Jump to content

State Govt Creates New Fee's for Polluters


Recommended Posts

Recieved this from Marine Qld. Thought some of you might find it interesting.

The State Government will introduce "polluter-pays" fees for industry to ensure the higher the emissions generated, the higher the annual licensing fee. Premier Anna Bligh told Regional Parliament that updated environmental protection laws would lead to more effective regulation of industries with the potential to cause environmental harm.

The Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 includes a new fee structure for pollution emitting industries that clearly links fees to the issue of environmental emissions. It is designed to provide incentive to business to be cleaner and greener.

As of 1 January 2009 the fee system will take on a polluter-pays approach based on the average annual emissions to air, land and water - the higher the emissions, the higher the annual license fee. It also includes an updated and more contemporary list of activities that will require environmental regulation.

Several activities will be regulated for the first time including sheep feedlots, tunnel ventilation stacks, large water treatment plants and geological storage of carbon dioxide. Conversely, other activities with low environmental emissions will be deregulated such as crematoriums and aquaculture farms that do not release waste to waters, she said.

Sustainability, Climate Change, Innovation Minister Andrew McNamara said the regulation would result in higher fees for many industries. However, this is the first time that fees have increased in 12 years and in most cases, fees will be equal to or lower than those charged in other states, he said.

One change is a new fee discount system for businesses that demonstrate excellent environmental performance and adopt best practice environmental management. This updated regulation is in direct response to extensive public consultation and feedback received in public submissions invited by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.

It replaces the existing Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 and is another step in a series of reforms to Queensland's environmental protection legislation.

Examples of pollution fees QLD maximum

1998 regulation QLD maximum 2008 regulation

Crushing, milling, grinding $0 $500

Sawmilling or woodchipping $800 $13,800

Plastic manufacturing $450 $10,800

Sewage treatment $15,210 $29,000

Oil refinery $20,540 $47,400

Cattle $2,000 $4,900

Sheep nil $2,600

Pigs $500 $4,300

Poultry $400 $900

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the higher the fee's the more the govt can pocket and for what, i would be interested in knowing what the money from the fee's are going to be used for, other than the end of year party,so here comes another price rise to the cost of living, hmmm..and what do they hope to achieve by these new fee's?? lower emissions, i don't think so jan.. they will never stop or slow down , business / industries from polluting, i think it will only get worse, and the tax payer gets shafted..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea behind the fees are that higher fees for higher polluters.

This obviously affects companies profits and will do so yearly. I think the idea behind this is to help push companies to act in a more environmentally friendly manner, which will obviously have some expenditure in year one, but (assuming its only a change in capital equipment) will result in a higher profit for following years through not having to pay as high a pollution fee.

Coupled with the growing interest in corporate social responsibility and CSR reports, it could help push some organisations to act in a more environmentally friendly manner.

After that, (in my opinion) it doesn't matter (as much) what government does with the cash.

The only problem with this idea, is that it seems like the fees might not be enough $$$ to help push organisations to change.

Edit; of course this is ignoring a host of things that can affect what really happens, including the businesses merely passing on the fee to consumers as noname mentioned, as opposed to altering the way they conduct business. In this situation, I think it s somewhat critical to look at what government intends to do with the cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...