Where to start on this dreadful thing?
If you accept the human-induced global warming theory it's bad. If you take the opposite argument, and like me, are known as a climate change denier then it probably feels worse. I'm not going to argue which is correct as the point is now somewhat moot. If you feel warm and fuzzy and think that you're changing the world then maybe you're the one who likes this terrible bit of proposed legislation.
It's disgraceful how a controversial environmental issue is being used as probably the biggest change to the taxation and welfare systems in our lifetimes (that's right I expect its impact to be greater than the introduction of the GST). If the leaky sieve that is cabinet is to be believed thus far, the policy will not do enough to change the behaviour of Australians in a manner that will help meet the 2020 emission reduction target. We'll still build everything out of concrete, drive our cars to the shop 300m away and do all those other things that produce CO2 (breathing is one of my favourites). The government is going to give you some welfare payments - that you'll probably just spend on booze, smokes or a personalised number plate - so that you can ignore the price signals created by the tax.
Meanwhile the government will now have a new, ever increasing source of tax revenue. Just think of how the ALP can squander it all. Hot water heaters for sports clubs, building at schools that are about to be closed, Kevin Rudd's travel bill, more public servants to think up new taxes and laws to stop you having fun. Sounds great. They won't spend it on anything that takes more than 2 years to build or that will last 100 years. Doesn't suit the 24 hour news cycle at all.
I would also like to point out that the Carbon Tax will have a massively regressive impact. Low earners likely live in older houses that are poorly insulated, buy cheaper, less energy efficient appliances, work in energy intensive industries and are reliant on their cars to get anywhere. Clearly worse than the GST on this front as the GST was far less threatening to people's employment as it taxes consumption not production.
An economy-wide tax on carbon dioxide as a starting point is a mistake. Why not follow Europe and pick selected industries and go straight to a cap and trade system? Measurement of emissions and transitional assistance to those industries would be far easier to administer and would allow for adjustments to the system to be made without creating massive shocks in the economy. This approach is more likely to have better environmental outcomes as the 'dirtiest' industries are cleaned up first and attract plenty of the necessary policy, advice and assistance. There is no shame in copying a system that already exists and tweaking it to local conditions. It is more palatable to the electorate and it has already been tested. Victoria could have bought an existing transport ticketing system but chose to develop one from scratch. It was years overdue, hundreds of millions over budget and still doesn't do all that it was supposed to. What happens if the Carbon Tax is the federal government's MYKI? How difficult will it be fix the whole economy when it is under massive structural stress?
Wake up members of the House of Representatives - this Carbon Tax will cost you your job too if you vote for it! And it will do bugger all for the environment as it is too soft.
There's a couple of valid points in there, Bushy (though I'll skip over for now how exactly you might argue that anthropogenic climate change does not exist).
ReplyDeleteAlmost certainly the price will initially be too low to make a difference to people's behaviour. And lets acknowledge that it IS people's behaviour that is responsible for climate change. But consider just how politically impossible it would be to pass a higher price through parliament (and not get automatically ejected at the next election). The amount of outrage and vitriol around a $20-30 tax was frightening enough, imagine what would have happened at $60 a tonne.
There's a school of thought that a much lower price (eg. $5/tonne) might be effective. Not at changing behaviour, but at sparking innovations. See the "Hartwell Paper" and various other things by Mike Hulme.
As for tax v ETS: my understanding is that the vast majority of economists agree that a tax is a more effective way of reducing emissions. With an ETS there's too much potential for it just to become a swap meet of permits with no effect - the EU ETS is a case in point. Great idea, but not terribly effective.
And could you imagine the cries of injustice from those "dirty industries" if we just targeted their emissions?
In any event, our "tax" is really more of a fixed-price ETS, at least for a few years until the price of permits is floated.
Jobs will be lost, but that's the price of progress. I imagine all those people who made horse-drawn carriages are now also out of work. Same for typewriters and a host of other now-obsolete things. Lets move on from fossil fuels, and forcing people to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions seems like a pretty good place to start.
Lets hope Australians don't take the easy option of simply voting in Abbott and his denialist friends, and continuing to keep our collective head in the sand.
The price of progress? Progress in what direction? You're worried about the EU ETS being ineffective, but Australia's carbon tax will make bugger all difference on the international contribution to carbon as high emissions industries simply seek less altruistic nations to operate in.
ReplyDeleteGranted - this may spark innovation, but if that's the desired outcome, take my billions of additional tax dollars and use it to offer bounties or fund research on genuine world changing technology. Simply making it expensive to live and operate in Australia will only drive jobs and people (note - the high achieving, innovative individuals who aren't getting any financial assistance from Gillard's package have the most incentive to go) away from our shores.
Anthropomorphic global warming? Probably, but the jury is still out on that one. Even so, there can be no certainty that changing our contribution to carbon in the atmosphere will make a substantial difference - this is not science, it is computer model fueled speculation. Certainly the fraction of 2% of the world's carbon emission that Australia might change through committing economic harakiri doesn't even scratch the surface.
Actually, Mick, the jury is in - its called the IPCC.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "there's no point us doing something because we don't emit that much" argument: what happens if everyone takes that attitude? Don't you think there's some value in taking a principled and morally correct stance and sticking by it? Or is it better to pander to the lowest common denominator and vested interests?
Absolutely. I'm all for principles, and I think every developed country has a range of moral obligations they should pursue, but we don't do it at the extraordinary expense and risk as is being proposed by the Australian government. How many starving 3rd world mouths could we feed with these billions of dollars? How many children could we inoculate against known, preventable diseases? How many wars against oppressive, belligerent governments could we fight? How many hectares of rain forests could we save?
ReplyDeleteBut we haven't chosen to do all these things with our billions of dollars before. That's because the government (representing the will of the people) has balanced our continued economic stability and way of life (vested interests if you will) against our moral obligations.
Now we have a government who is clearly not representing the will of the people (as evidenced by poll after poll on this issue) because of the back room deals they had to cut to gain power.
Just before we leave the moral high ground, what about all the disadvantaged people in Australia who will suffer loss of employment opportunities as a result of an economic slowdown?
As for what happens if everyone takes that attitude? Besides the fact that the highest emitting countries already are taking that attitude, can any of the scientists say for certain? You point to the IPCC, however they have demonstrated extraordinary bias in the science they will consider (plagued with statistical uncertainty), and that which they will ignore (to be fair, also uncertain). This is not science, it is consensus at best, and I don't feel that we should bet our economy pursuing the moral high ground on such an uncertain risk - especially when there are so many other certain realities that could be addressed with the same effort.
just as a side question.
ReplyDeletewhat percentage of the funds raised via this taxx are being DIRECTLY contributed back to development of greener alternatives?
i totally disagree with the idea of a tax, as incentive for better/cleaner opperation is in my opinion a far better alternative than making the dirty pay (although for a government already in debt the idea of tossing up between a revenue producing V spending alternative is really a no-brainer) but if i knew that ALL the revenue was to be channeled into the right direction (long term solutions) then i think i could stomach it.
but lets be honest. the words long term, labour & winning elections don't really all fit together in the same sentence.
I have 3 comments here. 1, the planet and its inhabitants would be much better off if humans stopped consuming its natural resources and spewing them into the atmosphere regardless of whether it effects the weather. 2. The temperature of the planet changes. It always has and it always will. This is why they have found skeletons of fish in the Simpson desert. 3. If the Greens have their way then the population will be unemployed and not have the financial resources to consume natural resources. Bob Brown is an evil genius.
ReplyDeleteOh dear... and from NASA no less. Julia's fear campai ... sorry... carbon ta... no... emissions tradi... not that either... is no doubt going to have to spend some more of my money convincing me that I'd like her to redistribute even more of my money to achieve nothing.
ReplyDeletehttp://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/