We all know Brer Abbott and The Undead are standing up for us against the dreaded
GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING!!!!
My problem is that I naively thought you could have a carbon tax, which the government has opted against, or an Emissions Trading Scheme (Cap and Trade), which the government has opted for.
Does it not follow then that while one is a tax the other is not? Sure, it may well be a cost, but a tax?
So shouldn’t that read:
NOT A GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING!????
Just asking on behalf of the English Language.
Quadrant (or rather David Flint) seems to have come up with the scary mantra in August. David Flint has become quite the sophist in his old age. Take his opening, for which he should feel nothing but shame:
Whenever I see the climate change minister on television, I feel like a kulak. To give her the benefit of the doubt, I assume she really believes that what she is proposing is in the public interest. I suppose that even the Bolsheviks believed they could actually run agriculture better than the kulaks, but their overriding interest was control, and neutralising, if necessary liquidating, their opponents, particularly their class enemies. Then they could begin on one another.
Now I don’t think for a moment that Ms. Wong is into liquidations…
Oh ho ho ho, Dave, you are such a card!
His real concern is as you would expect:
If you belong to the West’s fastest growing religious denomination, the AGW’s – the Anthropogenic Global Warmers – the enactment of this legislation will produce some warm inner glow. But other religions don’t expect to lay waste to the economy, so why should the AGW’s?
But even if you are the most devout AGW and actually believe everything that St. Al Gore says, you know the ETS will not do anything at all to contain or reverse global warming…
Incidentally I refuse to fall for the AGW sleight of hand in renaming global warming as “climate change.” This was done because their premise that the planet was warming is now in some considerable doubt. That the media actually go along with this 1984 style change of name or its predecessor is similar to referring to the accused in a Soviet trial as “an enemy of the people.” …
No, David, it was George Bush and his advisors that preferred “Climate Change” as a euphemism, not TEH LEFFT! Nonetheless, I now prefer it myself simply because it is more accurate and more comprehensive than “Global Warming”, as the changes aren’t going to be uniform and will be various – but mostly variously disastrous if nothing is done. I can’t be bothered arguing that again in this post, but you all know how to follow a theme here, don’t you – not to mention the special items in the side bar.
Now there really is an argument about whether an ETS is better than a carbon tax, and whether either is necessary on top of other mitigation strategies. The consensus seems to be that one or the other IS necessary as part of a raft of measures. The argument from some economists is that the ETS may be the more cost-effective of the two.
And there is an irony in the Rudd government supporting it and BA and the UD opposing it: it is the most neocon one of the lot, your actual market approach! Back in August Michael Stutchbury of The Australian savoured the irony:
Then there’s the irony of Kevin Rudd’s diatribe against global financial capitalism and the frenzied trade in exotic financial instruments and derivatives that produced the global recession. An ETS does not trade in the physical commodity of carbon but in the "derivatives" of permit credits and debits. The Obama administration has forecast $650billion in revenue in 10 years from the sale of carbon permits. The global carbon trading market is forecast to grow to $3trillion by 2020. Yet the value of the underlying assets, the permits to emit carbon, will depend on government commitments to reduce emissions. Will these be more credible than the promises of sub-prime mortgages?
Later in that article Stutchbury quotes:
Former Treasury official and co-founder of Access Economics Geoff Carmody [who] describes Australia’s proposed ETS as "the GST from hell". That’s because it would hurt exports and help imports by targeting the production of carbon emissions (such as from coal-fired electricity generation) rather than the consumption of emissions (say from buying a car). This hurts economies such as Australia and China, which produce more emissions than they consume, and favours carbon importers and consumers in Europe.
There again we see the slide into calling it a tax, whatever else one may think of Carmody’s ideas.
And you’ll have noticed I am very much conflicted about the ETS myself, as has been reflected in some recent posts here. But I don’t believe it is a TAX as such.
Am I right or wrong?
- What will the Australian ETS achieve? or What can a centrally planned carbon economy achieve?
- Business leader criticises ETS but wants carbon tax.
- Australian ETS = Carbon Tax + Consumer Welfare.
- ETS, carbon tax, or other?