…And I’m in a position today to say to you petrol prices will not be touched by carbon pricing. Families, tradies, small business people do not have to worry about a petrol price increase.

So let’s have a debate on the facts about carbon pricing right now.

BARRIE CASSIDY: And is that forever, including when it transfers on to an ETS?

JULIA GILLARD: The design of this scheme is that petrol pricing, petrol will be out now and out for the future.

So – what does this mean?

As discussed on this earlier thread, the effects of any plausible carbon price on emissions from the transport sector in the first few years of operation would have been negligible.

The concern is, instead, for the long term – one way or the other, emissions from the transport sector have to be reduced and eliminated over time. If carbon pricing is not implemented eventually, some other approach – let’s call it “direct action on vehicle emissions” – will be required. By delaying action now, the pain down the track – be it from a huge whack to fuel prices, or draconian fuel economy regulations – might be even worse.

As Bob Brown has pointed out this evening, forever is a very long time in politics.

I would certainly prefer it if petrol had been included in the scheme, or that the exclusion was for a finite period of time. But it’s hardly the worst compromise in the world.

Firstly, there are several other factors that are likely to push down vehicle emissions over the next few years. Not least, continuing high oil prices, combined with economy regulations in Europe and North America, are actually encouraging substantial improvements in passenger vehicle fuel economy.

Furthermore, “real” electric cars and pluggable hybrids will be on the market, in increasingly large quantities, over the next decade or so. At some point it is likely that that their owners will start arguing that it’s unfair that the “fuel” for their vehicles is subject to carbon pricing, while petrol vehicles are not.

And, in the meantime, there are other fudges on offer, now and in the future. According to the ABC, Senator Brown

…says the Government has agreed to get the Productivity Commission to investigate if the fuel excise could be changed to increase the tax on higher polluting fuels.

There’s also the politics. I could be wrong on how it’s perceived more broadly, but Tony Abbott’s reaction to this sounded like a deflating balloon.

Bob Brown won his original court case to stop Forestry Tasmania logging the magnificent Wielangta forest, but the win was overturned on a technicality by the full bench of the Federal Court after the Howard Government joined forces with the Lennon Government to change the law.

Helen in this post after Brown had won the case and before he subsequently lost on appeal, points out that Gunns is more than happy to use court cases to frighten people into silence. Brown himself thought that Forestry Tasmania were pursuing the debt with unusual vigour and that a whole posse of people were out to get him.

Dr Brown believe Forestry Tasmania, a business 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian Government, is pursuing the debt more vigorously and hastily than usual in an attempt to force him out of the Senate.

He claims the Bartlett Labor Government in Tasmania, aided by the Rudd Federal Government and the logging industry, is intent on seeing him expelled from the Senate because of his recently-reiterated determination to have all logging banned in Australia’s native forests.

There was some evidence he was right.

Forestry Tasmania corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys accused Senator Brown of a “media stunt”, saying he had known since January last year the costs would need to be paid.

Several Coalition MPs agreed. but the Ruddster was sympathetic:

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today he was distressed to learn that the Greens leader could be booted out of the Senate over an unpaid legal debt.

Mr Rudd said he was upset for Senator Brown.

“I’ve actually got a lot of time for Bob; just as a person, (he’s) a bloke I’ve got to know over the years,” Mr Rudd told Sky News.

“I’m quite concerned about it for him personally.”

I understand that his public appeal was encouraging enough that Brown felt he could approach his bank manager for a loan. But then along came self-declared capitalist Dick Smith who said he would pay the entire $240,000 bill if necessary.

Smith reckons that Forestry Tasmania are a bunch of bullies and no-one should be drummed out of parliament this way.

Mr Smith said he was not prepared to see an elected parliamentarian turfed from office because of an unpaid bill arising from a case motivated by a “genuine” concern. “Even though I’m a capitalist, I think he does have an important role in parliament,” Mr Smith said.

Amen to that, but something is not right here. Brown should never have been in that position in the first place.

Finally, if you have superannuation there is a fair chance that you have a beneficial interest in Gunn’s. Sadly for most investing institutions ethics is someone else’s department.