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

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail