|
May 19, 2008
Matthew Warren is expecting a backlash against Rudd Labor after the dismal budget performance on renewable energy.
Labor went to the election saying it would means-test the Coalition's solar hot water rebate, limiting it to households earning less than $100,000 as part of a broader economic platform to rein in middle-class welfare.
It seemed logical for the Government to extend that to the solar panel rebate, while increasing the number of rebates available. But perhaps they should have consulted the industry first.
Most households who are paying a mortgage and can spare $5000 for solar panels are earning more than $100,000 a year. In the following three days solar installers reported up to 70 per cent of their orders had been cancelled. The hostile reaction on talkback radio revealed outrage from a community that appeared to take vicarious ownership of the generous scheme, even if only a handful actually signed up.
Note vicarious ownership. Warren goes on to argue that other developing renewable industries now have uncertain futures as well. But on the subject of solar panels...
As Robert Merkel points out, the market for solar panels is pretty small at the moment, so the means test will only hit a small number of people. Hardly a backlash. It's also a bit silly to target households when there are so many other much larger vacant rooftops out there. A private home can't compete with what Westfield can offer.
Warren makes the same point:
Solar hot water systems are a cost-effective energy-saving technology for many Australian homes, but rooftop solar panels that generate electricity are still one of the more expensive solutions to climate change. Because of their tangibility and visibility, they have political cachet far in excess of their real value.
Still, I'd argue that in the greater scheme of things, vicarious ownership, tangibility and visibility are important.
Do you want people to feel they have to rely on the government to solve our energy problems, or do you want to give them some sense of ownership? Is it not a good thing in itself for people to feel they can make an active contribution, even if it is only a small one?
The value of household solar panels may lie in their tangibility and visibility, and they may only be tangible and visible in wealthier suburbs, but wouldn't you want them to be desirable? If solar panels become a signifier of success the aspirationals are inevitably going to want them. Wouldn't it be a good thing if people thought about spending their baby bonus on solar panels instead of giant flat screens?
I think means testing the rebate was a mistake from this point of view. The aspirationals point of view. Their rooftops may be individually small and insignificant, but aggregated they're enormous. So is their economic and political clout.
|
I just wish the polls would come out. If they don't move that will put an end to this nonsense.