A carbon tax is an environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content of fuels. Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as carbon dioxide (CO₂) when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content. Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of non-carbon technologies compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels, thus helping to protect the environment while raising revenues.

Background

Carbon dioxide: global warming contributor

CO₂ is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (GHG) The scientific consensus is that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of global warming, and that carbon dioxide is the most important of these gases. Worldwide, 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced by human activity annually. The physical effect of CO₂ in the atmosphere can be measured as a change in the Earth-atmosphere system's energy balance – the radiative forcing of CO₂. Carbon taxes are one of the policies available to governments to reduce GHG emissions.

In the Kyoto Protocol, CO₂ emissions are regulated along with other GHGs. Different GHGs have different physical properties: the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Economic theory

A carbon tax is an indirect tax—a tax on a transaction—as opposed to a direct tax, which taxes income. A carbon tax is also called a price instrument, since it sets a price for carbon dioxide emissions. In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality, a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure. To confront parties with the issue, the economist Arthur Pigou proposed taxing the goods (in this case fossil fuels) which were the source of the negative externality (carbon dioxide) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the goods' production to society, thereby internalizing the costs associated with the goods' production. A tax on a negative externality is called a Pigovian tax, and should equal the marginal damage costs.

Within Pigou's framework, the changes involved are marginal, and the size of the externality is assumed to be small enough not to distort the rest of the economy. Some argue that impact of climate change could result in catastrophe and non-marginal changes. "Non-marginal" means that the impact could, at some time future date, significantly reduce the growth rate in income and welfare. The amount of resources that should be devoted to avoiding low-probability, high cost climate change impacts is controversial.

Prices of carbon (fossil) fuels are expected to continue increasing as more countries industrialize and add to the demand on fuel supplies. In addition to creating incentives for energy conservation, a carbon tax would put renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal on a more competitive footing, stimulating their growth.

Social cost of carbon

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the marginal cost of emitting one extra tonne of carbon (as carbon dioxide) at any point in time. To calculate the SCC, the atmospheric residence time of carbon dioxide must be estimated, along with an estimate of the impacts of climate change. The impact of the extra tonne of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must then be converted to the equivalent impacts when the tonne of carbon dioxide was emitted. In economics, comparing impacts over time requires a discount rate. This rate determines the weight placed on impacts occurring at different times.

According to economic theory, if SCC estimates were complete and markets perfect, a carbon tax should be set equal to the SCC. Emission permits would also have a value equal to the SCC. In reality, however, markets are not perfect, and SCC estimates are not complete (Yohe et al.., 2007:823).

An amount of CO₂ pollution is measured by the weight (mass) of the pollution. Sometimes this is measured directly as the weight of the carbon dioxide molecules. This is called a tonne of carbon dioxide and is abbreviated "tCO₂". Alternatively, the pollution's weight can be measured by adding up only the weight of the carbon atoms in the pollution, ignoring the oxygen atoms. This is called a tonne of carbon and is abbreviated "tC". Estimates of the dollar cost of carbon dioxide pollution is given per tonne, either carbon, $X/tC, or carbon dioxide, $X/tCO₂. One tC is roughly equivalent to 4 tCO₂.

Estimates of the SCC are highly uncertain. Yohe et al. (2007:813) summarized the literature on SCC estimates: peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 had an average value of $43/tC with a standard deviation of $83/tC. The wide range of estimates is explained mostly by underlying uncertainties in the science of climate change (e.g., the climate sensitivity), different choices of discount rate, different valuations of economic and non-economic impacts, treatment of equity, and how potential catastrophic impacts are estimated. Other estimates of the SCC spanned at least three orders of magnitude, from less than $1/tC to over $1,500/tC. The true SCC is expected to increase over time. The rate of increase will very likely be 2 to 4% per year.

Carbon leakage

Carbon leakage is the effect that regulation of emissions in one country/sector has on the emissions in other countries/sectors that are not subject to the same regulation. Leakage effects can be both negative (i.e., increasing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions) and positive (reducing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions). Negative leakages, which are desirable, are usually referred to as "spill-over".

According to Goldemberg et al.. (1996, p. 28), short-term leakage effects need to be judged against leakage effects in the long-term. A policy that, for example, saw a carbon taxes set only in developed countries might lead to leakage of emissions to developing countries. However, a desirable negative leakage could occur due to a lowering in demands of coal, oil, and gas from the developed countries and thus the world prices. This will lead to developing countries being able to afford more of any fossil fuel type, thus being able to substitute more oil or gas for coal, in effect lowering their national emissions. In the long-run, however, if the transfer of less polluting technologies is delayed, this substitution by income effects might have no long-term benefit.

Border adjustments, tariffs and bans

A number of policies have been suggested to address concerns over competitive losses due to one country introducing a carbon tax while another country does not. Similar policies have also been suggested in an attempt to induce countries to introduce carbon taxes. Suggested policies include border tax adjustments, trade tariffs and trade bans.

Border tax adjustments would account for emissions attributable to imports from nations without a carbon price. An alternative would be trade bans or tariffs applied to non-taxing countries. It has been argued that such approaches could be disadvantageous to a target country as a trade measure (Gupta et al.., 2007). To date, World Trade Organization case law has not provided specific rulings on climate-related taxes. The administrative aspects of border tax adjustments has also been discussed.

Other types of taxes

Two other types of taxes that are related to carbon taxes are emissions taxes and energy taxes. An emissions tax on GHG emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere, while an energy tax is charged directly on the energy commodities.

In terms of mitigating climate change, a carbon tax, which is levied according to the carbon content of fuels, is not a perfect substitute for a tax on CO₂ emissions.

While a direct tax should send a clear signal to the consumer, its use as an efficient mechanism to influence consumers' fuel use has been challenged in some areas:

There may be delays of a decade or more as inefficient vehicles are replaced by newer models and the older models filter through the 'fleet'.

There may be political reasons that deter policy makers from imposing a new range of charges on their electorate.

There is some evidence that consumers' decisions on fuel economy are not entirely aligned to the price of fuel. In turn, this can deter manufacturers from producing vehicles that they judge have lower sales potential. Other efforts, such as imposing efficiency standards on manufacturers, or changing the income tax rules on taxable benefits, may be at least as significant.

In many countries fuel is already taxed to influence transport behavior and to raise other public revenues. Historically, they have used these fuel taxes as a source of general revenue, as their experience has been that the price elasticity of fuel is low, thus increasing fuel taxation has only slightly impacted on their economies. However, in these circumstances the policy behind a carbon tax may be unclear.

Some also note that a suitably priced tax on vehicle fuel may also counterbalance the "rebound effect" that has been observed when vehicle fuel consumption has improved through the imposition of efficiency standards. Rather than reduce their overall consumption of fuel, consumers have been seen to make additional journeys or purchase heavier and more powerful vehicles.

Calculation

A carbon tax that compensates for the SCC varies by fuel source. The carbon dioxide production of the fuel source per unit mass or volume is multiplied by the SCC to obtain the tax. Based on the mean peer reviewed value ($43/tC or $12/tCO₂), the table below estimates the tax:

Note that the tax per kWh of electricity depends on the thermal efficiency of the generating power plant, which varies from power plant to power plant. The table follows the American Physical Society (APS) estimate of 10.3 BTU/Wh (33%). APS notes that "It is expected that future plants, especially those based on gas turbine systems, often will have higher efficiencies, in some cases exceeding 50%." A theoretical conversion rate of 100% is 3.412 BTU/Wh. A more practical limit for thermal power plants is Carnot's theorem.

Implementation

Both energy and carbon taxes have been implemented in responses to commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This tax will apply at the time of sale, and will be related to the amount of CO2 emitted by the vehicle. 75 South African Rand will be added to the price for every gram of CO2 per kilometer the vehicle emits over 120 g/km. The tax will apply to passenger cars first and eventually to commercial vehicles. Bakkies will be taxed because they are often used as passenger vehicles: this has caused an uproar for fear of impacts on industry.

David Powels of the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa (NAAMSA), opposes this taxation on light commercial vehicles. NAAMSA acknowledges the ability of carbon taxes to change consumer behavior for the betterment of the environment, but argues that this tax is not transparent enough for consumers because the taxation occurs at the time of automobile production.

The goal of the carbon tax is to put South Africa on a "sustainable path". South Africa has produced Long Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS) to address climate policy issues that consider variables such as technology, investment, and policy (including carbon taxes) and to clarify South Africa's position for potential UNFCC negotiations. In India coal is used to power more than half of the country’s electricity generation.

India's total coal production is estimated to reach 571.87 million tons in the year ending March, 2010 and is expected to import around 100 million tons. The carbon tax expects to raise 25 billion rupees ($535 million) for the financial year 2010-2011. According to Mukhergee, the clean energy tax will help to finance a National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF). Industry bodies have not favored the levy and rear that the resultant higher price of coal could trigger inflation.

In 2005, an environmental tax proposed by Japanese authorities was also delayed due to major opposition from the Petroleum Association of Japan (PAJ), other industries and consumers. The delay was "to avoid putting too much economic burden on end-users as they were already paying heavy taxes on fossil fuels amid high oil prices." The tax that was to be implemented would be 2,400 yen ($20.85 in 2005 dollars) on a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted from fuels. Tax on coal would be about 1.58 yen per kilogram and that on gasoline 1.52 yen per litre (4.3 cents per gallon in 2005 dollars). Officials estimated that the tax would generate income of 37 billion yen a year for the government and result in a payment of 2,100 yen per year for an average household.

South Korea

On August 22, 2008 The Chong Wa Dae, also known as the Blue house – the executive office and official residence of the South Korean head of state, confirmed a list of 40 new administrative strategy agenda, which included substitution of a carbon tax with the current transportation tax. Most revenues of the tax amounting to an annual $11 trillion won ($10.4 billion) will be financed toward the “Low Carbon, Green Growth” move, which was announced in President Lee Myung-bak’s speech marking the nation’s 63rd Liberation day the week before the announcement. A carbon tax is imposed on emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide. The direct taxation system is now applied to several European countries, such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway, as well as several states in North America. The temporary transportation tax, one of the major objective taxes in the country, is slated to end in 2009. About 80 percent of its yield is used in transportation-related work like road construction. Additional taxation amendment could follow with a "tax on emissions" bottom line, in possible implementations of tax discrimination according to a vehicles' size and a carbon tax on the currently tax-free thermal power plants. Taxation on emissions is inevitable in that low carbon policies take substantial budget, the government says.

In February 2010, a deputy finance minister Yoon Young-sun confirmed that South Korea is considering a carbon tax to help reduce emissions 4% from 2005 levels by 2020. This would be in conjunction with a cap-and-trade program to be implemented later this year. With a tax rate of 31,828 won (25 Euros) per ton of CO2, the South Korean government would collect 9.1 trillion won ($7.9 billion) in tax revenue based on 2007 emissions. Income from the carbon tax would be used to reduce corporate and income taxes. On July 22, 2010 Chairman Sohn Kyung-shik of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry asked for the South Korean government to delay the implementation of the carbon tax: "If the government applies much stricter guidelines over carbon emissions, then companies might be burdened."

On July 13, 2010 South Korea’s government announced plans to more than double its financing for green research and development projects to 3.5 trillion won ($2.9/£1.9bn) by 2013. The finance ministry decided that the new investment will be put into a new dedicated green fund operated by the state-run Korea Finance Corporation, for distribution to private sector projects. The government said that the fund forms part of a huge low-carbon investment drive that will see it invest a total of 107.4 trillion won, or two percent of the country’s annual gross domestic product, on green projects between 2009 and 2013.

However, the government signaled that in addition to setting aside state funds, it will ask private companies to contribute 2.4 trillion won to the fund. It added that spending from the fund will be directed mainly toward business involved in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and promoting energy efficiency. In addition, the government intends to expand its system of tax breaks to cover new technologies in solar, wind and thermal power, low-emission vehicles, rechargeable batteries and next generation nuclear reactors.

The government also set a voluntary target last year (2009) to reduce 2020 emissions by four percent on 2005 levels by 2020, and is expected to soon announce plans for carbon trading scheme to begin in 2012.

Taiwan

Taiwan is currently debating whether to pass a carbon tax policy, to be enacted in 2011. In Oct, 2009, Premier Wu Den-yih and legislators stated that the carbon taxes would increase public suffering from the recession and that the government should not levy the new taxes until Taiwan’s economy has recovered. Therefore, he opposed the carbon tax in 2009. Many Taiwanese citizens are opposed to tax increases as well. However, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER), the think-tank which was commissioned by the government to advise on its plan to overhaul the nation's taxes, had recommended a levy of NT$2,000 (US$61.8, £37.6) on each tonne of CO2 emissions. CIER estimated that Taiwan could raise NT$164.7bn (US$5.1bn, £3.1bn) from the energy tax and a further NT$239bn (US$7.3bn, £4.4bn) from the carbon levy on an annual basis by 2021. Due to the amount of revenues from such a comparatively high carbon tax, the government is planning to subsidize low income families and public transportation by using the revenues from carbon taxes. Also one problem if Taiwan doesn’t enforce carbon taxes is that Taiwan has to pay carbon tariffs to other country; therefore, the revenues will fall in other countries. In 2007, the Productivity Commission suggested that a carbon tax should be implemented.

On 30 April 2007, the state Labor Governments commissioned the Garnaut Climate Change Review, whose sponsorship was joined by the Rudd Government soon after taking office in December 2007. The resulting report, delivered on 30 September 2008, recommended an Emissions trading cap-and-trade system. Subsequently the Rudd Government proposed a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which after much criticism, was voted down in the Australian Senate by both the Australian Greens (for being too ineffective), and the conservative Coalition (Australia) (for the effect on key economic sectors), as well as independent Senators Nick Xenophon and climate change sceptic Steve Fielding.

In February 2010, the Australian Greens proposed an interim carbon tax of $A23 a tonne for two years.

In April 2010, academics from the Australian National University published a proposal for a carbon tax on major polluters (such as coal-fired power stations and oil companies) that would provide increased funding for Australian public hospitals and other health costs associated with climate change.

New Zealand

In 2005, the Fifth Labour Government proposed a carbon tax for New Zealand in order to meet obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The proposal would have set an emissions price of NZ$15 per tonne of CO₂-equivalent. The planned tax was scheduled to take effect from April 2007, and applied across most economic sectors though with an exemption for methane emissions from farming and provisions for special exemptions from carbon intensive businesses if they adopted world's-best-practice standards of emissions.

After the 2005 election, the minor parties supporting the Fifth Labour Government opposed the proposed tax, and it was abandoned in December 2005. In 2008, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme was passed into law.

Europe

In Europe, a number of countries have imposed energy taxes or energy taxes based partly on carbon content. In 2010, the European Commission considered implementing a pan-European minimum tax on pollution permits purchased under the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in which the proposed new tax would be calculated in terms of carbon content rather than volume, so that fuels with high energy concentrations, despite their subsequently high carbon content, will no longer carry the same traditionally low price. According to the European Commission, the new plan will charge firms a minimum tax per metric tonne of carbon dioxide emissions at a suggested rate of €4 to €30 per tonne of CO2, or $0.04 to $0.30 per gallon of gasoline.

Denmark

As of the year 2002, the standard carbon tax rate since 1996 amounts to 100 DKK per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to approximately 13 Euros or 18 US dollars . Net carbon emission tax from fuel combustion can vary depending on the level of pollution each source emits, the tax rate varies between 402 DKK per metric ton of oil to 5.6 DKK per metric ton of natural gas and 0 for non-combustible renewables. The rate for electricity is 1164 DKK per metric ton or 10 øre per kWh, equivalent to .013 Euros or .017 US dollars per kWh. The CO2 tax applies to all energy users, including the industrial sector. But the industrial companies can be taxed differently according to two principles: the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures. Danish policies like this provide incentives for companies to put in place more sustainable practices similar to a cap and trade program on carbon dioxide.

In 1992 Denmark issued a carbon dioxide tax which was about $14 for business and $7 for households, per ton of CO2. However, Denmark offers a tax refund for energy efficient changes.One of the main goals for the tax is to have people change their habits, because most of the money collected would be put into research for alternative energy resources. Denmark also needs to be behind this by actually showing they are investing and not just collecting money.

Finland

Finland was the first country in the 1990s to introduce a CO₂ tax, initially with few exemptions for specific fuels or sectors. Since then, however, energy taxation has been changed many times and substantially. These changes were related to the opening of the Nordic electricity market. Other Nordic countries exempted energy-intensive industries, and Finnish industries felt disadvantaged by this. Finland did place a border tax on imported electricity, but this was found to be out of line with EU single market legislation. Changes were then made to the carbon tax to partially exclude energy-intensive firms. This had the effect of increasing the costs of reducing CO₂ emissions (p. 16).

Vourc'h and Jimenez (2000, p. 17) stated that arguments based on competitive losses needed to be viewed with caution. For example, they suggested that carbon tax revenues could be used to reduce labour taxes, which would favour the competitiveness of non energy-intensive industries.

France

On September 10, 2009, France detailed a new carbon tax with a new levy on oil, gas and coal consumption by households and businesses that was supposed to come into effect on January 1, 2010. The new carbon tax would be 17 euros (25 US dollars) per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) for households and businesses, which will raise the cost of a liter of unleaded fuel by about four cents (25 US cents per gallon). The total estimated income from the carbon tax is between 3 and 4.5 billion euros annually, with 55 percent of profit coming from households and 45 percent coming from businesses. The tax will not apply to electricity as mostly produced by France's network of nuclear reactors.

On December 30, the bill was blocked by the French Constitutional Council. It considered the bill included too many exceptions and said they were unconstitutional. It condemned the exemptions for industries as being unequal and inefficient, pointing out that less than half the whole emissions would have been taxed and saying it was unfair to apply the tax only to fuels and heating, which accounted for a limited part of carbon emissions. Discounts and exceptions would have applied to many aspects of industry and agriculture, including fishing, trucking, and farming. did not support the bill, saying that France needed support from the rest of the European Union before it would try and proceed with a carbon tax.

Ireland

In 2004, following a policy review, the Irish government concluded that a carbon tax was not an appropriate policy option, however, a carbon tax of €15 per tonne of CO2 emissions (where 1 euro is about 1.32 US dollars as of August 2010) was introduced in the 2010 budget (which was delivered in December 2009).

The tax applies to kerosene, marked gas oil, liquid petroleum gas, fuel oil, and natural gas. The Natural Gas Carbon Tax does not apply to electricity because the cost of electricity is already included in pricing under the Single Electricity Market (SEM). Similarly, natural gas users are exempt from the tax if they can prove they are using the gas to "generate electricity, for chemical reduction, or for electrolytic or metallurgical processes"."A partial relief from the tax is granted for natural gas delivered for use in an installation that is covered by a greenhouse gas emissions permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The natural gas concerned will be taxed at the minimum rate specified in the EU Energy Tax Directive, which is €0.54 per megawatt hour at gross calorific value." Pure biofuels are also exempt. The Economic and Social Research Institute has estimated the tax will cost between about €2 and €3 a week per household, or about €156 per year: a survey from the Central Statistics Office reports that Ireland's average disposable income was almost €48,000 in 2007.

There is concern that the carbon tax may disproportionately affect elderly persons and low-income households. One group, Active Retirement Ireland, proposes that "an extra allowance of €4 per week be made to people in receipt of the State pension for the 30 weeks currently covered by the fuel allowance," they suggest that "home heating oil be added to the categories covered under the Household Benefit Package, which is available to older people in receipt of the State pension".

The tax is paid by companies to the Collector General. Fraudulent violation is punishable under section 1078 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 which allows for a jail sentence of up to 5 years or a fine of no more than €126,970. Failure to comply with the tax violates section 73 of the Finance Act of 2010. Payment for the first accounting period was due in July 2010.

Netherlands

The Netherlands initiated a carbon tax in 1990. However, in 1992 it was replaced with a 50/50 carbon/energy tax called the Environmental Tax on Fuels, the taxes are assessed partly on carbon content and partly on energy content. The charge was transformed into a tax and became part of general tax revenues. As such, it fell under the administration of the Ministry of Finance. The general fuel tax is collected on all fossil fuels. Fuels used as raw materials are not subject to the tax. Tax rates are based 50/50 on the energy and carbon contents of fuels. In 1996 The Regulatory Tax on Energy was another 50/50 carbon/energy tax was also implemented. The Environmental tax and the regulatory tax are 5.16 Dutch Florin, or Dfl, (~$3.13) or per metric ton of CO2 and 27.00 Dfl (~16.40) per metric ton CO2 respectively. Under the general fuel tax, electricity is not taxed, though fuels used to produce electricity are taxable. Energy-intensive industries used to benefit from preferential rates under this tax but the benefit was cancelled in January 1997. Also, since 1997 nuclear power has been taxed under the general fuel tax at the rate of NLG 31.95 per gram of uranium-235.38 The European Environment Agency put out a Executive Summary stating "Although the 5th Environmental Action Programme of the EU in 1992 recommended the greater use of economic instruments such as environmental taxes, there has been little progress in their use since then at the EU level." However, "at Member State level, there has been a continuing increase in the use of environmental taxes over the last decade, which has accelerated in the last 5-6 year...Countries including the Netherlands and the United Kingdom."

More recently, in 2007, The Netherlands introduced a Waste Fund that is funded by a carbon-based packaging tax. This tax encourages producers to create packaging that is recyclable and was implemented to help reach the goals of recycling 65% of used packaging by 2012. The company Nedvang (Nederland van arval naar grondstof or The Netherlands from waste to value), which was set up in 2005, is the largest organization supporting producers and importers of packaged goods reaching individual company goals under the Dutch packaging decree. This decree was signed in 2005 and states that producers and importers of packaged goods are responsible for the collection and recycling of that waste, and that at least 65% of that wast has to be recycled. Producers and importers can choose to reach the goals on an individual basis or by joining an organization like Nedvang.

The Carbon-Based Tax on Packaging consists of taxing:

Glass: € 71,80/ tonne (~$ 91.99/ tonne)

Aluminum (including Alloys): € 950,60/ tonne (~$ 1,219.00/ tonne)

Ferrous metals: € 158,50/ tonne (~$ 203.09/ tonne)

Plastics: € 470,50/ tonne (~$ 602.75/ tonne)

Paper/Cardboard: € 79,50/ tonne (~$ 101.86/ tonne)

Wood: € 21,00/ tonne (~$ 26.90/ tonne)

Sweden

On January 1, 1991, Sweden enacted a CO₂ tax, placing a tax of 0.25 SEK/kg ($100 or EUR 72 per ton) on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate (between 1993 and 1997, 25% of the rate), and certain high-energy industries such as commercial horticulture, mining, manufacturing and the pulp and paper industry were fully exempted from these new taxes.

In 1997 the rate was raised to 0.365 SEK/kg ($150 per ton) of CO₂ released. In 2007, the tax was SEK 930 (EUR 101) per ton of CO₂. The full tax is paid in transport, space heating, and non-combined heat and power generation. Owing to the many exemptions, oil accounts for 96% of the revenues from the tax, although it produces less than three-quarters of CO₂ from fuel combustion.

The tax is credited with spurring a significant move from fossil fuels to biomass. As Swedish Society for Nature Conservation climate change expert Emma Lindberg said, “It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly solutions. It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-efficient solutions.”

“It increased the use of bioenergy,” said University of Lund Professor Thomas Johansson, former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. “It had a major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries.”

Economic growth appears to be unaffected. Between 1990 and 2006, Sweden’s economy grew by 44 percent.

In addition, the UK's Climate Change Levy was introduced in 2001.

Norway

Norway introduced a CO₂ tax on fossil fuels in 1991. The tax started at a high rate of US$51 per metric ton of CO2 on gasoline, with an average tax of US$21 per metric ton The tax was also applied to diesel, mineral oil, oil and gas used in North Sea extraction activities. The International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2001 Review of Norway in the Energy Policies of IEA Countries stated that "since 1991 a carbon dioxide tax has applied in addition to excise taxes on fuel." It is among the highest carbon taxes in the OECD. Carbon taxation is also applied to the production of oil and gas offshore. The IEA estimates for revenue generated by the CO2 tax in 2004 were 7,808 million NOK (about US$1.3 billion in 2010 dollars).

According to IEA 2005 Review of Norway,

Switzerland

In January 2008, Switzerland implemented a CO₂ incentive tax on all fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, unless they are used for energy. Gasoline and diesel fuels are not affected by the CO₂ tax. The tax is collected by the Swiss Federal Customs Administration. It is an incentive tax because it is designed to promote the economic use of fossil fuels. The tax amounts to CHF 12 per metric tonne CO₂ (US $11.41 per metric tonne CO₂), which is the equivalent of CHF 0.03 per litre of heating oil (US $0.0076 per gallon) and CHF 0.025 per m3 of natural gas (US $0.024 per m3). This tax comes from Switzerland's 1999 Federal Law on the Reduction of CO₂ (CO₂ Law). Although Switzerland prefers to rely on voluntary actions and measures to achieve emissions reductions, the CO₂ Law mandated the introduction of a CO₂ tax if voluntary measures proved to be insufficient. In 2005 the federal government decided that additional measures were needed to achieve emissions reductions and meet Kyoto Protocol commitments of an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. In 2007, the CO₂ tax was approved by the Swiss Federal Council, coming into effect 2008.

Companies are allowed to exempt themselves from the tax by participating in a Swiss cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme where they voluntarily commit to legally binding targets to reduce their CO₂ emissions. Under this scheme, emission allowances are given to companies for free, and each year emission allowances equal to the amount of CO₂ emitted must be surrendered by the company. Companies are allowed to sell or trade excess permits. However, should a company fail to surrender the correct amount of allowances, they must pay the CO₂ tax retroactively for each tonne of CO₂ emitted since the exemption was granted. The Swiss carbon market still remains fairly small, with few emissions permits being traded. Swiss domestic law tends to favor the use of a CO₂ tax to achieve emissions reductions and this preference for taxes combined with an immature carbon market could partially explain why Switzerland has not yet joined the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

The tax is revenue neutral, and its revenues are redistributed proportionally to companies and to the Swiss population. For example, if the population bears 60% of the tax burden, they will receive 60% of the redistribution. For companies, revenues will be redistributed to all companies, except those who chose to exempt themselves from the tax through the cap-and-trade program. The revenues from the tax that were paid by the Swiss population are redistributed equally to all Swiss residents through health insurance companies and a deduction on their insurance premium.

Switzerland is currently on track to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitment of an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The combination of the CO₂ tax and other voluntary measures by businesses and private individuals is enabling Switzerland to achieve these reduction goals.

Central America

Costa Rica

In 1997 Costa Rica imposed a 3.5 percent carbon tax on fossil fuels. A portion of the funds generated by the tax go to "Payment for Environmental Services" (PSA) program which gives incentives to property owners to practice sustainable development and forest conservation. Approximately 11% of Costa Rica's national territory is protected by the plan. The program now pays out roughly $15 million a year to around 8,000 property owners. Similarly, Costa Rica has a tax on water pollution to penalize businesses and homeowners that dump sewage, agricultural chemicals, and other pollutants into waterways. In May 2007, the Costa Rican government announced its intentions to become 100 percent carbon neutral before 2030. As of 2010, Costa Rica is well on its way towards accomplishing this goal, currently producing 90 percent of its electricity through renewable sources.

North America

Canada

In the 2008 Canadian federal election a carbon tax proposed by Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, known as the Green Shift, became a central issue in the campaign. It would have been revenue-neutral, with increased taxation on carbon being balanced by tax cuts for individual citizens. However, it proved to be unpopular and contributed to the defeat of Liberal Party with its worst share of the popular vote since Confederation.

Although there is no federal carbon tax, some Canadian provinces do have carbon taxes:

Quebec: The Canadian province of Quebec became the first in Canada to introduce a carbon tax. The tax was to be imposed on energy producers starting October 1, 2007, with revenue collected used for energy-efficiency programs including public transit.

British Columbia: On February 19, 2008, the province of British Columbia announced its intention to implement a carbon tax of $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions (2.41 cents per litre on gasoline) beginning July 1, 2008, making BC the first North American jurisdiction to implement such a tax. The tax will increase each year after until 2012, reaching a final price of $30 per tonne (7.2 cents per litre at the pumps). Unlike previous proposals, legislation will keep the pending carbon tax revenue neutral by reducing corporate and income taxes at an equivalent rate. Also, the government will also reduce taxes above and beyond the carbon tax offset by $481 million over three years.

Alberta: In July 2007 the Alberta government imposed a carbon tax forcing companies that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas annually to either reduce their CO2 emissions per barrel by 12 percent, pay $15 per tonne into a technology fund, or buy an offset in Alberta to apply against their total emissions. The tax will fall most heavily on oilsands companies and coal fired electricity plants. The carbon tax intends to give companies a real incentive to lower emissions while fostering technology that makes the job easier. The plan only covers the largest companies that produce 70% of Alberta’s emissions.

United States

Colorado

In November 2006, voters in Boulder, Colorado passed what is proclaimed to be the first municipal 'carbon tax'. It is a tax on electricity consumption (utility bills) with deductions for using electricity from renewable sources (primarily Xcel's WindSource program). Their goal is to reduce carbon emissions to those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol; specifically to reduce their emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. Tax revenues get collected by Xcel Energy and are directed to the city's Office of Environmental Affairs to fund programs to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.

The Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax is expected to raise $1.6 million dollars in 2010. The tax was increased to a maximum allowable rate by voters in 2009 in order to meet CAP goals. Currently the tax is set at $0.0049 /kWh for residential users (ave. $21 per year), $0.0009 /kWh for commercial (ave. $94 per year), and $0.0003 /kWh for industrial (ave. $9,600 per year). The revenues from the tax are expected to decrease over time as businesses and residents reduce their energy use and begin to use more solar and wind power. The tax will expire on March 31, 2013.

Some states are considering the imposition of carbon taxes. For example in 2006, the state of California, passed AB-32 which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a effort to execute AB-32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), the California Air Resources Board put forth the idea to implement a carbon tax but has yet to reach agreement with the Western States Petroleum Association who represent the refineries in the state. The WSPA holds that AB-32 only allows a carbon tax to cover administrative costs.

Maryland In May 2010 Montgomery County, Maryland passed the nation's first county-level carbon tax. The new legislation calls for payments of $5 per ton of CO₂ emitted from any stationary source emitting more than a million tons a carbon dioxide during a calendar year. There is only one source of emissions fitting the criteria laid out by the council, an 850 megawatt coal-fired power plant owned by Mirant Corporation. The tax is expected to raise between $10 million and $15 million for the county which is facing a nearly $1 billion budget gap The plan calls for half of revenue to go toward creating a low interest loan plan for county residents to invest in residential energy efficiency upgrades.

Harmonized carbon taxes

Cooper (1998, 2001)

Former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker suggested (February 6, 2007) that "it would be wiser to impose a tax on oil, for example, than to wait for the market to drive up oil prices."

Climatologist James E. Hansen has argued in support of a carbon tax. James Owens, CEO of Caterpillar; and Paul Anderson, CEO and Chairman of Duke Energy.

Prasad wrote about Denmark's carbon tax in the New York Times in 2008. A market may be allowed for these emission permits so that polluters can trade some or all of their permits with others (cap-and-trade). A hybrid instrument of a cap and carbon tax can be made by creating a price-floor and price-ceiling for emission permits. In a literature assessment, Fisher et al.. (1996:430) concluded that the choice between an international quota (cap) system, or an international carbon tax, remained ambiguous.

Supporters of taxes over caps

James E. Hansen has argued in a recent book (Storms of My Grandchildren) and in an open letter to President Obama, that policies to cap carbon emissions and trade permits for them (see cap and trade) will only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow 'business-as-usual' for the chief carbon-emitting industries. He advocates phasing out and protesting against coal-fired power stations that do not have onsite carbon sequestration and imposing a progressive carbon tax. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, supports a carbon tax over cap-and-trade because employers will know exactly what they paid for the carbon dioxide they produced, and because a cap-and-trade system (with grandfathered permits) rewards those who have the highest emissions now and have done the least to reduce them previously. Gary Becker, a conservative economist, expressed his support for carbon taxes over cap-and-trade. Becker won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1992. On December 11, 2008, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxonmobil, said a carbon tax is "a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach" than a cap and trade program, which he said, "inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity." He also said that he hoped that the revenues from a carbon tax would be used to lower other taxes so as to be revenue neutral. The American Enterprise Institute, Environmental economist Jack Pezzey, economist Jeffrey Sachs (director of the Earth Institute of Columbia University), Yale economist William Nordhaus, The Earth Policy Institute, The Australia Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies, and Harvard professor, Gregory Mankiw also prefer carbon taxes to cap-and-trade.

Difficulties with taxes

According to the Carbon Trust (2009), a carbon tax suffers from combining a set price for carbon along with a transfer of revenue from industry to government.

Studies by Metcalf et al. (2008) and Metcalf (2009) consider the possible distributional impacts of carbon taxes in the United States. The 2008 study considers three recent tax bills introduced to the US Congress. The taxes themselves are highly regressive, but when revenues from the tax are returned lump-sum, the taxes become progressive. The 2009 study looks at a carbon tax combined with a reduction in payroll taxes. It is found that this combination can be distributionally neutral. With an adjustment in Social Security payments for the lowest-income households, the carbon tax policy can be made progressive.

A study by Ekins and Dresner (2004) considers the distributional impact in the UK of introducing a carbon tax and increasing fuel duty. It is found that a carbon tax can be made progressive, but that the tax would make those currently worst affected by fuel poverty more badly off. Of the policy options looked at for transport, the most effective in compensating low-income motorists is found to be an increase in fuel duties and the abolishment of vehicle excise duty.

Irish criticism

In Ireland it was speculated that a carbon tax would be introduced in the Government's supplementary April 2009 budget. This is a matter of concern for rural dwellers, who make up about one third of the Irish population. The NGO Irish Rural Link has noted that according to the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) “a carbon tax would weigh more heavily on rural households”. Irish Rural Link claim that experience from other countries has shown that carbon taxation will only succeed if it is part of a comprehensive package of measures, which includes reducing some other taxes which does not appear to be the Government's approach. IRL claim that in the rush to introduce revenue raising measures the regressive effects of a carbon tax will not be adequately offset.

42% of Ireland's population live in rural areas. This figure is arrived at using spatial analysis to identify areas with less than 150 persons per square kilometre (the OECD definition of 'rural').

See also

Economics of global warming

Cap and share

Carbon Credit

Environmental economics

Gasoline tax

Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (in the UK)

Mitigation of global warming‎‎

The Pigou Club

Polluter pays principle

Tax horsepower

Tax on electricity

Congestion pricing

Emissions Reduction Currency System

References

Further reading

External links

Climate change at the OECD.

The Carbon Tax Center

Analysis of Proposed Carbon Tax Rates

Energy Taxes — analysis by Global Policy Forum

The Case for Charges on Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Richard Cooper, on behalf of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements

TACA Association's website Arguments for an Ecotax.

GEMINI-E3 web is a web application which simulates world climate change policies and their impacts at the world level.

France's Example: Understanding France’s Carbon Tax.

Category:Environmental taxation Category:Environmental law Category:Environmental economics Category:Climate change policy Category:Low-carbon economy

Honorific-prefix	The Honourable
Name	Julia Gillard
Honorific-suffix	MP
Office	27th Prime Minister of AustraliaElections: 2010
Deputy	Wayne Swan
Term start	24 June 2010
Monarch	Elizabeth II
Predecessor	Kevin Rudd
Office2	Leader of the Labor Party
Deputy2	Wayne Swan
Term start2	24 June 2010
Predecessor2	Kevin Rudd
Office3	13th Deputy Prime Minister of Australia
Primeminister3	Kevin Rudd
Term start3	3 December 2007
Term end3	24 June 2010
Predecessor3	Mark Vaile
Successor3	Wayne Swan
Office4	19th Minister for Education
Primeminister4	Kevin Rudd
Term start4	3 December 2007
Term end4	28 June 2010
Predecessor4	Julie Bishop (Education, Science and Training)
Successor4	Simon Crean
Office5	Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
Primeminister5	Kevin Rudd
Term start5	3 December 2007
Term end5	28 June 2010
Predecessor5	Joe Hockey
Successor5	Simon Crean
Office6	1st Minister for Social Inclusion
Primeminister6	Kevin Rudd
Term start6	3 December 2007
Term end6	28 June 2010
Predecessor6	Position established
Successor6	Simon Crean
Constituency mp7	Lalor
Parliament7	Australian
Term start7	3 October 1998
Predecessor7	Barry Jones
Birth date	September 29, 1961
Birth place	Barry, United Kingdom
Party	Australian Labor Party
Residence	The Lodge
Religion
Partner	Tim Mathieson (2006-present)
Signature	Julia Gillard Signature.svg
Website	Prime Minister's websiteParliamentary websiteALP website

Julia Eileen Gillard (, born 29 September 1961) is the 27th and current Prime Minister of Australia since June 2010.

Gillard was elected at the 1998 federal election to the House of Representatives seat of Lalor, Victoria for the Australian Labor Party. Following the 2001 federal election, Gillard was elected to the shadow cabinet with the portfolios of Population and Immigration. The Reconciliation and Indigenous Affairs and the Health portfolios were added in 2003. In December 2006, Kevin Rudd was elected Labor leader and Leader of the Opposition, with Gillard as deputy leader.

Gillard became the Deputy Prime Minister upon Labor's victory in the 2007 federal election, also serving as Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. On , after Rudd lost the support of his party and stood aside, Gillard became federal leader of the Australian Labor Party and thus the Prime Minister, the first female holder of the office.

The 2010 federal election saw the incumbent Gillard Labor government elected to a second term over the Tony Abbott-led Coalition opposition, forming a minority government with support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs.

Early life

Gillard was born in 1961 in Barry, Wales, United Kingdom. Her parents, John and Moira, live in Pasadena, South Australia. She has a sister, Alison, who is three years older.

Gillard's father worked as a psychiatric nurse, while her mother worked at the local Salvation Army nursing home. She then studied at the University of Adelaide but cut short her courses in 1982 and moved to Melbourne to work with the Australian Union of Students. She graduated from the University of Melbourne with Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees in 1986.

In 1987, Gillard joined the law firm Slater & Gordon at Werribee, Melbourne, working in industrial law. In 1990, at the age of 29, she was admitted as a partner.

From 1996 to 1998, Gillard served as Chief of Staff to John Brumby, at that time the Victorian opposition leader. She also played a role in the foundation of EMILY's List, the pro-choice fund-raising and support network for Labor women.

The Welsh Labour politician Aneurin "Nye" Bevan remains one of her political heroes.

Opposition member

Gillard was elected as Member for Lalor, a safe Labor seat near Melbourne, in the House of Representatives at the 1998 election, replacing Barry Jones, who had retired. She made her first speech to the house on 11 November 1998.

Shadow Minister for Population and Immigration: 2001–2003

After Labor's defeat at the 2001 election, Gillard was elected to the shadow cabinet, with the portfolio of population and immigration. In February 2003, she was given the additional portfolios of reconciliation and Indigenous affairs.

In the wake of the Tampa and Children Overboard affairs, which were partly credited with Labor's 2001 election loss, Gillard developed a new immigration policy for the Labor Party. Shortly after this, the government moved Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott to the health portfolio. The rivalry between Abbott and Gillard often attracted attention from the media. She gained additional responsibility for managing opposition business in the House of Representatives.

In the aftermath of the Labor loss at the October 2004 election, it was speculated that Gillard might challenge Jenny Macklin for the deputy leadership, but she did not do so.

Gillard had been spoken of as a potential future leader of the party for some years but, until 2005, she stayed out of leadership contests. After Mark Latham resigned as leader in January 2005, however, she emerged as a possible successor along with Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd.

After appearing on the ABC's Australian Story program in March 2006, an Ipsos Mackay poll in April 2006, conducted for Network Ten's Meet the Press program, found that respondents would prefer Gillard to be Labor leader. She polled 32% compared with Beazley's 25% and Kevin Rudd's 18%. Although she had significant cross-factional support, she announced on 25 January 2005 that she would not contest the leadership, allowing Beazley to be elected unopposed.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

On 1 December 2006, in a cross-factional political partnership with Kevin Rudd, Gillard launched a challenge for the deputy leadership of the ALP. Once Rudd was elected as leader, the incumbent deputy leader and Kim Beazley's deputy, Jenny Macklin, chose not to contest the position and on 4 December 2006 she was elected unopposed. In the frontbench reshuffle following the leadership change, Gillard was allocated the Employment, Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion portfolios.

Deputy Prime Minister: 2007–2010

Jeff Bleich in November 2009]] The Labor Party won the 2007 federal election and, on 3 December 2007, Gillard was sworn in as the first female Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

In addition to the deputy prime ministership, Gillard was given responsibility for a so-called "super ministry", the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. She had three distinct portfolios: Minister for Education; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; and Minister for Social Inclusion. In her role as Minister for Education, Gillard travelled to Washington, DC, where she signed a deal with the US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, to enourage improved policy collaboration in education reform between both countries.

On 11 December 2007 she became the first woman in Australia's history to be in the prime ministerial role, by assuming the role of acting prime minister while Kevin Rudd attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali. In the first year of government, she served as acting prime minister for 69 days during Rudd's overseas travel engagements.

Gillard is a highly regarded debater, and her performances during parliamentary question time have prompted Peter van Onselen to call her "the best parliamentary performer on the Labor side".

Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Gillard removed the WorkChoices industrial relations regime introduced by the Howard government, and replaced it with the Fair Work Bill. This established a single industrial relations bureaucracy called Fair Work Australia.

In 2009 Gillard oversaw the government's "Building the Education Revolution" program, which allocated $16 billion to build new school accommodation including classrooms, libraries and assembly halls.

Prime Minister

On 23 June 2010, after meetings throughout the evening between Gillard and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as well as factional leaders, Rudd addressed the waiting media at 10:30 pm AEST and announced that Gillard had asked him to hold a leadership ballot in the 115-member caucus the following day to determine the leadership of the Labor Party and hence the prime ministership of Australia.

Rudd initially said he would challenge Gillard at the caucus. However, it soon became apparent that he didn't have enough support to fend off Gillard's challenge. Hours before the vote, he stood aside as leader and ended his candidacy, leaving Gillard to take the leadership unopposed. At the same caucus meeting, Treasurer Wayne Swan was elected unopposed to succeed Gillard as Labor's deputy leader, and hence Deputy Prime Minister. She also said that she wouldn't move into The Lodge unless she was elected Prime Minister in her own right, preferring to divide her time between a flat in Canberra and her home in Altona, a western suburb of Melbourne. She eventually moved into The Lodge on 26 September 2010.

In the aftermath of the leadership challenge, Bill Shorten, former trade union leader, and key Parliamentary member of the ALP Right Faction, nominated the government's handling of the insulation program; the sudden announcement of change of policy on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; and the way in which they had "introduced the debate" about the Resource Super Profits Tax as the key considerations which had led to a shift in support from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard as leader of the party.

War in Afghanistan

, the commander of the International Security Assistance Force, during a visit to Afghanistan on 2 October 2010]] During her first day as Prime Minister, Gillard reassured U.S. President Barack Obama of Australia's continuing support for the military campaign in Afghanistan. She visited Afghanistan on 2 October 2010 and met with Australian forces in Tarin Kowt and President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The visit formed part of her first overseas trip as prime minister.

A parliamentary debate was conducted for four sitting weeks of parliament, with the agreement between Gillard and Abbott that it is necessary to stay in Afghanistan and prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists.

Election 2010

On 17 July 2010 (23 days after becoming prime minister) Gillard announced a federal election would be held on 21 August 2010.

Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, four short of the requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election. Both major party leaders sought to form a minority government.

Six crossbench MPs held the balance of power. Four crossbench MPs, Greens Adam Bandt and independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply, allowing Gillard and Labor to remain in power with a 76-74 minority government. Governor-General Bryce swore in the Second Gillard Ministry on 14 September 2010.

Domestic policies

Health

Like her predecessor Rudd, Gillard maintained health as a priority in her agenda. She announced during the 2010 election, that there would be an increase of 270 placements for emergency doctors and nurses and 3,000 extra nursing scholarships over the following 10 years. She also said mental health would be a priority in her second term, with a $277 million suicide-prevention package which would target high-risk groups. As the election delivered a hung parliament, a $1.8 billion package was given to rural hospitals, which was agreed to by the independents to support her re-election.

In October, her government introduced legislation to reform the health system. The changes will give the Commonwealth responsibility for providing the majority of funding to public hospitals and 100 per cent of funding for primary care and GP services. Western Australia will not be apart of the deal as it has not signed up to the agreement in April's COAG meeting, which would see the Commonwealth direct one third of the state's GST revenue towards health and hospital services.

Immigration

Gillard has taken a tougher stance on asylum seekers, with plans of establishing a process centre to be possibly located in East Timor. Although East Timor's parliament has voted down the plan, East Timor's President Jose Ramos-Horta, has said that he is open to the idea for a process centre. In October, her government announced that it will open two detention centres for 2000 immigrants, due to the pressures in allowing women and children to be released into the community. One will be opened in South Australia's Adelaide Hill and one in Northam in Western Australia. She has said it will be a short-term solution to the problem and that temporary detention centres will be closed.

Education

When she became Prime Minister, she gave her Education portfolio to Simon Crean. She has promised to "make education central to my economic agenda." After her re-election, she extended tax-cuts to parents to help pay for school uniforms for people struggling to cover the costs of education under the Education Tax Refund scheme. Gillard continued to put the My School website centre of her education agenda, which was controversial when she implemented when she was the Minister for Education. Although it was popular amongst parents, the website helped parents view statistics of the school their children attended. She has unveiled the revamped version, My School 2.0, promising better information to parents.

Universities also placed highly on her education agenda. Legislation due to be voted on in November 2010 that would see the introduction of a national universities regulator was delayed till 2011 following criticisms from the higher education sector. It was also announced by her government that legislation to establish the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency would also be introduced early 2011.

Climate change

During the 2010 election, Gillard unveiled her climate change plans in Brisbane. It included a 150-person citizens assembly to work on a consensus for climate change and a crackdown on dirty power plants, a $1 billion investment into greening the electricity grid and also further investment into green technology. The idea was scrapped on 7 October 2010, as Gillard announced that her pre-election promise to create a citizens' assembly to investigate climate change would not proceed, but the government would instead seek guidance from a parliamentary committee advised by experts on climate change. A $2000 subsidy for cashing in old cars was also announced to reduce pollution. Reaction to this by Australian businesses has been positive.

Gillard announced plans to put a price on carbon and has ordered a Productivity Commission inquiry to expedite her push to put a price on carbon.

Political positions

Factional position

Although nominally a member of the Victorian Left faction of the Labor Party, her election to Prime Minister occurred because of support from the Right factions of the party, with the hard Left planning to support Rudd in the Caucus vote had there actually been one. Analyses of Jacqueline Kent's 2009 biography of Gillard suggest that her membership in the Left faction is "more organisational than ideological".

Population growth

On population policy, Gillard is against a "big Australia", as opposed to predecessor Kevin Rudd who was in favour of population growth. She emphasises the need for sustainability, saying "Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population".

Republic

Gillard supports Australia becoming a republic and has suggested that the end of Queen Elizabeth II's reign would be "probably the appropriate point for a transition".

Abortion

Gillard has expressed a pro-choice position on abortion saying that "Women without money would be left without that choice or in the hands of backyard abortion providers" and that she understood "the various moral positions" regarding abortions.

Gay marriage

Gillard has made clear she does not support the legalisation of gay marriage, saying that she believes "the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman".

Internet censorship

Soon after Gillard first took over from Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, she put herself on record as being in favour of a mandatory internet filter for Australia and justified her stance by saying images of child abuse and child pornography should not be legally available on the internet.

WikiLeaks

Following the November 2010 release of secret United States diplomatic cables, high-profile people in various countries condemned the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks, with some calling for the founder Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, to be killed. Julia Gillard stated, “I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do". After an Australian Federal Police investigation failed to find WikiLeaks had broken any Australian laws by publishing the US diplomatic documents, Gillard maintained her stance that the release of the documents was "grossly irresponsible". Open letters signed by many news editors, lawyers and other prominent individuals including Noam Chomsky have asked Gillard to condemn the calls for physical harm to Assange and to ensure his legal rights are protected.

Personal life and views

Gillard's partner since 2006 is Tim Mathieson. She had previous relationships with union officials Michael O'Connor and Bruce Wilson and fellow Federal Labor MP Craig Emerson. She has never married and has no children.

Gillard was brought up in the Baptist tradition, but is not religious. In a 2010 interview when asked if she believed in God, Gillard stated: "No I don't ... I'm not a religious person ... [I'm] a great respecter of religious beliefs but they're not my beliefs."

She owns a home in the south western Melbourne suburb of Altona and is a public supporter of the Western Bulldogs Australian football club.

See also

Next Australian federal election

Australian federal election, 2010

Rudd Ministry

First Gillard Ministry

Second Gillard Ministry

Notes

References

External links

Official Federal HOR webpages for Julia Gillard

Official Federal Ministrial webpages for Julia Gillard

Official ALP webpage for Julia Gillard

The Hon Julia Gillard MP – Deputy Prime Minister

Official Facebook page of Julia Gillard

|- |- |- |- |- |- |-

Category:1961 births Category:Australian Labor Party politicians Category:Australian people of Welsh descent Category:Australian republicans Category:Current national leaders Category:Female heads of government Category:Former Baptists Category:Government ministers of Australia Category:Living people Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Lalor Category:Members of the Cabinet of Australia Category:People from Adelaide Category:People from Barry, Vale of Glamorgan Category:Prime Ministers of Australia Category:University of Adelaide alumni Category:University of Melbourne alumni Category:Welsh immigrants to Australia Category:Women members of the Australian House of Representatives

Honorific-prefix	Senator The Honourable
Name	Penny Wong
Caption	Penny Wong accepts a "Sustainable Penrith" bucket hat at her UNFCCC address in Bali 2007.
Office	Australian Senator for South Australia
Term start	1 July 2005
Birth date	November 05, 1968
Birth place	Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Office2	12th Minister for Finance and Deregulation
Term start2	14 September 2010
Predecessor2	Lindsay Tanner
Office3	Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water
Term start3	3 December 2007
Term end3	13 September 2010
Predecessor3	position created
Successor3	Greg Combet
Nationality	Australian
Party	Australian Labor Party
Religion	Uniting Church in Australia
Residence	Australia
Alma mater	University of Adelaide
Partner	Sophie Allouache
Website	environment.gov.au

Penelope "Penny" Ying-yen Wong (; b. 1968), is an Australian Labor Party senator for South Australia and the Federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Wong was the first Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water. Her appointment was amended on 26 February 2010, by the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water. This change in the Government's cabinet was brought about by the controversy of the Home Insulation Program (HIP). On 13 September 2010, she was sworn in as Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the Gillard Labor cabinet. She has been a member of the Australian Senate since 2002, representing South Australia.

Wong is the first openly gay member of the Australian Commonwealth cabinet, and the first Asian-born federal minister. Before entering Parliament, Penny Wong was a barrister and solicitor in Adelaide and an adviser to the Carr Government in New South Wales.

Early life

Wong was born on 5 November 1968 in Kota Kinabalu, capital of Sabah, East Malaysia to a Malaysian Chinese Hakka father and an Australian mother. She moved to Australia at the age of eight with her mother and younger brother Toby, after her parents separated. Toby went on to become a chef in Adelaide, South Australia.

After spending a year on exchange in Brazil, Wong studied Arts/Law at the University of Adelaide. When she was 18, she took over the control of the Adelaide University Labor Club. While at university, she worked part-time for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. She also became involved in political activism at university, winning a position on the National Executive of the National Union of Students. Wong has been a delegate to the South Australian Labor Party State Convention every year since 1989, with the exception of 1995. Her time at university was one where a substantial number of contemporaries became Australian politicians. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja was a contemporary and former boyfriend Jay Weatherill, a senior minister in Mike Rann's South Australian Government among many others. On returning to Adelaide, she began practising law, won a position on the ALP's state executive, and also took on work as a legal officer with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union.

Wong ran for pre-selection for the Senate in 2001, and was selected for the top spot on the Labor party's South Australian ticket. Wong is a member of EMILY's List Australia, the support network for Labor women, and, until appointment as a minister following the 2007 election, sat on a number of Senate committees, primarily those related to economics.

In June 2005, Wong was appointed Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Participation and Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility. Following the reshuffle in December 2006, she became responsible for the portfolios of Public Administration and Accountability, Corporate Governance and Responsibility, and Workforce Participation.

In November 2007, in the wake of the Labor Party victory in the 2007 election, Wong was appointed Minister for Climate Change and Water. As a result of this promotion, she is the highest ranked politician representing South Australia. She accompanied Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Bali for the international climate change talks. Wong led final negotiations as Chair of the United Nations Working Group in the closing days of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2007, shortly after her appointment as Minister for Climate Change and Water.

In September 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced Wong had been promoted to succeed Lindsay Tanner as Minister for Finance and Deregulation.

Personal life

Penny Wong is a lesbian, and was the first sitting member of the Australian Labor Party to "come out" while still in parliament. Her mother, Jane Chapman, and her partner, Sophie Allouache - a public servant and former University of Adelaide Students' Association president - attended her swearing-in ceremony at Yarralumla. Although her father remains overseas, they keep in touch.

Wong is a practising Christian, attending Pilgrim Uniting Church in Adelaide.

See also

Rudd Ministry

Gillard Ministry

References

External links

Official ALP website biography

Penny Wong Senate Biography

Category:Australian Labor Party politicians Category:Australian people of Chinese descent Category:Australian people of Malaysian descent Category:Hakka people Category:Lesbian politicians Category:Members of the Australian Senate Category:Members of the Australian Senate for South Australia Category:Members of the Cabinet of Australia Category:Government ministers of Australia Category:LGBT Christians Category:LGBT politicians from Australia Category:Politicians of Chinese descent Category:Uniting Church in Australia people Category:University of Adelaide alumni Category:Women members of the Australian Senate Category:1968 births Category:Living people