Let's see ... the 80% of households that get compo will not change their ways because they are pocketing more than they lose.
The other 20% who, according to the government, are rich rich rich beyond their wildest dreams (yeah right ) won't be compensated at all so will be racing out to install solar panels to decrease their usage - glad I've already got my panels on. Pity mosty won't be able to afford the extra $10-20k required as they're flat out paying for the current, soon to be increased, cost of living.
And, as pointed out by Mr Abbott - it is not possible to have solar powered steel mills, prime movers, combine harvesters etc, so these so-called high polluting industries will have no choice but to continue and charge more, head overseas or sink.
IMO, there is no real incentive for usage to change - producers/users will either be compensated or have no choice but to continue in their current frame.
Reading up, high polluting industries in Australia have already cut their emissions by 50% since 2000 ... so one wonders how much more room there is to be more efficient.
Personally, I believe there would be more incentive by increasing company tax rate by x% (say 1-2%) for those who make a net profit of over $x/yr (say $500,000) ... and using the extra income to give incentives to those who reduce their pollution ... or use the extra income to fund innovation ... or both.
Much simpler than passing money back and forth, and fairer to all
The other 20% who, according to the government, are rich rich rich beyond their wildest dreams (yeah right ) won't be compensated at all so will be racing out to install solar panels to decrease their usage - glad I've already got my panels on. Pity mosty won't be able to afford the extra $10-20k required as they're flat out paying for the current, soon to be increased, cost of living.
And, as pointed out by Mr Abbott - it is not possible to have solar powered steel mills, prime movers, combine harvesters etc, so these so-called high polluting industries will have no choice but to continue and charge more, head overseas or sink.
IMO, there is no real incentive for usage to change - producers/users will either be compensated or have no choice but to continue in their current frame.
Reading up, high polluting industries in Australia have already cut their emissions by 50% since 2000 ... so one wonders how much more room there is to be more efficient.
Personally, I believe there would be more incentive by increasing company tax rate by x% (say 1-2%) for those who make a net profit of over $x/yr (say $500,000) ... and using the extra income to give incentives to those who reduce their pollution ... or use the extra income to fund innovation ... or both.
Much simpler than passing money back and forth, and fairer to all