I know. It's a political post. On the proposed carbon tax. This post is in a different vein to previous posts. I hope it helps clarify the seriousness of this proposed absurd legislation and what it would do to us and our country. Please read it.
Professor Henry Ergas on the carbon tax
Alan Jones speaks to Professor Henry Ergas about the carbon tax on radio 2GB.
Monday, 19 September 2011
Please note: If you listen to the interview (14:30 min) the intro uses strong language (not coarse language), but listen past that. The interview is very telling and disturbing.
The following is my summary of the interview.
There are 963 pages of legislation (and 1100+ pages with addenda). Buried in there are some very troubling intentions and this government needs to be told that we do not want this carbon tax!
A carbon tax will do nothing to halt emissions. Jobs will be at risk with a tax that will do nothing, even if you believe GW is anthropogenic.
We are told by the Gillard government that the tax is a market-based solution. It is a government tax, not a market-based solution! Even after the tax, emissions will continue to rise.
If this becomes law, we will buying the carbon permits for $650 million dollars - from overseas!
The legislation is deliberately structured so that future removal of this legislation will cost enormously. Mark Dreyfus, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change (on the Carbon Tax side!), says that repeal would mean the Commonwealth would have to seize a “valuable asset” (carbon permits will be called personal property) from the population, and therefore have to pay compensation “on just terms” (remember the movie The Castle?).
No other country’s government has ever treated pollution permits as conventional property. This is so that, in those countries in future, revision of the legislation can be done without stagnating the country economically. Australia’s Labor legislation has been deliberately worded so that any changes in future would automatically require billions to be paid to the people.
Further, if a new government rejected the emission reduction recommendations made by the Carbon Regulator, they would then have to secure a majority in parliament for a new target, otherwise the target is automatically set to 10% reduction, regardless of the damage that might do to the economy. The government can’t even replace the Carbon Regulator because of the way the legislation is set up.
It even undermines the democratic process. The majority of people don’t want the tax, they elect someone else to get rid of it, and then that new government finds themselves stuck, having to pay billions back to the people. This will only serve to get them in turn kicked out of office and put Labor back in.
THIS IS BEING PUSHED BY LABOR AND THE GREENS WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT WORLDWIDE ON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS! Australia could be locked in to these diabolical costs even if the rest of the world decides to drop emissions targets.
Prof Ergas: “The only justification for having a carbon tax would be if it would solve or addresses the problem of GW, but if it won’t do that, then all it really is is an extremely inefficient and economically costly tax.” (My emphasis.)
60% of our permits would come from overseas, so we’re only helping other countries create their cleaner future. But will it even help those countries do that? Treasury has said the countries we’ll be buying from include countries like Laos, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. These countries are rife with corruption and inefficiency, and it is likely that our money will do everything but help the environment.
This proposed legislation will affect the economy and Australians for decades to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment