No, not this game. Over at The Tally Room, Ben Raue has a great summary of the ETS/CPRS positions of all the major players in Australian politics, including data on the Australian public from the latest Essential Research survey. Take a look.
Posts Tagged ‘emissions trading’
GetUp! has made an ad about Labor’s emissions targets:
Fundraising here to air it during the Boxing Day test.
Stage 2 of the campaign should be getting all Australians to throw their shoes at the TV when it airs.
Elsewhere, Guido suggests it was silly not to expect that Labor would shaft the environment when it came to the crunch.
“Climate change is an inconvenient truth and a truth that we can no longer conveniently ignore,” Mr Rudd said at the National Press Club.
“No responsible leadership anywhere in the world can ignore the elephant in the room, an elephant of this proportion.”
His Government’s policy is not responsible, and he is not demonstrating any form of leadership whatsoever.
I’m tied up and can’t write more at the moment, so a quick round-up of other reactions:
- Sam has Kevin pegged.
- Reaction from the Greens (media release here).
- Summation from Robert Merkel.
- Liveblogging at Crikey.
- “Tell them the price, son!“
- I wonder why Penny Wong was happy to be gazumped?
- A thorough and sensible analysis from Peter Wood.
- Graphical summary from Possum.
- Commentary from typingisnotactivism.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper will be released tomorrow, and the cynicism is palpable. Michelle Grattan discusses the political tensions pointing the Rudd Government toward a low target for 2020 emissions reductions. Peter Wood has a cartoon that illustrates the problem with that “sensible centrist” approach. And Robert Merkel notes a pre-announcement that seems to be aimed at reducing the outrage that might be anticipated if tomorrow’s announcement does include a soft target.
Meanwhile, the Bananas in Pyjamas of the Australian commentariat are covering the big issues with their typical enthusiasm and scientific rigor. For instance, it’s cold and snowing in Poznan, Poland during December – obviously, that must be because Al Gore is fat (and nothing to do with an average maximum temperature of 3° and 17 days of precipitation). Meanwhile, I don’t think the word “may” means what Andrew Bolt thinks it means. While looking it up in the dictionary, he might also want to see whether he can find “shivvers”.
Terry McCrann thinks going ahead with the ETS is bad in the current economic climate:
The ETS is a tax and a tax specifically on energy. If increased taxation is what we need now, why then did the Prime Minister actually hand out $10 billion last week?
It seems to me that the impact of the ETS on overall fiscal policy would indeed be as he stated – if one assumes that all other revenue and expenditure streams are unchanged.
But doesn’t additional taxation coming in from the ETS simply mean that the overall budget position can remain the same just by changing other parts of fiscal policy? Several seemingly obvious options:
- McCrann seems to have overlooked any of the compensation/redistribution elements to the Government’s ETS that would see the money go back out of the public coffers.
- Perhaps the additional revenue could be frittered away/spent on worthless/worthwhile (delete as appropriate based on political ideology) Government initiatives such as keeping people healthy, making people smarter, looking after people who have fallen on hard times, etc.?
- Perhaps another area where the Government collects money could be adjusted so they collect less?
In other words, the ETS is about creating a tax system where companies’ tax burden is determined, to some extent, relative to their environmental impact. On the other hand, fiscal policy is about the overall tax revenue relative to Government expenditure. The two principles appear to be largely independent of one another and yet both within the Government’s control – why assume that they would only act on one without addressing implications for the other?