Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 


Russell’s Carbon Tax equivalent to 4.5% rise in company tax

Russell’s Carbon Tax equivalent to 4.5% increase in company tax

ACT Leader Jamie Whyte

Last week, the Greens announced a plan to replace the emissions trading scheme (ETS) with a greenhouse gas tax.

Industrial firms that emit greenhouse gases will have to pay $25 per tonne. Farmers will have to pay $12.50 per tonne. This is a BIG new tax, the equivalent to lifting the corporate tax rate from today’s 28% to 32.5%.

The tax will, of course, be harmful to the owners, employees and customers of businesses that emit greenhouse gases.

But the policy is even worse than that. It will also defeat its own purpose.

The Greens claim that this tax will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted and thereby reduce the chance of the climate warming. In fact, their policy will increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

They have again made the mistake of ignoring what other governments are doing.

Suppose that to produce a kilo of milk (dairy fat) farmers in country A emit more greenhouse gas than farmers in country B do. If the governments of both countries impose an equal greenhouse tax, then producing milk in country A will become more expensive than in country B, and profits will be lower. The production of milk will migrate from A to B and less greenhouse gas will be emitted globally. The desired result.

But now suppose that only country B, where emissions are lower, imposes the tax. Now production costs are higher in country B, and production will migrate to country A. This will increase the global greenhouse gas emissions caused by milk production. This is the effect of The Greens’ policy.

New Zealand milk production releases less greenhouse gas than American and European production because our benign climate means production here consumes less fossil fuel, even accounting for exportation.

But the governments of the US and EU do not tax their farmers for emitting greenhouse gases. The Greens’ policy will therefore divert dairy production from low-emitting Kiwi dairy farmers to high-emitting European dairy farmers.

Such a policy bungle would be funny if only the Greens did not have a material chance of being an influential part of the next New Zealand government.

Actions to reduce CO2 emissions in other countries will be limited to modest unilateral reductions of a largely token character. The Green Party should stop saying that the transition to a carbon neutral economy will be easy and painless.

The equivalent of a 4.5 percent rise in the company tax is a major burden on the economy, wages and jobs.

The chances of India, China and the rest of the Third World agreeing to forego or even slow their economic development to fight global warming is zero. Unilateral reductions in CO2 emissions by New Zealand simply make us poorer and less able to cope with the uncertainties of the future. Becoming richer and adapting to change is the only game in town for both the developed and the developing worlds.

As the economist David Friedman noted this year, preventing global warming is an international public good, which will therefore be greatly under-supplied. Adaptation to climate change is a private good that will be supplied at the optimal level by the market like any other privately produced good. Adaptation reduces the negative aspects of any global warming without stopping any of its positive effects, such as increased agricultural productivity.

Unless most other countries contribute in reducing carbon emissions, New Zealand’s efforts make no difference to the extent of global warming. The Greens want to make us poorer and deprive us of resources we could use to adapt to any warming that might happen.


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Plain Packs Plan: Gordon Campbell On Tobacco Politicking (And The TPP Death Watch)

Has Act leader David Seymour got the easiest job in the world, or what? Roll out of bed, turn on the radio and hmm…there do seem to be a lot of problems out there in the world. Must think of something. And so it came to pass that this morning, David Seymour took up his sword and shield to fight for a world that’s about to be denied the rich and vibrant beauty of tobacco advertising. More>>

ALSO:

.


RECENT TPP MEETING:

Professor Ian Shirley: The Budget That Failed Auckland

The 2016 budget offered Auckland nothing in the way of vision or hope and it continued the National Government’s threats against the Auckland Council. Threatening the Council with over-riding its democratic processes if it fails to release land for housing is a bullying tactic aimed at diverting attention away from the fundamental problems with housing in the region. More>>

ALSO:

PM's Post Cab Presser: Budgets, Trusts And Pacific Diplomacy

Today Prime Minister John Key summarised last week’s budget and provided further detail about his upcoming trip to Fiji. He said that there has been “plenty going on” in the last couple of weeks and emphasised the need for Auckland council to facilitate more housing supply. More>>

ALSO:

Max Rashbrooke: A Failure Of Measurement: Inside The Budget Lock-Up

Shortly after the embargo lifted at 2pm news organisations started filing reports claiming that health, and to a lesser extent housing and education, were the ‘big winners’ out of the Budget. It failed to take into account the fact that in most cases the apparent increases were in fact cuts. Because of the twin effects of inflation and population. More>>

ALSO:

DOCtored Figures: Minister Clarifies DOC Budget

“Commentators have overlooked the fact $20.7m of that perceived shortfall is new funding for Battle for our Birds 2016, provided for in last week’s Budget...” DOC also has approval in principle to carry over a further $20m to 16/17 due to unexpected delays in a number of projects. More>>

ALSO:

For The Birds: Gordon Campbell On The Budget

Budgies, so their Wikipedia page says, are popular pets around the world due to their small size, low cost, and ability to mimic human speech. Which is a reasonably good description of Finance Minister Bill English eighth Budget. . More>>

Max Rashbrooke On The 2016 Budget

The best label for this year’s announcement by Bill English might be the ‘Bare Minimum Budget’. It does the bare minimum to defuse potential political damage in a range of areas – homelessness and health are prime among them – but almost nothing to address the country’s most deep-rooted, systemic social problems. Indeed the Budget hints that these problems may get worse. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Bank Scandals (And Air Crashes)

Last month, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings against Westpac over activities that have some distinct echoes of the Libor scandal. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news