Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Paul Walter: "Paul Morella, as others have commented, the CPS is about a market based solution to a real world problem, that attempts to recognise and contextualise the value of scarce and depleted resources and future costs arising from current processes. I can't see how you can have a scheme like this and not expect carbon polluters to respond, in therefore cleaning up their various acts out of self interests if not concern for humanity and the environment, unless those price signals that take into account reality, are operative".

Firstly, I've nothing against a greener world - I'd prefer it. I unlike most environmentalists, can shoot, can ride a horse, and I own some grazing land (dont' ask). I may live city, that doesn't mean my heart is all there.

The problem with the "price signals" is at this point they won't be found. My analogy would be banning all transport won't result in the invention of a time machine one second quicker.

It's a tax because the producers will pass the costs on to the consumers. The reason is simple: the consumers are without any other choice. Unless of course the tax is made so large as to make a choice available, in which case most consumers are still without a choice (they won't be able to afford any choice). Of course the designers of this product (tax) have always known this, and that's the great lie of "price signals".

What we are talking is a tariff, a tariff unlike any other. A tariff that doesn't have a national interest (as confused as that is). The results of national tariffs are freely available; the results of international tariffs suiting individuals and companies are unexplored territory. If that scares me, it should definitely scare most people.

The great company of Enron did invent the concept of cap and trade - any person that knows the fun of Californian energy wouldn't be filled with confidence.

What do you think should be done about global warming, Paul?

I prefer the term pollution.

Education equals wealth, wealth equals want, want equals power.

Give people the power to make choices, and their "real" choices will be for the better. Making people poorer, making people struggle, isn't giving people "real" choice. And that's exactly what such taxes force on people. No choice.

Paul Walter wrote: "... the CPS is about a market based solution to a real world problem, that attempts to recognise and contextualise the value of scarce and depleted resources ..."

Unfortunately, Paul, the CPRS does not recognise resource depletion. On the contrary, the designers of the CPRS (and Garnaut, the IPCC et al) simply ignore the evidence of fossil fuel depletion and erroneously assume that production of all fossil fuels will continue to increase until at least 2100. You can read this submission to the Garnaut review for further detail. The architects of the CPRS (and other ETSs) are neo-classical economists, who begin with the premise that price signals will solve everything then massage the problem to fit this premise. Trifling inconveniences like evidence, geophysical limits and the laws of physics simply don't enter the equation (ususlly these are dismissed as 'externalities'!).

The real tragedy is that the CPRS, like all other proposed 'market based' solutions, has already been overtaken by events. At best it will prove irrelevant. At worst it will fool many gullible people (including most well-meaning 'environmentalists') into believing that the government is "doing something" about climate change while in reality contributing to tragic boom-bust cycles in renewable energy investment and carbon trading ponzi schemes. Market based responses might have been effective had they been implemented a couple of decades ago, but even then it's doubtful. 

Paul Morella, as others have commented, the CPS is about a market based solution to a real world problem, that attempts to recognise and contextualise the value of scarce and depleted resources and future costs arising from current processes. I can't see how you can have a scheme like this and not expect carbon polluters to respond, in therefore cleaning up their various acts out of self interests if not concern for humanity and the environment, unless those price signals that take into account reality, are operative.

Look.

In theory, the scheme tries to refer polluters responsibilities back to them, but I can quite agree that in practice the thing is nothing more than a new derivatives market that actually quarantines big polluters from their responsibilities.

But that's not to do with socialist plots; its to do with big business lobbies and bought-off politicians- corporatism!

 Life goes on and the next generations can worry about it , while we and big polluters alike,  whinge when our peace is disturbed by even the thought of adjustment to the twenty first century is suggested us.

So I agree there is much wrong with the world's current response to the problem, but find the tax argument proffered by anti CPS folk confusing, when the CPS actually represents a choice not to send home the message directly to those responsible for pollution through an actual tax on carbon emissions.

I agree we are having to pay for the mistakes of polluters the same as we have had to bail out the Madoffs of this world after the GFC. That's wrong.

But it doesn't mean there is not also a problem with ecology and the possibility that if action is not taken then some gloomy day the talk of policies to ameliorate global warming will become tragically theoretical, as in shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

What do you think should be done about global warming, Paul?

Environment taxes will prove to be the greatest Trojan horse for western center-left parties, since post-war.

A Trojan horse offers something quick, attractive, and easy. Its end result is horrid.

Agreeing to environment taxes is the first time the center left has publicly given up the fight. What fight? Their fight -the fight for ascention up the ladder for those on its lowest rung. And make no mistake that's exactly what such taxes do. That's the intention of them. That's meant to be the outcome. And if you believe making people poorer (poor people) or at least not richer, is popular, the taxes will be accepted. It certainly hasn't been popular any other time in history.

I'm not in advertising, however, given three slots I'd wipe the floor with such taxes, no matter the money thrown against me. And I'm not a professional, imagine what they could do. You best believe the next Australian election will be a fight (the first real western one), and a fight the Democrats will be watching very closely.

Bob Brown: A free flight back from fairyland, followed by a tour accompanied by Penny Wong of the worlds nuclear power stations so that can see what the future should be. 

Alby Schultz: a minor role in one of Johnny Depp's pirate movies.

Peter Dutton: an identity.

Tanya Plibersek: as above.

Wayne Duck: above.

Sen  Arbib: a memory so he can identify specifically which lie he's being accused of so as not to confuse above with all the others he's told..(also applies to Conroy).

Sussan Ley: a sock large enough to fill her cavernous mouth , so she no longer embarrasses her friends and family with the sort of dross she so offended thinking people with during the last sitting.

Joel Fitzgibbon: a dart board with Stuart Houston's face pinned on.

The ghosts of Truss, Boswell, Belinda Neal, Laurie Ferguson, Kevin Andrews and Phillip Ruddock:  Finally the pine boxes arrive so the long-redolent bodies can be removed from  a rear annex of the Shady Polly nursing home (along with the petrol sodden body of Julie's kid sister, Bronwyn).

Almost all WA libs: a Tardis trip back to the Dark Ages, where these would obviously feel so much comfortable, away from all this "round earth" nonsense.

Richard am inviting a lodda trouble, if I say how much I concur as to Gillard and Bishop remarks.

We could add the new premier of NSW to this unhappy coupling.