He has also signalled his company’s willingness to engage with the other great tax debate looming over Australia, telling a business lunch yesterday the federal government must send out a “clear signal” on carbon pricing.

“With about 90 per cent of the carbon emissions from our electricity sector coming from coal-fired power stations, Australia will need to look beyond just coal towards the full spectrum of available energy solutions,” he told an Australian British Chamber of Commerce lunch.

“Failure to do so will place us at a competitive disadvantage in a future where carbon is priced globally.

“My main point is a simple one – we need to anticipate a global price for carbon when taking decisions with long-dated impact.

“The decisions we take now on power production will still be with us long after a global price for carbon is finally in place.”

Kloppers made it clear that neither he nor the global giant he leads considered climate change scepticism an option, saying that BHP “acknowledges that the mainstream science is correct, and that we need to stabilise (and eventually reduce) the carbon concentration in the atmosphere”

He said the company also acknowledged that the Australian government will need to introduce a carbon tax in some form, and urged the federal government to take unilateral action if a worldwide policy framework cannot be negotiated.

“Historically we have expressed that our preferred solution is the introduction of an international climate framework ... we believe local actions that are eventually harmonised into unified global action is a more likely outcome than an immediate broadly supported global initiative,” Kloppers said.

“We also believe that such a global initiative will eventually come, and when it does Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness.”

Kloppers said measures to combat climate change would inevitably require a carbon price, to encourage business and consumer action in reducing carbon issues.

“In short – carbon emissions need to have a cost impact in order to cause the consumer to change behaviour and favour low carbon alternatives,” he said.

“We all recognise this is a politically charged subject. No government relishes telling consumers that things need to cost more through higher and more expensive standards.

“But in this case there is really no easy answer – all of us who care about this issue need to also recognise that making a difference comes at a price.”

But Kloppers warned government not to treat a carbon tax scheme as “windfall revenue”, saying the money raised needed to be offset by tax cuts elsewhere – not through trying to back “winning” technological solutions, but through delivering tax cuts.

“The government must find mechanisms to return this revenue to the economy – individuals and businesses – and let the markets work. I think that a price on carbon can only be effective if it is operated in a revenue-neutral manner by a government,” he said.

He also reiterated industry concerns that emissions costs imposed by governments must be rebated to businesses, until a global emissions system is in place.

“In the absence of a global system, trade-exposed products impacted by a price on carbon end up being disadvantaged in comparison with those originating from countries that do not yet price carbon,” he said.

“As a result, private companies will tend to choose to transplant their facilities to more competitive locations where a carbon price doesn’t hinder their margins.

“Under these circumstances, the world will not be better off, as the emissions will only be relocated to a different country and the Australian economy negatively impacted.”

Kloppers said any future emissions scheme should also be broad based, with a predictable and gradual transition, and should be “simple and effective”

He said BHP’s preferred model would be a combination of a carbon tax, land-use actions and a limited trading system.