Gillard Defends Carbon Tax

Julia Gillard has defended the budget, and the proposed carbon tax. Her comments, though, came only at the Victorian Labour Party State Conference.

During her speech she attacked Tony Abbott’s credibility, and his thoughtless right wing agenda. She said:

“We know climate change is real.
We know we must cut carbon pollution.
We know the cheapest, most efficient way to do that is to make big polluters pay.
And we know that when big polluters pay that every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change.
Friends, it’s been said before now but it’s never been truer than of the fight to price carbon:
This isn't a fight between right and left.
It's a fight between right and wrong.”

"We are fighting to price carbon to tackle climate change and to build a clean energy economy which is prepared and strong."

Ms Gillard’s attack on Tony Abbott’s attempt at a climate change populism included:

"We don't have time for politicians and shock jocks who deny the scientific conclusions of NASA and the CSIRO.
We don't have time for made-up figures and shameless fear mongering.
We don't have time to waste on a debate that lacks fact and reason.”
"Our national efforts and energies must be focused...
"We are a nation determined to do our bit to tackle climate change and urgently need to make a start to build the clean energy economy of the future."

The full transcript of Ms Gillard’s speech of 21-May-2011 is at http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/address-alp-victorian-branch-state-conference-melbourne
It seems to me that these are the types of comment that Ms Gillard, As Prime Minister of Australia, should be making often in the media. She might not like that Tony Abbott is effectively running his negative 2013 election campaign in almost daily press releases, radio interviews with largely conservative media and set-up TV appearances, but they have been effective in raising not only Mr Abbott’s profile, but his approval rating. Many unthinking voters will say he’s doing a good job, simply because they do not see Ms Gillard using the media in the same way, with the same frequency, or countering Abbott’s negativity.

Despite any, and all, governments saying they do not worry about the polls, they do. Their media advisers and their party strategists are all over the polls, and regularly and routinely use “focus groups”.

Tony Abbott does not argue policy deliberately – he doesn’t want any policy scrutinised. His campaign is based almost exclusively on negativity. He does not want public debate, he wants perception of a “good job” because he makes frequent noises. But this is not public debate on policy directions, and Ms Gillard does not help the government by not taking the debate to the media daily. She needs to show some passion, even crankiness at Abbott, during any such media grabs.

John

Carbon Tax Debate Hijacked

The debate about whether Australia should, or should not, have a carbon tax is being hijacked. Today in Sydney there were two rallies: one in favour of a carbon tax, and one opposed to any carbon price.

The anti-tax rally, apparently organized by on Luke Jenkins, boasted the support of 22 organizations. All were pro-conservative media (The Australian, The Daily Telegraph); conservative-media journalists (Andrew Bolt - he of the current controversy concerning his comments about some aboriginal people); political organizations (Menzies House); Jo Nova (she has links to the Heartland Institute, which worked with tobacco giant Philip Morris to try to discredit second-hand smoke as a danger to health); One Nation; ... There website is: http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/ I don't doubt that there are extremists associated with, and driving, the organization. They play on one basic human trait: we don't like paying any tax.

Rallies are organized, and the Liberal and National Party politicians invited. It is as if the no-tax power-brokers are waving the tails of the Coalition politicians! Some of them are willing subjects, for their own political purposes.

The pro-tax, pro-climate change rally was organized by GetUp! - http://www.getup.org.au/ - an organization also known to contain some extremists, and willing to criticise all and sundry that don't meet their "social" wishes, including the Labor Party. Like the No carbon Tax group, they attempt to wag the tail of politicians and political parties.

Both rallies are reported to have had about 4000 participants.

So, should we have a carbon tax?? Yes ... and No.

Here, let me say that I think that people are contributing to rising Carbon Dioxide levels; and that increasing Carbon Dioxide levels are a cause of increasing average temperatures of the earth, rising sea levels and (likely) increasing  frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Rational argument doesn't work with climate sceptics / Conservative politics, but:

• NASA (Oct, 2010) has a report that concludes 

"... industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

• If it comes down to believing the myriad Conservative media & skeptics, or Dr Karl Kruszelniki, I'm mush more inclined to believe Dr Karl

Yes - a carbon tax would work better in a closed economy. That is, one not exposed to, and part of, world-wide economic activity. Taxes, like interest rate movements from The Reserve Bank are designed to change people's behaviour. A carbon tax will help change people's behaviour in their use of carbon-based energy: mostly electricity and petrol. This is because society needs an impulse to change its behaviour, and if people want to not pay the tax, they will change their behaviour.

No - because Australia is part of a 'global economy', and taxes work best in a closed economy, an Emissions Trading Scheme with a capped amount of carbon pollution, or even one that reduces the levels of carbon pollution, is a better option.

A price on carbon is appropriate, the pollution has an economic cost that polluters have not had to pay, and economics says that they should.

John

Abbott's Climate Change 'Crap'

Having previously decried the concept of climate change as "crap", Opposition Leader Tony Abbott released the Coalition' "Climate Change Policy". Why would Abbott would release a policy on climate change, an argument he described as "absolute crap"?? The answer is ... political expediency. There, that wasn't so surprising, was it?

Pru Goward, then Liberal Shadow Minister for Climate Change in NSW, put it so well in an address to the Lowy Institute in Nov 2007, when she said "the most important part of developing a climate change policy was to ensure it had wide ranging public support" (http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/ - the headline is 'Climate Change Action Needs Public Support')

That is, the MOST important part of Liberal Policy is that it be electorally popular. No mention of the need for good policy. At all. And Tony Abbott has tried hard to deliver a 'popular' set of slogans and ideas to the following groups:

• farmers, who will not be restricted in the amount of land clearing they can do. Any pollution they create, or vegetation they remove will not be counted.
• big polluters, who are promised $Billions to conduct "business as usual"
• so-called "mum & dad" voters whose only worry is when the next tax cut is coming, and fearful of paying tax for public good (Note: that is not all of us! Many of us DO want good policy)
• Industry, which will not have anything extra to pay. Yes, there are promised "sanctions" for those who exceed "business as usual" levels of pollution, but how much is unspecified. The base level seems to be 2010 levels. The reduction is supposed to be from 1990 levels.
• climate change sceptics & deniers, who will recognise how very little this scheme will do.
• The Liberal Party right-wing, who will have been happy to hear Opposition Shadow Finance Minister, Barnaby Joyce, say he would cut public service jobs to help fund the subsidies. Abbott later distanced himself from this, but didn't specifically rule them out, either!

Tony Abbott further uses some smoke & mirrors. The "same 5% cut as the government" is deceitful, because Abbott't 5% is from 1990 levels of CO2, while the government's is from 2000 levels. The '5%' part is the same, but the amounts of CO2 to be reduced are significantly different - more than 300 000 tonnes of carbon different! The scheme is to be funded from "budget savings" - Barnaby Joyce has already flagged a cut in the number of Public Servants - but Abbott has not committed to where the savings will be made. (Under John Howard and Peter Costello, the Liberal Party targetted lower income earners, and those on unemployment & disability pensions to make savings for middle-class welfare)

So, Tony Abbott has heeded Pru Goward's 2007 advice, and gone for electoral popularity over good policy! "Looks good (in the smoke), sounds good, but it isn't. Now, if we can only get PM Kevin Rudd to improve his ETS legislation from 'ordinary' to 'good' policy ...

John

"Cop-out-en-hagen"

The statement issued by world political leaders at Copenhagen is being spun as a good outcome. The only outcome is that there is, indeed, a document signed at Copenhagen. The world's leaders of developed, and developing, nations would not want to have spent as much money, time, travel, even carbon pollution to go home with nothing. So, an agreement of sorts was the most likely outcome.

The "outcome" such as it is, has been rejected by the countries most at risk, including the island of Tuvalu, as being a sellout. Almost all of Tuvalu's income comes from selling Internet Domain Names - the ones ending in ".tv"

The document

• is not legally enforceable.
• allows each country to set its own targets. Targets will be lower than expected, and have little effect on increasing temperatures, increased severity & duration of drought, or rising sea levels.
• allows each country to check itself - there is no independent verification - and write its own report. I wonder what people will think of politicians writing reports about themselves!

The politicians have sold out the world, their people, their children. They sold out because they had a selfish agenda: to not give what they should, to want more than they should, to pollute more for a fist full of dollars. That is their shame, and the shame of their government, and their families.

Plato viewed the world as having 2 planes: an (ideal) plane of perfection, and a plane of reality. In the ideal plane all people are virtuous, acting ethically and justly. The plane of reality is an imperfect copy of the ideal plane, and people only see occasional glimpses of good. There appears to have been not much goodness driving negotiations in Copenhagen.

Politicians have committed to meeting in Mexico next year to try to enhance the agreement. Many will doubt their ability to tighten the agreement, based on the "commitment" not shown, and selfishness that was shown, at Copenhagen.

We, the people, must contact our politicians, and tell them we want significant action on climate change, and we want binding international agreements.

John

Politicians 1, Good Policy 0

It looks as though the politicians have won. Using politics as a base for legislation just does not work.

The "negotiated" legislation on an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has resulted in any good policy being abandoned, for the sake of politics. Politicians of all persuasions have ignored the reports from the CSIRO and the IPCC; ignored the science and asked: 'what's politically expedient?'; 'how can I confuse the people with double-speak and pseudo-science?' and 'which big polluters donate to my party?' Except The Greens - they, at least, appear to base their position on something approaching the science of climatology.

The information available to politicians includes information similar to that found in a book by A. Barry Pittock, Climate Change: The Science, Impact & Solutions, 2nd Ed., CSIRO, 2009. Consider the following, from Page 2.

"The World Meteorological Organization ... has declared that 2005 and 1998 were the two warmest years on record ... The decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record. ...Since the start of the twentieth century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 ±0.18(degrees Celcius), and the linear warming trend for the last 50 years ... is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

Note that when scientists give such estimates they usually include a range of uncertainty." (Ed. something politicians don't give)

You can read the full sample chapter at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/samples/Climate%20Change%202nd%20Edition.pdf
and information about the book at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6010.htm

So, among the politicians:

• The National Party says Climate Change is not happening. They obviously haven't consulted many rural communities and farmers about the effects of climate change on farm viability over the last 50 years!
• The Liberal Party is divided, and divisive. They have abandoned any pretence at good policy for the sake of infighting, disloyalty, and personal political ambition. (to lead a divided party)
• The Labor Party (Government) has abandoned good policy for the sake of political expedience.
• The Independent and small-party Senators seem to have no idea about good policy. This might not be as surprising as it seems: they were Senators for much of the time John Howard was Prime Minister.

To summarize:
Politicians have abandoned any semblance of good government, and good policy for Australians. For their own purposes! Politicians 1, Good Policy 0.

John

Garnaut's Draft - Wake Up!

Professor Ross Garnaut released the Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report yesterday.

While there appears to be nothing starkly different from what had been expected, it outlines the very significant and stark effects of climate change if we do nothing. For excample:

• "major declines in agricultural production across much of the country, including a 50 per cent reduction in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin. By 2100, irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin would decline by 92 per cent."
• "(a fall of) 4.8 per cent of Australia’s projected GDP, around 5.4 per cent of projected household consumption, and 7.8 per cent from real wages by 2100" (Media Release)

Professor Garnaut paints a picture of significant effects on economic, cultural, and physical environments. He aslo has some salient advice, indiectly aimed at politicians and nay-sayers:

"We will delude ourselves should we choose to take small actions that create an appearance of action, but which do not solve the problem." Yet, this is so often how politicians react!

and

"it is neither rational nor helpful to reject conclusions because we do not like them. The conclusions will only be ‘wrong’ if the premises or logic leading to them are wrong. The Review aims to be clear in its premises and methodology, so that they can be contested transparently. If the subsequent public policy debate follows these lines, we will improve the prospects of Australian governments taking good decisions." (Draft Report)

Politicians should not choose political expediency as the basis of policy, and Industry groups, lobbyists and other groups and individuals should not engage in scare campaigns to suit their short-term financial or poitical interests. Liberal/National Opposition politicians were already crying "wolf", even before the release of the draft report; and NSW Labor Treasurer Costa is already demanding exemptions for coal-fired NSW power stations. He wants to sell them, and a carbon-trading scheme would mean the sale price would be less!

Already, then, some of our politicians are ignoring Professor Garnaut's wise advice, and are acting in a short-term, politically expedient, and irrational manner; for their own selfish purposes. We don't want such politicians any more, and they have no part to play in rational discussion leading to proper, appropriate public policy.

John

Australian Farming Audit

Last week, Opposition Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, agreed that an audit of farming land would not be a bad thing. He said this in response to a direct question.

The Federal Government's (junior) Parliamentary Secretary for the environment, John Cobb, immediately responded by trying to "shoot the messenger", saying that Garrett was "the grim reaper" of farmers. Such a response contributes nothing to the discussion. It's a discussion teh Government does not want to have. There has been a number of media stories and editorials supporting John Howard's plan to provide more assistance to farmers.

Much of Australia has been in drought for more than 6 years, the average temperature has been higher than in other droughts, possible due to climate change, and rain events that have occurred have been less common and more extreme. Add to this, the mix of high-water use irrigated crops such as cotton and rice planted in the very dry Murray-Darling Basin, and there would seem to be a good case for a national audit of what we produce on farms, where it's produced, what water is needed to produce it, and whether some areas currently farmed are viable. Some years years ago, both the manufacturing, sugar and dairy industries were restructured, and the Federal Government encouraged some farmers to leave the industry: there might be other areas where this is appropriate, with suitable financial inducements.

A national audit of farming land, production and water use is a worthwhile response to the effects of climate change/"shift" on our farmland, drought and our farmers and their families.

The question is not whether our politicians have the "ticker" to do it; the question is, are we willing to insist on action for Australia's benefit.

John