Saturday, September 24, 2011

Do We Need A Carbon Tax


Up to 2 years ago there were enough anomalies in data and amongst the scientific fraternity (small as they may have been) for “Climate Sceptics” to be able to claim some legitimacy. Today there is much more consensus about Global Climate Change and more importantly, Man’s role in it.

This debate is not going on anywhere in the world, except Australia and the head of Lord Mockton. In Australia the debate is not going on amongst scientist, but the wider community. And when I say wider community, I must include the extremes. The Greens, yes the Greens and the rednecks that Tony Abbot appeals to (in both connotations of the word).

Not long ago, in one of his press conferences, Tony was asked why people shouldn’t take up arms against the Australian Government. Please read that again and absorb the implications! An Australian citizen was asking the Leader of the Opposition of Australia why he shouldn’t take up arms against the government. He was looking for understanding. He got it. Tony said, “I understand your anger”. I guess to his credit he followed with, “We are a peace loving nation”. I don’t think that cuts it.
I would have preferred to hear something like, “I’m sorry, but I don’t condone any such action and I would like to see this as a political and not a personal issue”. Unfortunately, Tony needs it to be a personal issue. It is basically his only card and it is quite a strong one.

Are we too quick to do this? What about the rest of the world? Why should we lead the way? The question we don’t hear is whether Climate Change is real, because that is an argument that only exists in Australia and certain pockets of the American right. We will not be world leaders as many countries have implemented or about to implement their own versions of the Carbon Tax, with the ultimate goal of a global Emissions Trading Scheme. Certainly the opposition is doing everything it can to delay the passing of the bill and has threatened to annul the bill when they come to power. History has shown a reluctance for any government to annul bills that ensure them revenue, especially when they can blame the other guy for its existence. Tony Abbot does not seem to accept the scientific evidence, although others in his party definitely do. I think it was US senator Dan Monihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

One of the more macabre results of Tony Abbot's "people's revolution" against the Carbon Tax is the level of verbal violence in and around the political arena and the issue. Death threats have been made to some of Australia's leading scientists. The government has gone ahead and introduced the “Clean Air Bills” after almost 2 months of acrimony, and vitriol aimed at them by the opposition. Maybe now the debate, will move from the personal to the actual topic itself.
Assuming we accept the data in front of us, there is no question that a price triggered, market base mechanism is needed to place a price on carbon production. With a  trading scheme that allows companies to buy more right to produce carbon. The idea is that the price must be high enough to encourage expansion into alternative energy sources, but low enough not to upset production and the vital role it plays in the Australian economy. The need for the world to embrace renewable energy and move towards harnessing and create new industries that grow out of these industries is obvious. These industries will have to slowly but surely replace carbon and fossil energy.

The government had determined that the Carbon Tax is the best way to achieve this goal and it allows the government to cushion the population from the costs of the tax, by compensating them in other areas and by determining a price on Carbon that will not scare business to much, but allows the country to head towards and ETS. The oppositions alternative which they call Direct Action, is more akin to inaction and by all estimates would prove to be less effective, more expensive to the consumer.  I agree with the government that the tax is the best way to go, with the least amount of cost to all sides of the equation.

1 comment:

Anita said...

Once again you post a blog that will in retrospect show just how wrong you were. As in most of your predictions in previous post, you will be proven wrong again. The fact that so much money is pumped into research grants for green energy makes it almost impossible for most employed scientists to speak out. That is why those that are sceptics are either retired or not effected by the grants. But those that do speak out talk out a silencing of the scientists. If the Government were serious about proving AGW, they would also pump in money to prove it is wrong. Just like any legal hearing that has a prosecution and a defence.
In any case, the case for an actual Carbon Tax that cost billions to the economy, do nothing for the climate other and has the only benefit of making you feel good is nonsense pure and simple