There is an important article in The Australian today (page 2) about one of the many unintended consequences of the carbon tax. In this case, the impact is on land fills.
Under the current rules, onlly those landfills that generate more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2e are liable to pay the carbon tax. This has conferred a major competitive advantage on smaller landfills. The carbon tax is estimated to be contributing around $10 per tone for the larger landfills.
But here is the rub. The larger landfills are much more efficient and process a much higher proportion of the methane – a much more lethal gas than CO2 – than the smaller landfills. But the larger landfills are losing work rapidly and the smaller ones are picking it up. There had been some industry consolidation afoot prior to the carbon tax but all this has been put on hold, indefinitely.
Good one, Combet. Good one, Dreyfus.
Awesome.
Ooh Honey Honey
8 Oct 12 at 10:17 am
How is that unintended? How could they not know it would give smaller tips a leg-up?
It’s not unintended, it’s “don’t give a shit”.
Twodogs
8 Oct 12 at 10:53 am
Yeah, it’s not unintended, it’s totally unthought-about.
wreckage
8 Oct 12 at 11:08 am
maybe they thought it would be a cunning plan to prevent monopolies and anti-competitve behaviour in the waste management industry?
OTOH… naaah.
I’m sure they can fix it by another tax if you just bring the matter to their attention…
papachango
8 Oct 12 at 11:28 am
The price mechanism is a bit hard to understand if the only thing you have ever run are the numbers for union mates and your own pre-selection.
H B Bear
8 Oct 12 at 11:38 am
It was not part of the purpose (such as it is) of the legislation so in that sense it was unintended.
However, the government were fully aware of the issue and likely consequences and chose to do nothing.
As with everything about this government, especially with items relating to climate change, it is about “seeming” rather than “doing”.
Matt
8 Oct 12 at 11:42 am
Presumably if waste is diverted from a large landfill to a small landfill, the small landfill will quickly become large, and thus become liable to pay the carbon price. Seems like a very short term problem to me.
SteveC
8 Oct 12 at 11:59 am
Well that’s because you’re an absolute idiot who cannot see the gap between the efficient methane-reducing processes of the large fill sites and the many smaller inefficient ones that will take years to become as efficient in their processing.
Gab
8 Oct 12 at 12:03 pm
Gab,
I assumed SteveC’s ccomment was sarcasm
DMS
8 Oct 12 at 12:17 pm
The real problem with landfill emissions is the multiplier in the tax rate for methane which is taxed at the CO2 base rate multiplied by 21, or $483 per tonne.
cohenite
8 Oct 12 at 12:29 pm
I can tell you what the unintended consequence is. With the carbon tax the tip fees have risen. I who walk fire trails near my suburb have noticed this enviromentally glorious world saving policy.
And so the result is crap strewn along the sides of the fire trails in my area. And tyres. And rubbish, mattresses, plastic and who knows what. Anywhere out of the sight of eyeballs piles of garbage magically appear.
Stupid bloody tax. Maybe Gillard should start a bureacracy for collecting dumped garbage out of state forests. Oh wait, burycrats are white shirted Saviours of the Envirunment, they don’t get their hands dirty.
Bruce
8 Oct 12 at 12:48 pm
Same along the firetrails in my area Bruce
Biota
8 Oct 12 at 12:59 pm
But Gab if the larger plants are converting their methane (either to CO2 by fairly inefficient flaring or actually capturing the gas for power generation), then they will get carbon credits. The smaller plant that does not have that infrastructure will quickly become uncompetitive when they have to pay all the carbon price and have nothing to offset it. So in the end the plant that does the most effective job of reducing GHG emission will be able to offer the cheapest price, which will achieve the desired outcome of reducing GHG emissions.
Note one of the best ways to reduce GHG emissions from landfill is to divert the putrescible waste from landfill altogether. The caron price provides a financial incentive to do that.
SteveC
8 Oct 12 at 1:03 pm
Nope, he wasn’t being sarcastic, just a complete fucking idiot.
harrys on the boat
8 Oct 12 at 1:07 pm
harry, do you have an actual argument against my 1.03 post, or just invective?
SteveC
8 Oct 12 at 1:19 pm
Same in the bushland in and around Parramatta heaps more illegal dumping as tip fees have gone up massively in the last 4 years
Max
8 Oct 12 at 1:21 pm
And when it gets too expensive people just dump a trailer load off at the nearest isolated dirt road. For this reason rubbish disposal should be heavily subsidised, give each rate payer a free trailer load each year say.
Harold
8 Oct 12 at 1:21 pm
So how is that related to the carbon price?
SteveC
8 Oct 12 at 1:22 pm
Using methane emissions for electricity production is a great idea; it’s what the CSG and Shale gas industries are working on.
cohenite
8 Oct 12 at 1:23 pm
The Carbon Tax (“as supported by Big Industry”) is designed to destroy the middle-man. Larger companies are able to absorb the impact through restructure, resource allocation as they already have large bureaucratic structures. It is the middle-man company that can’t adjust, has no money or resources to absorb the impact or change. No wonder many big companies are so supportive of it: The tax is killing their competition by ‘natural’ attrition.
Lysander Spooner
8 Oct 12 at 1:24 pm
Since atmospheric methane half life is 7 or 8 years Gillard should give half the tax back to the councils every 8 years. I will wait with interest for the rebate I expect to get on my rates in 2020.
BTW the actual effect of doubling pCH4 is about 0.7 C, same as pCO2, which means since half of it naturally oxidises in less than a decade its real world effect is two tenths of stuff all. But what has the carbon bloody tax to do with science anyway?
Bruce
8 Oct 12 at 1:34 pm
Me too.
manalive
8 Oct 12 at 3:17 pm
Harry (1.07pm)
Yes, sorry.
DMS
8 Oct 12 at 3:32 pm
I’ve taken to burning some trash such as timber. If you burn it hot there is little smoke to annoy the neighbours and I don’t have to pay the grossly inflated fees to dump it.
Guess I could just leave it on the side of the road somewhere but I care for the environment see…
Chris M
8 Oct 12 at 5:04 pm
Correct Bruce.
The biggest “unintended consequence” will be people avoiding tipping fes by dumping rubbish in parks and by waterways.
Good one you Greenie knuckleheads.
Leigh Lowe
8 Oct 12 at 5:21 pm
FFS Judith, go and have a look at where methane absorbs in the infrared. This is pure bullshit.
Eyrie
8 Oct 12 at 6:38 pm