Find More Stories14 October 2011
Sniff this, business lobby: the odourless whiff of defeat
It's taken many years. Dozens of government reports. Scores of inquiries, committees and discussion papers. But now, at last, Australia is within sight of a price on carbon.
The focus of the past couple of days in Parliament has rightly been on the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, who has now shepherded through the House of Representatives what will almost certainly be an enduring economic and environmental reform.
Make no mistake: this is a serious and long-lasting reform that will be very difficult for the Coalition to undo, even if it were to control the Senate in the next parliament. The inexorable logic of capitalism itself means that Australia's carbon markets, once established, are likely to flourish. Even in the short to medium term, speculators, merchant banks and more far-sighted investors will begin to invest in tree farms and more complicated carbon derivatives. They will create carbon credits. They will own a stake in a carbon economy.
If this is a win for Julia Gillard, Labor and the Greens, then it is serious defeat for Australia's business lobby. Business interests lobbied long and hard against the carbon tax. They're still attacking it. But they're going to have to live with it, because it will almost certainly now become law. Indeed, by the time a hypothetical Abbott government tries to repeal it in, say, 2014, there will be plenty of businesses who have massive investments in carbon markets and will campaign strongly against its abolition.
This shift in the power balance is likely to be the real engine of climate reform. Not for the first time, Australian business has been dragged kicking and screaming towards a reform that will in fact benefit it in the long term.
Now is a good time to revisit the arguments made against pricing carbon by the big end of town. All of them are motivated by self-interest, of the more unenlightened kind. None of them stack up to any kid of serious analysis.
Let's begin with the most common argument against pricing carbon: that it's too expensive.
This article by British columnist James Delingpole is a good recent example. His argument – and that of much of the business lobby – is a simple one. Australia has a very carbon-intensive economy. Therefore, taxing carbon will damage the economy.
As Delingpole expresses it:
Take Australia, an island built on fossil fuel with an economy dependent on fossil fuel. What would be the maddest economic policy a place like that could pursue as the world tips deeper into recession? Why, to introduce a carbon tax, of course. Which, for reasons just explained above, means a tax on absobloodylutely everything.
Is a tax on "absobloodylutely everything" a bad thing for the economy? Almost certainly yes.
It's just that the carbon tax is not really a tax on everything. For most industries, energy is a minor cost. As the federal Treasury points out in Chapter 9 of its detailed carbon modelling report, "industries employing more than 90 per cent of the workforce account for less than 10 per cent of emissions."
Nor is this a crippling tax burden. In fact, the effect of the carbon price will be so small that most of us won't even notice it, even on our electricity bills. Tell me, seriously: do you really understand why your electricity bill is going up anyway? (If you answered "investment by electricity generators in transmission infrastructure", go to the top of the class). The Treasury modelling states that even in the "high price scenario", in which carbon costs $275 a tonne by 2050, economic growth will be only 0.1% a year less. In other words, our economy will be around three and half times bigger than it is now, whether we implement a carbon price or not.
The main effect of a carbon price will be to change the make-up of our economy. Carbon intensive industries will grow more slowly than those that can learn to be more energy efficient and less carbon intensive. Big aluminium smelters and coal-fired power plants may indeed struggle. But the small local butchers or newsagents that Tony Abbott loves to stage his media appearances in will be fine.
Of course, this type of dispassionate analysis has long been available to those willing to look. But many Australians haven't bothered, as they have preferred to be convinced by the doomsayers of the dangerous effects of this new tax.
The other key argument against pricing carbon is that no-one else is doing it. At least, no-one except the European Union, California, parts of China, India and several smaller countries. But the argument itself is obviously flawed. If something poses a threat to our nation, the government should act to stop it. Not acting won't stop it. So any argument that Australia should wait is simply an excuse.
The idea that Australia's climate action won't have any impact on the rest of the world is amazingly immature. It reminds me of a teenager complaining that no-one else washes up the dishes. Part of growing up is realising that if we want to clean up the kitchen, someone is going to have to make a start. It might as well be us. Setting an example might even convince our flatmates to lend a hand.
But big business has been unable to get past immature whingeing for much of this debate. The big business lobby groups like the BCA, the ACCI and Ai Group have all emerged from the carbon debate with their credibility damaged. The BCA and ACCI in particular have routinely and reflexively criticised the government when they might have obtained better results for their members by engaging in the substance of the policy debates. The big corporate lobbyists have also put their names to outlandish and scarifying economic modelling that has convinced few intelligent observers outside their cheerleaders in the partisan media. They have regularly made ridiculous predictions about the supposedly dire future of the Australian economy under a tax that will have far less impact on export competitiveness than recent increases in the Australian dollar.
What the business lobby has not done, however, is put a viable plan on the table to tackle carbon emissions. Even today, most are still arguing that we should wait until China does something, despite the fact that Australia's economy is far richer and far dirtier per head of population. Just yesterday, BCA boss Graham Bradley called the carbon tax "unworkable" and whinged about political leaders describing polluters as, well ... polluters. "We really need political leaders who don't see business as the enemy," he told a business lunch, as though the relentless attacks on Labor and the Greens' carbon policies by business interests over the past four years was all a misunderstood act of friendship.
Media outlets should stop reporting on the business lobby and its shallow approach to public policy – especially environment policy – until groups like the BCA start engaging in these debates in good faith. When the appointed megaphones for our nation's corporate elite can argue with a straight face that Australia should put aside all reform to address the risk of a rapidly-warming planet, they have lost credibility and they should be called out for it.
Perhaps Australia's business lobby just doesn't get it. Presumably men like Mitch Hooke and Peter Anderson and Graham Bradley have children and grandchildren. But they seem unable to see the bigger picture here. Carbon emissions – most of them generated by big businesses – are endangering Australia's future. Do they care?
And yet now, when it looks as though business will finally be dragged kicking and screaming into paying a modest price for dumping millions of tonnes of toxic gas into the atmosphere, the well-paid carbon carpet-baggers are venting their displeasure like Hazelwood power station on a hot day.
Suck it up, corporate lobbyists. You lost. This is the odourless, colourless taste of defeat.
Ben Eltham is a writer, journalist, researcher and creative producer from Melbourne, Australia.
151 Comments
Hardvark :
14 Oct 2011 5:24:32pm
Ben makes a number of assertions with great certitude that effectively require of him clairvoyance. How do you know that "Indeed, by the time a hypothetical Abbott government tries to repeal it in, say, 2014, there will be plenty of businesses who have massive investments in carbon markets and will campaign strongly against its abolition."
and other such mantras. Don't get me wrong. I want to address climate change but this policy has become a battle to win a round of parliament rather that a battle to address climate change. Zealous mouthpieces on either side produce polarized opinion pieces that brook no argument and if anyone should dare to express doubt they are browbeaten into apparent submission. Such as occurred right here. I am glad you feel you have won Ben, perhaps now you can be more temperate and consider that the future might not unfold quite so well for the carbon price as its advocates would ahve us believe.
harry :
14 Oct 2011 5:24:29pm
I've got to admit this blog post ranks as one of most facile things I've ever read.
Looking at the "salient" points:
"Make no mistake: this is a serious and long-lasting reform that will be very difficult for the Coalition to undo, even if it were to control the Senate in the next parliament."Yes, that's true. Labor and The Greens have deliberately structured this policy to inflict them maximum financial liability to any future Australian government should it need to change this policy. The inclusion of property rights on carbon credits means that all Australians have incurred a debt that will be difficult to avoid, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
It shows the utter contempt for democracy that The Greens and Labor have. Any sane person would protest at such actions by governments, but Ben cheers them."The inexorable logic of capitalism itself means that Australia's carbon markets, once established, are likely to flourish. "
The Chicago Carbon Exchange, touted to be the world's biggest closed through lack of interest. The European Carbon exchange has seen the price of carbon fall steeply and the amount of trading decline. Yet despite the huge size of the economies behind them, Ben thinks ours will turn out sweetly."Even in the short to medium term, speculators, merchant banks and more far-sighted investors will begin to invest in tree farms and more complicated carbon derivatives."
Yeah Ben, speculators and derivatives. They've never ever caused problems before."In fact, the effect of the carbon price will be so small that most of us won't even notice it, even on our electricity bills."
Actually Ben, even the government concedes the rise will be 10%.
I tend to notice rises of 10%. Strangely Ben can't."economic growth will be only 0.1% a year less"
So in 40 years time(2050), our economy will be 4% smaller. In todays terms that's around $50B. Or to put it into the modern context. We could build an infrastructure project the size of 1.5 NBNs every year if we didn't do this."Big aluminium smelters and coal-fired power plants may indeed struggle."
Yeah, it's not like we use aluminium. Lucky we'll still be sending bauxite and coal to China. Tell us exactly how that helps the environment Ben?
The same amount of Aluminium being made, just overseas using our resources. So less jobs for Australia, but the same amount of coal being burned."But the small local butchers or newsagents that Tony Abbott loves to stage his media appearances in will be fine."
Retailers don't produce anything Ben.
wm :
14 Oct 2011 5:16:32pm
booohooohooo say the partisan sore losers. You sure did lose. I guess money can't buy you everything.
Congratulations to the Gillard gov for standing up to these bullies. This is what conviction politics is all about.....and on the losing side we have Abbott, with the backing of the entire media and all big business, has lost the fight. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Almost as pathetic as his loss of the last unlosable election. lol.
scotty :
14 Oct 2011 5:15:01pm
"Tell me, seriously: do you really understand why your electricity bill is going up anyway? (If you answered "investment by electricity generators in transmission infrastructure", go to the top of the class)."
Well you can go to the bottom of the class Ben - the reason for 50% of the increases is investment in *distribution* infrastructure.
If you're going to try and make yourself seem more intelligent by being condescending, at least get it right!
"Make no mistake: this is a serious and long-lasting reform that will be very difficult for the Coalition to undo, even if it were to control the Senate in the next parliament."
Dunno what legal planet you are on, but repealing a piece of legislation with control of both houses is a piece of cake - you write the Act and both of your majorities pass it - where's the problem?
"Now is a good time to revisit the arguments made against pricing carbon by the big end of town. All of them are motivated by self-interest, of the more unenlightened kind."
Its a complete falacy that this was somehow cooked up by big business - ordinary people (80%+ of which voted for parties promising NOT to price carbon) think paying $11b a year for something that does nothing for the environment is an utterly awful deal!!
peter of mitcham :
14 Oct 2011 5:12:58pm
Yeah Ben this is so way over the top. Totally ungracious and unnecessary.
Mike :
14 Oct 2011 5:12:42pm
No Ben, the businesses have not lost, they will just implement Plan B, which was to relocate operations to China.
rob alan :
14 Oct 2011 5:12:42pm
Excellent, now can we get back to sorting out the ever growing pollution problem of nation has. IE: That stuff west side of Sydney Harbor Union Carbide left behind or those open and abandoned asbestos mines blowing in the summer winds east mid north SA. No? I thought not.
Distractions continue....
J.G.Cole :
14 Oct 2011 5:10:59pm
Well Done Ben Eltham, good to have you back.
oh, thanks for that final line.......we shall raise a glass to you this evening!
Anthony Hobley :
14 Oct 2011 5:00:01pm
Hi Ben, Agree with a lot fow aht you say. But to paint all of Australian business with the same brush is wrong. many businesses were actively arguing for a price on carbon see www.b4ce.com.au
I travel regularly between the UK and Australia and the contrast on this issue could not be more stark. Check out the climate change web site of the UKs peak body for business and industry, the COndederation of British Industry (CBI).
Kim :
14 Oct 2011 4:52:50pm
Thanks for a great article Ben. Given the degree of self-interested opposition to this important reform, I don't think there's any harm in drawing some satisfaction that our PM has managed, in a minority government, to get it through the lower house. That the opposition were unable (despite all their scaremongering) to talk any of the cross-benchers around says volumes about their lack of vision and overall credibility.
Antonia :
14 Oct 2011 4:51:22pm
Ben, if that ignorant tosh is the best you can come up with I pity you. The only carbon markets flourishing are the scams. My hairdresser knows more about the realities of economic life than you do. But then she's a businesswoman. They don't get paid by the government.
John the Veteran :
14 Oct 2011 4:48:40pm
Ben, Irrespective of our views on the Carbon Tax debate, and there are many, this dramatic decision is hardly a 'democratic' one.
Whilst the debate was going on, ALL members of Parliament, ie, Gov't, Opposition & Independent, were instructed to survey their own electorate and get a sense of what the electorate was feeling about this. So far, this was a very good instruction.
But, when it came to the vote, any opinion the electorate may have had was very quickly swept under the carpet and forgotten. ALL Government members were ordered to vote according to the Caucus decision, and the Opposition were also instructed to vote according to their party rule.Just think, of all the electorates held by the opposition, how many of those may have been sympathetic toward the Bill? Then again, of all the electorates held by Government members, how many of those may have been opposed to the Bill?
We may never know. As this Bill was such a divisive one in the community, this was one Bill which should have been a conscience vote. Every Member of Parliament should have voted according to the reaction he/she received in his/her own electorate.
To this day, I still believe that the ALP's authoritan hold over its members is a violation against the Constitution. I know that if I were in the House, every vote I made would be in the best interests of my electorate and ON ONE would have the power to order me to do otherwise.
The crowd - 'Decocracy is Dead' may have been rowdy and disruptive, but I think they may have had a point.
Kind Regards,
John.
J.G.Cole :
14 Oct 2011 5:15:19pm
John, with all due respect your suggestion is not only improbable, it is also, and more worrying, febrile and dangerous.
the call to the community on issues of import will leave democracy crippled and at the mercy of malevolent voices.
RON :
14 Oct 2011 5:21:02pm
Gee, I had to wait a full election term to have my chance to send the Howard Government my democratic message in a ballot box about WorkChoices, as apparently most voting Australians did. Where were you and Abbott's ageing brown shirts with their chanting then. As for your knowledge of the Constitution I suggest you read up some more. We have a legitimately elected Parliament successfully passing legislation. Live with it until the next election.
Neil :
14 Oct 2011 4:45:19pm
What evidence to you have that the carbon tax will solve the problem? A scheme devised by the same economists who brought us the GFC.
I want a solution, a real solution!
What astounds me about you leftists, is that you're always going on about the evils of capatilism, and certain services should be owned by the public, and now that we have one of the greatest problems to solve, you want to leave it to the markets! Stupidity!
I have little faith or confidence that this scheme will work, but it gives people like you the warm and fuzzies. I don't think we should be burying our head in the sand as you propose Ben.
the horse :
14 Oct 2011 4:44:39pm
not all business has been fighting the carbon tax. some believe that we have to change our ways to fix the climate and the opposition for opposition is cr!p
Steve :
14 Oct 2011 4:38:43pm
I am used to reading some fairly left of politics articles on drum and I soemtimes agree and sometimes disagree, bt this one is intolerable. Pointing the finger at business and saying "we won we won" (pretty much). Total contempt for business , just a bunch of money hungry self interested corporations. Here it is Ben, without business there is no employment therefore no taxes (no corporate or income or carbon tax for that matter). Without tax there is no money for government to run education to ensure people like you can be " a writer, journalist, researcher and creative producer from Melbourne, Australia" Instead you are in a third world country eating off the street rather than writing smart alec articles.
murk :
14 Oct 2011 5:09:43pm
indeed - no social system that allows artists, creators and pretenders to bring in an income without earning it ie. working.
Shane Guevara. :
14 Oct 2011 5:10:47pm
"... without business there is no employment therefore no taxes..."
There is a sad truth in your logic, but it misses the point that business is not "in the business" of either employment or paying taxes.
Business is about maximising profit. It does not employ people out of compassion for human survival and has many tools in the box to minimise tax; the most destructive is off-shore tax havens.
But the real difference which seem to have missed is that business, which has zero responsibility to the country of its operations, clubs together in Chamber's of Commerce to influence government opinion and can pay for an opinion piece any time they wish to push their own agenda.
In the case it is the carbon price. Business would happily see the future burn in the same way as they continued to trade with Japan right up to the beginning of WW11.
J.G.Cole :
14 Oct 2011 5:18:01pm
Steve, people first. corporate, second.
Orly :
14 Oct 2011 4:37:20pm
You don't get it, Eltham.
The government broke a promise. It has introduced a tax the people don't want. It has destroyed the Labor party's credibility in the process. By doing so, they may have destroyed any chance of re-election they had.
And when the shoe is on the other foot, their law will be ripped up. And woe be to the Greens, if they try to play "hostile senate" to keep a tax the general public doesn't want.
Australia could disappear down a pit tomorrow. The effect on global emissions would be next to nothing. And the public is well aware of that fact. So are you, though you'd never go so far as to admit it.
The only real smile here is Bob Brown's and the greens, the grin of a fox satisfied at getting into the hen house.
Labor will probably be wiped out at the polls next election because of this. But the Greens will still think it was worth it, being the troublemakers they are.
Simoc :
14 Oct 2011 5:10:14pm
It seems you don't get it Orly. ALP broke square in the election and Gillard easily outmanoevered the slow and cumbersome Abbott post election. No ALP voter would be worried about the Carbon Tax. It will certainly be better for business than the GST was. You're obviously a poll junkie and gullible to media spin.
Basically business people will be prodded to change and the intelligent ones already have.
Overhead :
14 Oct 2011 5:11:52pm
"The government broke a promise. It has introduced a tax the people don't want."
Orly, I,ll refer you to a couple of current polls conducted on line.
1.Here at "Auntie" a poll has just closed asking
"Does the Gillard Government have a mandate to introduce its Clean Energy Legislation?"
Result; Yes 59% No 41%. Over 3000 votes.
2. National Times poll asks
" Should Tony Abbott repeal the Carbon Tax if he is elected P.M.?"
Current result: Yes 36% No 64%. Over 5000 votes.
Is the pendulum swinging?
Jesmond05 :
14 Oct 2011 5:12:48pm
The government didn't break a promise. This is not a tax. It is a charge for something which was previously free: the right to pollute. After a fixed price period it will move to a full ETS. Also, the Greens have the right to participate in the Australian electoral system just as much as anyone else. The reason they have political influence is because people voted for them. I think more people will vote for them at the next election because they have integrity and, unlike people on the extreme right, put forward policies that benefit the whole community. If the Australian people had wanted a Coalition government at the last election they would have voted for it. You lost. Get over it.
munrohull :
14 Oct 2011 4:36:16pm
Great article as usual Ben. The carbon polluters' apologists were quick to jump in and denigrate your piece. These are yesterday's people. You speak for those of us who care about tomorrow and less about a fast buck. Keep up the good work and the intelligent analysis.
realsa :
14 Oct 2011 4:30:30pm
this will be remembered as a victory for fear based propaganda.
the government even has the audacity to accuse the opposition of stoking the fear when it is Labor/Greens and their various lobby groups backed by international banker billions that have been stoking the fear about the world ending for the past decade or so if we dont tax air.
GraemeF :
14 Oct 2011 4:30:30pm
Time to get the corporations out of politics and give democracy back to the people. No donations unless your name is on the electoral roll and no political advertisments from vested interest groups, especially ones that are only slightly aquainted with the truth. The big business unions have too much say. One person one vote not $1 one vote.
Gerd :
14 Oct 2011 4:30:03pm
Yes, Ben, you're right: The business lobby will fall off very soon - after all, they say that the world is flat, and they are on the precipice...
Instead, far more importance should be attached to a group which seems to have largely been forgotten, and part of the electorate that will win or lose the next election: The MAJORITY of Australians do believe that the government needs to consider policies that are good for the environment (forget about issues like carbon tax and ETS for a minute). And it seems that this government HAS done something for the environment, at last (the Greens and Independents made sure of it...). I am sure that the 'swinging voters' amongst this group will swing the next election the present coalition government's way, and no ranting, and no "kicking and screaming" from the conservative side will be able to prevent that.
These people (me included)are not only concerned about the environment, they want sustainable industries, clean and renewable energy, and do not like the vile pollution in many of our industrial areas around which people have to live. And this government is finally doing something substantial for the environment!
To quote my case: Although having been close to voting for the present PM, I did NOT vote Labor, partly BECAUSE Julia Gillard, before the last election, said there would be no ‘carbon tax’ – I, for one, was looking for something ‘cleaner’.
Therefore, now that the ‘Carbon Tax’ has been passed through parliament, I am very pleased that the PM, because of the coalition arrangements with the Greens and the Independents, had to overturn her earlier statement, and that the government is able to pursue the pollution reduction scheme, eventually leading to an ETS, and, thereby, doing good "for the environment"!. (I will probably vote for one of these people next time around.)
It was amazing to have seen the performance of these far-sighted and determined people!
(By the way, 'the lie' means much less to me than to some: We all know that ALL (ok - nearly all) politicians of ALL parties ‘lie’ – because they want power, because they want to become elected, because they have to follow party lines, because they need to be seen with the right ‘crowd’, because they want some media to portray them positively, because many of them are lawyers and can turn words ‘inside out’, because…etc.)
Ford :
14 Oct 2011 4:46:31pm
It's equally likely they'll continue their campaign, target the ALP in marginal seats (all of them given their current polling) usher in a compliant Coalition Government under Abbott and then we can all sit back and watch as the chaos of trying to unravel the legislation paralyses another Australian Government for another term.
We thought the release of the 'detail' would settle the debate...it has simply inflamed it further.
This issue will continue to play...every job loss, every interest rate change, every dip in shares...will be sheeted home to the Carbon Tax.
Your claim that you didn't vote labor rings hollow given your embarassingly slavish adherence and repetition of lines from the ALP hack sheet.
I didn't vote Labor...and as long as Gillard remains I never will again...which has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand.
John51 :
14 Oct 2011 4:28:36pm
Ben the only thing I would disagree with your article is to put the Business Lobby into one group. There will be businesses that see this as an advantage or oportunity and others who simply see it as a cost.
The opposition to putting a price on carbon which will after three years transition into a market price has been a weird sort of argument. Industry has been in a constant change; a constant state of transition, since day dot of the industrial revolution if not the agrarian revolution. Yes there have been losers, but the nature of the economy and the market system has meant that there have always been many more winners.
In any economic transition some industries are lost, but in their place there have been many more created, and many of them out of the old industries. This will be the case with the transition to a low carbon economy. Yet many in business, the supposedly supporters of the market system, have fought tooth and nail against it. Instead of realising the advantage of moving early they have been reluctant and dragging their feet with many of them kicking and screaming. Maybe it is time some of them took the time to look at the ones who are going for it and stop wasting time and being left behind.
j.t :
14 Oct 2011 4:28:34pm
I have copied this piece of work, if Abbott wins the next election and repeals the tax I will be writing and posting a piece:
Sniff this, Ben Eltham: the odourless whiff of defeat
Lindsay :
14 Oct 2011 5:08:36pm
The next election is not due till the end of 2013. If Abbott won it would take him some months to get new legislation ready to put before the parliament. At best it would be halfway through the year. Then it would be rejected. It would take till the end of the year before he could call a double dissolution. If the won that election it would be late 2014 or early 2015. By then the cost of repealing anything would run into billions. There would be little support for such an action.
lopati :
14 Oct 2011 4:27:46pm
"For most industries, energy is a minor cost."
Umm, tell that to pretty much our entire heavy industry, steel, aluminium, even auto manufacturing which is barely holding on (including all the manufacturers right down to the companies that make the nuts and bolts).
Remember for each "dirty" industry that chooses to leave, it's not just that company, but all of it's suppliers that will be hurt too.
Heck the other day there was an article about flower growers saying they will most likely start importing rather than produce product here. Who would have thought the even the beautiful clean and seemingly green (who could accuse a pretty plant of being dirty) flowers for their daughters wedding grown in countries where they don't have carbon tax and then carried here on exhaust emitting planes - pound for pound the worst emitters in the world. Think of the flower pickers living just out of town no longer employed (- or if they do get a job it'll mean driving into the city.)
Nice win mate. Not!
Id :
14 Oct 2011 5:07:18pm
All these dreadful things have happened already have they?
Very like the anti fluoride lot around the Geelong area.
They predicted all sorts of disasters.Now that nearly two years has past since fluoridation with absolutely no reports of health problems resulting, scarcely a word from them. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, so they are obliged to shut up.
Ring any bells?
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 5:21:07pm
This is why emissions intensive trade exposed industries (like aluminium, steel and more) are eligible for free permits, starting (for most activities) at 94.5% of their average liability. And if they reduce their emissions without reducing production, the compensation doesn't shrink - a pretty good incentive to make cost-effective emissions cuts. They could make money, not lose it, fairly easily.
As for flowers - if the industry is as strongly affected as you say, it will also be eligible for free permits.
GP :
14 Oct 2011 4:26:53pm
The business lobby can use the same logic for child labour. It is still prevalent in other countries ,so why should we ban it.If the business lobbies cooperated with the govt. like they would have done while Malcom Turnbull led the Liberals they would have had the voice heard. What have they got now , shut off from decision making and while you do have many responses talking about unwinding this after the liberals get control, it will never be easy. And what good would that do , where are the liberals going to find their money for their direct action policy and the tax breaks to the punters.I presume Tony will revert to his long held position about being a climate sceptic and join the soon to be Deputy PM. Can we get a promise in blood on his direct action policy?
Aaron :
14 Oct 2011 4:23:59pm
Adam, apart from the issue of importing American political rhetoric, many of us were so disgusted by Gillard pledging to ditch an ETS that we voted Greens, causing the Greens to have their highest vote in history, including winning their first seat in the House (at a cost to Labor). The price of government for Labor was to join a coalition with the Greens, who demanded pursuit of a carbon tax. So, in what way exactly was the will of the people not expressed?
dean :
14 Oct 2011 4:23:42pm
Ben, you can write another article in 18 months time.
You can end it with
"Suck it up, Labor. You've been absolutely decimated. This is the odourless, colourless taste of defeat."I believe both parties in the past have made great reforms. Keating, Hawke and Howard all produced.
I am reserving my judgement as to what affect the carbon tax is going to have on the environment and the economy.
I am not reserving my judgement on Julia Gillard and co and how they have gone about making reform. From carbon tax to cattle exports to asylum seekers to everything they touch. Misleading and incompetent.
John Brigge :
14 Oct 2011 4:23:36pm
This piece displays a typical pinko socialist view of this issue. Sure they support a carbon tax - but it ignores the fundamental issue regarding a carbon tax - that there is no evidence it will produce 'better' outcomes (environmental, social, etc)in 30, 50, 100 or any other number of years in the future.
All it will do is to establish a basis for socialist redistribution the likes of which Australia has never seen.
Dave :
14 Oct 2011 4:21:07pm
The problem is here Ben, that as much as anyone says it THE SCIENCE IS NOT IN. Nearly every prediction by these so-called experts like Tim Flannery is wrong. "The cause" grew from a fairytale started by Al Gore for HIS own gain and was even taught as fact to our schoolchildren. Al Gore has been proven wrong, Tim Flannery's dams will never fill again is WRONG and has cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune so far with desal plants that may never be used. When you want to know how this planet evolves and climate changes naturally ask your elders because they have been here through droughts and flooding plains. No wonder the elderly are against this tax and the young who were brainwashed and frightened during their schooling are for it
Robert :
14 Oct 2011 5:22:11pm
Same old, same old from a climate change denier. Sorry every statement you make about the science and the articles is wrong. The science is IN and published in hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals from the 20000 scientists who are doing the work right now around the world. The handful of pseudo scientists who dont want to accept the scientific peer review process are worshipped by the deniers and proliferate the rubbish. If you actually properly read the real science and that put forward for the lay public by scientists such as Tim Falnnery you wouldnt make up this rubbish yourself.
Tricia :
14 Oct 2011 4:20:40pm
Mr Abbot is still playing for the stupid vote...and may yet do more damage...but articles like this will eventually shed light....we should all send the links to 4 friends.
MAR :
14 Oct 2011 4:14:46pm
Well Ben, lets take view from the average Aussie perspective, and stop lifting the middle finger at the business community that propabably feeds, clothes and helps educate your family.
1. The average punter (nee voter) gets inundated with both sides of the science and shouldn't be expected to really understand the detail. All you green socialists with strong opinions Ben, should let us know at what University you obtained your doctorate in geolical climate change. The rest of us will do our best with what we get, (while trying to keep our jobs, look after our families and give a little bit back to the community). SO most of us assume a neutral posture on the science.
2. The average punter (nee voter) is flooded with contrary compensation and financial impact data. One side tells us we are going to be better off (unless your in the high income group described by Labour as those earning over A$80K pa) and the other says that everything will go up and up. Again, those socialists amongst you who would claim to be on the right side of this argument, please attach a copy of your post grad economics qualification and your access point to the Treasury dept. SO most of us assume a neutral posture on the economics.
3. The one thing everyone on both sides seems to agree on is that there will be no discernable impact on global carbon pollution levels over the next century through the introducion of a carbon tax, and that all alternative energy generation methods will simply cost more and burden those punters who are still trying to feed, educate and house their kids.
So, if we take away the socialist left greens like you Ben, and the idealists who live in a world isolated from the average Aussie worker, and those self funded retiree's who care so much for their kids and grandkids whilst establishing the biggest carbon footprint of all social sectors, we end up with about 65% of the real Australian voters who think, I can't get the science or the economics, but I get the fact that nothing will improve, and I sure as hell don't want the massive Labour inspired beauracracy that will ineptly oversee all this, so don't give me the damn tax, at least right now! Maybe wait until I understand better and the worlds financial position is a little more stable. Don't you just love logic........
Chi :
14 Oct 2011 5:16:56pm
"Don't you just love logic"
Yep I often get quite swept up in it's beauty. But unless it is used to operate on facts it's a sham.
And you may well be right in that "The average punter (nee voter) gets inundated with both sides of the science and shouldn't be expected to really understand the detail" So to operate on facts maybe you should apply the KISS principle.
Looking at both sides of the scinece- on one side 99% absolutely agree global warming is real on the other side 1% disagree
-on one side in 90% agree it's AGW on the other side 10% disagree.
Then when you say "SO most of us assume a neutral posture on the science"
what you really mean is that you choose to ignore the facts.Now I'll really step out on a limb. You say "the business community that propabably feeds, clothes and helps educate your family." I think that you're giving them too much credit. We may be in a glorious capitalist phase, but isn't it driven by consumption? Isn't consumption driven by all us little knee jerk consumers?
I sometimes wonder what might be achievable if all the 'little battlers' started to think and use the real power that they have. Of course our established media does it's best to make sure that thinking never happens.
Solartations :
14 Oct 2011 4:13:19pm
Ben, fully subscribe to your viewpoint however, suggest that what is more important than the corporate lobbyists having lost is the fact that our children’s children have won! Corporate lobbyists included!
MrB :
14 Oct 2011 4:13:00pm
Did you read the part about 3/4 through this article that refers to the need for someone to start? Maybe re-read that section again....
Additionally, it needs to be understood that the key outcome of being leaders is gaining a head start over the rest of the world in developing sustainable technologies. By sustainable I do not mean low emission (seeing as there are so many unconvinced by scientific consensus, so I wont rest my argument on that contentious plank..), I mean using renewable or limitless sources for energy and materials.
This will drive industry AND government research in this area, and possibly even create a situation where our industry is not only competitive, but world leading.
So in answer to your question - 0 degrees is the answer, in and of itself. Look elsewhere for your metric of success.
Walter :
14 Oct 2011 4:10:34pm
Ben, all of your assessments seem to be based on the assumption that this carbon tax will be good for the environment. This in turn is based on future predicting climate computer models by climate scientists who derive their income and research grants by making pessimistic assumptions about the future. The more dire the prediction, the more grants to research and monitor.
I don't believe that the science will eventually show that the dire predictions were warranted.As for the carbon credit market, two things. Firstly, we do not need a carbon tax to tap into the carbon market. Most businesses will buy their credits offshore, so those who wish to tap into this overseas market to sell credits are already free to do so. Secondly, this is a derivative market and already has been corrupted, and will continue to be corrupted on a major scale. One day soon, if not already, the mafia and drug cartels will discover they can make more money out of selling corrupted carbon credits than they can out of drugs and crime.
In perhaps 5 or 10 years time, pure people like you will discover that you were plainly just wrong. Good hearted perhaps, but just wrong.
Dom :
14 Oct 2011 4:53:18pm
Ben, science isn't something that you believe or not. And you don't get to vote on it. But then, you drive cars and use medicine, so I think you know that, really don't you?
Dom :
14 Oct 2011 4:55:25pm
Walter, science is not something you believe in or not, or something you vote on. But then, you drive cars and use medicine, so i think you know that, don't you?
Cap'n :
14 Oct 2011 5:02:37pm
There is an office door where I work that has a cartoon stuck to it. The cartoon shows a conference with a big "Climate Summit" banner. Behind the podium is a large projection which says:
"Healthy environment
Forest preservation
Renewable energy
Sustainable business
Clean Air
Healthy Children
etc etc"
At the back of the room are two people talking, one saying to the other "What if it's all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"It is people like you, Walter, that need to understand some of what that cartoon is getting at.
Luke Weyland :
14 Oct 2011 4:09:09pm
Government needs to use other means than simply to apply a minor tax to a few major poluters. A
tax which will be replaced by a carbon stock exchange. It needs to directly invest in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, as well as promoting more efficient means by which energy can be used.
Annie from Mackay :
14 Oct 2011 4:08:46pm
Absolutely correct. Finally the voice of educated reason in this debate. If only more Australians would find the facts for themselves instead of listening to the ill informed or those with vested interests in huge profits. Thank you for a clear, concise and accutare story
Bighead1883 :
14 Oct 2011 4:04:12pm
Ben it`s here so lets own it.This is an ALP/Greens/Independents initiative passed by the Lower House and no doubt to be passed in the Senate.This is not a Corporate initiative so this has to remain a product of the Australian People.Previous MIS have encroached into the private market place as in fruit orchards etc and buggered up the hard work done by private growers.This Carbon Tax now allows for massive Bluegum plantations/Pine plantations etc managed by government forestry and investment made for this by Super Funds.Products in future can be sold at auction globally.This is one cash cow the Government must keep as it`s being done with the blessing of the Australian Public.This is but one of the great benefits of the Carbon Tax and will no doubt lead to many more.I can see a great workforce created from this which in turn will only benefit all Australians.If the stock exchanges of the world own it it will be nothing more than a con job with more of the same as has been in the past.The Capitalists cannot be trusted with this full stop.
Hugo Furst :
14 Oct 2011 4:51:44pm
Great. Already large areas of natural (unprofitable but good for carbon and nature) bushland is being cleared to make way for plantations of seedlings which will take some time before they provide the equivalent carbon and never the biodiversity. What did eucalypt plantations contribute to the Victorian fires?
If the government paid landowners(even urban ones) to KEEP trees rather than just to plant them, Australia would be cooler, shadier and contribute less to global warming. It seems logical to me that the more you clear away the shade the hotter the land surface becomes. Every tree gone = more land exposed to the baking sun = raised surface temperature (= an airconditioner)
Donald Oats :
14 Oct 2011 4:02:05pm
Strangely enough, some of the very same people who mocked and derided the "climate change alarmists" for catastrophism, are also the ones now claiming that a carbon tax will perish the economy, as catastrophic claim as any.
Australians are in more immediate danger to financial shocks (eg like the GFC Mk I) than they are of carbon tax catastrophe. I'm confident we'll be fine once a carbon tax is in place. External financial shocks are a bigger concern, by any measure.
Dean McAskil :
14 Oct 2011 4:01:20pm
It is a sad time for this country when we see childish and naive opinions like that in the article above taken seriously in public policy debate. It is of course no surprise when there are clearly no adults in charge anywhere in Canberra.
darthseditious :
14 Oct 2011 4:55:40pm
Naive and childish. Hah! The only ones being childish were the Australian Business Lobbies and Mr "I'm gonna hava tantrum" Abbott and his coalition.
Lindsay :
14 Oct 2011 5:17:38pm
Dean you are not suggesting Abbott is proposing anything of substance are you? Come on. He has campaigned in the past for a price to be put on Carbon. Every Liberal leader over the past 30 years has also campaigned on putting a price on Carbon. Abbott is even now aiming for the same level of carbon reduction as the government is. Obviously you have not been following the debate and have missed the reality of what is going on.
Robert2 :
14 Oct 2011 3:59:31pm
A memorable and pride filled day for all Australians.
The team of thinking stalwarts who have guided this legislation through, irrespective of the negativity and propaganda, deserve to be acclaimed for their altruism and devotion to our nation.
Not very often can we be proud of the behaviour of many of our elected representatives but this week, on Wednesday a majority of the few did grand work for our future generations. To use the words of another from years gone by, "GREAT WORKS".
Dave :
14 Oct 2011 4:40:53pm
How is this great team going to feel in 2 years time when it is dismantled like Nauru? Actually we are only a heart attack away from another election, so lets hope for a quick election to get rid of this nonsense. I would also like a dollar for every time I have heard Gillard blames Abbott. Can we please get Bill Shorten to lead the ALP. He is the ONLY ALP MP who doesnt blame Tony Abbott for everything that goes wrong. I am sick of this lot who keep bleeting about Abbott and his "negativity" when they dont have an answer to the question put to them. Bill Shorten is the only one in ythe government who attempts to answer questions without using spin and deception so make him PM. It would be appropriate to have BS as head of this alliance
Davo :
14 Oct 2011 4:41:52pm
hear hear
Gerd :
14 Oct 2011 4:49:09pm
Hear, hear! Well said!
eddie :
14 Oct 2011 3:56:50pm
What an incredible load of crap!
Stuart :
14 Oct 2011 3:53:20pm
"Setting an example might even convince our flatmates to lend a hand." Naive idealism. On the contrary, self interest will rule. Why would China, India, Brazil and Russia suddenly get an attack of guilt because a country with 0.3% of global population, zero international influence outside of our region and almost no economic clout decides it's time to wash 1.5% of the total dishes in the sink; and even then only wash 5% of that 1.5% (0.075 of the total dishes). OK, so we have the moral high ground but it won't save the planet. Not now; not ever.
Craig :
14 Oct 2011 4:24:52pm
Ahem.
China and parts of India already have carbon trading. China is making very big strides towards a clean economy. This doesn't mean they don't and won't still rely on coal for a long time to come, however they have much stronger targets than Australia.
Brazil has done a great deal of work in this area already, particularly with fuel replacement.
Russia, well, can't win them all. However as Russia finds that it's neighbors are getting more competitive it will have to shape up or collapse again. I'd put odds on a collapse, but you never know.
Andy :
14 Oct 2011 4:45:56pm
You know what? it MIGHT help. and I for one am happy that someone is finally TRYING something instead of just talking about it.
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 4:51:56pm
Wow! You sure sound proud to be Australian! What a ringing declaration of the pluck and self-confidence that made this country great!
Seriously, there is a sensible middle ground between the caricatures of Australia as Zipsville and Australia as Shining Light Unto The Nations. We're not in a position to force anyone to do anything, but we're far from insignificant. As a wealthy, dirty, active country, the highest per-capita emitter in the rich world and 14th-or-15th in absolute terms, we get a reasonable amount of attention, play an outsized role in the global negotiations, and are a necessary (but not determinative) part of the global solution. Perspective!
schneids :
14 Oct 2011 5:22:55pm
Yes, the same sort of naive idealism that made New Zealand the first country in the world to give women the vote in 1893. No other country took the slightest bit of notice of that move from that tiny little nation in the Pacific, did they?
DaveB :
14 Oct 2011 5:23:24pm
My, my god. You're right. Why didn't I realise this before.
Why should we bother trying to do anyhting if nobody else is. If nobody else is willing to put int he hard yards then why should we.
There is of course the little problem that the predicted 4C increase in temperature within a few hundred years will make human civilisation nearly unworkable due to the extreme weather events and shortage of food water and resulting mass migrations and armed conflict that will result from doing nothing. But hey - if nobody else is then why should we, eh?
Adam :
14 Oct 2011 3:51:53pm
'Suck it up, corporate lobbyists. You lost. This is the odourless, colourless taste of defeat.'
No Ben, democracy lost. The Government should have had the courage of its convictions and explained to the public this was their plan. A minority government is not a sufficient excuse for betraying and backstabbing the electorate. I'm happy to pay any tax if I have had the chance to vote for it. Even if I lost that election I would accept the verdict of the majority of Australia. 'No taxation without representation' - Ring any bells?
hugh mungus :
14 Oct 2011 4:16:01pm
So when more than 50% of the elctorate voted against the GST, but we still got it, you wre happy with that?
Craig :
14 Oct 2011 4:29:44pm
So how many taxes did you get to vote on?
Income tax, company, stamp duties, etc, etc, etc.
Governments cannot rely on populations voting for taxes, or carbon pricing ahead of an ETS.
A government is there to provide public goods - defense, infrastructure and clean air and water. It levies economic activity to deliver these goals.
As a populace we get a say in what we want government to provide us, but we don't get to vote on how they go about paying for it.
(oh and regarding the GST, while you may think that Australians voted to give a mandate for it, remember that people vote for all kinds of reasons. When a government gains power it has a mandate to carry out it's policy platform and amend it as needed to suit the times - regardless of whether Australians granted them 'a mandate,' to do or not do anything.
Ford :
14 Oct 2011 4:52:27pm
Howard didn't actually win the popular vote.
It's sad though that you feel the need to attack the concept of a mandate to support Gillard, and even sadder that you can only point to Coalition failings to support her laughably inept 'leadership'.
Part of the reason for the ALP failing has been the "but they did it first!" excuse they trot out everytime they're caught doing something shifty.
If I wanted to vote for a shift, dishonest party I'd vote Liberal, having the ALP campaign slogan being "We did it but the Liberals did it first" doesn't inspire me as much as it evidently inspires you.
You clearly don't understand the word levy, nor do you understand what economic activity is nor, it appears, the role of Government.
Great job mate, you've really added to the debate.
Davo :
14 Oct 2011 4:41:23pm
the job of a government is not to simply do what the people want them to do, it's to do what the people need them to do.
most people don't want to pay tax, yet we need people to pay tax
a lot of people don't want to be told where they can smoke, how fast they can drive or plenty of other things, but our society needs laws to provide structure and boundaries to our behavior
20 years ago, a lot of people didn't want compulsory superannuation, but we needed it, still need it, and most people would agree that we need it
today, or rather 20 years ago, we need to take action on climate change
20 years from now, we'll either be praised for finally taking action, or condemned for doing too little too late
Adam :
14 Oct 2011 5:21:32pm
'the job of a government is not to simply do what the people want them to do, it's to do what the people need them to do.'
That is a very dangerous thing to say, and many governments in the past have used such rhetoric to justify their actions. The WA Government implemented the Aboriginal Act in 1905 to govern Aboriginal people for 'their own good'. Legislation that was so blatantly racist the South African Apartheid regime used it as a template in their own country. I don't want to invoke Godwin's law unnecessarily but there is a famous european example that used the same line too.
Rusty :
14 Oct 2011 4:45:37pm
Adam,
you are correct, Australia has lost.
What these fools don't understand is that we NOW have a bunch of Carbon Tax/ETS/Environmentalist Corporate Lobbyists/Consultants/Scammers/Schemers/Swindlers/Market Manipulators etc...fortunes will be made out of this smoke and mirrors or rather carbon haze...and we the Australian taxpayers and consumers will once agin pay for these stupid ideologues...
Lindsay :
14 Oct 2011 5:21:32pm
Adam, there has not been an election for decades were a price on carbon has not been on the agenda, Unless you did not vote, you have voted for putting a price on carbon no matter which of the major parties you have voted for.
Disgusted :
14 Oct 2011 3:51:28pm
"In fact, the effect of the carbon price will be so small that most of us won't even notice it, even on our electricity bills."
Says who? Even by the government's own calculations the carbon price will cost me hundreds of dollars a year with no compensation. 'Creative producers' should stick to their yuppie coffee houses in inner-city Melbourne and stop lecturing everyday Australians on issues they know nothing about.
Duncan :
14 Oct 2011 3:51:19pm
80% voted for parties that promised not to introduce a carbon tax. Nothing has changed, and a majority still don't want it. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the difficulty in undoing it is a virtue?
You also characterise objection to the tax solution as a refusal to listen to dispassionate advice. Isn't it possible that there are other solutions? Like nuclear power? Like hydroelectricity? Like admitting that China is no more likely to stop building a new coal power station every week if we set an example than it is to convert suddenly to a democracy because of our existing example?
Tax isn't the answer. Adaptation is.
Schnappi :
14 Oct 2011 4:41:23pm
Never gave the carbon tax a thought,except it was a hot day when I voted,no way was I voting for a fake who runs around in hard hats for show,showed me how shallow he is,and his policies sucked.
Davo :
14 Oct 2011 4:44:16pm
the entire point of the carbon price is adaptation, giving big business an incentive to adapt. if they don't generate carbon pollution, they won't pay the price, it's as simple as that, and this price is the cheapest and most efficient way of bringing about said adaptation
Andy :
14 Oct 2011 4:47:18pm
the idea of the Carbon Price is to force adaptation
john byatt :
14 Oct 2011 3:51:11pm
Now this is something New
A researcher that engages with research before he leaps into print
A joy to behold Ben
rgds JB
murk :
14 Oct 2011 4:39:17pm
so it may be but the result is still rubbish.
There is only one way to influence the world - that is to stop selling them coal. Every one knows it bit it is still the elephant in the room.
There is another way - produce our power with clean, safe uranium - and sell uranium to the world so they stop using coal.
NO BRAINER really, but what else would you expect from this incompetent govt. - nuthhin' !
Eric :
14 Oct 2011 3:48:41pm
I invite you to come with me and we will take a tour of Qld and I will show you 1st hand how much black coal will be dug up and exported overseas (I work in the mining industry up here and know the geography of the state). If you think, for one minute, enough energy will come from your 'alternative/ green' sources to replace coal fired electricity then you are seriously delusional. Furthermore, this tax the Govt wants to introduce will have ZERO impact on the world's climate. So tell me oh clever one - what is the point of all this tax when China alone will emit in less than one month all the supposed carbon dioxide emissions this tax will, apparently, reduce?
Kate :
14 Oct 2011 4:20:30pm
When the businesses go bust or downsize their operations in Australia and the government loses out on all the lovely taxes that they like to collect from these businesses it will mean that government purse strings will need to be tightened. The first things on the chopping board will be the arts. Fingers crossed all the creative, namby pamby greenies will lose their precious government funding and will have to go out and find real jobs. Suck it up greenies cause your useless arts and environmental energy research failures will be scrapped.
murk :
14 Oct 2011 4:42:23pm
you speak of that elephant that the watermelons think is a little white mouse.
I spent a lot of time in Nthn NSW at the time the green movement was getting popular. To this day I am still an environmentalist and I will still have nothing to do with those brainless greenies.
Davo :
14 Oct 2011 4:46:15pm
well considering that coal is a finite resource, the 'alternative/green' energy sources you refer to will one day have to provide enough energy to replace coal. now would you rather that we get working on that now while there's still decades worth of coal in the ground, or later when there's no coal left and half the country is underwater?
custard :
14 Oct 2011 3:48:30pm
And with a bit of luck this silly tax will be repealled when this inept government gets rolled at the next election. Imagine the taste then? Sweet.
davies :
14 Oct 2011 3:46:00pm
The biggest problem I have with socialists is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles.
The carbon tax will effect anything that requires energy to produce, energy to distribute, energy to store, and energy to use. It taxes the biggest natural advantage Australia has over most of the world, namely cheap energy.
And you try to tell me, through Treasury modelling which they refuse to release, that even at the "high price scenario" of $275 per tonne by 2050 that economic growth will only be 0.1% a year less.
Utter rubbish.
I notice you don't mention that this policy is supposed to reduce emissions by 160M tonnes. Interesting because that is the main reason for imposing this tax.
I am wondering, is the reason for this is that 94M tonnes of the 160M tonnes will come from international carbon offsets.
Apart from the very real threat that this will attract international crime syndicates and scammers (as has happened in Europe), international carbon offsets means a village in a third world country will forego modernising its own energy needs to get cash for an offset so a large company in Australia can keep producing carbon dioxide here. Other 'colonial' examples are locals being kicked off land they have been living on for generations so some carbon offset company can plant trees.
But this aspect of the carbon tax is best ignored since it doesnt sit too well with your anti-capitalist slant.
Rusty :
14 Oct 2011 4:50:03pm
Davies,
Spot on.
I am actually thinking of ceasing to mow my lawns or prune my trees so that I can get a Carbon Credit and then sell it to the Australian government...same theory as all the rest of the scammers, isn't it ?
Making money doing nothing seems like a good idea to me, then why not to the crooks in China, India, etc...and when they "sell" the Carbon Credit and get paid then what is to stop them cutting down the trees or selling the land to someone else who is not bound to maintain the land in its pristine state ? It is just a joke...
Andy :
14 Oct 2011 4:53:43pm
there is a negative aspect to almost any new policy. to reject every policy in hope for one day finding a perfect solution for climate change is naive. this is the first real step in a 10 000 mile journey
Drunken Sailor :
14 Oct 2011 3:45:56pm
Why is it that the left always feel the need to sneer and get personnal about its percieved opponents when ever it has a victory. Business doesn't want a carbon tax because it has analysed it and concluded that it is bad for business and ultimately bad for the country. So why the ungrateful and poor gloating.
JohnnoH :
14 Oct 2011 4:09:18pm
The the right winged whackos don't gloat when they have win? It is the nature of both beasts. Besides there is no left in Australian politics, it is only that some parties are not as far right as others. I'm centre-left, Christian and care about people more than money and that makes me an enemy of capitalism.
kali :
14 Oct 2011 4:30:30pm
Slavery was bad for business too, but that didn't make it right to continue with it.I am sure there were many slave owners at the time who came up with all sorts of arguments to defend the retention of slavery.
As we hear often from business leaders, change is difficult, but that is not a reason to not take action when it is clear that it is in the best long term intersts of our nation and the planet.
Marilyn Shepherd :
14 Oct 2011 3:45:46pm
I worked for a democrat senator when the CFC debate was on, the business lobby and the liberals whined endlessly abuot the sky falling in.
The law changed and far from the sky falling it started to heal.
RichoPerth :
14 Oct 2011 3:45:02pm
Victory indeed, for the banks, hedge funds and other gambling parasites of the casino capitalism industry who look forward to making money on a new carbon derivatives market. The useful idiots from the green movement are cheering on the finance capitalists that they profess to oppose. Wall Street bonuses are on the right side of history.
kkvAUS :
14 Oct 2011 4:15:29pm
Agreed.
Market pricing introduces a new way for suits to make money, and it introduces a whole new range of uncertainties likely to dull investment security, and therefore investment itself.
GC :
14 Oct 2011 4:38:57pm
Got that right Richo.
The casino capitalist spruikers in the Green and Labor parties know this to be the case and have now handed at least 5% of Australian GDP yearly to their mates in the global offshore banks and hedge funds who funded them. You have to ask, is this where they will be working when they leave Canberra after the next election. I'd guess it might well be as "consultants" to those same hedge funds and banks? And they expect the rest of us to think that business will be worse off under the carbon tax. What a crock!
Business will pass on the costs to the end users. Us! The average punter!Tell you what Ben. Your party(s) will need to up the carbon tax by a few 100% to pay for all the unemployment coming down the pipe. And after Australia reaches your idea of nirvana, and doesn't emit the "toxic gas" (also known as plant food) anymore and we don't have jobs because they have all gone offshore (e.g manufacturing, mining, farming), and the carbon tax raises zero, then what/who will pay for all the handouts? Hadn't thought of that one have you.
Do you seriously think high tech companies will open here in Oz, when they can open in Singapore, Eastern Europe, China and India and not be subject to crazy taxation policies?When all the coal miners, manufacturing workers and farmers lose their jobs and farms, I'm sure you can pay their dole checks. I for one will be looking at ways of getting on the carbon tax gravy train, which is surely what it is for now!
Maybe I'll do a climate science degree! They give them to anyone.
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 5:09:37pm
A couple of facts (Facts!) to consider:
Projected revenue from sale of emissions permits by the Government is around $8 billion.
Australia's GDP is around US$1.2 trillion.
At parity, that puts the gross carbon revenue at 0.67% of GDP, not 5%. And that's revenue to the Government, half of which comes back to us as tax cuts and pension boosts, and the almost all the rest of which goes in free permits to trade exposed industry and other assistance.
The hated, hateful traders (exactly which side of the debate here is uncomfortable with capitalism?) must make do with commissions and fees on some transactions relating to the above. I'm sure they're glad to have the work, but it's pretty small beer to the masters of the universe.
For yet more perspective: the GST raises around $40 billion a year, and it also recycles the money back through State spending. A fair bit bigger, and not a lot of drama involved (apart from Rudd's years-ago "day of fundamental injustice" hyperbole).
oportoj :
14 Oct 2011 3:43:22pm
Thanks Ben . I laughed so hard I almost had a rational economic thought . Oh that's right; it doesn't matter cause you will be able to party hard on all that government pork coming your way. It was refreshing to finally get some perspective on this issue:You are so absolutely sure that "the carbon tax" will save Australia that your are willing to bet my economic future on it.
You have won. This is fact.
But like Manly in the Rugby League you had to gloat and dance like some absurd marionette.
JohnnoH :
14 Oct 2011 3:40:47pm
Dispite what the opinion polls say, this is the best thing that has happened to Australia since Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations. The sky didn't fall in then and it won't now. I'm for anything that will give my grandchildren a better and cleaner world than what we have today. If it costs a little bit more, so be it!
Steven :
14 Oct 2011 3:40:17pm
The doomsayers siad GST would kill the economy. But while GST may not be as good and efficient as it could be, the economy didn't die.
State payroll taxes are more a 'tax on everything' because it taxes a business input of greater than than the carbon tax, and while payroll tax is inefficient there seems to be little push to get rid of it.
What we do need is actually a proper tax on everything, no exemptions or threshholds or deductions. Replace the current income tax, GST, payroll tax etc with one tax on all receipts.
carl :
14 Oct 2011 3:40:06pm
They may have lost in the short term Ben but they will win when Labour looses the next election.You can bet the knives and chequebooks will be out in force with the view of making that happen whenever the election is held
JohnnoH :
14 Oct 2011 4:16:32pm
Will they lose the next election? How is Mr Rabbit come back from this flogging? Didn't I notice during the the division both Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey sitting together up the back where you wouldn't expect them to be? Didn't Sophie Mirrabella get herself suspended so she would not have to vote? When people find that this is not hitting them in the hip pocket, how will the tories put out a policy rubbishing it and not offering an alternative?
Big Polloodah :
14 Oct 2011 3:38:38pm
Like any greeny, Ben is all for others investing in "tree farms and more complicated carbon derivatives".
The same greenies are also greatly in favour of investing in renewable energy technologies (provided it's with Other Peoples' Money, of course).
You know, those technologies that don't result in the production of baseload power.
GraemeF :
14 Oct 2011 4:19:16pm
There are currently massive increases in electricity bills for infrastructure and more in the pipeline, far more than any increase due to carbon taxes. That infrastructure is only needed for peak periods, usually two to three of the hotest weeks of the year when all the air cons go on. This is when PV works best!
This baseload nonsense is a Furphy. They have to practically give the electricity away at night time. The Snowy Scheme buys night time electricity to pump water uphill to sell at a vaste profits when it is needed during the day.
So like any anti-greeny you are quite ignorant of the facts and prefer slogans like 'other people money' to cover for rational discussion.
Yes it does :
14 Oct 2011 4:33:28pm
My solar hot water system produces heaps of baseload power. No coal needed as it works so well and provides hot water right through the night. New combination systems can now produce electrical power as well even in cloudy weather.
Same for my super efficient fridge. Runs easily on the daytime energy and the 110mm insulation keeps it cold right through the night. Electric cars are now appearing that will charge from solar during the day and power the grid during the night.
It's time to ditch the myth of 'baseload' power and move to smart technologies. Anyway the coal in Qld is a tiny fraction of what they have on China's doorstep in Mongolia. They don't really need is at all.
GC :
14 Oct 2011 4:44:50pm
Hey BP. The Electrical Utility companies are even thinking of banning solar panels in certain suburbs because too much solar messes up the power grid balance. And if they can't, they will just charge the poor house owner much more for less power.
"CO2 free nirvana". Yay!
John C :
14 Oct 2011 3:37:47pm
The arguments about imposing a price on carbon aside, why would you show such glee at what you call a defeat for the so-called business lobby. After all it is those that you seem to have contempt for - the business lobby - that e,ploys most people in this country. The communist system, Mr Eltham, is a proven failure.
Harry Graham :
14 Oct 2011 3:37:43pm
Julia Gillard says the carbon tax will save 160 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2020. This sounds a lot but to put it into perspective it is about one third put out by the Chinese by breathing. Not their industry, transport or power useage, just their respiration. Is it worth damaging the economy for such a piddling little amount?
hugh mungus :
14 Oct 2011 4:23:26pm
So are you suggesting the Chinese should stop breathing?
There are 20 countries in Europe with smaller CO2 outputs than Australia - yet all of them are working together to reduce emmissions.
Your attitude is like someone ina sinking rowboat refusing to bail harder than the child next to him. The prosperity of the west is built on past CO2 emissions - now we expect the undeveloped nations to put their progress on hold so we can continue to enjoy ours.
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 4:36:18pm
Uh, there is no net contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels from respiration. This keeps coming up, but the people raising it don't seem to have thought it through.
The carbon in the CO2 we breathe out comes from oxidising glucose derived from the food we eat. The carbon in the glucose comes ultimately from plants (sometimes via other animals that ate plants), which took it from atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis. It all balances precisely.
There is also a common confusion here around net and gross flows. If I counted only the gross flows into my bank account, I'd think I was rich. It's only when I look at outgoings as well that I accurately see my net position.
Miowarra :
14 Oct 2011 3:34:39pm
@Corporate lobbyists: "This is the odourless, colourless taste of defeat."
And may I add, I wish you many, many more.
brian :
14 Oct 2011 3:32:26pm
Excellent article Ben - should be required reading for all the Corporate Boards around the World.
My children & grand-children will be forever grateful to the PM and her Government (and Greens & Independents) for their leadership in this most urgent environment issue.
Tony Abbott and his cohorts will forever be on the wrong side of history.
JohnnoH :
14 Oct 2011 4:17:06pm
Correct.
Brando :
14 Oct 2011 4:20:55pm
Climate change is happening, yes! Is it man made? NO! The truth will come out soon, just remember, man made climate change is only a theory and global average temperatures have declined over the last decade, Fact!
JohnM :
14 Oct 2011 3:31:53pm
And most remarkably the legislation passed despite the absence of clear evidence that CO2 causes dangerous warming.
(The output of unvalidated climate models can hardly be called evidence, can it!)
And to boast that the legilsation will be difficult to undo is yet another sign of incompetence because already the rest of the world is backing away from the green malarkey.
hugh mungus :
14 Oct 2011 4:14:51pm
Gee John, you must be in a hurry. You only managed to squeeze in two of the untruths peddled by the denier lobby. You didn't get in the 'weightless plant food' line.
Contrary to what you say, there is plenty of evidence linking CO2 to climate change. Of course, I take my scientific evidence from scientists, not Alan Jones. And plenty of other countries are proceeding with CO2 reduction schemes. However I don't expect you to believe any of this - I understand that you are in denial, caused by fear of change.
Refusal to move when in fear is an age old response that evolved in times when predaotors relied in the movement of prey to be able to see and catch it. Staying still was safe - the response is still there in the amygdala.
BTW it was impossible to undo the GST legislation, and to wind back Howard's middle class welfare. Guess the Libs must be incompetent too.
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 4:39:47pm
I'd take the output of widely agreed peer-reviewed science and the consensus of national and international institutions over the output of unvalidated bloggers any day!
Davo :
14 Oct 2011 4:49:38pm
in fact, there are mountains of clear evidence to that fact. the effects of carbon pollution on climate were first measured well over one hundred years ago, climate science is in fact older than virtually everything that we would consider to be modern science
Richo61 :
14 Oct 2011 5:07:53pm
" despite the absence of clear evidence that CO2 causes dangerous warming."
Venus.
The surface temperature of the planet Venus is 460 Celsius. Hot enough to melt lead.
The reason? Greenhouse effect.The evidence for the greenhouse effect has been steadily accumulating since being discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824.
The evidence is there and it doesn't just go away when you don't look at it.
Tory Boy :
14 Oct 2011 3:29:58pm
By how many degrees will the carbon tax lower the earths temperature and in what timeframe must it be achieved to be declared successful?
g :
14 Oct 2011 4:01:52pm
It's a cheap shot to even suggest this carbon abatement policy will have any effect other than to re-distribute resources towards innovation, thereby increasing the opportunities to do things in a less carbon-intensive manner.
GraemeF :
14 Oct 2011 4:02:35pm
If you had paid attention to the scientists instead of the shock jocks would would already know that the carbon tax will not lower the earths temperature but it will slow the increase.
JazzMan :
14 Oct 2011 4:38:18pm
So by how much will it slow the increase? What is the measure of success?
john byatt :
14 Oct 2011 5:20:06pm
The measure of success will be a temp rise of 2DegC by 2100 instead of 6.8DegC even with a deep solar minimum
IPCC AR4 Model C3 current path runs showing and being confirmed that Climate sensitivity is about 3degC and on an emission path of 132% increase in emissions by 2050
we hit 6.8DegC 2100, not sure that anyone will be around to measure it though.
Billy Bob Hall :
14 Oct 2011 4:04:45pm
The amount will be undetectable and irrelevant, as the ALP will be after the next election. They can 'suck that up' all they want then.
virgil :
14 Oct 2011 4:05:47pm
2 degrees by 1 April 2019 at 2.45pm EST
Peter :
14 Oct 2011 4:11:12pm
Exactly how many degrees rise and precisely what associated cost will be considered too little to worry about?
Can't tell us precisely? Oh dear.
brindafella :
14 Oct 2011 4:15:37pm
> By how many degrees will the carbon tax lower the earths temperature and in what timeframe must it be achieved to be declared successful?
Answers:
-0.42 degrees and 42 years...
...maybe!
...if the whole world does it immediately! (and let's watch that happen...)
...as in "the meaning of life".
Justn Fair :
14 Oct 2011 4:18:14pm
You totally miss the point. It is not about the air temperature. Global warming is measured by the amount of ice melting. By the time the air temperature is affected it will be all too late. While there is still ice on the polar caps, it regulates the air temperature, but if we lose it, things will suddenly get very hot indeed, because the ice also reflects heat back into space.
Pull you head out of the sand and stop echoing Tony Abbott's rhetoric. An echo can only occur in an empty chamber.
Justn Fair :
14 Oct 2011 4:20:09pm
Every tonne of CO2 is doing the biosphere harm. As one of the highest pollution countries per head in the world, we have an obligation to lead in this area.
snoscillator :
14 Oct 2011 4:22:28pm
Seriously - do you think you sound clever when you say stuff like this? This (misguided) question has been answered over, and over, and over, on this site. And, no, I'm not going to bother answering it for you again - look it up.
Stressed Chef :
14 Oct 2011 4:22:31pm
By how much did Australia's troop contribution shorten World War 2? If the answer is "not much" or "very hard to say" or "well, it was part of a larger effort that could only succeed as a whole", does that mean our participation was futile?
In any case, Tory Boy offers the wrong metrics, or is failing to distinguish properly between different bits of the policy puzzle. How much warming we hope to avoid is dependent on targets for emissions reduction - ours and everyone else's (we can't solve this ourselves, but as one of the top 15 emitters worldwide we're far from insignificant).
The carbon price hasn't got a near-term target yet (the 2050 target is an 80% reduction off 2000 levels), and a target is in any case something that any number of different policies can try to reach. The Coalition and the Government have an unconditional target of a reduction to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. If Tory Boy wishes to say this is all pointless, it's targets that he should be attacking first.
The proper metrics for assessing the carbon price are: does it achieve the emissions reductions that will be asked of it (based on measurement of domestic emissions and verification of imported units/abatement), and are they achieved at least possible cost (based on the level of the carbon price compared to other explicit prices worldwide, measurements of implicit prices in other policies and estimates of the cost and volume of any abatement options that are not taken up.
J.G. Cole :
14 Oct 2011 4:24:27pm
I have told you countless times Tory Boy...
Ask Tony Abbott - he's Direct Action Plan will provide all the answers you seek.
Mork :
14 Oct 2011 4:24:57pm
By how many degrees will the LNP direct (in)action plan lower the earth's temperature and in what timeframe must it be achieved to be declared successful?
JM :
14 Oct 2011 4:33:54pm
By how many degrees will do nothing lower the earths temperature and in what time frame must it be achieved to be declared successful?
I can tell you the 3 years carbon pricing is charge via a tax will have no impact in terms of carbon reduction in those 3 years, I can also tell you there's no existing solutions that can reverse the amount of carbon emitted in the last 50 years in 3 years time. An ETS is meant to be a short-term solution to set a platform for the world to move towards cleaner, sustainable energy and infrastructure. And because this isn't the instant magical solution to everything bad, people are proposing we do nothing instead?
Darren of the Illawarra :
14 Oct 2011 4:35:50pm
It will not reduce the temperature at all. A degree of warming is already locked in. This is a mitigation process designed not to reduce the temperature but to reduce the rise. I cannot understand the conservative position on this tax. Climate Change is happening. At some stage in the future the world will need to move to a green economy due to both political and environmental pressures. The shorter the time frame available to make that change the more damage to the Australian economy that will occur. By minimising the initial impact and gradually changing the path of the ecomomy we may retard some growth but not enough to cause any major ecomomic issues. We change now while a significant proportion of our competitors are weakend by the GFC thus allowing us the ability to use our current economic advantage to lessen any pain a little more. When the global economy picks up and they forced to address the issue we are ahead of the game. Whilst our competitors are forced to take their pain later on and so again we gain a competitive advantage. This makes basic business sense. Re-invest money back into your business to allow you to exploit future trends in the market.
kali :
14 Oct 2011 4:36:37pm
My guess is that it will be more effective than the Opposition's policy of providing subsidies to polluters to basically do nothing.
We have already spent a decade doing nothing, Toryboy, and how successful were we in reducing our carbon footprint? Your mob had 11 years do something, now its the other mobs turn to try and rescuse our children's and gradnchildren's future.
Richo61 :
14 Oct 2011 4:38:36pm
It will not lower the earths temperature.
It will reduce the rate of increase to something less than what it otherwise would have been.
Or another way to think of it is that it will take longer to get to 1 degree increase 2 degree increase etc. This gives us more time to adapt. Ultimately the goal is to also limit the maximum rise.
Just in case you actually wanted to know.
8-)
GC :
14 Oct 2011 4:48:30pm
Just one degree..........a climate science degree. Timeframe 4 years. Get on the gravy train.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sniff this, business lobby: the odourless whiff of defeat | Ben Eltham #ABCdrum
via abc.net.au
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment