Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

black, brown, green « Previous | |Next »
July 8, 2011

Will we see the Greenhouse mafia starting to lose their grip on Canberra now that the Gillard Government starts to sell/market the carbon tax deal to the public? This reform is about changing our everyday practices and the structure of the country's fiscal and industrial systems. Do we want to change our lives? Or should we say no, which is what the Abbott led Coalition says we ought to do in the name of common sense?

From what we know from the leaks, the deal looks to be more of a political fix, rather than a substantive contribution designed to reduce Australia's contribution to climate change.

MoirAcarbontax.jpg

As is well known the solar and wind industries were given the run around by successive governments in Canberra as Ministers there and in the state capitals 'freezed out' renewables companies and caved into the coal industry, giving it everything it wanted.

This political corruption, whereby the fossil fuel industry had improper influence over the energy policy of both major parties and the public service, was exposed and termed the Greenhouse Mafia by Guy Pearce who highlights how Australia's coal export emissions keep on growing.

Australia is attempting to step towards a clean energy future with a modest scheme, imposing modest costs on households and businesses to achieve modest reductions in emissions. Will this carbon price policy turn around her government's low polling and restore public faith in her leadership?

Are things changing?

If Labor is saying that ticking the carbon price box constitutes an effective climate change response, then it only re-embraced climate change policy as part of the price of forming minority government. However, unlike the earlier attempt at an emissions trading scheme, the deal to get it through the Parliament has already been done.

On the other hand, Martin Ferguson, the Minister for Resources, remains captured by the coal industry. He runs down solar, spruiks for coal, and talks up nuclear. Australia for Ferguson is coal --both in terms of exports and in expanding production on other continents

Steadfast backing for coal exports, faith in ‘clean coal’ and increasingly bipartisan and bipolar flirtations with nuclear power block the way to a real renewable energy boom, instead of the pretend one we have now. While a carbon price is necessary for an effective climate change response, it doesn’t guarantee one.

Labor is still determined to protect the biggest-emitting industries from the effects of its carbon tax. It looks as if this another tentative, token and ineffective proposal tax; its a green wash designed to tarnish The Greens whilst renovating Labor's hollowed out environmental credentials.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:36 PM | | Comments (4)
Comments

Comments

Are the yanks finally starting to talk about a carbon tax?

http://www.truth-out.org/market-lying-why-we-must-tax-carbon-not-subsidize-it/1309962187

Coming from Club Troppo and on the cusp of deciding whether or not to write a thread starter elsewhere of my own, this is a redoubt to the line proposed by Ken Parish and Michael Pascoe of the Age, who he cites.
They are down on the Greens, agree that things are being arranged for the time a carbon price mechanism might be needed further in the future and attack the funding of clean energy as a sop to the fairies in the garden Greens rather than as something operating as a mechanism for examining yet imperfectly explored potential.
But it interesting that two articles from such tangentially opposite standpoints as GST's can agree with him that the beginnings of groundwork for the future are at last, no matter how tardily, beginning to show signs of eventuating and one suggests it will part of international policy, but softly-softly.

paul,
I confess that I don't read Ken Parish much these days. So thanks for the link. I do agree with him about Gillard's negotiating skills.

I have to admit that I am not persuaded by Michael Pascoe's analysis in The Sydney Morning Herald, about what he calls "yet another independent authority that will combine the fumbles and bumbles of several existing renewable energy programs":

If the Greens consider it a big win, it already sounds dangerous. From green loans to solar panels to carbon sequestration, it’s all been pretty varying shades of waste and folly, with the federal public service and the relevant ministerial offices having nothing to be proud of.

There has to be some sort of rationalization of the various renewable energy program into one that facilitates a along term policy of encouraging the development of renewable energy.

Getting behind investment in renewables energy wouldn't happen without the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate.

Was just watching Annabel Crabb talking of this, on tel.
There it is- they don't want polluters pinged for the polluting aspect of their processes and COL is thus reckoned at a bout ten dollars a week for householders.
The other thing, reluctantly admitted by Crabb, is that the Greens were capable of "give", during the negotiations, so it looks like they've come up against the same obstacles that they came up against during the debate over Rudd's scheme, that is, arriving at some thing that represents a real dent on carbon proliferation, without excessive costs being imposed on the wider public.
But it is there. If other countries also begin the process, as also appears slowly to be happening, then things can move forward at the international level, without us copping the double jeopardy of climate change and the cost of its amelioration, against competitive advantage.
The vested interests seem to have been successful in blunting carbon amelioration; nonetheless the Greens have come to see that Gillard's premiership depends on her ability to do Bob Hawke style consensus, with Abbott's hard right attitudes the only alternative.