Tax on Polluters Isn't Changing Outlook on Coal

Should polluters pay for the carbon emissions that they put into the air? The answer seems obvious, but big industries continue to fight against government regulations, insisting that the costs to them will be passed on to consumers. Recently Australia joined government agencies like the European Union, certain U.S. states and New Zealand in an effort to tax big polluters. The response from the executive director of the Australian Coal Association was to give figures on the taxes implications of the economic side effects. Ralph Hillman outlined to reporters that the tax is expected to result in the closure of 18 minutes in Queensland and New South Wales states, cost 4,700 jobs and lead to $22 billion in lost revenue. Indeed, these proposals make even the consumers wary of rising costs but the government is responding with a $1.3 billion assistance package to keep jobs within the industry secure. Further the government has promised tax cuts and payments to most Australians, saying that two-thirds of all households will receive enough assistance to cover the entire financial impact of the tax.

 What these taxes are on industry are, aside from the economics, is the governmental push toward cleaner energy. Rather than developing new innovations, opponents to any governmental tax appeal to the consumer by touting that they are fighting for them. But taking into account the environmental impacts of coal, are they really? Australia is one of the worst greenhouse gas polluters in the world due to their extensive reliance on coal for power. In addition to coal providing 85 percent of their electricity production, they export nearly 75 percent of their coal mined. The new Australian tax has not shied companies away from what may be the largest takeover bid in Australian history for a coal company. U.S. coal company Peabody Energy Corp and steelmaker ArcelorMIttal’s joint bid for Queensland State’s Macarthur Coal Ltd. is an indication that lucrative coal production in Australia is, unfortunately, not waning.


Peter Browning

Renewable Energy in Europe

Recently, over 500 politicians met for the 3rd European Renewable Energy Policy Conference in Brussels. They came to the consensus that “renewable energy will be the mainstream source of Europe’s energy supply by 2050.” (RenewableEnergyWorld.com) They decided that 80% of the energy used will come from renewable energy sources in 2050.

This decision is of considerable importance, and should be taken into consideration by the United States. The European Union has recognized that the European Renewable Energy Industry is providing thousands of new jobs, is cost efficient, and is working to reduce CO2 emissions. (RenewableEnergyWorld.com)

Each of these advantages to working on increasing the use renewable energy work well with Howard Gardners’ suggestions in his book Changing Minds. By working to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, the EU is using reason to appeal to its citizens. Also, the idea of protecting the environment resonates with people. And furthermore, jobs and decreases in energy costs act as rewards for those who live and work in Europe.

If we use rewards, reason, and resonance to change the minds of those in our country, we might be able to switch over to using primarily renewable energy sooner.

Post by Alexandra West

“European Commission Projects 80% Renewable Energy by 2050.” RenewableEnergyWorld.com. N. p., 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2009, < http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/european-commission-projects-80-renewable-energy-by-2050>.