The Ethics of the Carbon Tax

Whoever constructed the Carbon Tax must have read Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argued that people always act in their own selfish interest, an idea in contrast to Aristotle’s view that man is a social animal by nature, favouring to think of the group over himself. When we look at the debate over Carbon Tax it is clear most Australians are thinking along the lines of Hobbes rather than Aristotle. Much of the dialogue has centered on cost, and specifically who will have to pay. Will it be the consumer or the company that ultimately pays the tax? Will our national economy suffer?

This distraction with dollars has left little space for discussion into the ethical aspects of the tax. While this self-interest in money fuels people to question, this same philosophy of self-interest is behind how the tax will work. Fundamentally, the Carbon Tax is a deterrent; by making fossil fuel energy more expensive, the government hopes to steer companies towards using clean energy alternatives. Ideally, companies and consumers will make the switch because it means more money: more profit. Of course, money is not everything and it is important to explore other lines of discourse that concern justice, humanity, and wellbeing.

English philosopher Jeremy Bentham always brought things back to the question of happiness, which is known as the Utilitarian approach. What makes for more happiness in the world? Considering the Carbon Tax in this light would be to focus solely on the outcome. If the tax is successful, it will avert companies and consumers from creating emissions and steer them towards cleaner energy sources, which will lead to a drop in emissions. Consequently, climate change is lessened and the carbon tax has contributed to the increased happiness of future generations, more so than if emissions were to continue at their current rate.

Perhaps John Stuart Mill might also have a hand here. His beliefs were similar to those of Bentham but differed in the methods of achieving happiness. Mill believed in political liberty, but also compulsory education so that people were forced to be happy, even against their will. In much the same way, the decision of Carbon Tax has been made for Australia rather than by the Australian people: an attempt to force Australia towards the Utilitarian outcome of increased happiness overall. Climate change scientists inform us that time is of the essence, so the notion of waiting on action until the population is adequately educated to decide for themselves seems folly.

The notions of both Bentham and Mill rely on the Carbon Tax yielding positive results, which is something only time will reveal, and while an increase in the overall happiness of the nation is a noble goal, there are many more immediate issues at hand. Immanuel Kant was a philosopher more focused on ideas of fairness and rights. Were he a part of our Carbon Tax debate he might ask questions of whether the tax will favour the rich over the poor, or if the responsibility is being distributed in an unjust manner. Will wealthier companies, who can afford to pay the tax, continue to pollute? The hope here lies in Hobbes’ idea of the selfish nature of man. Companies are competitive and seek to have the lowest costs and the highest profits possible, so are more likely to try and avoid the tax than lump it.

Meanwhile a new source of funds is created, and the issue becomes less about who ends up paying for the privilege of polluting but how the funds are subsequently spent. The Australian government has pledged to put over 50% of this income into personal compensation payments for the public, to help soften the blow of any hike in prices that may occur through companies paying the tax. This aids in balancing the effects so that responsibility is more evenly spread amongst the rich and poor. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a step to satiating Kant’s questions of ethical conduct.

If we consider the reasons for implementing a Carbon Tax we find ourselves back at Aristotle. His idea of man as a social animal is at the very soul of fighting climate change. Learning to live sustainably will not have any short-term profit for the individual, or even the company, but is concerned with what is good for the whole. Climate change breaches borders so that we are no longer considering our own nation but the benefit to the planet and all humans as a global community. Tackling climate change shows that we are looking beyond the needs of ourselves, to the wellbeing of future generations. The Carbon Tax is not be the final solution, but it does begin the process of change that needs to happen sooner, rather than later.

While these great philosophers are not here to share in the discussion, their teachings and ideologies can help guide us in our methods for changing toward sustainable living. Fighting climate change is truly an ethical and selfless endeavor, but we must not cease to ask ourselves these important moral questions with each new step. If the Carbon Tax is executed ethically, with balanced distribution, and funds going toward new renewable energy sources then our efforts will have the desired effect and future generations can live in a world of greater wellbeing and increased happiness.