George Christensen, the NP Member for Dawson, is no friend of the carbon “tax”. From his first speech:
“Then there is this carbon tax, the one that was twice denied during the election, the one that threatens to push up the price of everything, notably electricity, in the vain hope that we are going to cool the temperature of the globe.”
Ross Garnaut is not one to take a backward step, but when he fronted the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation Christenson saw an opportunity to embarrass him and make some points made many times in Abbott’s collection of absurdities.
As reported by The World Today:
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN: Isn’t it a distortion of reality to state that carbon dioxide and emissions in China will increase for the foreseeable future. I’m not talking about intensity, I’m talking about emissions.
ROSS GARNAUT: It is, I say very clearly in my report that there will be an increase in emission in China for some years, in India for quite a while, total emissions will increase. In China they will not continue to increase for the foreseeable future. I foresee a time when Chinese emissions will fall absolutely.
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN: Is it a distortion of reality to state that in the United States of America there will be no nationwide carbon price?
ROSS GARNAUT: There will be no carbon price nationwide, I’ve said that very clearly but there will be very strong policies of other kinds and it is the reality that in the United States, they have probably now reached a peak or past a peak in emissions which is more than you can say about Australia.
Interesting point about the US probably reaching a peak. And foreseeing a time when China’s emissions will fall.
Christenson could have learnt a bit more if he’d been reading emails from Greg Combet:
Claim 1: “There is no way that America is going to put a price on carbon anytime soon. There is no way that the Chinese and Indians are going to put a price on carbon until their peoples have a comparable standard of living to those of the advanced Western world.” (Speech, Australian Industry Group, 19 September 2011).
Fact 1: Ten American States, including New York, have already put a price on carbon pollution from their electricity generators. California – the world’s eighth largest economy – will start a carbon trading scheme in 2012. China has announced it will introduce emissions trading, commencing in key cities and provinces including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. India has introduced a clean energy tax on coal.
Garnaut was not impressed with the quality of the public debate:
Australian public discussion of climate change policy over recent times has been the locus of more elaborate and extreme distortion of reality and abuse of truth than I have seen in adult lifetime of interest in public policy.
Not assisted by the leader of HM Opposition.
According to The Oz, citizen Garnaut also said this:
“Our generation risks condemnation in history for the corruption of our democracy embodied in this distortion of reality and abuse of truth.”
And this:
“In fact, the carbon constraints through regulatory processes that have been applied in China and the US in many cases impose more costs on businesses and households than carbon pricing to achieve equivalent reductions in emissions.”
I have to say that I didn’t find the Korean War analogy particularly apt, but good to see citizen Garnaut in fine form and landing a few well-aimed blows.
Industry groups often complain that regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’ raise the cost of doing business – which is passed onto consumers. That should imply that a price on carbon is more than just an explicit $ price (by tax or fixed amount). But so-called free market critics of climate action clearly regard consistency as the hobgoblin of tiny minds. Tony Abbott appears to prefer implicit red tape pricing to explicit pricing (taking his climate policy at face value that is – which we shouldn’t).
Brian,
I thought the Korean War analogy was a shocker, and Garnaut’s halting delivery in front of the committee suggests he hadn’t thought it through.
The factual stuff was fine, though. The US peak depends on how the GFC redux proceeds. If economic recovery, depending on when it happens and how strong it will be, is accompanied by continued tech and energy transition that many of the US states are engaging in, then they have passed their peak.
I’ve written an essay on science and democracy riffing off philosopher Phillip Kitcher’s just released book Science in a Democratic Society. It’s a timely book that affects the way we view public knowledge, free speech, science and values, so it’s relevant to a number of current debates on LP and those occurring more broadly.
Mr Garnaut, isn’t part of the Australian business elite. It’s sad because at one time he had a real opportunity to be just that. And then….those horribly investments in alternative energy were made, his reputation in business will never recover. Sometimes one mistake (huge one) is all that it takes.
Why does he now seek to make himself an object of business ridicle? Why seek to share a stage with academics and public servants when he was so much higher positioned? The man is most certainly complex, I’ll give him that at least.
Rob b, if that comment were more coherent it might be vaguely libellous. What are you talking about?
Rob b, check Garnaut’s bio:
Roger @ 2, the Korean analogy didn’t work at any level.
In your linked piece I was particularly interested in the embrace of values and identifying the role they play. Altogether an excellent contribution.
Henry Ergas has a very good response to Garnaut’s self-interested fulminating
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mr-garnaut-climate-policy-should-be-questioned/story-e6frg6zo-1226152200129
Leaving aside the actual climate change issues for the minute, since I know there is little point in going into them here, Garnaut is basically an ALP apparatchik and an integral part of the poisonous culture that has brought us a government that has no vision other that whatever it takes to cling to power despite three quarters of the electorate having had a gutsful of it. For him to lecture about democracy and how it should work is very rich indeed.
Wozza, even for you that makes little sense.
Perhaps if you could define ‘ALP apparatchik’, with a definition other than someone you disagree with, and ‘poisonous culture’ other than what occurs when the electorate makes a decision that you disagree with.
I know it probably makes you feel good to get all outraged and all, but it pays even the most abject outrage addict to remember that this government was democratically elected.
Adrian, did you bother to read Ergas? Or even the links to Garnaut’s outburst? It might give you a better idea what the issue in regard to his anti-democratic views is to do so before sounding off.
As for Garnaut, he worked for Bob Hawke (as in, directly, in his office not the public service) in the 80s, was subsequently a political appointment by an ALP government as Ambassador to China, and was then hauled in again as soon as the ALP got back to power by Rudd in 2007 to cheerlead for a politically sensitive policy, which he has continued to do for the past 4 years.
There is little doubt about his political sympathies and his willingness to do frequent public battle for them.
This is on the public record of course for anyone who has been paying attention.
The ‘anti-democratic’ argument consists of the “No Carbon Tax” business (which we really don’t need to go over again) plus a frankly bizarre suggestion that because Garnaut associates with international decision-makers he is somehow undemocratic or improper. I can’t imagine why Ergas would think that a lack of contact with such people is somehow a qualification, but there you have it.
Wozza, I’ve read the Ergas piece, and it’s deeply incoherent and partisan.
Thanks, that’s five minutes I’ll never get back
Martin B, Garnaut directly equated the temerity of questioning climate change policy with “corruption of our democracy”. For Christ’s sake read the links that Brian provided instead of giving us a bizarre version of Garnaut’s remarks of your own devising.
Presumably you are comfortable with the corollary that democracy woukd be enhanced by restricting public questions to licensed Dorothy Dixers.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Wozza, for the full context of what Garnaut said, why not go to the transcript of the hearings. Garnaut was on first. Here’s a fuller quote than the one given by the ABC:
He goes on to talk about seven major distortions of what he himself has said and written.
The Ergas piece is a waste of space. The Treasury modelling is not the most important thing under the sun. Institutional arrangements will be in place to monitor and adjust the scheme as we go along.
Frank Jotzo understands the dynamic nature of the scheme. You’d be better off reading his piece in The Conversation. He also has a longer paper on emissions trading in his submission to the Committee.
I’ll let the anti-Labor rant go through to the keeper.
Indeed. There is nothing in Garnaut’s comments that suggest that robust policy debate is to be frowned upon including on climate change (so that’s yet another straw argument from Wozza).
Garnaut says that democracy is corrupted when public policy debate is carried out on the basis of deliberate lies.
Now I know that Wozza will disagree that this is what has happened, but I can’t see what’s wrong with the general argument
Thank you for the transcript Brian. The most revealing part of it, I thought, was when the Chair jumped on Tony Smith – not allowing him to explore the ramifications of the suggestion that distortion and lies in the climate change debate corrupt democracy in the case of (alleged) distortions and lies by those advancing the legislation.
This is the point. I did not say, Martin B, that Garnaut had suggested that “robust policy debate is to be frowned upon” – that particular strawman seems to be of your own devising. Neither do I disagree that deliberate lies and distortions are unhelpful to a public policy debate.
The issue is that the difference between “robust” and “deliberate distortion” is often in the eye of the beholder. I would far rather err on the side of allowing a degree of distortion in the interests of robustness – surely easy enough to counter if the facts are as clear as you guys insist? – than to countenance silencing it, and risk valid points being deemed distortion because they are politically inconvenient.
Perhaps I would not feel quite so strongly on the particular Garnaut remarks if there were not so many other indications – think eg media inquiry, the Bolt ruling and practically anything Bob Brown says – that the tide is shifting rapidly in Australia to stifling debate when it is inconvenient to those in power.
Your (Brian’s) dismissal of Ergas’ critique of the Treasury modelling with “ the Treasury modelling is not the most important thing under the sun” is a good example of the problem. The modelling is being vigorously used by the government to sell its case. Its flaws – distortions, if you will – cannot just be dismissed as “not important” to the Garnaut view of the world.
Would you accept therefore that its use in a sales pitch is part of Garnaut’s corruption of democracy? Or is it only the other side’s distortions that count? You appear to be, if not necessarily firmly on the side of the latter, at least very incurious about the vital question of who decides what is a distortion and how.
Wozza,
a fact could be staring you in the face, eyeball to eyeball and you’d overlook it.
Wozza, the chair pulled up Tony Smith because he was going to waste everyone’s time by trying to use Garnaut to score political points. I attended a similar inquiry for one whole day once and political point scoring by committee members was often the main action.
On Treasury modelling, I have reservations about it’s accuracy which I am sure is something less than 100%. I’d appreciate informed comment on how much confidence we can place in it, but not from people as partisan as Ergas.
Nevertheless, I’m sure they do the best they can, and the Government is entitled to use the information provided. Whether or not we proceed with the scheme does not depend, IMHO, on the Treasury modelling being perfect. We need to start and we will learn as we go.
@15
So you agree with what I said: Garnaut’s point is sound but you disagree that it applies.
Thanks.
[Redacted-ed]
Martin B, if you want to put it that way. If I were to insist on being understood a little more clearly I would say something like “Garnaut’s point is sound, but it applies to those arguing for the legislation as well as those arguing against it, not least to Garnaut himself, although he apparently feels it doesn’t.”
Brian, thanks, I largely agree with you. Garnaut was also scoring political points of course but it is the nature of the Parliamentary system that a Committee Chair is going to chair in a politically partisan way, and neither of us can do anything about that. I appreciate that you, at least, are responding objectively, rationally and courteously.
OK Brian, redact this one too, but it has to be said.
That you will leave in Roger Jones’ petulant abuse directed at me, but censor my response (which I agree was equally childish) speaks volumes about this blog. At least I had some things to say in addition the chidishness; Jones had nothing except one sentence, still sitting up there proudly, of straightout abuse. But hey he’s on your side, isn’t he?.
While you’re at it, get rid of my para @19 praising your objectivity too please. I was definitely wrong on that.
Wozza I thought that Roger @ 16 represented a scientist’s reaction to your contribution. You have previously said that you have a thick skin. I think your manner of addressing people on this blog has been problematic in terms of what we require, so I thought a bit of direct feedback may not go amiss. Your response was of the kind that would likely have resulted in a slugfest and another thread derail.
That aside you have to take some responsibility for the effectiveness of your communication. If you make points rationally and calmly people may consider them. If you ramp up the emotional temperature with sarcasm and other techniques they won’t.