Julia's Reign

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...o-anger-ofarrell/story-fn53lw5p-1226009705117

The federal government has now decided to pork barrel for the state NSW labor government. Goodness me, I don't even think Howard tried this one!

And Albanese is married to NSW Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt who, along with Premier Kristina Keneally, is desperate to square away a deal so Labor at least has something to campaign on. Given Tebbutt is fighting for her political survival in her inner city seat of Marrickville, under siege from the Greens, such an achievement is doubly important.

 

[Scotty]

Is Julia being sneaky with the timing of her new tax announcement, and hoping that it will fly under the radar?

This government really are out of control with the new taxes they want to implement, while not actually really reforming the tax system. Talk about believing in big government!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I just had a total face palm moment today after hearing the announcement. Sure, implement a carbon tax, but how about some other reform while we're at it!!! The smug look on Brown and Milne's faces today just made me want to reach into the TV and strangle them both.

Furthermore, didn't the ALP go to the election with a no carbon tax policy?

 

[waratahjesus]

Furthermore, didn't the ALP go to the election with a no carbon tax policy?

yep, they promised not in this term and said they would ask the australian people first, apparantly brown and milne are the australian people. honestly we could just change the rules now so if a government doesnt have the majority we vote again. pandering to independents and greens with policy in return for backing is just shit.

 

[Cutter]

You gents need to stop reading the Telegraph and the Australian and pay less attention to the focus groups and the ads financed by the mining industry.

All the polls (not that I put much faith in them) I've seen suggest the Australian people are overwhelmingly in favour of taking action on climate change.

Its the most important long term structural economic (not to mention social, environmental and, as Kevin 07 said, moral) issue facing us.

 

[waratahjesus]

there is a major difference between acting on climate change and raising the cost of living. They have basically said that doing this will result in larger utility bills but they will pass the money they make back to the people to help cope, you can be assured there help wont be in line with the rise in price, so basically were paying more to have some of our money returned to us. big bussiness will drive up the price of carbon to drive out competition then just back end it with price rises, i know this and i know shit all.

 

[Ash]

Actually, I do believe there was a report that said that power costs, paradoxically, would be cheaper in NSW right now if we had a carbon tax. The uncertainty has driven up prices, as has state schemes to reduce carbon that would have been redundant with a carbon tax. What I am really wondering is the end effect on electricity prices. With electricity prices set to double in the next few years, my understanding is that the headline $300 is not on top of that.

The CPRS is something that will get implemented and the general public will have forgotten about within 6 months. And yes, I am a supporter of it.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

You gents need to stop reading the Telegraph and the Australian and pay less attention to the focus groups and the ads financed by the mining industry.

All the polls (not that I put much faith in them) I've seen suggest the Australian people are overwhelmingly in favour of taking action on climate change.

Its the most important long term structural economic (not to mention social, environmental and, as Kevin 07 said, moral) issue facing us.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't even read the Tele and do read papers other than the Australian, so you can dispense with that ad-hom right away. I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative, though I am fairly conservative on economic issues.

My objections to the carbon tax are based around a few things:

1, It will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. All it will do is raise prices. Some people will just pay the tax and continue to use as much energy as they did before.

2, Taxing energy intensive industries in Australia when others aren't reduces our economic competitiveness. Some of those industries will head off shore if it becomes too expensive. Who exactly does that help?

3, The tax regime will lead to what these things always do, giving handouts to those affected by the tax at the expense of others (individuals and business who lobby the loudest). All political parties do this. In the end, what will that have achieved?

4, Even if emissions in Australia are reduced by this scheme, what about every other country in the world? What if we act and they don't?

5, If we are going to introduce a new tax, then I want reform in other areas. You can't just keep piling on new taxes and levies indefinitely. The government, as I have said many times here, should release the full content of the Henry Review and place the carbon tax in that context. If we are to have a new tax, it should be, IMHO, revenue neutral.

6, Further to 5, the money raised from the carbon tax will presumably go into the governments general revenue. Who here has any confidence that the money won't be squandered on some vote buying scheme (either popular or parliamentary from the Greens or independents)?

 

[Ash]

TBH; haven't Europe and NZ already moved for a CPRS, with the US also having looked at it for a while? (I thought NZ, at the least, already had one? May be completely wrong, though.)
<edit> Quick web search revealed the following: http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Implementation - and NZ apparently has an ETS, not carbon tax, although several countries throughout the world apparently do have a carbon tax.


For once I would like Australia to be a world leader in something, instead of having this attitude being "other countries haven't done it, so therefore we shouldn't bother". If European and some other countries had that same attitude, some things would never get done. That's for point 4.

For point 3, the fight will begin soon, with the coal lobby in particular demanding huge subsidies. That was one of the flaws with the original CPRS, the huge amount of subsidies to industries like coal. We'll see how that plays out, but with the Greens having more say, hopefully the subsidies to big polluting industries will be significantly lower than under the original scheme.

Point 6, you know they'll (as in, both parties when in power) use it for something stupid, like pork barrelling, middle class welfare, tax cuts. I'd argue it should either go into investments into alternate/renewable energies, and sovereign wealth funds. I'd be against welfare, tax cuts etc as carbon pollution should decrease if alternate energies are successful.

Regarding point 1, it should over the longer term. More polluting power plants will become uneconomic, and newer power plants should be designed/use fuels to emit less carbon, as that will be more economical.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ash, all of those are fair points. As far as NZ goes, how much energy intensive industry do they have? Not a great deal if memory serves. They also have the natural advantage of being able to use large amounts of hydro power, so a carbon tax doesn't really affect them that much. Hydro has often proven to be politically difficult in Australia, let alone technically problematic with our uneven rainfall. With that said thoug, we could do it in the Northern part of the country, but I gather that nearly every state government has a "no new dams" policy.

Europe is an interesting case in that they have a different power generation mix than we do. In a few countries, they are using hydro and in others nukes and in some others all of the above. Do you think we would ever get nukes over the line here? If we are serious about reducing CO2 emissions, then surely that has to be on the table (I know I have banged that drum many times).

Being a world leader does us no good unless the rest of the world is with us, including the US, China, Russia, India and Brazil. If those guys, who are the biggest emitters of CO2, don't get on board, our puny contribution will mean nothing.

I have absolutely no confidence at all that the political process won't be captured by caterwauling special interests, be they ACOSS, the Greens, the coal power industry, farmers, anyone. Everybody will have their hands out here.

I'd rather see the money go into R&D, but I can't see it happening because there is no immediate pay off for any ruling government.

 

[Ash]

TBH; I'm with you on nuclear power, but sadly think that the world may have overlooked nuclear power for too long for it to become an option for us. I'm an engineer, and I'm sure most engineers have no issue with modern nuclear power plants.

As well as nuclear, Europe also have a massive amount of wind generation, too.

The US is the big country that needs to ultimately make the move on a price on carbon for the rest of the world to follow. Europe is the first step, US the second. From there, I think countries like China will follow due to the international pressure. You're right, though, that in the larger scope of things, we are small fry, but we could be used as an example to follow.

As you say though, we are a bit of a special case with some very energy intensive industries, that will always be energy intensive. The trick is how to get these industries to be less pollutant without driving them under...and I hope to hell that the government does it successfully.

And finally, yeah I sadly agree with the sentiment in your last two paragraphs. It highlights the big flaw in Western politics. (Marginal? Self centred? Overriding?) Political interests/lobby groups with large amounts of capital (people, money, pressure, whatever) behind them, and governments that translate "long term" as meaning "until next election (to ensure we win)". When such political interests can override, say, a tragedy of the commons that governments should protect us from, it's, well, tragic.

I'll say what scares me: having been to some big Asian cities, and having seen them polluted and clogged with traffic. I'm scared of Sydney becoming like this in the years to come. Stepping outside and being overwhelmed by the thick air; taking 2 hours to travel 2 kms on a 10 lane freeway; and so on. There's a whole series of problems there (over population, poor or no public transport, lower quality of life, mass pollution). Regardless if climate change is true or not, I'm a supporter of reducing our impact on the environment in any way, shape or form. However, there is still the niggling concern for me that an alternate energy sources might still pollute in other ways than carbon emissions, but I am hoping very much that it won't be the case.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yep, that's all fair enough. Believe it or not, I am pro-environmental protection, but it needs to be done in a sensible way that doesn't hurt our economy too badly at the same time. I also have a science/engineering background and have a reasonable understanding of the technical issues.

 

[Scotty]

You gents need to stop reading the Telegraph and the Australian and pay less attention to the focus groups and the ads financed by the mining industry.

All the polls (not that I put much faith in them) I've seen suggest the Australian people are overwhelmingly in favour of taking action on climate change.

Its the most important long term structural economic (not to mention social, environmental and, as Kevin 07 said, moral) issue facing us.

Ok, from now on, I'll just read the polls, and form my opinion on what the majority says. That is a great idea.

Call me Scotty Sheep from now on.

 

[Scotty]

Did you see that Ferguson wants to open the debate about exporting uranium to India, and that Hawke not only backed him up but has said that if we are serious about low carbon electricity production we need to look at Nuclear.

Of course when we have a government that is clearly now at the beck and call of the Greens, that isn't going to happen, despite how sensible a solution it is.

 

[Scotty]

And if she is truly serious about reducing carbon emissions why is agriculture not included in the tax? It is clearly a political decision.

We can't have governments that keep picking winners. There has been so many holes in logic and operation from this government it astounds me.

 

[Elfster]

Regardless of whether the tax/price is a good idea, they went to the last election stating that they would not be introducing a tax on carbon. And, from memory, quite vehemently. If they had stated back in August last year that they would be introducing a tax in this parliament it is most likely they would be the opposition and not the government. I know both sides lie and will do most things to get into power, but I think this is one of the most cynical acts we have seen for a while. Instead of a government operating with sensible, considered plans and good governance for the sake of the country, we have a mob of professional politicians operating for the sake of power and for vested interests. The spectre of Graham Richardson's back room antics loom large.

Yesterday's statement was vague, without details and more of a diversionary sound bite than a well thought out policy. A motherhood statment about some future vision splendid. And those photos of Julia, Shorten, the greens and a couple of independents was bizarre. Stage managment at its worst. Or best.

Though, sadly, the opposition doesn't engender much hope either.

 

[Scotty]

My last in my rant line would be to say:

Surely a carbon tax just makes things more expensive, without really solving anything. A ETS is the only way to directly affect the amount of carbon in our atmosphere (yes and I know they are working to it).

Ironically we would probably already have an ETS if Howard had been re-elected in 07.

 

[Scotty]

Regardless of whether the tax/price is a good idea, they went to the last election stating that they would not be introducing a tax on carbon. And, from memory, quite vehemently. If they had stated back in August last year that they would be introducing a tax in this parliament it is most likely they would be the opposition and not the government. I know both sides lie and will do most things to get into power, but I think this is one of the most cynical acts we have seen for a while. Instead of a government operating with sensible, considered plans and good governance for the sake of the country, we have a mob of professional politicians operating for the sake of power and for vested interests. The spectre of Graham Richardson's back room antics loom large.

Yesterday's statement was vague, without details and more of a diversionary sound bite than a well thought out policy. A motherhood statment about some future vision splendid. And those photos of Julia, Shorten, the greens and a couple of independents was bizarre. Stage managment at its worst. Or best.

Though, sadly, the opposition doesn't engender much hope either.

That is why I am cynical about its timing. Just after floods, cyclones and earthquakes, and also after the Libs have had a bad week. Hastily put together and timed so there is a lot of noise around to let it mainly drift by.

 

[barbarian]

I agree with all of that Scotty and Elfster, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because this is clearly a step in the right direction. Much like the Turnbull/Rudd effort it isn't perfect, but fuck we need to do something. And I reckon most Australians are with me on that.

This summer has proved Climate Change is real and having a big effect on Australia. As much as we can sit back and point at other countries who are doing nothing, I want us to stand up and take the lead on this. And yes it may well raise the cost of living, but we as consumers need to be held more accountable for the decisions we are making and the effect that they have on the environment. It will raise the price of electricity, but I hope that triggers a decline in usage as people adjust their habits.

This is a much bigger problem than a broken election promise, or a slight rise in the cost of living. The scheme isn't perfect, but I would much rather an imperfect scheme than nothing. I am not a massive enviro-guy, but I am glad we aren't pussyfooting about this anymore.

 

[Galloper]

Maybe it's just me, but any policy which is announced in the presence of Brown, Milne and Oakshotte (such that it carries their imprimatur) I will treat with derision.

An announcement by Gillard and/or Swan is normally enough to provoke the same reaction, but this one takes the cake - no wonder Windsor put in a disclaimer!