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

The Increasing “Cool” Factor of Electric Cars.

When we think of electric cars, it’s possible some of us imagine something that looks like a modified golf cart, something clunky.

 Or perhaps a smooth looking, cozy little death trap:

During the mid 1970’s, the Sebring-Vanguard Citicar was produced. It looked like this

It is the most produced electric car in American History. It had a range of about 40 miles (64km) per charge, with top speeds at 30 mph (48 km/h) - 50 mph (80 km/h). To be fair, it was produced in part to address the then current energy crisis. Style was obviously not the first priority.

Looking for Incentive?

In 2003, the government subsidized the SUV market by giving up to $100,000 in deductions for the purchase—making such a vehicle practically free if you could afford the cost upfront. It was technically part of a bill designed to help farmers purchase vehicles, but any vehicle around 6,000 Lb was eligible, not just those intended for use on farms. This loophole was exploited by car salesmen, consumers, and oil companies alike. The environment was not consulted. Over 100 million dollars were allocated that year for such an expense. Although the subsidy was decreased afterward, the loophole remains. Next year, the figure may be as high as $500 million.