News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Coal exemption from ETS would cost $10 billion 

Coal exemption from ETS would cost $10 billion

29 Jul, 2009 04:09 AM
EXEMPTING the coal industry from the emissions trading scheme would cost the scheme $10 billion in revenue over 10 years and force the Federal Government to either cut compensation to households and other sectors or take money from the budget, Government experts say.

Senior departmental officials are urging the Government to stand firm as the coal industry and the Opposition increase demands for more money, free permits or exemption for coal.

The officials are also disputing claims by the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and the coal sector that the scheme being developed in the US will treat polluting industries more favourably than the Australian scheme.

Today the coal sector is running more newspaper advertisements warning of job losses in NSW and Queensland. Yesterday Mr Turnbull used a business speech in Sydney to call again for the legislation to be delayed until early next year – after the international climate conference in Copenhagen and by which time the shape of the US scheme should be clearer.

But Mr Turnbull conceded that because the Government was determined to press ahead, it was likely the Coalition would come to a deal before the end of the year, thus avoiding a trigger for a double dissolution.

‘‘We believe the scheme would be best legislated … or finalised after Copenhagen, but we will participate constructively in the debate about the design of the scheme in the course of this year.’’

The comment brought Mr Turnbull another broadside from the renegade Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey, who sent his Coalition colleagues another email yesterday, blaming a drop in the polls on the attempts by Mr Turnbull and the Coalition to deal on the scheme this year.

‘‘For those who wish to blame party division for their polling demise, just remember who broke ranks,’’ Mr Tuckey wrote.

‘‘Is it just possible we could get on a winner and criticise the ETS as the wrong solution to climate change?’’

Last week, after an internal party brawl about when or if the Coalition should try to amend the bill, Mr Turnbull tried to unite the party behind a new position consisting of nine changes the Coalition would demand.

One of these involved exemptions for coal.

Under the proposed scheme, the coal industry is not counted as a heavy polluter or entitled to free permits. Most coalmines are low-emitting, open-cut projects that would have to pay for permits, and officials say this would add between $1.50 and $2.50 to the price of each tonne of coal.

The worst affected are 23 gassy, methane-emitting mines in NSW and Queensland. They pollute so much that the cost of permits would increase the price per tonne of coal from these mines by $20 to $25. Rather than giving them free permits and allowing them to go on polluting, the Government wants to give them $750 million to implement measures to reduce emissions.

Government officials argue this would lower the mines’ emissions liability on a permanent basis, whereas exempting the coal sector, or giving it free permits, would cost $10 billion over a decade in lost revenue.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Why should one of the biggest polluters be given an exemption! Another case where Government continues to pander to these environmental vandals!
Posted by tigerdicky, 29/07/2009 1:25:24 PM
This has got to be joke. Why should coal be made exempt when they are the biggest polluter? They have known for ages it was coming and kept going about business as usual.

Here an easy solution, change over all of the Victorian coal fired power stations to gas? Wait a minute - the profits won't be so good because the tax paid per GJ well and truly favours coal. If they get exemption there is well and truly no point at all.

Politicians continues to astound me.

Posted by Got to be a joke, 30/07/2009 6:51:49 AM
The Opposition push to delay the vote until after Copenhagen shows how little they know about the process. Copenhagen is about setting binding targets for the post Kyoto world. The Kyoto protocol is about targets and broad principles of accounting.

It is up to each country to design internal schemes on how to reduce emissions.

The Australian government's decision to not link CPRS permits with international allowances or Kyoto Credits detaches the design and targets of the scheme form the Copenhagen outcomes.

I seriously doubt Copenhagen will achieve anything. The negotiations on post-Kyoto arrangements will come down to the December 31. 2012, the end of the Kyoto agreement. In the meantime, governments and oppositions, lobby and industry groups will continue to delay and distract - the situation will get worse, giving us less time to act making the process more expensive.

By locking out or compensating more areas of the economy will force the increase in costs in other areas. The burden should be spread as wide as possible to be as fair as possible.

Posted by the lorax, 30/07/2009 10:30:50 AM
First of all, know what you are talking about. What are coal miners being compensated for? I am sure that many readers visualise the coal miners being taxed for the same tonne of coal that the power stations are taxed for, and surely this is not so. If coal miners are to be compensated for reduced volumes of trading compensation should be difficult to justify. The reduction will not be sudden, indeed may only be a reduction in the rate of increase in trading. This ETS will be a lot harder on consumers than miners. Does anybody know the quantity of "greenhouse gases" released to the atmosphere by the act of mining coal? It would be very considerable. Those gases should be contained and used for fuel.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 30/07/2009 11:31:03 PM
The big money spinners that will reap rewards from this horrific tax would certainly be against this. Junk science King Big Al wouldn't hear of it. The CPRS is designed to move funds from the poorest in the nation to the wealthiest. The need to be able to hit pensioners and fixed income earners every time they turn on the power is crucial if they are to achieve this. The other thing that the CPRS is to deliver is control. Hence the name in Europe "The Slave Tax". Without the ability to turn off pensioners lights and threaten our country's poorest, a lot of the control would be lost. They won't give up that sort of control on this tax if they can help it.
Posted by Ziggy, 13/10/2009 1:47:23 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
28 July, 2009
27 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the Federal Government got the balance right between water buybacks and investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure in the Murray Darling?

Yes
(3.8%)

No - there should be more investment in infrastructure
(73.8%)

No - there should be more emphasis on water buybacks
(13.7%)

Undecided
(8.7%)

Total Votes: 416
Poll Date: 26 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...