FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Abolishing the Carbon Tax “Demon”

by

Australia’s distance from major areas of political activity acts as stifling fetter and brilliant emancipator.  Its officials entertain visions of grandiose originality, finding out too late that they were derivative failures.  Those on the left of the political spectrum think that somewhere in the past, its settlers were pioneers who, when they were not banishing the indigenous peoples into history, were busying themselves in a social laboratory.

The history makers in Canberra have returned, though this record promises to be dismal.  Its central facet is plunder.  Climate change is one of those thorny issues that marks every box of indignation you can find. It affects pleasure. It provides discomfort. Only, of course, that it does so in marginal ways. Given that Australians are the greatest polluters per capita on a global scale, this should matter less – but for the conservatives in power, the issue of instance satisfaction and obliviousness to the future matter above all else.

The environment agenda of the Abbott government is distinctly reactionary, and stupendously polemical.   The Australian government has become the first in the industrial world to repeal a major tax regime on carbon.  Emitters of greenhouse gas will be doing the jig and funding their lobby circuits hoping to get a similar effect in other countries.  Polluters, instead of getting restrictions, will get incentives to move into the realm of “efficiency”.

Not that Australia has been a lone warrior in placing the matter of a precious economy before a neglected environment. The European system of carbon trading came in for severe treatment in 2013, given the manoeuvring of politicians over that very issue.  EU Commissioner for Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, found herself under fire over the cost for an emissions certificate per metric ton of CO2, with 4.30 Euros hardly making an impression on incentives for industry.  At that price, old coal-fired power plants are actually returning to service, being cheaper to build than newer gas-powered plants.[1] But Hedegaard’s point remained valid: a Europe-wide system, rather than a piecemeal approach to reducing emissions, was indispensable.

There are numerous problems with a carbon tax, as there are with any tax.  But nothing bites more into income than an involuntary burden imposed across the economy, one that adjusts behaviour and encourages a changing disposition.  It works as a perverse form of revenue minimisation – you hope to pay less tax by using less energy.  Energy optimisation and efficiency is encouraged. Of course, it need not necessarily work that way, given the notoriously uncharitable way energy companies work.  A tax alone won’t work – “green” incentives have come with any such package.

The repeal of the tax has brought out the warriors of dedicated selfishness.  The illusion of lower living cost is advanced by such lobbies as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  Its head, Kate Carnell, claimed that, “The carbon tax was a dead weight on the Australian economy and abolishing it is a win for customers, a win for energy users and a win for business.”  Minerals Council of Australia chief mimicked the line, suggesting the tax was taking the edge off some mythical competitiveness.  “The removal of the world’s biggest carbon tax is an important step towards regaining the competitive edge that Australia lost over the last decade.”

The States have also followed the line, with premiers evoking that tedious language of “wins” for households.  Victorian Premier Denis Napthine called it a “relief to households and businesses across Victoria.”  NSW Energy Minister Anthony Roberts predicted that the average electricity bill would fall by 6 to 8 per cent.  All hail the credo of the plunderer!

The failure of the carbon tax to take hold in barren Australian soil is a demonstration about who owns, and controls, the way energy is distributed to consumers.  Raise the costs, bruise the users, and blame a tax which dares eat into income.  Notions of competitiveness tend to be rather rich, given that there is very little competition in digging up the earth’s supplies and sending it to a voracious China.  The carbon tax, in other words, has become the greatest alibi for raising fees in Australian history, used by climate change deniers as the big problem in policy.

For Roger Jones, Research Fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, the repeal constituted “the perfect storm of stupidity.”  And some politicians, such as South Australian premier Jay Weatherill, feel that the repeal of the tax flew in the face of stunning, and gruesome reality.  “We believe that climate change is real.  We believe that taking action to address climate change is essential.”

What of the effects on pollution?  By the government’s own figures, pollution declined because of the carbon laws even as the economy and employment grew.  As John Connor of the Climate Institute explained (The Age, Jul 17), the National Green House Gas Inventory recorded the largest decline of emissions since records started being kept.  Two years of the carbon laws, according to a government report, would see a reduction of carbon by 40 million tonnes below normal rates.  By 2020, Australia would have reduced pollution to below 2000 levels by 15 per cent.

A feature of the debate that the Abbot government has always ignored is the rather unscrupulous way energy companies have managed to increase costs.  Removing the carbon tax will see a negligible influence in the bills Australians have to pay. Every energy company will nab their customer.  But it will be the green light for the plunderer’s bible, the code of misconduct that has governed this country since settlement.  The Abbott government is the regime of the contemporary, rather than one for the future.  It is an ill-gotten gains administration, and the consequences of its governance may well prove incalculable.  Welcome to a world of “post-truth politics”.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The “Great” Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail