Global Climate Change Science News

[mistermack]

One for Seth
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/02/a ... g-greener/

That's fairly old news, although the climate angle is new. But scientists all around the world have noticed some greening of deserts.
This is due to the higher levels of CO2 allowing desert plants to waste less water, and so to survive better in drier spots.

Something to do with the fact that they need to open their pores less, to absorb the same amount of CO2 from the air that they need to grow.
The less they have to open the pores, the less water gets wasted.

[pErvinalia]

There are no special tax exceptions to the mining and fossil fuel industries in Australia.

And how does that mean (a) that the mining industry is not subsidised, and (b) that it does not get the lion's share of those subsidies? The short of is that (a) it is and (b) it does. For example, the mining industry gets a 40% discount on the fuel excise. That is a subsidy. Other industries get the same subsidy, but unlike in the mining industry, fuel consumption is an almost negligible factor for, say, wind farms. Of the 5.5 billion dollars paid back by the government to 687,755 companies by way of the fuel tax rebate in 2012 2.3 billion went to 7547 companies in the mining industry.

To be fair, the diesel fuel tax rebate isn't a subsidy, technically. The tax is a tax on road usage and the funds are for the construction and maintenance of public roads. The question is, does all that money actually go to roads, or is it just thrown in with general revenue and used and abused however they like?

I'm going to have to read the reports and see whether Coit is being honest. And I'm not sure if reading an IPA report is worth the effort. As both of us know, the IPA is a Liberal Party front, and therefore heavily influenced by the fossil fuels industry. I tend not to trust anything they put out. A close analysis would most probably show the IPA report to be full of shit.

[pErvinalia]

There are no special tax exceptions to the mining and fossil fuel industries in Australia.

And how does that mean (a) that the mining industry is not subsidised, and (b) that it does not get the lion's share of those subsidies? The short of is that (a) it is and (b) it does. For example, the mining industry gets a 40% discount on the fuel excise. That is a subsidy. Other industries get the same subsidy, but unlike in the mining industry, fuel consumption is an almost negligible factor for, say, wind farms. Of the 5.5 billion dollars paid back by the government to 687,755 companies by way of the fuel tax rebate in 2012 2.3 billion went to 7547 companies in the mining industry.

Again, so what?

You claimed that the fossil fuels industry wasn't massively subsidised. They are. Way more than renewable energies, which you claimed were subsidised more than fossil fuels. That's what.

[Hermit]

To be fair, the diesel fuel tax rebate isn't a subsidy, technically. The tax is a tax on road usage and the funds are for the construction and maintenance of public roads.

That was the case between 1929, when the tax was introduced, and 1959, when formal hypothecation of fuel taxes was abolished. From then on that excise was a form of general revenue just like taxes on alcohol and tobacco. It is fair to say that rebates on fuel taxes have technically become subsidies in 1959 and persist to this day. If you doubt me, check out what the relevant federal Australian treasury page has to say on the matter. Here's the link to it.

[pErvinalia]

Do you have a link for the 1959 event? I'd be interested as a neoliberal mate of mine always claims it's a road tax, and I haven't heard anyone actually rebut that specifically. But if there was a clear event that occurred, then yes, it should be considered a subsidy probably.

edit: just saw your edit.

[Hermit]

Ayup. Can't do much better than quoting from the official Australian federal government publication, specifically the treasury department that is in charge of the Australian Tax Office, to the effect that the fuel excise has ceased to be a levy on the use of public roads since 1959. The myth that it is a usage charge is of course perpetuated by the usual suspects. Unfortunately quite successfully too. You seem to have been under the the misapprehension yourself.

[pErvinalia]

Only because no one has made the point you made. Most people who call it a subsidy think it is so simply because mines (and farmers) don't pay the tax but everyone else does. The reality is that mines and farmers do pay the tax, but they get a rebate on the portion used on private property (or leases). Most of those people don't realise that it was based on a public road tax. But if it was specifically removed as a road tax in 1959 then it clearly is a subsidy. It's a shame that the Greens et al don't post the argument you have, as most of the people supporting them have no idea that it was even initially a road tax.

[pErvinalia]

Actually, I'm not sure that link says what you are claiming. It's still a road tax, it's just the hypothecation that has been abolished (although, only informally now since 1991).

In 1959 the Commonwealth Government announced the termination of the hypothecation arrangements for road funding. In the second reading speech for the Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill 1959, the Government stated that:
....
This saw the end of any formal link between fuel taxes and road funding until 1982 when the Government introduced the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 (ABRD Act) establishing a roads programme to be funded by a surcharge of 1 cpl on the excise of petrol and diesel. The surcharge was raised to 2 cpl in 1983.20 The ABRD surcharge ended in 1988 when the programme was replaced by the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988. This Act, which is still in place, provides for a share of excise on petrol and diesel to be paid into a trust fund (now Special Account) for expenditure under the Act. 21 However, provision was made for this share to be varied by the Government of the day.

Since 1991-92, successive Governments have set road funding in the budget process, discontinuing the practice of hypothecating a proportion of fuel excise to roads.

[Hermit]

Actually, I'm not sure that link says what you are claiming. It's still a road tax, it's just the hypothecation that has been abolished (although, only informally now since 1991).

The very fact that the hypothecation has been formally abolished and subsumed under the the rubric of general revenue instead makes it a tax on fuel rather than road use.

[pErvinalia]

Not at all. It's a tax on road use, with fuel use being the most obvious metric to attempt to measure that. All that has changed is the hypothecation. That doesn't suddenly make it not a road use tax anymore.

And it's only informally abolished now since 1991.

[Hermit]

All that has changed is the hypothecation. That doesn't suddenly make it not a road use tax anymore.

Yes, it does. Explicitly. The fact that the revenue garnered by the fuel tax is no longer dedicated to building and maintaining roads makes it a general tax on fuel rather than a road use tax. Since 1959 the building and maintenance of roads is no longer funded by a "road tax". The funds since 1959 come out of general revenue and the tax imposed on fuel is just one of many components of general revenue.

[pErvinalia]

But the fact that it retains a rebate for non-public road use suggests by definition that it is still a road usage tax.

[pErvinalia]

And remember, the 1959 change has been superseded by two further regulations/policies regarding this in the 80's. It's now just unofficially not hypothecated. There's nothing stopping it from being hypothecated again as the latest 80's policy/regulation is now the relevant act.

[Hermit]

But the fact that it retains a rebate for non-public road use suggests by definition that it is still a road usage tax.

No. The end of hypothecation put an end to the tax being a charge on road use. It's a tax on fuel. The rebate is a subsidy.

[pErvinalia]

But hypothecation was reintroduced in 1983 and continued (at a level set discretionally by the government) after 1988.

I know what you are trying to argue, but using the 1959 act is wrong as two subsequent acts superseded it. An argument can be attempted to be made that because it is going into general revenue then the rebate is a subsidy, but at any moment the government can change the amount that goes into the road fund and it will be hypothecated again. It is only unofficially not hypothecated now.