The paper "Саrbоn Тах and ERF Сlimаtе Сhаngе Imрасt on Unilever Company" is an impressive example of a Macro & Microeconomics essay. The Australians government in 2012 moved to pass a bill to regulate the number of greenhouse gasses each company in the country releases into the continent’ s atmosphere. The country has a vision of reducing carbon gas emission to the atmosphere by 5 percent by 2020 instead of increasing its greenhouse gasses emission. Australia is devoted to living in an environmentally friendly country, where the corporations do not take charge of polluting the environment, to this extent (Petruzzi & Spies, 2014, pg.
70). Therefore, the country holds a vital position in its bids of reducing the greenhouse effect, about collectively reducing this effect by all the countries on the planet. This paper analyses the Unilever Company in Australia bids in reducing their carbon and greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere, while similarly exploring the Australian carbon tax obligations and the far the company has gone in reducing its greenhouse effect gasses to the atmosphere. Overview of Unilever Company – Australia According to Kreiser et al.
(2015, pg. 12), Unilever Australia is a food and other products company, engaging widely in the manufacture and sale of food and wellbeing products in the country. The company is involved in an intensified production of several food products such as ice cream, olive oils, meals, snacks, home care products, and fabric conditioners among others. All these manufacturing involves a lot of industrial action, which interim emits the carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Unilever is however involved in its greenhouse gas emission control, with several measures put in place to reduce carbon emissions (Kreiser et al. , 2015, pg.
12). As Stoianoff et al. (2016, pg. 34) assert, on its website, the Unilever company regularly updates and informs the Australian leaders to indulge more in ensuring the reinforcement of the carbon tax laws, while among more rules to manage the Australian environmental issues. The company encourages the government to take aggressive steps in ensuring that the government reinforces the climate change rules. The company significantly supports the great actions that have incentives to the food industry to reduce the carbon emissions, while personally trading schemes that play a fundamental role in reducing this (Stoianoff et al. , 2016, pg.
Anbumozhi, V., Kalirajan, K., Kimura, F. & Yao, X. (2016). Investing in low-carbon energy systems: implications for regional economic cooperation. Singapore: Springer. Page 112
Dolman, A., Freibauer, A. & Valentini, R. (2008). The continental-scale greenhouse gas balance of Europe. New York: Springer. Page 69
Gascó, M. (2012). Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment, Barcelona, 14-15 June 2012. Reading: Academic Publishing International. Page 64
Holland, B. (2014). Allocating the earth: a distributional framework for protecting capabilities in environmental law and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 71
Humphreys, J. (2007). Exploring a carbon tax for Australia. St Leonards, N.S.W: Centre for Independent Studies. Page 55
Kreiser, L., Andersen, M., Olsen, B., Speck, S., Milne, J. & Ashiabor, H. (2015). Carbon pricing: design, experiences, and issues. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Page 12
León, E. (2008). Global warming: looking beyond Kyoto. New Haven, Conn. Washington, D.C: Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University Brookings Institution Press. Page 123
Ministerrådet, N. (2007). Potent Greenhouse Gases - Ways of Reducing Consumption and Emission of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådets förlag. Page 97
Petruzzi, R. & Spies, K. (2014). Tax policy challenges in the 21st century. Wien: Linde. Page 70
Stoianoff, N., Kreiser, L., Butcher, B., Milne, J. & Ashiabor, H. (2016). Green fiscal reform for a sustainable future reform, innovation and renewable energy. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishing. Page 34