Carbon tax and the debate thereof.

Carbon tax. Does it work?

If you haven’t been living under a rock the past decade and a half, then I’m sure you’ve heard all about global warming and the various ways people are trying to solve that particular problem. One of the many ways recently implemented in Australia is a new “carbon tax” on carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Nature’s article says that a price of 25 US dollars on each tonne of carbon will be levied on Australia’s largest carbon emitters, but there are some (represented by the indymedia article) who oppose this method of counteracting global warming.

According to Nature’s article “Sunday Best” this, while not enough to completely counter Australia’s carbon footprint, is an excellent and revolutionary step in the right direction for countering global warming, saying “The policy breaks new ground, moves in the correct direction and comes at a welcome time, given how climate change has plummeted down the international political agenda over the past year or so.” The article then goes on to say that while some may say it is quite insignificant, “a drop in the ocean”, that it is an important first step for a country that has yet to place any significant limit on carbon emissions. This all sounds great, but as with all things even remotely connected to a political view, there is an exact opposite opinion on the same source material.

The one that I found was from an independent media source based in Australia aptly named indymedia. Their article, selflessly named “Carbon Taxes will not work, do not work, global warming will continue, economic systems are failing us - we must have research and development as a % of GDP and PEOPLE before PROFITS.”, goes on to reiterate exactly what the title of the article says, although in less of a scientific manner, and more of a ‘Its right because I said its right” manner”, but I’ll get to that in a minute. Here is where I would normally say what the article claimed, but really, the title says it all. They claim that carbon taxes are useless, global warming will continue, we need rapid and drastic rearrangement of our economic systems, we need more R&D into cleaner energies, and we need to stop being greedy bastards (liberal interpretation). Now as far as thesis statements, the author of “Sunday Best” basically says that the carbon tax is not only an inherently good thing, but is also a step in the right direction for a country that has long needed to update its policy on carbon emissions. The thesis of the other article is, once again, explained by the unnecessarily long title.

As far as the relative strength of their arguments as they pertain specifically to the new carbon tax in Australia, I believe that the Nature article has the more valid argument. While Nature even says itself that “The package, of course, does not come close to cutting emissions by the amount required to head off the worst of global warming” , it does go on to say that it is the first step that may lead to other, more drastic and more needed environmental legislation. The indymedia article just says that Carbon taxes are bad because the prices get passed on the general public and do not help the environment at all. While the first part of that claim may be entirely true, I think it is foolishness to say that charging companies for their carbon emissions will have no effect on them. At the very least they are going to be self-conscious about it. The pure magnitude of the carbon tax is in itself more than enough to insure that not ALL of the tax will be able to be passed down to the consumer because then nobody in their right mind would buy from them. While the Nature article just takes it for common sense that carbon taxes are inherently good, I find even that half-assed try at an argument superior to the one on the Indymedia site just due to the fact that it makes more sense. (Remember this is only describing the part of the argument pertaining to the new Carbon tax, I actually agree with the rest of the indymedia article). In conclusion, I believe that, while both bring up excellent and valid points, the “Sunday Best” article has the more logical argument behind it, and therefore the one my preference goes to.