Carbon Tax: my take

I’m sorry. I’ve tried not to get political on this blog. I’ve kept my fingers off the keyboard every time they started itching, but this raging Carbon Tax ridiculousness has really pushed me beyond my limits. I’ve been watching the progress of Australia from pseudo-sensible placid majority into media-panicked frenzied mess and it’s been swelling me up with sadness and anger all in one dangerous, sleepless, caffeinated package. And that’s bad news for everyone involved. Especially my nails.

My beef isn’t with people who stand on either side of the Carbon Tax debate. I have read a lot about the issue and I can see that there are some very strong arguments both for and against the proposed system. What I can’t abide is when ignorance and panic takes over and people start talking nonsense. Honestly Australia, it’s like watching sheep. Read, analyse, think!

Ok, so firstly to dispel a few of the more common, ill-conceived notions:

1) Global warming is real. There is no doubt. Every scientific organisation, every reputable expert in the field, and every international academic body has come to the conclusion that we are undoubtedly affecting the earth in a cataclysmic kind of way.

You might not be aware of this because in a bid to be objective, the Australian media has grossly misrepresented the two sides of the argument, making it sound like they are equal. They are not. The media has been sorely criticised for its inability to be truly objective (hey journalists, objective doesn’t mean 50:50, it means reporting the facts without spin). But don’t worry, it hasn’t noticed and continues to plough on, destroying the credibility of something that is so vital for our future.

2) Australia has the world’s highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions from energy use. It turns out that having three bathrooms, two fridges, air-conditioning in every room and electric blankets buzzing along whenever the weather drops below 15 degrees Celsius is having an effect. And it’s outrageous that Australians can feel affronted by the reality that carbon must be cut – whether that’s to be done by a carbon tax or another system somebody is going to have to pay.

3) The carbon tax is not a tax on air! It’s a Pigovian tax on the negative effects of carbon dioxide. Our current high levels of emissions are going to have a very detrimental effect on the cost that Australia will have to bear in the future (both financial and environmental). This tax is roughly evaluating the cost of each ton of carbon. Whether the measurements are right is anybody’s guess – it is a thing incredibly hard to measure and the experts really struggle with estimates; at this stage nobody can give a straight and sure answer.

4) It doesn’t matter what percentage of carbon is in the atmosphere. It’s not about percentages, but the effect. If I hear one more moron compare the amount of carbon to a piece of hair on a bridge, I am going to snap and, really, I think that’ll be a dark day for everyone.

5) The Great Depression 2.0 is not going to hit – only 0.02% of Australia’s 3 billion businesses are going to be affected. And that’s the top 500 polluters. And if you’ve found your way into those top 500 polluters, you deserve to pay because you are destroying our planet, and the effects are going to be much more expensive than $23 per ton of CO2. Whether the tax will have any kind of real effect is a worthy argument. Most economists say yes, but mainly on the industry. The majority maintain that households will be largely unaffected.

6) Spending money on short-term solutions isn’t really going to help. As it is, Australia isn’t making the effort that the rest of the developed world is. Taxing businesses to discourage environmentally-harmful behaviour, while earning extra revenue which can be put towards further environmental measures isn’t a bad thing – what the government will actually do with the money is a whole other issue all together (and one we need to stay on top of).

So now time for the real pros and cons. Quick disclaimer: I’m no economist, so these are what I make of the issue based on what I’ve read about it:

The pros of the tax are:

* It puts a limit on things. Finally. We need to start setting limits.
* It will encourage businesses to use less energy and reduce emissions in a controlled environment.
* It is going to take immediate effect as of July 2012. The speed of reaction is important in the environmental debate.
* It’s simple. Clear and simple.
* We know exactly what the cost will be over the following three to five years (after which it’ll move into an Emissions Trading Scheme, which has been supported by the majority of economists), which means it will be stable and predictable for businesses and consumers in this interim.
* It is a transparent system that will be harder to manipulate and bend by the worst culprits**
* It covers everybody at once, rather than separately across various sectors (as will need to be done when the ETS gets introduced), making it easier to fit into an international strategy.
* The revenue which is earned through the tax can be re-invested into further improving emissions targets and slowing the effect of global warming or compensating lower-socio-demographic groups who may be the most adversely affected.

I’d also like to add that several prominent economists have supported the carbon tax and it has been introduced in various guises in several countries, mostly in Europe. The Scandinavian countries led the charge in the 90s, and their carbon emissions have been greatly reduced. In 2000, the Finnish government put out a report stating that CO2 emissions had been reduced by about four million metric tons between 1990 and 1998 (roughly 7%), Sweden and Denmark reported cuts of approximately 15%, while Norway’s latest figures have been inconclusive due to interfering factors, including growth.

Naturally there are disadvantages:

*There are big question marks around how successful the tax will actually be in reducing emissions; firstly is it on a scale grand enough to make a difference, secondly is it structured in the best way possible, and thirdly will Australians reduce their emissions, or will they just budget around the extra costs?
*The tax may need to go through several phases and changes, and this could add costs to the process.
*The international competitiveness of Australian businesses (which might have to carry extra cost) and Australia for international businesses, might be reduced, causing economic repercussions. However this is thought to be unlikely.
***While it isn’t as easily manipulated, lobby groups in other countries, including Finland, have managed to reduce the taxes paid by certain sectors, making parts of the tax kind of irrelevant. Whether this will happen in Australia remains to be seen.
*The majority of economists – internationally and nationally – support the notion of an ETS over a tax, so there might be no need to introduce the tax for the first three to five years, when we can just hop straight to a potentially better solution.
*There is a chance that the tax will hit lower-income households harder, depending on a variety of factors.
*It’s a tax, and nobody likes those.

So these are my two pieces. I think it’s great to have debate, so long as we are debating the right factors and not just spreading nonsense – this issue is far too vital for us to take it lightly or just eat up media and government nonsense.

Hockey causes “black hole”

The nation has learned that the only thing bigger than Joe Hockeys BS is the giant hole in his budget, after Treasury uncovered a deficit of between $7 and $11 billion.

Independent MP Tony Windsor, who is deciding on which party he’d prefer to make a minority government with, said the move has made him question whether he can support the coalition.

"We probably understand now why (Opposition Leader Tony Abbott) wasn't interested in releasing the numbers," he told ABC Television on Wednesday adding that one of the key factors was trust.

However shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, expressed surprise at the reaction, saying that nobody told him the numbers had to add up.

“How else are we going to end Labor’s waste?” he asked.

Abbott has come to Hockeys defence, saying that the figures didn’t match up because the Liberal party used a different model to Treasury. Where Treasury relied on actual figures and costings, Abbott got his figures by undercutting the costs announced by the Labor party.

A statement from Abbott’s office further added that the coalition will make good on its promise to deliver an $11 billion boost to the budget bottom line over four years.

“We’ll just have a garage sale or privatise something,” Hockey suggested.

The statement said that even in the worst case scenario, the coalition was still $7 billion better than Labor’s bottom line, and if they wanted to they could turn that $7 billion into $17billion with the clever use of a pen.

Abandon ship!

Quite a lot has happened since I was last on here. For one, my electorate completely ignored me and all common sense and voted for Joe Hockey. I mean, really?

Secondly, we’ve got a hung government on our hands and the fate of the country rests on three independents. Conservative independents. But I harbour some hope because they have promised to do what’s best for the nation and none of them have said that they will favour a backwards system that ignores infrastructure and throws billions of dollars towards middle-class welfare. I remain naively optimistic.

My guess is that everyone has heard and said everything there is to be heard and said about the election. And I don’t really have anything (much) to add.

What has been getting a bit of press – but not in the right direction – is the country’s youngest parliamentarian. Wyatt Roy is twenty years old and for now holds 52% of the vote in the seat of Longman.

Read more »

Johnnie rejected yet again

Former Prime Minister and eyebrow enthusiast, John Howard, has had to relive his childhood inadequacies when the International Cricket Council (ICC) rejected him for the role of vice president.

Howard who is known to both watch cricket and occasionally power walk around the neighbourhood in his tracksuit, said he was outraged to have been blocked from the opportunity.

“D-d-d-on’t these p-p-people know I-i-i-i ruled Australia?!” he stuttered agitatedly.

The rejection has come from the Asian and African factions of the club, including India, South Africa and Pakistan, and while the ICC has not released its reasons for the decision, overseas media commentary has speculated that the former PM’s “closet racism” was to blame.

Howard expressed surprise at the accusation saying that the national Australian cricket team had led him to believe that racism was a prerequisite for the job.

Stop with the PM bullshit already!

So I know that you’re probably over the news that we have a new (female) Prime Minister. But it is big news. Whoever thought that someone with a vagina could rule? Believe me, it’s been a massive shock for loads of news teams, which have been sputtering garbage ever since they found out.

Read more »

I fear:

1. That Tony Abbot will win the next election.
2. That the people of Australia will be so focused on K-Rudd being forced out of his position that they won’t notice all of the good policies – like the mining tax – that still exist within the Labor party. 

Read more »

So much to say

I’m about to explode. I have so many repressed, un-expressed opinions centrifuging in my brain that at any moment they’re bound to start bursting out of my ears, nostrils and hair follicles and screaming at people out of context.

You may scoff, but I’m really afraid that I’ll walk into an interview and before I can introduce myself, my leg hair will shout “wave thank you, damn it!” or “Really? We need to be compassionate with paedophiles?”…and that’s just not professional.

The only way out is to rant:

Read more »

Angry rant

Yes. Okay. I know I rant a lot. In fact most of my blog is just one rant after another, but I've just been catching up on today's news and the stories about the changes to refugee policy have got me in a tizzy.

For those who have been too busy this week to reach for the paper (as important and industrious professionals often are), let me quickly summarise what has been going on.

Basically the Rudd government has changed its policy on refugees coming from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan based on a UNHCR review of the conditions in these countries.

According to the new policy, the processing of refugee claims by Sri Lankans and Afghans will be suspended by three to six months. This was done in a bid to stop the invasion of Australia by the evil masses or people who jump onto boats to speed their way to our shores with the view of destroying our economy....wait. No. That's just what a lot of the media and ignorant Australians will have you believe.

The move -- which is a bit of a turn for Rudd from his previous policies (although his foreign affairs minister is arguing that Rudd's always had a tough stance on refugees. In this he's both right and wrong; it all depends whose standards of "tough" you're looking at, but I'm not going to go into all of that) has received its fair share of criticism from all factions.

Tony Abbott has gotten into the debate in the middle of the "crisis"- as he does - when his Christian spirit could no longer withstand the way the PM was lying/cheating to the electorate/changing his spots. Or, at least, that's what he'd have you believe.

In typical Abbottness he has claimed that the minister is vying for the love of the polls with this band-aid solution. He might be right. I don't know.

Why the PM did what he did and what the opposition leader has to say about it isn't actually the most disturbing part of this debacle.

The most disturbing part is that under the political squabbling over who's got bigger balls when it comes to "getting tough on asylum seekers" or "queue jumpers" (that term must have been coined by a journalist), there are real people trying to get away from real persecution.

I, of course, speak of the 1/10,000th of one per cent of the world's refugees that Australia receives. Yes. That's right according to the CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the number of desperate people trying to claim asylum is that small.

We are not being "flooded". We're not even being drizzled.

Of course I'm not suggesting we should overlook the issues of people trafficking and all of the other highly illegal operations of the criminals who profit from the illegal immigration trade or ignore environmental issues around increasing the population of our country, but how about stopping the hate?

Politicians are politicians. They're meant to be the ones who long ago sold their soul for something or other. You expect them to cheat, lie and do everything for self-gain. I'm not even sure why people are so shocked when politicians act like politicians.

What I'm shocked about is how many people, without really thinking about the situation are happy to scream about Australia being invaded by refugees. And how many argue that piling onto a dangerous boat and setting off for a foreign land is actually something that cunning people would rather do than calmly process a visa and get here legally by plane. They argue that this is not a sign of desperation but impatience. Seems a bit silly to me.

I know that there are exceptions to every rule and that there are people who jump the queue out there, but I think most people who take such drastic measures to get to Australia aren't and shouldn't be treated as evil invaders.

Anyway I really have no solutions. I just needed to rant a little. I feel better now. Thanks for listening.

Oh and if you want to do some reading on the subject, have a look at this story. And this one. And, if you have time, read the comments at the bottom of this story.

Worst news report ever?

I probably haven't been around long enough to speak in finite terms, but I think I may have just read one of the worst news reports in living and non-living history.

Not only does it disregard grammar and syntax, but it makes no logical sense. Please read this story and tell me whether you understand what happened.

Now let me break it down for you:
It starts off well with the ultra funky headline "Kevin Rudd halts QT to ambush Tony Abbott on health".

The ambiguity over "QT" allows for so many fun possibilities:

"Kevin Rudd halts quality time to ambush Tony Abbott"

"Kevin Rudd halts quince tart to ambush Tony Abbott"

etc.

To my great disappointment though, in this case "QT" did not mean either of those but stood for "question time". You might think this is a bit obvious, but I'd still argue that journalists shouldn't use ambiguous abbreviations. Save it for texting. It just looks lazy.

Moving on. What is more unclear from the news report is what this "ambush" actually involved.

"Putting the Oppsoition (sic) Leader on the spot after he responded to Mr Rudd's taunts that he explain his position, Mr Abbott quickly recovered to accuse the Rudd government of lying to voters."

Errr...what? Let me slide in a common proper noun to make sense of the above:

"Putting Abbott on the spot after Abbott responded to Mr Rudd's taunts that Abbott explain Abbott's position, Abbott quickly recovered to accuse the Rudd government of lying to voters."

No, that didn't make anything clearer (except that the journalist responsible is in dire need of English lessons).

This is what I think the general message was: When Rudd unexpectedly asked Abbott to explain his position on health, the opposition leader responded by calling Rudd a liar. Mature.

But the story goes on:

"The ambush tactics included Labor MPs extending his time to speak to put the unprepared Liberal leader to the test."

Again, let me translate this into English: Labor MPs extended Abbott's speaking time, in order to put the Liberal leader to the test.

So how did Abbott explain his health proposal?

""What a complete fake!" Mr Abbott yelled across the chamber at the Prime Minister. Forced to withdraw his lying charge as unparliamentary, he accused Mr Rudd of telling "grotesque untruths"."

Firstly, I have to commend the opposition leader for behaving in such a dignified way. Secondly I should make it clear that contrary to what the journalist wrote, the charge wasn't lying. Abbott simply had to withdraw his accusations that the PM was a liar. Thirdly I'd like to share my fondness for the "parliamentary" and "unparliamentary" classifications. I wonder whether there's a list:

Liar - unparliamentary ** Teller of grotesque untruths - parliamentary

Dickhead - unparliamentary ** Man with phallic-shaped noggin - parliamentary

Thief - unparliamentary ** One who borrows without intention of returning- parliamentary

.

Back to the story. To end the defence of his health proposal, Abbott questioned Rudd's ability to deliver on health by using the bungled insulation program as a basis for attack...again.

.

I wonder just how long he's going to hold onto that before people catch on to the fact that insulation and health actually have very little in common.

.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that other than a poor account of a parliamentary tiff , nothing about the content of the meeting was mentioned. At the end of the story we know that the men don't like each other very much, but we still have no idea what was said regarding health. Good Work!

Rudd looks to Ben Lee for crisis management

In the aftermath of the failed insulation scheme, which has cost thousands of jobs, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd poached some wisdom from singer Ben Lee when he told his MPs "we are all in this together".

The announcement came during an unplanned meeting, during which Rudd asked his MPs to speak to the affected workers.

He suggested that they approach the angry masses with guitar in hand or, alternatively, in a bubble. It had worked for Coke in an earlier advertising campaign to the same Ben Lee tune, he said.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott said that it was appalling for Rudd to use the lyrics and called for both Rudd and Environment Minister responsible for the bungled scheme, Peter Garrett, to be sacked.

He said that the Federal Government "could not even deliver the words to tune, let alone run the country."

"That song was played as part of the Coca Cola advertisement on TV," he added "Coke is Satan's drink."

Abbott's supporters declined to comment, stating that it was their strategy to offer their opinions in hindsight.

Rudd has remained a strong supporter of Garrett. It is believed the Environment Minister has a killer baritone voice.