Jozefa Sobski

A tax on carbon, or more properly, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced through the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – has been the subject of discussion by environmental think tanks since the eighties. So, why is this issue so deeply mired in factual confusion and steeped in irrational fear-mongering and simplistic debate at this time?

For the uninitiated, fossil fuels are burnt to produce energy to power individual, as well as, industrial production and consumption. We are burning too much of these to maintain climate and environmental balance.

Carbon dioxide’s contribution to global warming and consequent climate change is estimated as 63% of greenhouse gases. Methane is 24%. Most of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen. These do not retain much of the sun’s heat, but CO2 does. Currently it sits at 388 parts per million in the earth’s atmosphere. The aim is to reduce it to 35Oppm.

The bulk of CO2 emissions come from coal and oil, and then natural gas. China is the top CO2 emitter, but on 2009 figures, per person it is only 6.1 tonnes of CO2. Australia is fourteenth on the list of emitters, but leads the world with 18.8 tonnes of CO2 being emitted by each person through their use of energy generated by fossil fuels. This level of per capita emission is not sustainable. We should be sourcing more of our energy from renewables, like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to change our wasteful behaviour. We need to sacrifice narrow national interest for universal global interest.

Behavioural change, however, is notoriously very difficult to achieve simply by appeal to people’s benevolence and altruism or concern for future generations and the preservation of the natural world. Indeed, such appeals conflict with the materialistic and self-interested values which are daily promoted through our focus on financial success, pleasure and comfort in our capitalist “economy”.

The Opposition party’s “toxic tax” campaign, not only ignores or implicitly denies the climate science, it appeals to self-interest and narrow national and corporate interests. Its evangelical tone predicting doom arouses people’s fears of material loss or threat to comfort and possessions and the security of a steady prosperous state. It is a campaign relying on our selfishness and obsession with the material present. It is a campaign for short-term political gain.

In 2007/2008 people worldwide were ready for action, but these same impulses, among many other factors, contributed to the perceived failure of the Copenhagen conference.

The federal Government has wisely selected to progress Australia towards the community of nations taking some action towards emissions abatement. (See Productivity Commission’s May, 2011 report on this). The tax on CO2 emissions will be imposed on the biggest emission producers. The costs to them, of course, are then distributed throughout the community. The government proposes to fix a price per tonne for 3 to 5 years and then to move to an emissions trading scheme.

This price is aimed at creating incentives to invest in renewables; to reduce pollution and energy consumption. It is a government intervention to introduce a market mechanism. It aims to change behaviour by making wasteful behavior expensive, and, even for some, unaffordable.

Of course, there will be compensation schemes and rebates, but they cannot be so great as to have the unintended consequence of not changing behaviour, at all, or only marginally. All of this seems so eminently sensible and self-evident. Why is it not bi-partisan policy?

WEL Australia developed a Climate Change policy in 2007. This can be found in our Issues at Stake document prepared for that Federal election.

Internationally, UN Women is not focused on any climate change projects at present although Women Watch does make a strong statement that the threats of climate change are not gender neutral. There was some debate also conducted on Women and the Environment in early 2010 as part of the UN Environment Programme and UN Habitat.

Its focus like the WELA policy was on women’s participation in environmental decision-making, the incorporation of gender perspectives and gender sensitive environmental research into policy making forums.

There is a need for broader feminist discussion on the possible gender differential impact of the carbon tax and how this policy measure will intersect with other tax reforms.

The rallies held on World Environment Day across Australia attracted their usual thousands of supporters from a broad range in the community. Prince Alfred Park in Sydney was ablaze with banners and sunshine. The rallies did not rate greatly in the media and there were no women’s organizations present. Climate change, like the carbon tax will affect us all. We must take them up as important women’s issues, locally and globally.