The Times Australia
Google AI
The Times World News

.

A carbon tax can have economic, not just environmental benefits for Australia

  • Written by Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney
A carbon tax can have economic, not just environmental benefits for Australia

A new study[1] has found that a carbon tax, accompanied by “revenue recycling”, can produce both environmental and economic benefits for Australia.

Revenue recycling means money reaped from a carbon tax would be redirected back into the economy. This means the money accumulated from the tax would be redistributed between different stakeholders in the economy without increasing the government’s revenue.

To be more specific, the tax income should be used to support consumption, invest in new research and development projects, and subsidise energy saving and pollution reducing programs. Using this approach makes the tax more politically appealing to companies and other opponents.

Australia’s experience with a carbon tax

Debate about a carbon tax has always been heated in Australia. The Gillard government introduced a carbon pricing scheme in 2012 which involved an initial rate of $23[2] per tonne on about 500 big carbon emitters, including the electricity industry.

The scheme contained compensation measures[3] including increases in money to government payment recipients and a program to help emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries reduce carbon emissions, which were themselves a form of recycling.

Despite reducing emissions, the tax only lasted two years before it was terminated by the Abbott government, which argued the tax was costing big companies and causing electricity prices to rise.

I examined how such a scheme could work again, basing the design on the models used in Norway, Ireland and Switzerland. I simulated Australia’s economy from 2020 to 2035 to examine the impact of a carbon tax policy with the associated revenue recycling approach on prices, total emissions and economic growth.

Protestors wave placards opposing a carbon tax
Australians were strongly divided over the Gillard government’s carbon tax. The tax was subsequently abolished when the Abbott government came to power. Shutterstock[4]

The first step in the design is identifying a tax rate and the reach of the policy. Research shows that a uniform rate[5] covering the whole industry sector generates the greatest environmental benefits.

As well as suggesting a uniform tax rate on all sectors including the electricity sector (which is excluded from the current emissions safeguard mechanism), my study recommends starting the tax rate at $23 (the same rate applied in Gillard’s scheme) in 2023 and increasing it gradually to $70 in 2030.

The rate would stay at this level until 2035.

A carbon tax increases the cost of production and leads to an increase in the inflation rate. The inflation impact of this policy is estimated to be 0.5% in 2023, increasing substantially to 1.52% in 2035.

Rising inflation reduces the spending power of families and reduces consumption and economic growth. Considering consumption has a fundamental role in a growing economy, the accumulated tax revenue would be used to keep consumption unchanged after implementing a carbon tax.

How a new version of the tax would work

My study recommends using the accumulated carbon tax revenue to lower income taxes. This would leave more money for families, thereby reducing the impact of inflation, caused by the tax, on the economy.

As well as strengthening families’ spending power, a share of the tax revenue would be invested in research and development projects. This would create new jobs and provide a baseline for a prosperous economy.

Read more: China is pumping out carbon emissions as if COVID never happened. That's bad news for the climate crisis[6]

My study recommends that in the first year, all the tax revenue would be used to support consumption. However, the amount of money allotted to investment would rise from the second year as the carbon tax rate increases. It is estimated that about $57 billion would be available for new technologies over 13 years under this carbon tax.

Imposing a carbon tax would also provide a financial incentive for industry to reduce its fossil fuel use. It would motivate the sector to shift to low-carbon technologies as they would bear a smaller tax bill and reap larger profits.

My study concludes Australia could reduce carbon emissions by 35% while GDP would increase by 0.286% by 2035 and new jobs would be created in research and development. Following the recommended carbon tax design, Australia’s transition to a low-carbon economy would be accelerated, which would benefit both the economy and the environment.

References

  1. ^ study (doi.org)
  2. ^ initial rate of $23 (doi.org)
  3. ^ compensation measures (www.centreforpublicimpact.org)
  4. ^ Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
  5. ^ uniform rate (doi.org)
  6. ^ China is pumping out carbon emissions as if COVID never happened. That's bad news for the climate crisis (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/a-carbon-tax-can-have-economic-not-just-environmental-benefits-for-australia-210380

Times Magazine

Worried AI means you won’t get a job when you graduate? Here’s what the research says

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, has warned[1] young people ...

How Managed IT Support Improves Security, Uptime, And Productivity

Managed IT support is a comprehensive, subscription model approach to running and protecting your ...

AI is failing ‘Humanity’s Last Exam’. So what does that mean for machine intelligence?

How do you translate ancient Palmyrene script from a Roman tombstone? How many paired tendons ...

Does Cloud Accounting Provide Adequate Security for Australian Businesses?

Today, many Australian businesses rely on cloud accounting platforms to manage their finances. Bec...

Freak Weather Spikes ‘Allergic Disease’ and Eczema As Temperatures Dip

“Allergic disease” and eczema cases are spiking due to the current freak weather as the Bureau o...

IPECS Phone System in 2026: The Future of Smart Business Communication

By 2026, business communication is no longer just about making and receiving calls. It’s about speed...

The Times Features

Holafly report finds top global destinations for remote and hybrid workers

Data collected by Holafly found that 8 in 10 professionals plan to travel internationally in 202...

Will Ozempic-style patches help me lose weight? Two experts explain

Could a simple patch, inspired by the weight-loss drug Ozempic[1], really help you shed excess k...

Parks Victoria launches major statewide recruitment drive

The search is on for Victoria's next generation of rangers, with outdoor enthusiasts encouraged ...

Labour crunch to deepen in 2026 as regional skills crisis escalates

A leading talent acquisition expert is warning Australian businesses are facing an unprecedented r...

Technical SEO Fundamentals Every Small Business Website Must Fix in 2026

Technical SEO Fundamentals often sound intimidating to small business owners. Many Melbourne busin...

Most Older Australians Want to Stay in Their Homes Despite Pressure to Downsize

Retirees need credible alternatives to downsizing that respect their preferences The national con...

The past year saw three quarters of struggling households in NSW & ACT experience food insecurity for the first time – yet the wealth of…

Everyday Australians are struggling to make ends meet, with the cost-of-living crisis the major ca...

The Week That Was in Federal Parliament Politics: Will We Have an Effective Opposition Soon?

Federal Parliament returned this week to a familiar rhythm: government ministers defending the p...

Why Pictures Help To Add Colour & Life To The Inside Of Your Australian Property

Many Australian homeowners complain that their home is still missing something, even though they hav...