I thought I’d begin this carbon price legislation post by reminding everyone that Julia Gillard did say, as reported in The Australian, she was prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term. That was the day before the election. More famously, of course, she said earlier that she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax. (Of interest is the fact that she didn’t use the words “carbon tax” in introducing the legislation and Malcolm Turnbull helpfully explained that there was a three-year fixed price that acted like a tax.)
Well now it’s there, 18 bills amounting to some 900 pages. History is on our side she said, while the Opposition showed what they thought by walking out while complaining that there will only be 35 hours allocated to debating what Abbott had called “by far the most important vote that the Australian parliament will take in the current term of parliament”. That was when he was denying pairs.
How long does it take to say “No!”, asked Anthony Albanese.
When he did talk, Abbott called the legislation the longest suicide note in history. (Love the two still photos, and Paul Bongiorno’s report is a bonus.)
Bernard Keane writes that the Opposition was right to walk out, because most parliamentary debate is pointless. So far we’ve had mostly what Peter Beattie used to call “argy bargy”. Perhaps of most interest will be what Malcolm Turnbull says, if anything. Labor will be hoping for a repeat performance.
Here’s Mark’s post on Malcolm Turnbull’s substantive speech.
Here’s what I made of the Clean Energy Future package when it was released, and the Rudd/Gillard narrative of how we got to where we are, plus the assumptions underlying the CEF package.
Update: Go here for the legislative package.
So a carbon tax, is in fact, a temporary levy (three year) on the largest emitters of CO2. So, that would be akin to the coalition’s temporary levy (tax) on major employers to fund their parental leave scheme; is that right or have I missed something ?
I note that George Megalogenis (the Australian‘s least partisan and foolish regular?) is trying to debate/dissect the substantive elements of the package on his blog.
Also, there can’t really be any argument about whether this is or isn’t a tax for the first three years. My understanding is that by law (the constitution), it is a tax for the time being.
Though as I have observed many times the entire argument is utter, utter bullshit. It is not based on any rational discussion as to whether a carbon tax is preferable to a trading scheme, we never really had that debate in Australia, it is all about whether or not people have a dumb irrational dislike of the word tax.
Rather than take up bandwisth here:
I’ll just refer readers to this Q & A on the use of the term ‘carbon tax’.
I also note with satisfaction Oakeshott speaking up briefly in parliament on the matter. I have corresponded with him on the matter. I must send him a donation if he decides to contest the seat.
oops … {bandwidth}
I’m thinking that Turnbull really needs to say something very negative about the CEF package to win brownie points with his colleagues. If he doesn’t make a speech that will tell us that he can’t find much wrong with it.
@4 – why waste your money on a losing cause?
It’s also worth considering what an actual carbon tax might look like.
Some options:
1. A duty based on the carbon content of all ore imposed at the point of extraction (i.e. at the mine or well). This would bear only a weak relationship to emissions and would not be attached to any service or good offered to the operator at the extraction point.
2. A duty (a.k.a a tariff) imposed at the point of entry to the jurisdiction (in this case Australia, but India has imposed one on coal) based on the carbon content of the incoming goods. Again, no service or valuable good is rendered to the exporter or importer by this imposition.
3. A surcharge imposed at the end of the value chain based on the embedded carbon content of goods and services applied in a way similar to that of the G&ST.
Whatever the efficacy of these measures (and there’s something to be said for each of them — I think James Hansen has advocated these or similar) these would be carbon taxes. Gillard has not introduced anything like these.
OBR asked:
What money am I losing and what cause is being lost?
Bearnard Keane’s piece rationalising the bad behaviour of Tony Abbott was a disgrace. This is important legislation which needs to discussed and it needs to be discussed civilly in the most important democratic institution of our nation. I do not comprehend why people like Keane, who make their living from our democracy, are so willing to denigrate the institutions that secure the freedoms that allow people like Keane to comment. With democracy, we get to choose the Government and our polticians and so we get what we deserve. If we want better Government and better politicians, we need to take responsibility and we need to get better and stop blaming everyone else for the perceived failures. Tony Abbott should be condemned not excused for his outrageous behaviour.
Follow your heart, Malcolm.
The scheme being supported by the Greens this time is virtually the same as the one they rejected last time. I argued last time strongly, that the Greens opposition to the scheme was about posturing and not about principle. I think their current position demonstrates the point. I think the extra baubles the Greens have added to the scheme are minor and amply demonstrates Rudd’s incapacity to negotiate. Why so many people seem to want Rudd to return as PM is beyond me. Hopefully this carbon pricing scheme is the start to getting Australia onto a sustainable future.
To be fair to Keane (with whom I often disagree) he was really taking a swing, which is obvious if you read his last few lines.
Steve 1, I don’t think you’ve read a lot of Keane. You’ve misread him.
Fran – I don’t think he was taking a swing, Wilful – I do read Keane and I think he has changed over the last six months and this was just another article along the path. This is my opinion and others are free to disagree. If I am wrong I will reassess and admit my mistake, however I would suggest others not to explain away things.
Steve 1, you also haven’t read either the proposal the Greens opposed last time or the current proposal – they are, in fact, quite different (and not just because the current legislation will actually achieve its stated aim).
Bernard Keane has lost the plot on this one.
Firstly, parliamentary debate does have a point because it puts arguments on record. The real reason for the walkout is that the opposition have so few valid arguments to put on record.
Secondly, it is an affront to parliamentary democracy. The government went out of its way to ensure that the opposition did have a voice within parliament, and the opposition has turned around and refused their democratic privilege. Rest assured that the opposition will continue to complain outside of parliament.
Thirdly, the opposition are being hypocrites. Initially the opposition complained that they weren’t given enough time – which was BS – and now they’ve been given the time they don’t want it. All this does is prove their initial complaint of not being given enough time was without foundation.
It’s all theatre by the opposition – and pointless theatre at that.
Taking the opposite view to Fran, the three years of the ‘Fixed price’ looks an awful lot like a tax, specifically an excise. This is a view the Govt seems to share, as it’s made separate provisions implementing and collecting the charge if it is AND if it is not an excise for the purposes of s.55 of the Constitution. For example The Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011 is “A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are duties of excise” and the Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge— General) Bill 2011 is “A Bill for an Act to impose a charge on unit shortfalls under the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as that charge is not a duty of excise”
d
Again Daryl, I don’t doubt that this is what the ALP (for its own reasons) is calling the enabling measure. They could of course have introduced the measure under their environmental power, or the foreign affairs (treaty) power, but they are choosing the taxation power.
That doesn’t mean that in practice, this measure amounts to a tax. The FPPP merely enables the cap & trade system, so really, it’s an expression of cap and trade policy.
You shouldn’t cherrypick the features of the program so that you can shoehorn in your own preferred nomenclature, however useful that policy is to those opposing action.
Darryl Rosin – yes, the drafters have gone to great lengths to ensure that the resemblance of the fixed price phase (in particular) to a tax doesn’t pose any constitutional problems for the legislation. The commentary material released with the exposure drafts of the bills a couple of months ago states that the Commonwealth considers that the fixed price phase is probably an excise, but the variable price phase is probably not a tax. That sounds about right to me.
No Fran, the legislation is being introduced predominantly under the external affairs power and the corporations power. The Commonwealth does not have an environmental power – all its environmental laws are made through a combination of other powers (predominantly via the external affairs power in order to implement environmental treaties such as the UNFCCC and the Biodiversity Convention).
The reason the separate charges bills are a part of the package is that section 55 of the Constitution requires taxation to be imposed in separate Acts. The Commonwealth’s legal advice is evidently that the carbon price, or aspects of it at least, is likely to be a tax for constitutional purposes.
Fran, I think Darryl is referring to the technical legal nomenclature, rather than some personal preference.
FWIW I agree with you that in practice, this policy is a cap and trade scheme, rather than a carbon tax. However that doesn’t mean that it is incorrect to say that the fixed price phase falls within the general legal definition of a tax, which means the legislation needs to conform with the manner and form requirements for a tax.
dear editor
looks like its a “tax” you can “buy” & “sell”.
for three years.
yours sincerely
alferd venison
Hi alfred.
Actually no, you can’t buy or sell the permits for the first three years, and in fact the permits are issued and then retired instantanously, leaving only the charge. That’s why the fixed price component of the scheme looks like an excise.
Speaking to the main post, I think Julia Gillard is absolutely correct when she says that history is on the side of those who support this policy. In a couple of generations’ time, those who opposed climate change policy will be seen as misguided luddites.
I get what you’re saying Tim, but they’re pretty much the opposite of Luddites, when you think about it.
Not very tasteful, making a quip about a “suicide note” on the eve of R U OK day.
http://www.ruokday.com.au/content/home.aspx
David Irving – First, just as the previous proposal would not achieve all of what it set out to do, the current legislation will not achieve all of what it sets out to do. It is but the first step in the journey. My criticism is that this first step could have been taken two or three years ago and the current debate would be around what the next step is. I have looked at both proposals and imo, there is very little difference in the substance of the proposals, and I think, and this would be a different opinion to most, that the first scheme would have been more effective. Now you may say no it wouldn’t and I can say yes it would, but this would not progress the debate. In the end, it is a Labor Government which is getting its legislation through the Parliament and it was the Greens who opposed the previous legislation. I say the Greens opposition to the previous legislation was posturing and not a point of principle and the consequence has been a loss of momentum and political capital for reforming the Australian economy to embrace a clean energy future.
Not sure I entirely agree FDB. After all, the original Luddites were opposed to new technology on the grounds that they would lose their jobs. The economic doom-and-gloom arguments used by some of the opponents actually do resemble the Luddites’ arguments to a degree, particularly when you consider that the policy is, at least partly, intended to promote the uptake of new clean energy technologies.
Of course, many of the opponents of climate change policy do see themselves as defenders of economic development and technological progress and regard the advocates of climate change policy as having a ulterior, anti-industrial agenda. In that respect you might say that those opponents of climate change policy are the opposite of Luddites.
But I don’t think that view accurately characterises the proponents of climate change policy. While there are certainly elements in the environmental movement with an anti-industrial agenda, they don’t represent the whole movement, and furthermore the environmental movement doesn’t represent the whole support base for climate change policy. The bulk of its supporters want to preserve modern civilisation from the threats posed by climate change.
Not only is it tasteless, it’s so unoriginal:
“Nanaimo’s NDP MLA calls the bill to implement the Harmonized Sales Tax in British Columbia the “longest political suicide note in provincial history.”
OBAMACARE IS THE LONGEST POLITICAL SUICIDE NOTE OF ALL TIME.” – All-caps RWDB blogger.
And that’s just a couple of the many different examples returned by Google. Tony Abbott hasn’t got an original or witty bone in his body and neithr have his minders, who presumably write these hilarious quips.
I agree with Tim. The luddites were opposed to technological change which they feared would put them out of work. the modern-day luddites are the same. “Progress” doesn’t necessarily mean fossil-fuel burning industry – that’s the modern-day luddites’ fallacy.
I’d broadly agree with Tim’s reasoning on the question of “Luddites” though I’d agree the allusion is a little murky, like most allusions. Certainly, it’s at its strongest when it alludes to “resistance to innovation for fear that this will change existing usages in ways that harm existing stakeholders”. The innovation of pricing carbon is, metaphorically, “a new technology”. We might also note the substantially plebeian composition of the footsoldiers of the Luddite movement as comparable to at least some of the opposition to pricing CO2.
Of course, we usually recall the Luddites as opponents of mechanisation whereas the opponents of pricing carbon usually swear by the value of unfettered mechanical progress and see pricing carbon as a fetter.
The most serious problem with the allusion is that although the footsoldiers are plebeian, the organisers of the movement are not. The Luddite movement was an authentic (albeit reactionary) movement of small artisans seeking to preserve the value of their skills, whereas the anti-mitigation movement exists at the behest of massively privileged hydrocarbon asset-holders and those with an indirect interest in fossil hydrocarbon usage.
Actually Helen I first recall the phrase being used in relation to the perception that Ted Grant’s Militant Tendency had taken control of the British Labour Party’s policy in 1983 in response to Thatcher.
As far as politics goes, the ‘longest suicide note’ line goes back to 1983, in reference to (UK) Labour’s electoral manifesto that year (700 pages of unilateral nuclear disarmament and renationalisations!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_note_in_history
But it seems it was used earlier to describe Sylvia Path’s poems, so the 1983 usage may have been a borrowing too.
Sylvia Plath I think …
Thanks Helen. I might add that, in my view, opponents of climate change policy who see themselves as defenders of progress are misleading themselves to an extent as, despite their professed faith in progress, they appear to be quite wedded to the status quo and quite skeptical of the resilience of society to successfully adjust to different technolgoical settings (such as different energy delivery arrangements, for example). To my mind this marks them out as technologically conservative, rather than progessive.
True enough, Fran. It’s not an exact fit, by any means.
On a side point. Did the ALP ever walk out during Howard’s reign? Because I have a feeling if the shoe was on the other foot there would be all sorts of commentary on disrespect etc.
dear Tim Macknay
thanks for the corrective – the devil is in the “equivocation” quotes. but i note your point & appreciate your engagement.
for what its worth, i think the analogy with luddites is weak & one dimensional. people should read or re-read hobsbawm (“labouring men” (1964) or “the machine wreckers (1952)). maybe even thompson (“the enormous condescension of posterity”) for correctives. don’t rely exclusively on wikipedia & find some sources earlier than 1998. focus on the ownership of means of production & workers’ means of organisation for a start.
or try these for a start:-
http://libcom.org/history/machine-breakers-eric-hobsbawm
http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html
obvious anachronisms aside, i see the luddites more in the light of the qantas technicians than the carbon tax opponents. cui bono?
yours sincerely
alfred venison
Fair enough, alfred. No doubt there was far more to the original Luddites than the current pejorative usage of the term implies. My comment @25 was predicated on the commonplace usage of the term, and not intended to be an accurate analogy with the historical Luddites.
dear Tim Macknay
point taken – no probs. analogies are a b!tch, though always illuminating – hit and/or miss.
i think you might enjoy the pynchon essay.
yours sincerely
alfred veison
I can’t remember such happening, even though Iraq might have been a reasonable excuse, and Workchoices definitely was.
However, there was such a boycott at Kerr’s opening of Parliament after the Dismissal and election in 1975.
And as you surmised, there were a lot of cries of outrage and disgust from both the coalition and their hacks in the media.
I think dingbats should consider Liealot’s childish stunt on the day the clean energy bills were read in Parliament as an affront to them. The Liars Party are collecting some very handsome moolah, courtesy of the taxpayer, but can’t be bothered earning it.
Will they be bothered debating these bills? Not a chance. There will be grandstanding at one of their idiotic Rallies of the Stupid, with the ghastly Anal Jones and precious little else.
Debate? Amendments which could be negotiated and improve it? God forbid. No, far better to posture like the lazy mob of do nothing’s they are.
Shouldn’t dingbats feel outraged that this mob is happy to collect their salary, but provide sod all in return? AFAIC, dingbats are being ripped off bigtime, but don’t have the wit to join the dots!
Tim et al, I was coming at it from a different angle, thinking about those who say now that technology will save us miraculously from ourselves with minimal effort or adjustment on our part, if we’d just let the market go where it will. Versus the somewhat more pessimistic view of the historical Luddites to technology.
Luddites opposing climate change policy -
In Australian political history, “the longest suicide note in history” was last prominently used by Keating about Hewson’s Fightback, although as detailed above it was not one of his originals.
As far as the tax/not a tax debate goes, in the explanatory memoranda to the bills the government seems to be very firmly not expressing a view as to whether these charges are in fact taxes or not, but are treating them legislatively as if they are so that there are no such grounds for challenging them.
History is on our side she said
If she gets re-elected.
At the moment it looks like Abbott will win by a landslide. I do s’pose he might not be able to remove the tax unless that landslide extends to the Upper House. But the figures are dismal. Still she’s got two years.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/solyndra-house-committee-grills-officials-over-failed-loans.html
Given this article, how is Australia going to grow a renewable energy manufacturing industry?
I was under the impression that the Greens insisted that labor institute some sort of ” renewable energy fund ” to transition from mining jobs to manufacturing renewable energy sources jobs.
China wont let this happen, all the while increasing their emissions a shit load.
I’d say it’s a better than even proposition that Abbott will win the 2013 election on an anti-carbon tax platform, but I’d say it’s a near certainty that by 2023 an anti-carbon tax platform will near-universally look like a kind of lunacy.
Jumpy, the Solyndra debacle has come about in large part because the US has resisted putting a price on carbon. The assistance given to Solyndra seems more along the lines of direct action than what the Government have tabled in parliament.
Thomas Friedman sketches some of the problems with their funding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/opinion/friedman-is-it-weird-enough-yet.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Ht quiggers
MartinB @ 50,
One would have to be living in a dark space with a direct feed to the Toxic Tony BS machine and with only A Bolt ad breaks for relief to hold that view.
Jumpy,
By your own regularly repeated admission you know very little about science or alternative energy. Renewable energy systems and development are alive and well. As an aside a visitor to my factory yesterday pointed out that petrol in NZ is $2.40 per litre. When it gets to that price here all of those ex Coalition voters will be urging the renewable energy developers and producers on with enthusiasm. As, Jumpy, you live up the Gladstone area where it costs 70 cents per litre to produce ethanol I expect that your transport will go E85 and you living costs will drop considerable, even from where they are now.
Julia Gillard HAS delivered against all of the odds. And we are looking forward to most of those odds fading into the distance fairly rapidly. Even Peter Reith is on this mornings news saying that Julia Gillard looks like having a very good chance of winning at the next election, and that is this far out from the event.
BilB:
Sorry, not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it is a ridiculously blinkered view to say that the Coalition are better than even money to win the next election? I thought I was being optimistic…
Does the carbon tax fit within the lawyer’s definition of a tax?
Dunno – IANAL.
Does it fit within the economist’s definition of a tax?
Definitely.
Does it fit within the accountant’s definition of a tax?
Not if the government had been as creative as, say, the Howard government was in making the GST a state tax.
Does it fit within the politician’s definition of a tax?
Yes, but only because Gillard said so. There was plenty of room to muddy the waters here by quibbling about the word, as Costello once did with the Superannuation Surcharge.
@52. BilB.
How you can compare the price of (heavily taxed) petrol to (subsidised) renewables is beyond me.
Petrol is wholesale (SG price) about 70c/l.
Ethanol sale price is close to of above that when removing subsidies.
Have a look at http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/sust/biofuel/200601_bfgrainethecon.pdf for a more comprehensive analysis
I think that both the carbon tax, the CPRS and the proposed ETS are defacto taxes because they generate large flows of revenue to the government. This is an important difference compared to emission trading schemes that are based on offset credit trading that generate no flow of revenue to the government.
Two obvious examples of offset credit trading schemes are the MRET emission trading scheme introduced by Howard to drive investment in renewables and the emission trading scheme used in the US to reduce acid rain.
Arguing whether the carbon tax really is a tax is supporting the “all taxes are evil” line pushed by the right.
I’ve only had time to skim the thread, but two comments before I’m aff again.
dd @ 54, I don’t care deeply what the carbon thing is called, but obviously there were choices in relation to strategy. I do recall a senior counsel who was a tax lawyer writing in the AFR that it was not a tax. He said the Government were selling permits, which then became the property of those who bought them and were trade-able.
I tend to think that calling it a tax is misleading.
Second, in a clear insult to Greg Hunt, the Opposition have appointed climate change sceptic George Christensen to sit on the parliamentary committee reviewing the climate change legislation.
Is it easy to find a pea in a human body?
I keep seeing Abbotts quote about “our policy will reduce emissions by 5%, it will cost $3.2 billion and that will not change” as being another brainfart. So, if he doesn’t get the 5% for $3.2B, what’s he going to do? Legislate to cap emissions without compensation? Shut stuff down?
I think someone should get that promise in writing and ideally enforcably. My bet is that if he is in a position to do anything both parts of that promise will immediately become non-core and the Murdocracy will try to deny he even said them.
@59 – it’s pretty straight forward assuming the polling doen’t change much from now – Abbott get’s in on a landslide – claims a mandate to unravel the CO2 Tax – works out how much it is going to cost – says to the electorate “you can’t have your cake and eat it” so we will keep our promise of unravelling it but we fund that by not spending on direct action – “win-win” from where I am sitting. And, yes, before anyone get’s their psephological knickers in a twist – if it gets blocked in the Senate first off then he jumps through the 6 mponth hoops to get a DD election to ram it through.
Razor, Anthony Green has explained why Abbott won’t be able to get a DD election before 2015, by which time the govt’s carbon price will have been operating (successfully) for several years. Even then, it’s unlikely he’d be able to get the numbers to overturn it, even in a joint sitting.
David, anything worth doing is rarely easy.
And, I had read that article by Green but do not understand why they can’t start the DD process as soon as they are elected – the GG calls a DD as soon as the two three month periods are met – why does the Senate Terms matter?
AG is of the opinion that senators-elect cannot be dissolved before they sit through the DD provisions. If a deadlock arose and the government requested a dissolution, AG suggests that the GG would be bound to refuse (remembering that a DD is not automatic) until the incoming Senate has had a chance to express it’s opinion.
Politically, no government has ever gambled a working majority in the lower house within a year of being elected, and Abbott is unlikely to do so either (if he is in fact elected in 2013).
. . . and the ALP was unlikely to dump a first term PM before an election.
Dumping a first term PM, though unusual, is still far short of tossing aside a working majority in 12 months.
If the LNP were to win in 2013, a lot of the LNP would be sitting in seats they won because voters wanted to take out their displeasure on the ALP — and which would go back to being marginal in 2016. For those members to hang on, they need to be part of a govenment that looks competent and seem personally worthy. Doing that in 12 months would be very hard.
So their interest lies in running full term and putting policy “runs” on the board.
oops {a government that looks competent, and themselves seem personally …}
I don’t like the carbon tax, it’s bad policy and worse economics. Australia has a comparative advantage when it comes to energy sources, working against such advantage is economic idiocy. Such a strategy has never before been recommended by either left or right on the political landscape. For good reason.
I’m against the tax not for political reasons, but for the reason I think it’s bad for Australia and most of the Australian people.
I think the tax will go down like a lead balloon. It makes for shocking politics if nothing else. Gillard has over egged the “benefits” to sell the tax, and this will come back to haunt her, what’s new?
Gillard unwillingly has now taken ownership of every cost of living increase (rightly or wrongly this tax will be mentioned in the sound bites). And she will be blamed for every hardship (real or imagined) relating to the cost of living. The reminders of this cost comes think and fast in “never ending” quartely bill statements.
If most people hate a tax, what weird thinking makes people believe they’ll like it when they actually start paying it? Compensation? Abbott knows that EVERY government handout is a “natural Australian entitlement”, and every government impost, is a “natural act of government tyranny against hard working, battling Aussies”.
That’s the Australian landscape and that’s why the ALP is already gonzo. They and their supporting acts just don’t know it yet.
Rob b
You are Tony Abbott’s sockpuppet. Do I win the internetz?
If I’m Tony Abbott’s sock puppet, he’s got a lot of them. About half the ALP voting base (previous voting base).
A democracy is a little like a business, in the end the customer is always right. If the ALP wishes to destroy their voting base, I say more power to them.
Personally I believe the ALP has been on a road to political nowhere for ages. Only a policy like work choices covers up the demise. What was it about going directly against a voting base interests? Without government funding and “support” the for ever shrinking unions will go in a surprisingly quick demise.
A policy like work choices was never needed in a naturally progessing demise of unions and centralised bargaining. Work choices simply alarmed people and gave ammunition to a flat lining opponent. My bets on the great carbon tax following the exact same script. The crazy thing is even the political blog supporters have simply reversed roles from 2007. A remember how many a blogger took solace in the fact (their fact) that one day work choices would come to be loved and respected in history.
If Abbott wins the election, it’ll be a big win. My prediction for the ALP is first order of business will be for the “new team” to cut all bonds with the “old team”. The second order of business will be for the “new team” agreeing to all Abbott’s changes. They certainly won’t want to be reminded of that devastating policy nightmare every day, and they’ll certainly want to be rid of the “old team” and all their reminders as soon as possible. They won’t take hits for something that’s not of their making.
Those who don’t learn from history will always repeat it.
Duncan @ 55
Cane ethanol is unsubsidised. You linked AG report is a 2006 report for grain ethanol, a short lived industry promoted by John Howard which completely failed due to shortage of grain. Australian petrol raw price (Singapore) plus shipping is around 85 cents at present. When petrol retail here hits $2.40 per litre retail that raw price component will be $1.70 . Then Australian cane ethanol at 70 cents raw price equivalent (also not subject to any carbon price component national or international) will be the hottest energy product in Australia along with solar renewable electricity.
Your buddy, Toxic Tony, has not got the foggiest clue as to where Climate Change and Resouce Depletion are leading us. This is possibly because it is not written into the Catholic rewrite of the Bible in words that he is able to comprehend.
Rob b,
We got everything that you have to contribute
“I don’t like the carbon tax, it’s bad policy and worse economics”
in the first sentence. Beyond that you added absolutely nothing to support your view.
Your view flies in the face of the full weight of economic and legal opinion that the Carbon Price is both good policy and good economics. There is a definite trend with Coalitionistas to completely ignore the real world and attempt to construct some alternative “reality” based on how life was back in 1960.
I f you can scratch a few ideas together have a go at justifying your opinion Rob b. In going through that process you will discover that you are in fact completely wrong, and you will have done it on your own.
That’s a chilling little fact, right there.
Moz,
Well, it has to be in writing. Remember Tony’s admission that he was free to make shit up WRT anything he said without a written script? (An admission which, oddly, was not taken up by Bolt’s flying monkeys and the rest of the Australian-Tea-party types in News Ltd comment threads.)
(And I mean “oddly” as in “completely predictably”.)
It’s not a tax – it’s a carbon price, and it’s the big polluters who pay it. Now, let’s substitute “carbon price” for “tax” and see what happens -
You see? When we use the correct terminology, rob’s little propaganda piece doesn’t really make sense. So now we see why Mr Rabbit uses the incorrect terminology. It allows his mindless followers to make these scary statements.
Mr Rabbit knows the difference between a carbon price and a carbon tax, as this video proves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74
It shows why Mr Rabbit and his followers keep using the incorrect term “carbon tax” – because it implies that ordinary people like motorists will be paying it up front.
We can’t let the Tories keep getting away with this abuse of language. Every time they use the scary term “carbon tax,” we must point them to this video. It is only by constant exposure to the light that we can dispel the darkness.
BilB, it’s bad policy because it works against comparative advantages Australia enjoys. These advantages help all Australians attain a better economic lifestyle, including inner city lefties. Take away these advantages and it will have consequences. If people feel the need to cripple themselves (and the country they live), good luck. It’s not a desire I share.
If you want a good report on something, you only need ask the right questions. It’s merely going through the motions, and unfortunately ultimately self defeating because people will realise the truth soon enough. Then if you’re the ALP, your problems only begin.
The Treasury assumed the world will have a carbon price (a poor assumption), and it also didn’t measure like for like. It measures Australia against say the UK (two very different economies), and not against say Canada and Brazil. The results are therefore meaningless and really not worth the effort or the paper they’re recorded on.
In the end we all get our personal say on how things are going in this country. That say will come within the next years. The ALP seems hell bent on insulting and working against a fair whack of its customers (voters), something I don’t think is particularly bright in either business or politics.
The ALP is unfortunately devoid of anyone resembling a successful and broad life. None, not one has ever been in business. Have any even held a job outside politics? We’re certainly not talking the cream of the financial crop, I doubt we’re even talking the dregs. Such people have absolutely no hope of getting something as big and broad as this carbon tax right. No hope at all.
Prepare yourself now, and don’t be surprised when it all goes Pete Tong for them.
Rob b, even if this were true (which it isn’t), the same could be said of the Coalition. Most of them have never had a real job, either.
Actually, Helen @ 74, I wouldn’t get too exercised about who’s on the review committee. Don’t forget, the legislation is a done deal (having been stitched up by the few adults in Parliament) and the committee will get very little input. At worst, there’ll be temper tantrums and screeching.
This, Rob b, “it’s bad policy because it works against comparative advantages Australia enjoys” is just gobbledgook. There is no “comparative advantage” to be affected by the Carbon Price that is not affected ten fold greater by other influences that also detract from Australia’s welfare. Electricity pricing for starters has risen up to 40% by shear greed from that industry. The mining industry has driven the Aus dollar to record heights and is crippling manufacturing, services, government revenue, and the housing industry in the process. One of Toxic Tony’s high profile CP affected industries said to me personally that his real problem was the high Australian dollar and the high cost of oil. Nothing what ever to do with a Carbon Price.
I am a manufacturer making a high tech product that we manufacture in Australia an export. The cost of the Carbon Price to my business is 0.125% of my gross turnover. All of the other businesses that I have applied the test to report similar results.
Face it Rob b you have been sucked in to the negativity of the Coalition because you cannot be bothered to actually do any basic evaluation of the facts. You have been duped, suckered, and made a total fool of by Toxic Tony Abbott and his negativity machine.
Restore your dignity, get a basic calculator and crunch a few figures. Then come back with something of substance, not another bunch of parroted slogans.
silkworm, it’s a tax because it’s a cost imposed by the government without a mutually agreed transaction. I don’t care what you call it, the politics of the term isn’t important to me.
Yes, the tax is imposed on limited number of companies. The companies involved are large in turnover and market share. All evidence from the companies involved points to the fact that they see it as a basic business cost that’ll need to be passed on to customers (Australian voters).
Once this carbon “cost” kicks off, I’m certain rather than these companies being carbon tax payers, you’ll find they’re glorified carbon tax collectors. All in all it’s a pretty morally corrupt flat tax minus “compensation” (the nature of which can change with the years and different governments). It’s a tax on essentials such as food and energy, that means the lower the income the harder the impact is felt.
It’s also a tax that hits industries such as manufacturing much harder than banking. I don’t know how a “labour” representative reconciles itself with targetting honest toil, and giving speculation and some would say usary, a pass.
I read Karl Marx many moons ago, however it’s pretty clear that many in the ALP (basically their policy makers) have never bothered or simply see it as crap. Sort of makes you wonder why they’re in something called the Labor Party. This sure isn’t workers paradise policy.
Personally, I don’t adhere to socialist philosophy, and I certainly have never felt the need to pretend that I do. Seems to me, many a ALP devotee is in the need of a little liberation. Perhaps HQ needs to make brick laying and steel fixing compulsory once a week. Nothing like getting back to the basics and in touch with one’s origins…….bids chirping……..
DI
” there’ll be temper tantrums and screeching” your not wrong about that. On Thursday during general business, after a typical gush of total rubbish from Senator MacDonald on government wasting money on advertising, Doug Cameron came into the chamber and let go with full force. It was a totally unscripted speeh that would make good reading, an even should be used as a resource for history and economics students, because totally contrary to MacDonald’s speech it was fully factual and a fairly thorough desciption of various aspects of employment and environment issues.
MacDonalds trash collection left me with a huge desire to send him a very long email. Doug Cameron saved me from that waste of time and energy.
Do you think the government is making these reforms for the heck of it?
Do you accept that there is a very high likelihood of climate change that will also have consequences?
Do you really think that Business As Usual is a viable long-term strategy?
dear Martin B
to Rob b you put: “Do you accept that there is a very high likelihood of climate change that will also have consequences?”
precisely! there’s the nub/point/grist. this policy is about keeping australia viable, let alone competitive, into the future. a future where crap hitting fans, around the world, will become the norm, the “background noise”, of life on earth & doing business of any kind. unless, of course, we can get a grip on it.
and, as for Australia’s “comparative advantage [in] energy sources”, presumably coal, i say look to the sun & upgrade the grid. make it a national grid. heck, just nationalise it & upgrade it the snowy mountain project way. build-up the goddamn nation. and get cracking.
and, finally, i personally don’t give a flying phark in a rolling donut if its a “carbon tax” or a “price on carbon”, in reality or in nomenclature, i just want it done.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
Rob b,
Here you go again carrying on about things that you have not the foggiest idea about.
“All in all it’s a pretty morally corrupt flat tax”
As a Coalistionista you will be very comfortable with the idea of flat taxation. It was John Howard who brought in the 10% flat rate GST . Then just a year and a bit after that the flat $10 per seat air travel levy. The GST was to take away wealth taxes in the form of sales tax and lob the base load of taxation onto the workers. The Carbon Price is a very small levy on Carbon Emissions with a gross economic impact of less than 1%.
10% versus 1%. Howard versus Gillard. Coalition versus Labour. Which one of these 2 is the flat tax glutton.
“It’s a tax on essentials such as food and energy, that means the lower the income the harder the impact is felt.”
The Carbon Price impacts food production in a minor way. However as we know food producers receive scant return for their efforts as Coles and Woolworths reap all of the real profits feeding the nation. On the one hand a small percentage of a very small share is a neglible impact on the cost of feeding the nation. On the other hand who should absorb that cost? The farmer or the retailer?
“It’s also a tax that hits industries such as manufacturing much harder than banking”
That is not at all necessarily true, and so what?
Rob b is presumably aware that the Clean Energy Future policy includes a compensation package which will result in low-income earners coming out ahead after the policy is implemented. It also includes an assistance package for emissions intensive trade-exposed industries. Rob b is just trolling.
Indeed. I still cant believe some douchebags are still whining about a tiny tax when on the other side of the ledger is massive and costly climate instability.
How feckin shtoopit can you losers get? LOL!
Good thing it’ll pass parliament – and then wont be revoked by whatsisname.
You know, that dude who is now,officially, the ONLY reason the Tories arent currently in in power. http://www.theage.com.au/national/windsor-puts-boot-into-abbott-20110916-1ke4t.html
HAHAHA!
Please don’t tell me what I have the “foggiest idea” about BillB.
The carbon tax is a flat tax. If compensation is removed or cut back, the carbon tax is also highly regressive. It’s indeed the type of tax Steve Forbes or some such would advocate.
If you need to believe you are saving the world to justify this tax, good luck you. You know how best to live with yourself. However, don’t claim it’s some sort of goodie two shoes socialist tax, when it’s clearly nothing of the sort. All the while implying I’m a little slow and I don’t understand the subject.
Well Rob b how can I not, it is obvious that you don’t know the subject.
I told you the degree to which the Carbon Price affects my business. Can I live with that? Yes I can. Will it save the world? This is Australia starting to do its little bit……one nation amoungst many all starting to do their environmentally resonsible bit, play their part. Are we the first in doing this? No not at all, not by a long shot.
Is this some sort of socialist tax? Not at all,..this is an environmentally responsible levy to repair the externalised damage that free release of CO2 causes. This is industry coming of age and facing up to its environmental responsibilities.
Rob b, you do want industry to be responsible for the damage that it causes, don’t you?
You would be annoyed if a McDonalds store moved into your street and your area started to fill up with hamburger boxes, wrappers, discarded drink containers and half eaten burger scraps wouldn’t you. You would expect the restuarant to be responsible for cleaning up the mess that is caused by their profit making enterprise made at your expense, wouldn’t you?
Rob B, if the carbon price, or tax, were regressive, you’d have the lower end of the populace paying the same as the top.
In fact, lower income earners are going have their income bumped up in compensation. That doesn’t happen with a truly regressive tax (*cough GST cough*). And the ones who are paying the tax are the 50 top polluters. The concern people have is a possible flow on price effect, but those who adopt a lower fossil fuel lifestyle will pay less regardless of how much they earn. It doesn’t behave like a regressive tax at all.
@Bilb
“You would be annoyed if a McDonalds store moved into your street and your area started to fill up with hamburger boxes, wrappers, discarded drink containers and half eaten burger scraps wouldn’t you. You would expect the restuarant to be responsible for cleaning up the mess that is caused by their profit making enterprise made at your expense, wouldn’t you?”
Are you serious?
You will hold the restaurant responsible for the public littering?
Do you blame the car manufacturers for every car crash?
Do you blame the paint can manufacturer for all the graffiti we see?
savvy, these analogies are getting out of hand.
The burners of fossil fuels are producing negative externalities which over the next few centuries, a mere blip in geologic time, are civilisation-threatening.
This activity clearly needs to stop. The current advice from economists seems to be that a price on carbon is the most effective way of dealing with the situation. The current proposals will have a less than 1% impact on household budgets, for which the most needy will be fully compensated.
If your real argument is against the science, please say so, and then take it somewhere else.
Brian spoke of analogies getting out of hand …
Analogies are complex things to contrive and often generate quite as many problems as the relationships they purport to render clearly. I’d not accept Bilb’s analogy with MacDonalds, because it includes in the externality matters that are not entirely within the control of MacDonalds. Clearly, their choice of packaging is a necessary condition for the composition of the discarded containers. MacDonalds might well have better stewardship procedures and/or choose packaging designs with an eye to minimising their “scope 3″ externalities, but the argument here is somewhat attenuated, since as Savvy points out, the littering is by end users.
A better analogy would refer to overweight and obesity, especially in children, or to waste fat from their own kitchens, (assuming this wasn’t properly disposed of, but dumped into the commons).
Nevertheless, Bilb’s analogy (and “Savvy’s” attempt to extend it into the land of the strawman) notwithstanding, Bilb’s point about externality is a fair one. Businesses should adopt suitable stewardship practice rather than impose upon the commons. That’s beyond all reasonable demur.
Yes, compared to the GST this is a negligible tax. I wouldnt get too worked up about it.
One day – not too far in the future – youll be explaining to your grandkids how we used to burn dirty black rocks to make power. You’ll deny ever having been a supporter – a bit like the BETA VHS crowd.
Then they’ll ask if we were cannibals back then too.
The best analogy is with cigarette manufacturers seeking to sow doubt over the health findings for 20 odd years.
Eventually theyll fail.
I think with a little further study of the analogy, All, will reveal that it is not at all inconsistent. It can equally be asked that “is it the oil company’s responsibility how their customers use their oil products or how they handle their emissions”?
The sale of petrol is a very near equivalent only that we know precisely where the emissions are going to go. With the McDonalds example on a Friday night there is an equal odds chance that drive through waste is going to wind up on the street, just as it does around my factory on week ends (mostly). To their credit I believe that the McDonalds restaurant (within one and a half blocks we have a McDonalds, a Red Rooster, a Dominoes Pizza, a conventional Take a Way sandwich shop, and 2 petrol stations) pays someone to clear away their rubbish, because it does not accumulate.
Emissions from power stations obviously do not fit that analogy but they do fit the analogy of a cream freeze vendor who supplies a product that is totally consumed and the rubbish generated (the cans that the liquid comes in and the wrapping from the bulk cones supply etc) in the process of providing the product is completely managed at the point of production.
The commonality is that the cost of disposing of the rubbish (trash and CO2) in either case must ultimately be paid for by the customer one way or another, whether it be by the suppliers, the council street services, or via the council rubbish collection services. With the visible rubbish much of the problem is properly managed, the balance becoming a permanent despoilment of our near environment, our water ways, and our oceans with a huge tragic cost being paid by many animal species that become entangled in our waste.
At the moment the power stations, the automobile users, the truck drivers, and the ships, are all throwing their invisible waste CO2 into the atmosphere free of charge and, more importantly, free of responsibility. That, Rob b and Savvy, is what is in the process of changing
Lefty E half of those people (denialistas) still think that cigarettes are in fact, a health tonic, and it’s all the fluoride in the water that causes the lung cancer.
@Brian
“savvy, these analogies are getting out of hand.”
I agree, but do you not think you should inform Bilb of this fact, after all he is the one who made the absurd analogy.
The interesting thing is that the government now wants to spotlight the tax cuts, pension increases, industry subsidies (bribes) etc, the carbon tax revenue will mean. They’re even running a four billion deficit from an alleged budget neutral scheme for a little extra insurance.
Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
We have a situation of government in such desperate trouble that they make the enviroment secondary, when spruiking the enviroment tax. It’s hilarious and I’m sure there would be more than a few thinking people of both the left and right, getting more than one selfish giggle from it all. Naturally that’s of course when one isn’t wondering if they’ve entered some strange new parallel universe.
To sum up: we have a government running a deficit on a tax scheme, so as to “electorial secure” votes from the masses, because the masses votes are in doubt due to the introduction of the tax scheme. I might add a broad based flat tax shopped around for years (in many guises) as an answer to covering foreseeable problems in all aging socialised western nations.
If one was to suggest looking at broadening the GST or even heaven forbid, raising the GST, they’d probably be placed on medication. No, it’s much better to think of a cause, not just any cause, a world saving cause. Even go as far as to create from nothing, time and money wasting inefficent dummy industries (clean energy being the biggest of the bunch), to keep the populace off the scent. Yes sir, that’s the answer to all our problems.
The ghosts of Labors past would be laughing when they’re not crying.
This new world saving tax isn’t a great reform, and it should be called for exactly what it has become. A cruel practical joke played on a nations people, by people, who secretly hold them in nothing but sadistic contempt. No words I use will matter, however by their very actions those that take a part in this contempt will be damned.
Helen, I made the point that the tax itself is regressive. I made it clear regarding the compensation. Compensation isn’t guaranteed forever, it can’t be. Governments change, and situations change. The compensation at present isn’t even indexed to inflation. It almost certainly will reduce over time (making it more regressive) for a start.
My idea of a great reform is something that lasts for generations. This so called reform, can’t even give clarity on what it’ll mean to people in a quarter of one generation.
It’s a joke.
“Your view flies in the face of the full weight of economic and legal opinion that the Carbon Price is both good policy and good economics”.
Sorry for the third straight post, however.
That this type of amateur appeal to authority has not only been accepted, it has persisted, clearly shows the declining standards of intellictual and journalistic rigour within this nation. It’s also a very poorly constructed use of spin that should’ve been long ago smashed to bits by the opposition.
People simply don’t know how to run a counter argument these days.
All “economists” alledge the Abbott policy will cost oodles more? It will cost tax payers x amount more and so on. Personally, I’d be most interested in the context this “verdict of all encompassing wisdom” was founded upon. For example what were the questions asked?
Australia really could have a mob of second or worse rate economists out and about. Economists that don’t even know their job defination.
Economics is a social science, it’s not mathematics, and it’s not accounting. Economics is philosophical. That means that an economist cannot say what is the better policy minus a clearly defined objective and outcome. What was the objective and outcome they’ve based their answer upon?
The outcome clearly can’t be what will cost each individual tax payer the most dollars, surely not. If it is these guys should be let nowhere near a balance sheet. If that is also what they’re basing their opinion on, they’re professional laughing stocks and accounting illiterates.
Abbotts policy is at this time based on funding from the yearly budget. It’s in fact no different from health, military, education, policing etc. The liabilities all of these sectors carry are dealt with in the yearly budget. The amounts differ yearly through circumstance and politics.
It’s clearly obvious that Abbott could shave a proportion of one sectors, or a number of sectors yearly allocated funding in favour of his policy. It’s also obvious that external factors such as a rise in tax receipts, government owned business dividends etc, could also take place.
Such an outcome, which the policy is clearly based upon, would mean Abbotts policy doesn’t cost the tax payer one extra cent.
Accounting deals with monetary cost, not social cost. If you’re sick you don’t go to a plumber, and lets face it, if you want to know the state of a balance sheet, don’t ask an economist.
I’ve got no idea why this isn’t explained, and I’m at a loss as to how a certifiable extra impost for each tax payer can be agreed upon. It simply can’t be. It’s an accounting impossibility.
Anyhow, two can always play the same game.
Abbott should tally up the costs of the pink batts, school halls, NBN and other shemes, divide it up and call it a direct tax slug on every Australian individual – they were they Party with the debt truck after all.
Sure, he’d be called an accounting ignoramous, however both arguments can only be both right or both wrong. It’s a game Abbott should already have won.
In the good old days, amateur political spin such as this stupid Labor line, would’ve been crushed and laughed out of town.
This is true, but it applies equally to every single ongoing public policy. By this standard no reform can ever be worthwhile – because it can’t be guaranteed forever.
I note that in three long posts you fail to address three simple, direct questions. I’ll make it easier and reduce it to one: Do you, or do you not, accept that the probability of significant adverse economic impact from climate change resulting from unconstrained growth in greenhouse gas emissions is sufficiently large that it should be the subject of serious public policy?
I think that Rob b may have been down at the pub a little too long today.
A “tax” which only applies to 50 of the richest corporations can’t really be described as “regressive”. If you then want to point to flow-on price rises as a “tax”, which they really aren’t, then people can avoid them by buying only renewable-produced power.
… In addition to which Helen, the putative payees of the CO2e emissions permits charge can also change their processes to avoid the emissions. Costs of these changes may be passed onto end users who are largely compensated. Those of us who are too well of to need compensation will pay a premium for our cleaner goods and services, but that is a choice we don’t have now.
Please note, Roger Jones on the other thread:
Here’s the link for the legislative package.