By The Editor
In a speech this week, BHP Billiton Chairman Jac Nasser proposed a different, staggered method for reducing carbon output that focuses on individual sectors, which deserves much greater consideration.
As the chairman of Australia’s largest miner (and therefore one of our largest emitters of carbon dioxide), Mr Nasser and his company have been heavily involved in consultations with the Federal Government about the structure of the method for reducing carbon emissions.
In a speech to the Melbourne Mining Club on Monday, Mr Nasser promoted the merits of a ‘sectorial’ approach, where a different approach could be implemented for different parts of the economy.
For instance, Mr Nasser said different solutions could be devised for the power generation and transport industries, with another approach for normal households.
“There’s a mosaic of different alternatives, depending on the sector that you’re in,” he said. “The solutions for each sector may be completely different.”
The solutions would then be implemented at different times for a steady, ‘go slow’ approach to pricing carbon, until all parts of the economy were covered.
While Mr Nasser did not list what the potential solutions could entail, his theory is worth further exploration, and reduces the chances of there being winners and losers from a ‘catch all’ carbon tax, even if some sectors receive exemption or extra assistance.
It also reduces the chance of a sudden jolt to the economy if a carbon tax is introduced uniformly on the planned date of 1 July 2012, as announced earlier this year.
Mr Nasser said that BHP Billiton still believed “moving early” on carbon was important for Australia, but we shouldn’t “get into the trap” of thinking Australia’s behaviour would influence other countries.
“We have to do what’s right for us,” Mr Nasser said.
It’s a premise VECCI absolutely agrees with. As we’ve written before on the subject, reducing carbon emissions is a priority but the Government must not implement a carbon pricing scheme that will harm Australia’s competitiveness internationally, and we reinforce that message as the consultation process continues in earnest.
Everyone is so frightened to take their share of responsibility for this issue, which threatens us all, with a narrowing window of possibility to act BEFORE it’s too late. While complaining about the risk if a tax is introduced, think about the risks if we do nothing. The earlier we act, the more significantly we can minimise the impact and take advantage of new opportunities. All economies will be affected and we all have a responsibility to take the issue seriously. It disappoints me when people only see the short-term costs.
The government is fighting the introdcution of this TAX on too many fronts and basically it lacks the ability to sell policy. Its talent is too thin so this idea of a staged introduction is a good one. However it should be levied on households first with the appropriate compensation system inplace and leave business later on as its compensation package is more complex. If the sky does not cave in which is what the opponents of the tax suggest will happen then the tax can be expanded if the sky does fall in then the household sector is also the easist to unwind.
I agree. There is no “one fits all” solution.
In the current multi speed economy the wrong decision could drive many small businesses to the wall.
There is no cross examination of the many taxes that businesses pay and if not given enough consideration this will just make matters worse.
Some commensense in this debate for a change