."

It also makes the assumptions that this planet is in jeopardy and that money can save it.

Macha

Please do not use arguments that are effectively "please read this article". If you want to take arguments out of an article or use them as reference to support your arguments that is fine but please construct a proper argument in your post.

At best it inhibits proper debate and at worst, it's just lazy to expect other posters to read links/articles to get even a basic understanding of your arguments.

Do you have any evidence that it's the carbon tax that is "crippling" UK industry?

Magic Beans

The poll is flawed. Both choices lead to the same conclusion, paying the tax, happily or otherwise. There should be an opportunity to reject paying what is just another tax hidden behind a buzz word and clever marketing.



This post is made entirely from re-cycled electrons.

old_aussie

Thread content deleted as off topic and copy+paste of other material.

This is a discussion of a carbon tax, not whether you think climate change is happening or not. Next off-topic post will receive an infraction.

Macha

Chloe Pink

Ah the thread is opened again!

Macha wrote: »

If you want to take arguments out of an article or use them as reference to support your arguments that is fine but please construct a proper argument in your post.

Do you have any evidence that it's the carbon tax that is "crippling" UK industry?

Here's one example from the article linked to:

"The new wind farm taxes will cost Lynemouth £40 million a year, a third of its entire operating costs, effectively wiping out its annual profits. Last month, John McCabe, a spokesman for the company, said it was examining “how we cope with the huge cost implications of incoming legislation. A number of options are being discussed, one of which is the closure of the plant.” "

"The Lynemouth plant is profitable. It is fairly modern, only 35 years old. It is almost at full production. It is the biggest private employer left in the entire county of Northumberland, contributing £100 million to the local economy."

The Lynemouth plant produces aluminium.


Another example:

"Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says: “Employment in the sectors that are most directly affected by rising green taxes is 225,000.

"And if you look at the Government’s projections, their CO2 proposals will hit even firms that are less electro-intensive – paper, glass, ceramics – with a further 600,000 jobs. Factories may not close immediately, but investment won’t come here.""


And another:

But Stan Higgins, chief executive of the North East Process Industry Cluster, which represents the region’s chemical and pharmaceutical companies, says current government energy policies are “suicidal” and could end up destroying entire sectors of manufacturing.

“Four or five years ago [in pharmaceuticals], energy was the twelfth most expensive element of manufacturing a tablet,” he says. “Now it is second or third.

“We are trying to be the first country in Europe to introduce [a carbon floor price], but it’s crazy to do this independently. Our energy costs are six to seven per cent higher than the European average and that’s not sustainable.

Most of our big companies are not UK-owned – they have no allegiance to the UK whatever. They will go where they get the best deal. We can compete with the world, but we just need a level playing field.”"

Macha

You haven't proven that these are "crippling" the UK economy and chosen to quote from carbon intensive companies who are of course the losers with a carbon tax.

That doesn't mean the economy as a whole loses.

Sweden has had a $100 carbon tax for the last 20 years and their economy seems in much better shape than the UK's.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

You haven't proven that these are "crippling" the UK economy and chosen to quote from carbon intensive companies who are of course the losers with a carbon tax.

That doesn't mean the economy as a whole loses.

Sweden has had a $100 carbon tax for the last 20 years and their economy seems in much better shape than the UK's.

Indeed and their industry takes up a relatively large share of their energy consumption compared withother EU member states.

I wonder if their ability to have an economy in good shape and to pay a carbon tax has anything to do with their low CO2 emissions and their low CO2 intensity factor and I wonder if this has anything to do with their almost entirely nuclear and hydro electricity generation?


"Fuel poverty" isn't about "carbon intensive companies":
"Until now, the main controversy about electricity prices has been to do with consumers. Last week, new figures showed that rising bills have driven another 700,000 people into “fuel poverty”. But the impact on manufacturing could deliver a double whammy: not only costing you money, but also costing you your job."


I suppose it would be useful to know what a government was going to spend the money collected through carbon taxes on; subsidising the electricty generation sector doesn't entirely work for me at the moment and certainly 'over-subsidising' them doesn't either.

Now if they spent it on something sensible like mega insulation on properties (energy conservation), and maybe even some on true micro generation (solar and geo thermal) where feasible, that would be another matter but hey, that's less money for the power giants so I'm not holding my breath.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Indeed and their industry takes up a relatively large share of their energy consumption compared withother EU member states.

I wonder if their ability to have an economy in good shape and to pay a carbon tax has anything to do with their low CO2 emissions and their low CO2 intensity factor and I wonder if this has anything to do with their almost entirely nuclear and hydro electricity generation?


"Fuel poverty" isn't about "carbon intensive companies":
"Until now, the main controversy about electricity prices has been to do with consumers. Last week, new figures showed that rising bills have driven another 700,000 people into “fuel poverty”. But the impact on manufacturing could deliver a double whammy: not only costing you money, but also costing you your job."


I suppose it would be useful to know what a government was going to spend the money collected through carbon taxes on; subsidising the electricty generation sector doesn't entirely work for me at the moment and certainly 'over-subsidising' them doesn't either.

Now if they spent it on something sensible like mega insulation on properties (energy conservation), and maybe even some on true micro generation (solar and geo thermal) where feasible, that would be another matter but hey, that's less money for the power giants so I'm not holding my breath.

If you look at Sweden's total primary energy mix, which is better for looking at the entire economy, hydro and nuclear make up about 37%. Plus Sweden's electricity generation industry is already under the ETS and subject to a carbon tax so it's a slightly different sector.

The fact remains that modern economies are perfectly capable of working and working well under a strong carbon price, be it from an emissions trading system and/or carbon tax.

On the fuel poverty argument, the regressive elements of a carbon tax can be handled. I don't think it is a valid argument against any consumption-based tax.

Re: use of revenues, carbon and energy taxes make up almost 10% of Sweden's tax intake. The funds are used for measures such as energy tax relief for biofuels and improving the energy performance of buildings.

However, given that the OECD considers consumption taxes as preferable to corporation tax or income tax, I don't see any reason why a carbon tax can't be used to contribute to the general coffers. The "revenue neutral" argument is moot at the moment because we're borrowing so much simply to cover current spending.

matthew8

There should be a third option on the poll:
No I would rather go to jail.

I would vote for that option.

Macha

Bad news, if you live in Ireland you already pay a carbon tax. And most power stations or heavily polluting installations pay carbon under the EU ETS.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

If you look at Sweden's total primary energy mix, which is better for looking at the entire economy, hydro and nuclear make up about 37%.

For primary energy, I recall figures of 37% for nuclear and 26% for hydro.
Neither the UK or Southern Ireland have this much advantage from low carbon generators.

Macha wrote: »

On the fuel poverty argument, the regressive elements of a carbon tax can be handled. I don't think it is a valid argument against any consumption-based tax.

Until you're old and die of cold. The question is will they be handled.

Macha wrote: »

Re: use of revenues, carbon and energy taxes make up almost 10% of Sweden's tax intake. The funds are used for measures such as energy tax relief for biofuels and improving the energy performance of buildings.

Ah, the latter use of funds is admirable, conservation but again will the Uk and Southern Ireland do anything so sensible.

Macha wrote: »

However, given that the OECD considers consumption taxes as preferable to corporation tax or income tax, I don't see any reason why a carbon tax can't be used to contribute to the general coffers.

The idea that it contributes to the 'general coffers' rather than to conserving energy (by waste reduction rather than reduced use) is alarming and exactly the issue I have with a carbon tax; it should be used to address the problem, not to dissappear into a black hole to pay massive EU fines and the likes.

And there are other issues to take into account such as other taxes already in place; and the cost or our energy which is apparently six to seven per cent higher than the European average; and the fact that we don't have Sweden's nuclear and hydro capacity.

We can't just say it works for Sweden therefore it will work for us.

The title of this thread was about how we feel about paying a carbon tax, not how would you feel about paying a carbon tax if we changed our whole tax system or if we had lots of low CO2 generators or if we had electricity at six or seven percent less than its current cost.

johnmcdnl

if it was 5% on stuff that you can get green alternatives to then ok I suppose.. but on everything...

maybe if I knew the money was going to be spent on renewable power and the likes - but it won't - it'll just end up going to pay off the bond holders so in answer to the question..

if we weren't broke I suppose I'd live with it.. now that we're broke - not a hope in hell

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

For primary energy, I recall figures of 37% for nuclear and 26% for hydro.

Those figures are incorrect. The figures I supplied are from the Swedish Energy Agency's most recent report.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Neither the UK or Southern Ireland have this much advantage from low carbon generators.

Actually, we do.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Until you're old and die of cold. The question is will they be handled.

Sorry but this is just scaremongering.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Ah, the latter use of funds is admirable, conservation but again will the Uk and Southern Ireland do anything so sensible.

More vague pessimism. We already have a carbon tax that is used wisely, assuming your definition of using it on energy conservation projects.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The idea that it contributes to the 'general coffers' rather than to conserving energy (by waste reduction rather than reduced use) is alarming and exactly the issue I have with a carbon tax; it should be used to address the problem, not to dissappear into a black hole to pay massive EU fines and the likes.

Seems that is more an argument against tax in general than a carbon tax. You could replace 'carbon' with any other tax name and the same sentence would hold. So do we have a Nurse Tax for nurses, a Road tax for toads, etc, each of which is ring fenced for a specific reason? This would not work in any real life national government.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And there are other issues to take into account such as other taxes already in place; and the cost or our energy which is apparently six to seven per cent higher than the European average; and the fact that we don't have Sweden's nuclear and hydro capacity.

Your first point is a general point about overall taxation levels, which is a completely different debate. Your second point is incorrect and if you look up the most recent SEAI energy prices report, you will see that. And finally, you haven't even come near to proving the importance of Sweden's nuclear and hydro capacity, particularly given you have your figures wrong and there are other important energy sectors outside electricity, namely transport and heating and cooling that don't benefit from nuclear or hydro yet still function successfully under what is generally considered a high carbon tax.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The title of this thread was about how we feel about paying a carbon tax, not how would you feel about paying a carbon tax if we changed our whole tax system or if we had lots of low CO2 generators or if we had electricity at six or seven percent less than its current cost.

Why not? Why not look at changing the tax system? And how do you think we're going to get a low carbon economy if there are no market incentives? Again, your last point about electricity prices are invalid as your claim on the cost of Irish energy prices are incorrect.

Needler

Macha wrote: »

OK let's try to keep this discussion focused on the merits of a carbon tax.

Needler, do you have any evidence that tax has gone up "an awful lot" in recent years? Would you be happier with the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax, ie the proceeds are used to reduce income tax or VAT?

Just on the iron bar: the aim of the carbon tax is that the polluter pays for the cost that is imposed on society for the carbon emitted for their activities. It isn't necessarily linked to the amount of physical carbon contained within a product* So the production of an iron bar results in a certain amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. This is what is being priced by a carbon tax.


*indeed a high level of embodied carbon in products like wood are to be welcomed as they act as carbon stores, taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

Universal social charge, petrol and diesel have got a good bit thrown on, income tax went up a couple of years ago and now they are talking about the dreaded property tax and water rates

I suppose the way things are now isn't so bad with just some non renewable fuel being taxed although I'd prefer to have reasonably priced petrol instead.

5% on everything might as well be a 5% VAT increase which will probably put a good few out of business and it just serves as a perpetual stick to beat people with until everybody stops using oil and then they might just rename the tax to continue justifying it.

To me it doesn't really matter a whole lot if the VAT is high and the income tax is low its more about the total tax burden.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Post 25

Ah, thank you, Macha, I've found the Swedish Energy Agency's most recent report.
The point of note is that they do have a 'low carbon' economy.
Swedish electricity production is dominated by hydro (49%) and nuclear (37%) power production. This accounts for roughly a third of their energy use.
Much of their heating is from electricity and district heating.
And diesel plays a big part in their transport.
So I think they have a distinct advantage over SI and the UK when it comes to paying a carbon tax.

If we wanted to go to a low carbon economy, a tax on carbon would have to be introduced carefully without casualties.
My comments about:
- dying of cold;
- and making sure the tax is spent on energy conservation i.e. to reduce
waste, not necessarily energy use;
- and on considering other taxes already in place;
- and on considering the existing costs of energy;
- and on preserving a country's economy through the change to a low carbon
economy
are not scaremongering and pessimism or anything else, they are realistic.
A change to a low carbon economy cannot be taken lightly; done badly it could have dire consequences for individuals and for the planet. It also relies on having a coherent policy in place for energy sourcing.

And the reason I isolate this carbon tax (versus isolating other taxes) for spending directly on a low carbon economy rather than feeding it into the general coffers, is because its so important; we are after all talking about saving the planet through reduced CO2 emissions.

Personally, until we have a coherent energy policy in place, I'm not into paying more of a carbon tax than I already do (and I'm objecting to the amount I already pay and seeking a coherent energy policy).

Capt'n Midnight

Carbon tax would have to include all stages of manufacture and distribution otherwise the economics would become like the profit repatriation of the multinationals here. Otherwise it might move carbon intensive industires offshore to a lower tax regieme

How much of a car's cost is carbon , think of the metals and rubber and electronics. How does that compare to VRT ?

For fruit and other products flown in it would have to include the carbon used in the air freight.

Think how much of our lifestyle is subsidised by chinese coal and petrochemical use.


Maybe Berties gab for Coilte is based on govt grants for carbon credits ??

Pete_Cavan

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I suppose it would be useful to know what a government was going to spend the money collected through carbon taxes on; subsidising the electricty generation sector doesn't entirely work for me at the moment and certainly 'over-subsidising' them doesn't either.

Now if they spent it on something sensible like mega insulation on properties (energy conservation), and maybe even some on true micro generation (solar and geo thermal) where feasible, that would be another matter but hey, that's less money for the power giants so I'm not holding my breath.

I agree that we need to stop subsidising inefficient producers (windfarms) and that we need a proper energy policy that promotes low carbon producers such as nuclear, but I dont agree with the last paragraph above. I dont see why the government should have to spend the money raised through the carbon tax on saving money for others.

I'm sure many of the companies in the article which you linked in your first post on this thread who oppose a carbon tax could negate the long term effects of the carbon tax through investment in a more efficient plant and equipment. There is a growing industry in energy audits and reducing the cost of energy to a company (through greater efficiency and reduced waste, not reducing the unit cost of energy). The introduction of a carbon tax may not necessarily cost jobs, it may actually create jobs in other sectors.

The companies mentioned in that article have a turnover of hundreds of millions of pounds a year - an investment of several hundred thousand, or even a few million over a number of years, could see a good return on investment and offset the effect of any carbon tax on profits. Perhaps they should be looking at some type of micro generation instead of bitching about the effect of a carbon tax on their £40 million a year profits.

Chloe Pink

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I dont see why the government should have to spend the money raised through the carbon tax on saving money for others.

If we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, this would in fact be one of the less expensive means of doing so so I personally don't have an issue with it especially as its money they will have paid out themselves in carbon taxes.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Perhaps they should be looking at some type of micro generation instead of bitching about the effect of a carbon tax on their £40 million a year profits.

Indeed companies are forced to look at their energy consumption but the problem for the aluminium company is apparently that the proposed new taxes will wipe out their profit.
Apparently for chemical and pharmaceutical companies, energy was the twelfth most expensive element of manufacturing a tablet and now it's already the second or third.
And apparently, electricity is up to 70 per cent of the costs of manufacture of chlorine and if British chlorine-making collapses, it takes with it thousands of jobs in other sectors that are wholly dependent on chlorine production.

Unfortunately for all these industries, micro generation won't keep the production line moving.

(One solution for them would of course be to become players in the wind industry sector, not to run their manufacturing because the intermittancy of the wind won't support that but to sell the electricity back to the grid and get back the money they paid in taxes. The aluminium company would need need about 120 turbines to get back their £40 million a year. (UK figures, not sure how SI works out with their equivalent to the ROCs)

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Ah, thank you, Macha, I've found the Swedish Energy Agency's most recent report.
The point of note is that they do have a 'low carbon' economy.
Swedish electricity production is dominated by hydro (49%) and nuclear (37%) power production. This accounts for roughly a third of their energy use.
Much of their heating is from electricity and district heating.
And diesel plays a big part in their transport.
So I think they have a distinct advantage over SI and the UK when it comes to paying a carbon tax.

I have already given you the overall figures, which are the most relevant ones. You can hype up nuclear and hydro as percentages of electricity all you want. The figures that I referenced, which refer to total primary energy are the most important and show that hydro and nuclear combined make up less than 40% of energy used in the Swedish economy.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

If we wanted to go to a low carbon economy, a tax on carbon would have to be introduced carefully without casualties.

We already have a carbon tax. Comments like this suggest you are not very familiar with the Irish economy or environmental tax regimes.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

My comments about:
- dying of cold;
- and making sure the tax is spent on energy conservation i.e. to reduce
waste, not necessarily energy use;
- and on considering other taxes already in place;
- and on considering the existing costs of energy;
- and on preserving a country's economy through the change to a low carbon
economy
are not scaremongering and pessimism or anything else, they are realistic.
A change to a low carbon economy cannot be taken lightly; done badly it could have dire consequences for individuals and for the planet. It also relies on having a coherent policy in place for energy sourcing.

They are indeed scare mongering. You clearly still haven't had a look at SEAI's latest energy price report, you haven't demonstrated at all that people will "die of the cold", you haven't convinced me that the taxes should only be spent on energy conservation and you have tried to divert the debate into one of overall taxation levels,

So basically, you have just generally thrown out of list of things to try to make everyone worry about them, without stating any specifics or anything to back them up.

Indeed, you have thus far in this thread used incorrect statistics on a number of occasions to back up your stance and continue to use them after being corrected.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And the reason I isolate this carbon tax (versus isolating other taxes) for spending directly on a low carbon economy rather than feeding it into the general coffers, is because its so important; we are after all talking about saving the planet through reduced CO2 emissions.

Stating that the reduction of CO2 emissions is important is not a valid argument for the ringfencing of carbon taxes.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Personally, until we have a coherent energy policy in place, I'm not into paying more of a carbon tax than I already do (and I'm objecting to the amount I already pay and seeking a coherent energy policy).

Define "coherent".

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

The figures that I referenced, which refer to total primary energy are the most important and show that hydro and nuclear combined make up less than 40% of energy used in the Swedish economy.

I thought "primary energy" and "energy used" were different measures.
Putting that aside, I think nearly 40% is a lot; it's more than a third.
Do you think Sweden has a low carbon economy?

Macha wrote: »

We already have a carbon tax.

I know, I think we're discussing the expansion of it, to everything, and I'm focussing on the proposed expansion that is facing England and Northern Ireland now and will be facing Ireland (southern), if the REFITs scheme is changed to incentivise more renewable energy investment.

Macha wrote: »

They are indeed scare mongering.

This is not my intention or in my view, what I am doing, I'm sorry if you see it as such. I am simply saying that all these aspects and more, need considering when looking at "further" carbon taxes; Captn. Midnight refers to further considerations.

Macha wrote: »

Indeed, you have thus far in this thread used incorrect statistics on a number of occasions to back up your stance and continue to use them after being corrected.

This is not the case, I did so once and went to the report you referred me to and used figures directly from there.
"In 2009, nuclear power supplied 37 % of the country’s electricity, hydro power supplied 49 % and wind power almost 2 %, with the remaining 12 % being made up of fossil-fuelled and biofuel-based production." And in my last post I acknowledged that this was about a third of energy, heating and transport being the other two areas.

Here's more from the report: "In 2009, the total energy input to the Swedish system amounted to 568 TWh, which included a net import of 4.7 TWh of electricity. oil and nuclear power still account for the greatest proportions, closely followed by biofuels and hydro power."

Macha wrote: »

Stating that the reduction of CO2 emissions is important is not a valid argument for the ringfencing of carbon taxes.

IMO it is, if it's not to be ring fenced as such then maybe it should be renamed and sold to us for what it is, more tax.

Macha wrote: »

Define "coherent".

Not the one Ireland or the UK have; to expand on this would I feel be inappropriate in this thread and it has been done to death in other threads.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I thought "primary energy" and "energy used" were different measures.
Putting that aside, I think nearly 40% is a lot; it's more than a third.
Do you think Sweden has a low carbon economy?

I am talking about all energy inputs required to fuel the Swedish economy. You are focusing on electricity. There is a massive difference.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I know, I think we're discussing the expansion of it, to everything, and I'm focussing on the proposed expansion that is facing England and Northern Ireland now and will be facing Ireland (southern), if the REFITs scheme is changed to incentivise more renewable energy investment.

We already have an effective carbon price on all power generation in Ireland and a carbon tax on solid fuels. If we do not put a carbon price on other parts of the economy, we have a skewed carbon price - something that no economist would think is a good idea.

I am not condoning the idea in the first post of a flat carbon tax on everything but that doesn't mean I don't support a carbon tax in a more useful form.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is not my intention or in my view, what I am doing, I'm sorry if you see it as such. I am simply saying that all these aspects and more, need considering when looking at "further" carbon taxes; Captn. Midnight refers to further considerations.

Well to be honest about it, the current situation is economically crazy as we have a carbon tax on some parts of the economy but not others. Extending it makes more economic sense than leaving it as is. Of course we should consider the impacts but you haven't actually demonstrated that an extension of the carbon tax will result in all the terrible things you're foretelling.

And, indeed, you haven't provided any proof that the existing carbon prices have had any detrimental effect on the Irish economy.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is not the case, I did so once and went to the report you referred me to and used figures directly from there.
"In 2009, nuclear power supplied 37 % of the country’s electricity, hydro power supplied 49 % and wind power almost 2 %, with the remaining 12 % being made up of fossil-fuelled and biofuel-based production." And in my last post I acknowledged that this was about a third of energy, heating and transport being the other two areas.

And you have just done it again. Why do you insist on quoting figures for electricity? The most important figures are those for the whole economy, which is more than just electricity.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Here's more from the report: "In 2009, the total energy input to the Swedish system amounted to 568 TWh, which included a net import of 4.7 TWh of electricity. oil and nuclear power still account for the greatest proportions, closely followed by biofuels and hydro power."

Yet again, I refer you to the percentage shares as I have already quoted. You don't need to paraphrase the report to me, I have already read it.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

IMO it is, if it's not to be ring fenced as such then maybe it should be renamed and sold to us for what it is, more tax.

The function of a carbon tax is to ensure that the polluter pays for the small social cost imposed on society by the polluter. This is a real cost, not an imaginary one. The costs include dealing with the impacts and adaptation of climate change.

But according to you, this can only be spend on energy efficiency projects. What about the above costs? And what happens if the costs exceed the carbon tax intake? The government is in a prime position to use this situation to limit required spending in the area.

Moreover, the OECD demonstrates that property taxes and consumption taxes are better forms of taxation than income tax and corporation tax. If we are to move towards consumption taxes, including a carbon tax, we cannot fiscally hamstring ourselves in this manner. Otherwise, as I said, we would have to have a Nurse Tax to pay for Nurses, a Road tax to pay for roads, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Not the one Ireland or the UK have; to expand on this would I feel be inappropriate in this thread and it has been done to death in other threads.

Saying "not the Irish or UK energy policy" is not a valid argument. Please feel free to expand on it, at least briefly, as you're using it as an argument against a carbon tax and I'd like to know exactly your threshold is - mainly because I imagine you will have set it as impossibly high.

Needler

Macha wrote: »

We already have an effective carbon price on all power generation in Ireland and a carbon tax on solid fuels. If we do not put a carbon price on other parts of the economy, we have a skewed carbon price - something that no economist would think is a good idea.

So what would you want to put the carbon tax on as well? Imported goods from China or anywhere outside of Europe? If we had one on any imported goods it would get us into trouble with the EU unless it was brought in on a EU level. Anything made here would already have the carbon tax included and passed onto the buyer.

Would you want a carbon tax on biofuels?

brianthesnail

If the question was something like "Would you be happy to pay 5% extra in carbon tax, while another tax was reduced - for example income tax", then perhaps we could answer easier.

Environmental economists prefer moving the tax burden from good activities (such as income, profit, recycling) to bad activities (such as resource depletion, carbon emissions, waste dumping).

Chloe Pink

Needler wrote: »

So what would you want to put the carbon tax on as well? Imported goods from China or anywhere outside of Europe? If we had one on any imported goods it would get us into trouble with the EU unless it was brought in on a EU level. Anything made here would already have the carbon tax included and passed onto the buyer.

Would you want a carbon tax on biofuels?

You've beaten me to it Needler, my very thoughts too, thank you.

We're in danger of double taxing or worse.

I believe the term 'carbon tax' mutated out of the 'carbon dioxide' tax on emissions for energy production and this is already, naturally passed on to the consumer.
Otherwise, as everything comprises of carbon, we'd be taxing everything.
And if we're not careful we'll end up with a 'carbon' tax system that costs more to administer than the monies collected.


Macha, I agree with you that nuclear and hydro account for about 37% of Sweden's primary energy source. That's more than a third and in my opinion that's a lot and it plays a significant role in making Sweden a low carbon economy.


You say 'I haven't actually demonstrated that an extension of the carbon tax will result in all the terrible things I'm foretelling' (your words). Well I can't because I'm not a fortune teller but I have linked to an article and quoted from it. The quotes are from people in their area of experience; as I'm not an industrial manufacturer, I think their view is more valuable than mine.

Here's another view for good measure:Martin Callanan, leader of the Conservatives in Europe and an environment spokesman, said:
"Europe already has the world's most ambitious targets and, in the absence of a worldwide agreement, forcing business and industry to pay more for their CO2 emissions in Europe will merely result in them relocating outside of the EU."


You ask me how we're going to fund the costs of dealing with the impacts and adaptation of climate change. I was hoping that the 'carbon dioxide emissions' tax we're paying (through one means or another) was being used to conserve energy and to create low carbon dioxide emission energy generators and that these would in turn prevent 'dangerous climate change'.

However failing that, it still strikes me as important that 'carbon dioxide emissions' tax is used to conserve energy and (if I might add) to create low carbon dioxide emission energy generators because our current emissions are apparently the source of the problem i.e. the cause of climate change.
To combat climate change, we'll need to build flood defenses and to insulate properties against the predicted extremes of weather etc. All this needs energy and if we're wasting it and chucking out loads of CO2 in the process of combatting climate change, we're on a road to nowhere.


Regarding what I consider to be a "coherent" energy policy, I mean one that is secure, reliable and affordable.

Capt'n Midnight

Needler wrote: »

So what would you want to put the carbon tax on as well? Imported goods from China or anywhere outside of Europe? If we had one on any imported goods it would get us into trouble with the EU unless it was brought in on a EU level. Anything made here would already have the carbon tax included and passed onto the buyer.

Would you want a carbon tax on biofuels?

carbon tax on the inputs to biofuels. no subsidised agri-diesel, carbon tax on fertilisers - ammonium nitrate which would be the big fertiliser in terms of global energy input is made from Air + Water + LOTS of Energy (you can use hydrogen from fossil fuels instead of water too)

Like I said earlier by imposing a tax on local producers and not on offshore ones is like taxing Irish books and newspapers and not taxing the English ones, this used to happen and people bought the tabloids since they were cheaper. A carbon tax would have made them dearer unless they were printed here.

At the very least it would be a tax on the carbon used to deliver the product to these shores, combined with an accepted tax on the materials used in construction if a carbon tax hadn't already been paid on them. eg: plastic would be taxed on it's carbon content ( probably = % carbon used in production vs. % reused , and reuse of the resuse plastic ) Metals and glass could have a definable carbon ratio, Gold obviously uses more carbon than Lead.

What would happen is some Eu country (possibly us) would impliment a slightly lower carbon tax than the others so that products could then be reexported. We do this with cars, (not sure if we still do) most cars imported into the EU actually are "landed" here for tax reasons. It's just a short diversion for a shipment from Japan, and when you have a few thousand cars on board it all adds up.

Macha

Needler wrote: »

So what would you want to put the carbon tax on as well? Imported goods from China or anywhere outside of Europe? If we had one on any imported goods it would get us into trouble with the EU unless it was brought in on a EU level. Anything made here would already have the carbon tax included and passed onto the buyer.

Would you want a carbon tax on biofuels?

You either have a carbon inventory and price based on consumption or production. We have a system of both that is based on production so we cannot start taxing imported goods, logically.

Biofuels is a whole other can of worms. I am not in favour of importing biofuels from another country but the more sustainable versions of biofuels need to be supported, not taxed. As Captain Midnight rightly pointed out, the fossil fuel inputs into biofuels are already subject to a carbon tax.