Posted by: jkirkby8712 | May 29, 2011

Saturday, 28 May 2011 – a few ‘political’ views on the Climate change issue.

Welcome to a cool overcast morning. The house is quiet, and will stay that way for the next few days. Susie is up in Bendigo for the weekend, and I have the two cats for company – which like Susie, are never really around when they are ‘here’ in any case, until they want something to eat!!  Four days until the ‘official’ Winter, although I think over the past few weeks we have been given a bit of a taste of what is to come!

Out in the back garden, the birds are very active – well noisy anyway, seem to be kicking up quite a fuss about something. Perhaps one of Susan’s cats is on the prowl, in which case they won’t be very popular with me! They well know that if I see them stalking, or with an unfortunate bird, there will be severe retribution, even if such actions are their natural instinct I suppose – nevertheless, I attempt to discourage them, as far as I can be aware of it, of such activities. I’m afraid that I am not a fan of cats – they are generally sneaky ‘dishonest’ creatures, with a mind of their own, and unless it’s suits some particular purpose or desire, pay no credence to human instructions, not what I call a loyal pet [compared to a dog]. However, the two felines at this residence belong to my daughter, and while she is rarely here, I tolerate their presence and look after them to the extent they allow me too!!!

The Get Up organisation, of which I am a ‘silent’ subscriber, are currently trying to readers such as myself to become involved and take part in a ‘protest march’ relating to climate change, in a current of weekends. Now this is basically in support of the Government’s plans to introduce a carbon tax as part of it’s ‘supposed attack’ on the climate problems of now and the future. I’m in two minds as to which side I want to support on this issue. As with other things, I have a preference for taking more note of the scientific evidence that is being put to us rather than the kind of hysteria that conservationists, and parties like the Greens try to ram down our throats. At the same time, I recognise the needs, and the necessary aim of trying to improve the environment for future generations – our children, and so on. I do get a little annoyed at the arguments over the costs of the various proposals, and the manner in which some viewpoints seem to be insistent on protecting the rights of those with all the influence and money – the big polluters such as the coal industry, etc. But at the same time, in the absence of immediate wide scale alternatives, we still tend to have to rely on their product to a large degree. The argument or aim needs to be to make those kind of industries more environmentally friendly in the way they produce their product, and I’m not sure that by forcing this upon them through policies such as a carbon tax, etc, is going to help the rest of us, with the likely increased costs then forced upon those areas, passed on to the rest of us –  though admittedly, increased power and energy costs seem to be a regular thing of life irrespective of carbon taxes, and one feels that whatever system is in place, we will continue to see annual increases in the figures showing on our utility invoices!!!

Anyway, I was interested in Get Up’s argument, though in no way convinced that I wanted to join their formal protest – in fact, I believe in my 64 years on this earth, I have purposely only taken part in three formal protest demonstrations, as generally, I don’t see that method as my means of protest – okay then, I prefer to do that through my writings, and will continue to do so  –  as a side note, what were those three demonstrations I took part in? No explanation here, just the subject, perhaps a later time, may be more appropriate to explain in more detail.  Back in 1967 – (1) outside Pentridge Prison [now closed], at the time when the last criminal in Australia was hung; [2) the march for reconciliation with the Indigeneous community, early 2000, and (3), in protest against Australia’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq. More on each of those at a later date! But for the current topic – I think I will leave that demonstration to the younger generations, and be content to support their cause through the ‘pen’, even if I’m not yet sure how far I support them!!!  To put Get Up’s arguments to the fore, I will copy their submission to people such as myself below, but reminding readers that this is just one side of the argument.

“Dear Bill,

I don’t mean this the wrong way — but we need to do better. So far, 3,440 people have RSVP’d to family climate rallies across Australia next weekend. But I just finished reading the Australian Climate Commission’s new climate science report – and frankly, I’m scared. The risks have never been more clear and the case for action has never been more urgent. Scientists know this, you and I know this, but the rest of Australia still needs to hear it.

The stakes are so high, and the opposition to climate action so vocal, that we need more than the usual suspects at these rallies. We need you, Bill.  So if you’re already planning on coming, thank you. But if not, I hope you’ll give this email just 90 seconds of your time and the chance to convince you.  I confess that rallies are not usually my thing. I sometimes wonder who is even watching and if it’s effective. But next weekend is an acid test of the community’s support for climate action, and we won’t succeed by staying home. Tacit support is not enough.
This isn’t about angry protest. Our family rallies have face-painting, balloons and ice-cream for the kids – and great live music before and after the rally. Think of it as a great impetus to get out of the house and start a sunny Sunday in a beautiful park with other families!  We’ve chosen next Sunday, June 5, for the national rallies because it’s right in the middle of the final, fragile negotiations of the multi-party climate committee. These are the negotiations that will decide what the price on pollution will be, how it will increase over time, and how much money will go to clean energy versus to big polluters.
The Government and Independents on the committee are under extraordinary pressure to give up on climate action. Climate deniers held a rally against the carbon price last week in the electorate of Independent MP Rob Oakeshott. The Daily Telegraph reported that over 3,000 people attended – even though the official police estimate was under 800. Right now, politicians and the media are gauging support for climate action by which side has the bigger rallies.
Some say putting a price on pollution will send our economy back to the Stone Age. They say they represent the majority of mainstream Australia. We know it’s rubbish – but unless we put our faces and voices in front of the TV cameras too, we know exactly what will happen next: an exasperating onslaught of one-sided media coverage against climate action, which will send politicians running scared.  I wish that policy were not so dependent on which groups protest the loudest. But if Australia’s climate policy were decided by science and reason, we would have put a price on pollution long ago.

Please join the urgent climate rallies happening across Australia on Sunday week, June 5, and don’t forget to bring a friend, or ten!  Where: Outside State Library  When: 11am Sunday June 5.  Hope to see you there,  Sam, for the GetUp team”.

On the other side of the fence – well there are many different views, but the following speech [made by Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, in an address made at a dinner in Adelaide on the 7th March, more or less spelt out the kind of arguments that the Liberal Party are pushing in opposition to the Government’s carbon tax plans. The general view of anyone who pushes the kind of platform that the Liberals are promoting is that they are climate deniers [as GetUp says above], but I don’t accept that kind of broad brushed reflection on people who have different views, nor do I necessarily accept some of the generalising statements that appear below. However, it does provide another side to the issue, but unfortunately, also includes strong political and negative overtones, as would be expected from Tony Abbott. The task of readers is to try and draw the relevant facts or statistics from all the rhetoric, if we are to be convinced that the ‘NO’ side to the carbon tax debate has any relevance. That means ignoring claims of the Government simply ‘getting into bed’ with the Greens and their conservation demands [because the Government needs the support of the Greens in both houses of Parliament], ignoring the talk about Julia Gillard lying to the electorate before the last election, that there would be no carbon tax, and ignoring the constant negativity that Tony Abbott cannot seem to help himself from incorporating into any debate on public policy these days.  Perhaps I should have done that ‘precis’ for readers beforehand, in order to determine whether there is actually any ‘body of evidence’ contained within the speech. Anyway, those who care to, please read on, otherwise, join me again tomorrow, lol!!!

“The Prime Minister’s commitment to a carbon tax from the middle of next year and to an emissions trading scheme from 2017 is inevitably going to be the dominant issue of this parliament. Make no mistake. This new tax is designed to change your way of life. This new tax is designed to change the way our economy works. What’s the point of a carbon tax if it doesn’t make it harder for people to turn on their air conditioners or to drive their cars? After all, the only way that a carbon tax can reduce emissions – rather than just make them more expensive – is if people use less coal-produced electricity and less oil-powered transport.

If a carbon tax does not reduce the use of fossil fuels, it’s just another tax – not an environmental measure at all. Given people’s propensity to use their air conditioners and to drive their cars, if a carbon tax is to reduce electricity use and car use it will have to raise the price of daily life very considerably indeed. It’s no wonder that the Prime Minister prefers to talk about the principle of the carbon tax rather than nasty details like the level at which it would have to be imposed.

When the Prime Minister, Senator Brown, the Greens and other ministers talk blithely about a low carbon economy or a carbon constrained future, this is exactly what they mean. They mean an economy where much less electricity is generated by burning coal, where transport means less use of private cars and where industries that use lots of electricity like steel and aluminium scarcely exist in Australia. If this is to be more than just a hit on people’s cost of living, it must utterly transform the way we live and how we work.

Not for nothing was the old Soviet Union emblazoned with slogans such as “communism equals worker control plus electrification”. It’s odd that Julia Gillard seems to have forgotten her history. You can’t have a modern economy or rising standards of living without rising power consumption. The leaders of China and India certainly haven’t forgotten. That’s why they’ll never agree to any limitation on their carbon dioxide emissions that would lock their people permanently into the kind of poverty from which they are only now beginning to escape. That’s why a new coal-fired power station opens in China every fortnight. That’s why any unilateral step to tax emissions will hurt Australia’s economy without improving the world’s environment.

There was, of course, a stronger argument for putting a price on carbon when the whole world seemed to be moving in that direction. Pre-Copenhagen, it could have been argued that the costs of a carbon tax would be equally shared among all the world’s economies. Now that President Obama has abandoned his “cap and trade” scheme, it’s clear that the best way to reduce emissions is through measures that would be in the national interest regardless of international action. 

In the absence of wind that never stops blowing and sun that never stops shining; in the absence of hydrogen cars; and in the absence of nuclear power stations to supply most base load electricity, big reductions in emissions are currently impossible without a big increase in people’s cost of living or a significant change in their lifestyles. Eventually, technologies that we can hardly envisage today will make fossil fuels less important. In the meantime, though, making coal, oil and gas more expensive is the modern equivalent of hastening the computer age by a tax on typewriters.

Thanks much more to the closure of the coal industry and to deindustrialisation than to a widely scammed ETS, Europe has hardly increased its production of emissions over the past decade. It has, though, increased its consumption of emissions by about 50 per cent. Almost nothing has changed environmentally. What’s happened is that emissions-intensive activities have migrated from Europe to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is sustaining Europe’s standard of living by doing the things that Europeans are too environmentally vain to do.

It was to avoid this kind of debate in an election year that the current Prime Minister kyboshed her predecessor’s emissions trading scheme.  Along with the Treasurer, she sabotaged Kevin Rudd’s political standing and then seized the prime ministership herself because she wanted to avoid an election debate that couldn’t be won. The ETS had to be off the election agenda because, given a choice, the electorate was hardly likely to put preventing climate change ahead of protecting its standard of living.

Julia Gillard did not just depose the prime minister who’d championed an ETS. She did not just let it be known that this was one of the key factors why the government “had lost its way”. She went further. With her announcement that climate change policy would be put in the hands of a citizens’ assembly until what she called a “deep and lasting consensus” had been created, she deliberately built the impression that there would be no carbon price in the term of the current parliament.  The otherwise implausible citizens’ assembly now looks like a cynical ploy to reassure struggling families worried about cost of living pressures.

On her own admission, the Prime Minister always wanted to impose a carbon price. She just didn’t want to justify it to the electorate in an election campaign. She wanted to avoid it during the last election campaign, to impose it during this term of parliament, and to justify it during the next campaign as a done deal that couldn’t be undone without causing havoc.

As sure as night follows day, I said on at least 15 occasions during the campaign, there would be a carbon tax if this government is re-elected. The Prime Minister’s statement “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” should haunt her to the political grave because it was the culmination of a deliberate strategy to hoodwink voters.

The rationalisation that the Prime Minister has changed her position because circumstances have changed is false. She may not have anticipated a hung parliament but she certainly anticipated a hung Senate and knew that any carbon arrangements would have to be negotiated with the Greens who were the only group campaigning for a carbon tax.

The Prime Minister’s claim that voters will reject what she calls the politics of fear is false. If she believes it, why didn’t she make a carbon tax to be followed by an emissions trading scheme front and centre of her election campaign? Rejection of such a policy would not be evidence of an electorate that’s scared of the future but of an electorate that expects a level of basic honesty from its leaders.

The Prime Minister’s boast that she is taking a courageous decision is false. Courageous governments inform voters of their tough intentions before an election, not after one. If this is as important as she now says it is, why wasn’t it important enough to be an issue in last year’s election? Not only was her statement that there would be “no carbon tax under a government I lead” untruthful but it was specifically designed to stop voters from casting judgment when they had the chance. It wasn’t just a false statement. It was a deliberate deception.

Regardless of when the next election is held, the carbon tax will be the big issue. The Coalition will oppose it in opposition and rescind it in government, as we will the mining tax and as we would the flood tax were it still in place. The government claims that business wants certainty. Once a carbon tax is in place, the only certainty is that it will increase. There will be no carbon tax under the Coalition. It doesn’t get more certain than that.

We are against a carbon tax today, tomorrow, next week, next year, this term and next term. We are against it because it is a new tax from a government addicted to unnecessary new taxes and wasteful new spending. More fundamentally, though, we are against it because it won’t achieve its stated objectives and because we have a better plan that will. Our job is not to make a bad tax less damaging. Our job is to present voters with a clear alternative and we will.

For a government that denied it would bring in a carbon tax to bring one in without first seeking a new mandate would be a travesty of democracy. Only one single member of the House of Representatives went to the election supporting a carbon tax. Voters did not elect a parliament that supported a carbon tax.  Voters did not force a carbon tax on a reluctant prime minister. The opposite is the case. The Prime Minister is forcing a carbon tax on reluctant voters. Now that voters finally know the Prime Minister’s real intentions, now that they know what was fake and what was “real Julia”, they should have another chance to vote before a way-of-life-changing tax is brought in as a conspiracy of the parliament against the people.

In modelling the impact of Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme on prices, the Treasury used a carbon price of $26 a tonne. This, remember, is the scheme that the Greens rejected because the carbon price wasn’t high enough. Even at $26 a tonne, a carbon tax would add an average of $300 a year to electricity bills (and $500 in NSW). It would add 6.5 cents to the cost of a litre of petrol. At this rate, a carbon tax would raise about $10 billion a year without materially reducing emissions because consumers have previously absorbed price rises of this magnitude.

A carbon tax of about $25 a tonne would close 16 coal mines and cost 10,000 jobs in coal mining (according to Access Economics). It would cost 24,000 jobs in mining generally (according to ACIL). It would cost 45,000 jobs in emissions-intensive industries (according to Frontier Economics). It’s “economic vandalism” according to the head of Bluescope Steel that will drive manufacturing jobs offshore.

A carbon tax would add 25 per cent to the price of electricity and up to five per cent to the cost of groceries because power and transport costs are embedded in the price. If these estimates are wrong, the government should give us the correct ones. The revelation that the government has not attempted to model an economy-wide carbon price since 2008 suggests that it’s scared of what the answer might be. It has been prepared to cite estimates of so-called green jobs that might be created under a carbon tax – but this assumed a carbon price of $45 a tonne – and didn’t net out the existing jobs that would be lost.

For the record, the Coalition holds that climate change is real and that mankind is contributing to it. We have a different policy to deal with it, that’s all, one which aims to reduce emissions, not just to make them more expensive. There is a better way. That’s the Coalition’s strong plan to reduce emissions that is economically responsible and that won’t cost Australian jobs. We support action on climate change but, unlike Labor, don’t think that it should reduce our standard of living.

Last February, the Coalition announced a direct action policy to reduce emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 through more tree planting, better soil and smarter technology. Our plan would cost $3.2 billion over the forward estimates period rather than the $40 billion that the government had sought to raise through its ETS. Our plan would cumulatively reduce emissions by some 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the decade by purchasing abatements at an average cost of $15 a tonne. Our plan was backed by various experts in the field, including a former Labor treasurer of Queensland, who said that large scale emissions reductions were feasible at this price.

Our plan was fully funded from the budget through savings in other government spending. It did not involve a net increase in government spending, it did not involve a net increase in the tax burden on the public and it did not involve the government picking winners, merely selecting the most cost-effective forms of emissions reduction from the various proposals that the market would produce.

Our proposal is straight-forward, easy to understand, and practical to deliver. Yes, it implies the international recognition of emissions reduction through storage of carbon in the soil but the US government as well as our own is campaigning to bring this about. By contrast, the government’s proposal involves a new tax, a new slush fund and a new series of handouts designed to buy the next election.

The Prime Minister will insist that jobs will be protected in energy intensive industries and will insist that no one will be worse off because everyone will be compensated – except the rich. She will insist that this is a painless way to reduce emissions – just like she said before the last election that there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. This is a dishonest government trying to do the wrong thing by stealth. I will do everything I humanly can to prevent them getting away with it and to give voters a chance to pass their verdict at the next election.

I have a plan for a modern, low emissions economy that maintains our standard of living, makes best use of Australia’s natural advantages in soil, sun and wind and doesn’t hit families at a time when they’re already doing it tough. That’s what I will be offering at the next election whenever it comes”.

Unfortunately Tony, the electorate is finding it difficult to understand precisely what ‘that plan’ is – we need less attack, more constructive forward planning!!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: