Prev
Next

Counterpunch: we need real incentives, not another tax

Greg Hunt

by Greg Hunt

10 Oct 05:50am

Must Reads

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies! - this is a caption

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies!

81

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil - this is a caption

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil

101

A few good men and The Gaps they face - this is a caption

A few good men and The Gaps they face

44

Filed under: Carbon Credits, Carbon Tax, Energy, Environment, Renewable Energy

77 comments

Australians want to help improve the world in which they live. Most would therefore rightly assume that if they pay a Carbon Tax this will at least clean up emissions in Australia.

Would you buy a carbon credit from this man? Source: gawker.com

Certainly this is the impression given by the Government’s Carbon Tax ad campaign and from the debate as the Parliament this week votes on the legislation. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Australia’s emissions will go up, not down, under the Carbon Tax. And on top of the $105 billion the tax is to raise between now and 2020, Treasury’s own modelling shows that we will also have to spend an additional $3.5bn each year on foreign carbon credits.

The Carbon Tax will take $9 billion out of the pockets of everyday Australians and businesses each year and continue to increase. At the same time, Australia’s annual emissions will rise from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes.

That’s right. By 2020, under the Carbon Tax, Australia will emit 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year more than it does now. So, rather than cleaning up our own environment, we will have to buy permits from countries such as China, India or Kazakhstan.

There are two problems with this approach of sending huge and ever-increasing funds offshore.

First, Australians will not only have to pay the Carbon Tax in the form of higher electricity, gas and grocery prices, but will then have an additional $3.5 billion go overseas every year to buy foreign carbon credits. This overseas purchasing will increase to $57 billion by 2050 or 1.5 per cent of GDP.

We will be spending almost five times the percentage of our economy on carbon credits as we currently do on foreign aid. This is money that will not be spent on research and technological development in Australia.

It is also likely to be a lot more expensive, as the Business Council has suggested, if the United States does not have its own Cap and Trade or carbon tax by 2016. While this is a fundamental Government assumption it is utterly unbelievable.

Indeed, the Government cannot name one White House, US Cabinet or Congressional official to back up the fantasy that the US will have a nationwide carbon tax during the next presidential term. Without a US System, a bad deal at $3.5bn will become even more expensive for Australia.

The second cause for great concern is that the Government assumes there is no fraud in the huge flow of funds to purchase foreign carbon credits. Unfortunately, as the Australian Crime Commission has just told an international conference on Organised Fraud, the carbon market is already the subject of major organised crime activity.

In Norway, authorities are investigating a $5bn fraud under the European carbon trading scheme. In Italy, one of the Mafia Dons has been dubbed Lord of the Winds for his deep involvement in renewable energy and carbon fraud.

Moreover the Treasury assumes that 50 per cent of our purchases will be from Russia and other parts of Asia with less transparent markets and regulators than Europe, which itself has already been subject to massive fraud.

It is important to remember that even with dramatically smaller programs at home, doing easily monitored things such as installing pink batts, there was still massive fraud. Multiply the scale, move from pink batts to certificates, send the activity offshore and the potential for fraud grows exponentially.

There is a better way and one which can make a real difference at home and indeed place Australia as a world leader in improving our own environment.

It is about cleaning up our landfill gas at home. It is about cleaning up our waste coal mine gas. It is about cleaning up our power stations not closing them down. And it is about capturing carbon in our trees and soil to help provide a once in a century replenishment of our national soils. Indeed why wouldn’t we invest further in this, rather than sending billions of dollars overseas?

Let’s take a positive approach and support local programs that make a real difference. The Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will provide $3.2 billion which will be capped and funded by savings.

In the same way that the Government buys back water through a market system we will purchase the lowest cost abatement. Our Emissions Reduction Fund will deliver real cuts in Australia’s own emissions achieving 160 million tonnes of abatement each year by 2020.

For this reason, the best approach to tackling climate change is to encourage Australians to reduce our emissions. Sometimes the simplest thing is the best thing - and instead of a trophy tax on top of which we will send huge volumes of funds offshore, it could just be better to go and clean up own backyard first.

That is the choice that Labor MPs should consider as they go to vote on this Carbon Tax legislation this week. Which really is the better plan to achieve the target we all want? Which is a cleaner and greener Australia?

Greg Hunt is Shadow Minister for the Climate Action, Environment and Heritage

Most commented

273Modern Christians can trump Bible thumping fundies
271Class war: sounds crazy but it just might work
266Even New Zealand supports gay marriage
263Climate change and the crisis of communication
257Tell it to the court, Craig
24212 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
222Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
214Voters won't forget the way Labor has conducted itself

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mitchell says:

      06:53am | 10/10/11

      1. Name one economist that publicly supports direct action.

      2.  I thought it was $10 billion in spending? Hunt claims he’ll get 3.2 Billion in budget savings, but from where and over what timeframe? Slashing health, education and infrastructure spending seem like your typical targets.

      3. Planting more trees is great, but you need more than a lot of trees, where is the land going to come from? Compulsory acquisition? Shut down the forestry industry?
      I agree with the sentiment of the article in that things can always be done better, but the Liberal party policy is shocking and completely ignores the advice of both economists and scientists. 
      Considering the number of people who care about this issue, you probably would have won the election with a better climate policy.

      Reply

    • dovif says:

      07:16am | 10/10/11

      Mitchell

      You need to stop listening to the lying ALP

      1. A lot of world government are doing direct action. Most of the wind farms in Europe are government owned, the Chinese government is going to start building nuclear plants and wind farms. If a government can spend $50 billion on a slightly quicker internet, they should be spending more then $50 billion on Carbon reduction, since it is a much more important issue

      2. with the waste of this government, I bet I could find $10 billions in saving. The BER overspending would already be close to $10 billion, and there was the heavily rorted insulation, and the checks that had to be down, the Green loans, and stuffed up Asylum seeker policie, which has blown out by $1 billion a year. All we need is a competant government.

      3. You do know that a large part of Australia are crown land still and there are a large part of Australia that is uninhabited

      The Liberals would have won the last election if Gillard did not lied and then sold out Australians and their jobs to the Greens

    • Joan says:

      07:25am | 10/10/11

      Millions of voters support Direct action - when you actually do something it gets done and is visible- Gillard/Combet money shuffling and permit swapping game is just that- not real action-. As for economists who gave the world the GFC and didn’t see it coming of course they don’t like Direct Action because there is no money in it for them. Economists and money scammers take their money and run and leave tax payer with the bill.

    • Steve Woy Woy says:

      07:48am | 10/10/11

      Please please Greg Hunt Hypocrisy is a word you clearly don’t understand which is ok. But don’t lead these poor lemmings from the dumbing down of the nations years under JWH crew.
      Look at poor dovif and Joan the great champion of the extreme right you have not told them the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth have you??
      http://bit.ly/qyLUXl
      By the time Coalition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt won a prize for his 1990 university thesis on ‘A tax to make the polluter pay’, the economic theory was widely recognised. Hunt pointed out that ‘An attraction of a pollution tax regime is that it produces a strong incentive for firms to engage in research and development’. For consumers, ‘goods which do not generate [pollution] in their production will become relatively cheaper and therefore more attractive’.
      But hey why stop there http://bit.ly/j6BQgF

    • Enough says:

      07:55am | 10/10/11

      Dovif:

      The actual amount of contested funds under the BER - allocated cash with no asset or work completed against it - was between $400m and $500m. Still too much, but exactly 9.5 BILLION less than you keep squealing about.
      ...so you’ll have to find another 9.5Bn in your budget. (And by the way, if you *can* - send it to Hockey, cos his figures have a 3Bn hole in them… you know, help your team and all).

      Competent is spelled “competent”. If you’re going to make a comment about competence, dont spell it ‘competant’ - it makes you look silly. More so.

      Asylum seeker policy (not “policie” - thats closer to the italian spelling of police than the english spelling of policy) is out by a billion a year? How wonderful! - If we just process them onshore we can save millions. Excellent idea, I’m sure you will support it thoroughly.
      Oh and perhaps find at least ONE piece of supporting data for your billion dollar/year statement. I know liberals usually dont have to, cos if a liberal speaks and uses a number, it is correct by deignment from on high… but sometimes the numbers used should be related to either the real world or a good prediction of a *likely* future world. Not just numbers that are put together cos they look pretty… oohh! a couple of billion in a press release about waste! Then I can use the same few billion in a follow up release about *my* savings! what a clever DICK I am…

      The endless howling, yowling, self-congratulatory incorrectness and general vapid emptiness of continued rants like this will eventually show abbott and his fanbois up for what they are, a non-existent alternative with no future direction and no vision for the country and no right to expect a place at the leadership table.

      Also note - in my complete contempt for statements such as yours, I have not made one supporting statement *for* labor.
      I can be against vacant stupidity without being “for* one side or the other of politics.

    • Roger says:

      08:42am | 10/10/11

      Will Mitchell tell us how sending billions each year over seas will help??

    • PTom says:

      10:03am | 10/10/11

      Roger,
      Do you really think it matters if emission reduction (ie keeping forests) is done here or oversea, it is not like Australian emission only stay in Australia.

    • BP says:

      12:03pm | 10/10/11

      @ Enough. I recall a saying about glass houses and stones which you may wish to recall for yourself. Correcting anyone’s spelling or grammar is always problematic as you then run the risk of making an absolute goose of yourself in the process. In this case you have succeeded admirably. I won’t bother to highlight all of your errors, but I will point out that “cos” is a type of lettuce and not a contraction of because.

      As for the rest of your post - if we take away the sarcasm and nastiness there may actually be a valid point or two present. Perhaps if you reword your post and resubmit we will be able to view your wisdom and debate any valid points contained therein?

    • gangusk says:

      12:14pm | 10/10/11

      Enough
      The amount wasted was substantially highter then what you reported.
      The fact was, instead of asking tenders to get into a bidding process, the government gave the tenders the maximum amount, which the government was willing to play. For example, at my local school, the government paid almost twice as much, for almost the same thing that the school tendered out for two years ago.
      A lot of local contractor complained that the profits of the BER actually went to company, owned by overseas entities.
      The government wasted at least 4-5 billion on the BER

    • Joan says:

      12:23pm | 10/10/11

      Mr Woy Woy - you are way-way off! - the only dim wits are those that believe Gillard Carbon Tax on everything will change world climate. The tax will do no such thing- the cheaper goods will come from China and India- made by using coal fired power or nuclear power. As for reaching for a last century 1990 thesis by Hunt - you must be getting desperate reaching for old fashioned theories based on pre-internet purchase market. Hey its 2011 and no one will be buying Gillard/Combet more expensive feel good stuff when the internet makes the world a market place available to every Australian. Gillard/Comnet Carbon Tax ready to close down retail completely.

    • More than enough says:

      12:48pm | 10/10/11

      Enough
      Dovif posted on the weekend that Apple created DOS.
      enough said.

    • enough says:

      02:32pm | 10/10/11

      Gangusk
      No, they actually did not. It was audited by the auditor general and they found irregularities or unexplained/unjustified expenditure of between $400m and $500m. That is still a lot - but it’s also still a lot less than $4Bn or $5Bn. You appear to be confusing ‘total allocation’ with ‘rort’. Of course you may think the whole policy was unnecessary, but thats just your opinion… saying “I dont like it at all” doesn’t mean the full amount is waste.

      BP - whatever. Did I grammaticalise that to your dissatisfaction?

      Here’s something for you to mass debate among yourself (as most mass debaters do it on their own) - tony abbott and his braindead liberal fanbois are not a complete waste of time because…? Discuss. Your time starts just as soon as you can decide if your answer will be ‘fully scripted’ or not… aannndd go.

    • davo says:

      04:19pm | 10/10/11

      gangusk says:
      ” The government wasted at least 4-5 billion on the BER”

      Link please?

    • BP says:

      05:08pm | 10/10/11

      @Enough. Oh I am so wounded by your witty repartee. Obviously, by continuing to do little but rubbish the LNP without any backing substance, you are either a Greens or ALP “fanboi” who is a troll on a fishing expedition.

      So I have a few queries for you. Can you explain for us poor ignorant plebs how exactly this carbon ‘price’ will do anything bar harm the economy and redistribute wealth? Or point us toward one policy this government has managed to successfully implement since coming to power in 2007? Or explain why, despite implementing an additional $80 billion dollars worth of taxation since coming into office, they have still not managed to produce a budget surplus? Or are you so blinkered by ideology that you can’t realise that the current government is so inept and such a failure at just about everything they touch that they are doing bugger-all except stuff the country?

      My apologies, I didn’t really need to ask that last question…...the answer is self-evident from your previous posts.

    • Steve Woy Woy says:

      07:39pm | 10/10/11

      Miz, Joan: Look I understand your frustration facts are very hard to deal with when push comes to shove as they say! As like the famous GST chat being Howard baby how long do you think it was around? It was first mooted way back when Howard was the then treasurer in his first wrecking of oz you remember those days I’m sure… Costello lite shall we say sold off just about everything that was not bolted down, government spending at 2.3% but that is a little known fact also Labor have always been the better managers of our monies… http://bit.ly/qBWgd8
      Howard would have us believe he was the illuminating driving force of Australian reforms! His total inspirational talents move not too far from the press release of the day. The Campbell report came from the PM of the day’s economic adviser John Rose and senior dept. official Ed Visbord who raised it with Fraser after the 1977 election. They wrote him a minute that Fraser in turn handed to Howard to put into action. It is documented that Fraser was unhappy that it took Howard five months to produce the terms of reference and another three months to come up with the appointments. But still the Campbell committee 1979 reported at the end 1981, it took Howard until the end of July 1982 to bring a submission to cabinet on foreign banks and until mid- January 1983 to produce the detailed paper on issues such as conditions for their entry. By then, the Fraser government was in its last two months of office. So with a little scratch of the surface not hard to see too much changed with the shonky indolent mountebank right to the end hey?
      So the remarks of 1990 thesis by Hunt does bear some weight upon the process as does Tony’s little “If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?” as well as Mountebank Johnny when he had to http://bit.ly/oIYOzy
      So how long have we been talking about this and the method of application and the importance of this, like infrastructure, like the NBN, like moving to new technology new employment systems being smarter. But I guess it is very hard as is said in oz to fly like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys. So my dear Joan putting a price on carbon will be more effective than doing nothing and relying on people to do the right thing or they would already be doing it. We only need to look at the Bougainville experience there to see that.

    • Craig says:

      09:44pm | 10/10/11

      1. The support of the economists isn’t needed, this is about the environment not the economy.

      2. Why is it all you labor sheep always forget that the liberal party wont go ahead with the NBN saving around $40 billion?

      3. Much of Australia is uninhabited. And they did win the election, labor made a back room deal after the fact in order to hold on to power but don’t kid yourself, labor did not win the last election, they stole it.

    • Paleoflatus says:

      07:21am | 10/10/11

      I’m staggered by the deceit of camouflaging a new tax by wrapping it in a fatuous and economically damaging cloak of so-called environmentalism. Surely it’s obvious that we should be putting resources into the only adequate form of alternative energy - nuclear power. Sure, the Americans like relatively dangerous Uranium as it goes with the bomb, but we could be on the way to becoming a world leader in safe, Thorium-based nuclear power. We also have plenty of Thorium in Australia!

      Reply

    • TTFN says:

      08:13am | 10/10/11

      Labor likes taxing people - always has, always will.

      It’s a lot easier to spend other people’s money.

    • Flatus-headus-speakus says:

      09:01am | 10/10/11

      And the GST, the mother of all taxes, the never ever tax, dead dead buried and cremated tax was brought to you by which party?

    • LC says:

      11:10am | 10/10/11

      The party who had the decency to take it to an election before implementing it, and won that election with a smaller majority, but nonetheless a majority.

      And that party is not who’s in power now. The party who’s in power now actually originally supported a GST, but when Howard proposed it, the opposed the plan.

    • LC says:

      11:15am | 10/10/11

      If you want to compare it to what the Liberals have done recently, compare it to workchoices. They did not take that to an election, and guess what happened? Howard lost the next election in a landslide defeat to Rudd. The only place Howard can take the moral high ground is that while Julia went to the 07 election promising there won’t be a Carbon Tax, Howard did not go to the 2004 election promising there wouldn’t be huge workplace reforms.

    • Peter says:

      11:25am | 10/10/11

      TTFN, the last liberal government was the highest taxing government as a % of GDP in our history.

    • Joan Bennett says:

      07:32am | 10/10/11

      Name one economist who predicted the GFC?

      Reply

    • Mr Dobalina, Mr Bob Dobalina says:

      08:16am | 10/10/11

      Maybe not economists who are more akin to academics, but a lot of brokers sure knew it was coming…

      Most knew Lehman Bros was a sinking ship about 6 months before the crash.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:24am | 10/10/11

      Name one meteorologist who can predict the weather on a specific day 1 month beforehand with 100% accuracy.

      Facile point is facile.

    • Richard says:

      01:18pm | 10/10/11

      Tubesteak, the point is relevant, because the regular refrain from carbon tax supporters that “no economist supports the Coalition’s direct action policy” hinges on the answer. If no economists vocally and loudly predicted the GFC and warned against it, when its their job to keep an eye out for these sort of things, then they are exposed as incompetent idiots who’s opinion can be justifiably given no weight at all.

      The other thing is, did you see that awesome doco ‘Inside Job’? It basically proves that all mainstream economists are bought off by the big banksters on Wall Street like Goldman Sachs etc., who all stand to make an absolute mint off carbon trading, so there is more than a little conflict of interest from any economist who purports to support the carbon tax.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      01:48pm | 10/10/11

      Joan - that would be Nouriel Roubini, Robert Shiller, Raghuran Rajan, James Grant, William White, Nassim Nicholas, Maurice Obstfeld, Kenneth Rogoff, Stephen Roach, David Rosenberg to name a few - if you don’t know who they are google them - they are all experts in economics and finance.

      Richard - Nouriel Roubini (Prof of NYU and consultant to the White House) gave a speech to the IMF in September 2006 that the GFC was coming - the problem is the people don’t listen - and a number of other academic economists voiced out loud that the GFC was coming but weren’t listened to by the hacks on Wall Street - the newspapers don’t pick them up because they write academic papers that don’t get into the mainstream.

    • Glen M says:

      02:11pm | 10/10/11

      Tubesteak,
      Name one climate scientist who believes Labors policy will reduce global temperatures.

    • jack gilbert says:

      07:34am | 10/10/11

      they keep calling gillard a liar, I think there are a few in this camp as well every scientist in the country has told this mob there policiy is no good so why should the public believe Greg hunt who just a few years ago believed carbon pricing was the only answer, there are still a lot of questions to be asked
                                                        jack

      Reply

    • stevem says:

      12:19pm | 10/10/11

      The Labor plan is having the legislation written in such a way that it will be impossible to repeal because it is defining carbon credits as property and revoking the legislation would be removing property from the owners. If the rest of the world refuses to play along we would be left alone with no way to remove the tax. Direct action would be able to be rescinded at any time. Nobody has claimed Direct Action to be the be all and end all, just the first step.

      Clearly a tax that hits Australian producers but not foreign companies puts Australians at a competitive disadvantage, a very bad outcome given the struggles with the high Australian Dollar. A plan that expects emissions to rise dramatically, but be magically shipped offshore is really just juggling the books.

      Direct Action is a token gesture with minimal results and economic effects. The Carbon Tax will also have minimal results but potentially dramatic economic effects that can’t be backed out.

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:36am | 10/10/11

      The problem with direct action or incentivising is that it costs the government money. A lot more than the measly 1.5% you think is going to make the sky fall in.

      It is much more efficient to punish negative consumer behaviour and make them do their own research for a cheaper alternative (which will be a greener alternative).

      Reply

    • RichaRD says:

      01:31pm | 10/10/11

      Fine, impose a carbon consumption tax then. Why wouldn’t that be fair?

      But to impose a carbon tax purely on AUSTRALIAN industry and production, and then expect our AUSTRALIAN industry and production to be able to compete with all the other countries in our region who WON’T institute a Carbon Tax (when Australian industry and production is ALREADY finding it hard enough to compete), I mean, how is THAT in our National Interest?

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:29am | 10/10/11

      The direct action plan is a much smaller and much easier to repeal joke of a policy, but its still a joke. The coalition should dump it, particularly with its extra-ordinary costs, and take a world action approach to carbon dioxide emmissions.

      Reply

    • andye says:

      08:56am | 10/10/11

      Thankfully, the money spent on Direct Action is immune to fraud, just like all other money spent directly by the government.

      It is also magical money that comes not from our Taxes, but from the Liberal funding fairy! What is important here is that it hasn’t got the word “tax” in its name, and it isnt based on any crazy economic stuff we don’t understand!

      Reply

    • Glen M says:

      02:08pm | 10/10/11

      No its our tax dollars being spent on Australian research and development in Australia. Supporting Australian jobs which ultimately creates more Australian taxpayers. The labor plan is to send Australian tax dollars overseas to create additional cost on Australian industries to reduce Australian employment opportunities. You may not understand it but the vast majority of Australian do.

    • Frank Golding says:

      09:29am | 10/10/11

      Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt can’t find a single independent expert who takes the Coalition’s policy seriously. Such is their problem that they resort to misrepresenting experts in the vain hope that these embarrassed experts will not respond publicly.

      It’s about time the Libs got Malcolm Turnbull back to offer some rationality to their side of the debate.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      01:28pm | 10/10/11

      Er yeah, that’s right hey Frank Golding.

      Because heaven forbid the people actually thought for themselves, am I right? I mean, people are all dumb, aren’t they, and if they didn’t get told what to think by the “experts”, they’d all be helpless, hey.

      But actually, people in my opinion ARE intelligent, and all these “independent experts” you speak of having vested interests up to the eyeball in carbon trading. They all stand to make a mint! You can’t accept their word as the standard of all truth and justice.

      Think for yourself! You don’t need an expert to do your cognition for you. If Hunt has erred in this article, point it out! but he hasn’t, everything he said holds water, which is why the Carbon Tax plan is such a disaster, and should NOT be passed by a parliament that is supposed to have the Australian National Interest at heart.

    • Glen M says:

      02:16pm | 10/10/11

      Frank, economists might tell you its cheaper to have a carbon tax rather than direct action because they are factoring purchasing cheap carbon credits overseas. The question is; is it the right thing for australia to spendour tax dollars here or abroad. You might like to think back to the old “Australian Made” advertising campaign for the answer.
      Richard is correct “THINK FOR YOUSELF” .

    • Steve Putnam says:

      04:56pm | 10/10/11

      Get real Richard. Abbott’s bribe the polluter scheme blows an $11 billion hole in the budget that would otherwise be spent on health, education and infrastructure. Why can’t you be honest enough to admit its nothing more than corporate socialism?

    • B says:

      08:14pm | 10/10/11

      @Steve Putnam

      As opposed to Gillards Socialist wealth distribution scheme?

    • Dodge says:

      11:00am | 11/10/11

      Yes Richard - MOST people are dumb when it comes to environment science mainly because they don’t study it.

      You’re simply carrying out the fine neo-conservative tradition of ignoring science, knowledge and expertise. So much of the progress of humanity has been the result of specialists, but now it doesn’t gel with the neo-con agenda it’s all ‘hearsay’ and ‘speculation’ - of course it is!

      Unless you’re actually wanting people to carry out the Dunning-Kruger effect (which you probably do, because simpletons understand the Liberal message far more easily than actual scientific data)?

      LOLOL @ most scientists financially benefitting from climate science. You’ll use any simplistic stick won’t you champ. This actually reveals more of YOUR MINDSET as opposed to scientists making the discoveries I’m afraid.

      No, you REALLY shouldn’t ‘think for yourself’ when it comes to science, you should respect the knowledge of peeople who spend their whole life analysing data… Or should folks at home begin tinkering with fission reactors? I mean, it’s just that ‘easy to understand’ science muck right?

      You see an accountant to help with taxes and finances, you seek a rocket scientist when launching rockets into space and you seek climate scientists when wanting data on the planet’s warming or cooling… Understand yet?

      Folks like you baffle me… It’s like the least believable people are the actual experts in any given field. It’s so counter-intuitive it makes me gasp.

    • mick says:

      09:37am | 10/10/11

      I am in favour of pricing carbon but not so sure about an international trading scheme.  I am concerned that it will be open to abuse and $3.5 billion would better be spent domestically in tackling problems by investing in renewables as China is doing.
      It is true that our emissions will go up but Australia needs to put an end to the current crazy immigration scheme.  This is yet another ill thought out big business idea.  Big business mistakenly believes that by creating a larger market place for itself it will create prosperity.  The reality is that because we import almost everything our balance of trade will go down and continue to go down and living standards will actually go down and there will be less money for big business, not more.  Of course more people means more carbon.  This is why our emissions will grow.
      The alternative -  elect wrecking ball Tony Abbott whose Party has no (costed) policies, who show no responsibility to the nation and who have clearly become little more than promoters of negative and unsubstantiated scare campaigns to a gullible electorate.

      Reply

    • PTom says:

      09:52am | 10/10/11

      Greg,
      Will emission still be going up under DAP?
      You have the same target as the ALP of 5% but only plan to spend $3.2B what if you don’t reach that target will you spend more?
      Who will decide which method to reduce emissions?
      Is fraud, rorting or pork barrelling possible under DAP?
      Will Forestry be stopped to meet the 5% by 2020?
      Will Brown coal power station be shutdown under DAP?
      The $3.2B is for one year as Liberal policy has aloocated $10.5B over the 3 years?
      If the $3.2B is not coming from a Carbon Tax or a Minning Tax, which services do you plan to cut to pay for it?
      Which farm land will be used to plant tree or be destoryed using CSG?

      BTW Water abatement is a fraud. Federal government buying water off people that got over allocated water from the State.  Great market.

      Reply

    • mikk says:

      10:13am | 10/10/11

      Do any of you really think rabbott is being honest with this carbon scheme. He will drop it like a hot stone if he wins govt. It will be just one more in a long line of lies told by the coalition to gain power. What chance Ltd news will hold him to account and call him a liar? He knows he can count on his mates to cover for him. He will do and say anything in his selfish quest to rule over us all.

      Reply

    • Bonestar says:

      11:11am | 10/10/11

      So what your saying is if Australians want a solid economic future free of BS taxes and scams they should vote for Abbott at the next election.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      12:08pm | 10/10/11

      @Bonestar

      Part of me hopes that Abbott does get in - just so I can watch his fanclub eat his 70 billion dollar shit sandwich- with smiles on their faces and telling us all “how sweet it is”.

    • Catching up says:

      10:52am | 10/10/11

      ” You do know that a large part of Australia are crown land still and there are a large part of Australia that is uninhabited

      Why is it unhabited?

      I would venture to say, because it in unhabitable.  I would also say, trees will not grow on this land.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      01:23pm | 10/10/11

      Rubbish, trees will grow there, especially after the coalition plan to build more dams provides access in these areas to more water.

    • PTom says:

      01:53pm | 10/10/11

      Where are these dam to built along the north which would be used for so-called new farm land not for tree in central Australia.

      BTW Crown land could be State or Federal ie National Parks or State forests

    • Peter says:

      11:32am | 10/10/11

      What is your plan when the all the trees burn in the summer bushfires?

      Are we still going to count that as part of our abatement?

      An amateur politician at best.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      01:21pm | 10/10/11

      The policy calls for soil carbon abatement.

      An amateur puncher at best.

    • PTom says:

      01:59pm | 10/10/11

      Yes very amateurish
      How do you think that carbon will get into the soil?

    • stevem says:

      02:41pm | 10/10/11

      PTom, try lookup up terra preta. Good for the air, good for the ground.

    • Peter says:

      11:25am | 11/10/11

      According to richard no trees will be planted with direct inaction.

      EPIC FAIL

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:39am | 10/10/11

      Given that everything Hunt says here contradicts what he said in his Honors Thesis could he please hand back his degree? He was either full of it then or he is full of it now.

      Hunt is a vote chasing hypocrite.

      Reply

    • Fun and Games says:

      12:50pm | 10/10/11

      He is just playing follow the leader with Abbott, much like the rest of his opposition cronies

      The only Liberal politician who thinks for himself is Malcolm Turnbull.

    • Richard says:

      01:20pm | 10/10/11

      Not at all. Have you read Hunt’s thesis? It explores possibilities for carbon pricing, but it doesn’t insist that Australia unilaterally heads down the path of sending billions upon billions of dollars overseas to fraudsters each year to achieve basically nothing.

    • Fun and Games says:

      01:48pm | 10/10/11

      Good point RIchard
      Better to let the conservatives in and have them give billions and billions of dollars to fraudsters right here in Australia.

    • B says:

      08:17pm | 10/10/11

      @ Fun and Games

      At least it stays in the country.  Did you honesty read what you wrote before posting.  Your comment is riduculous.

    • palone says:

      01:20pm | 10/10/11

      When Hunt lied in order to obtain his prize those few years ago… I beg your pardon? Oh, he didn’t lie then, he’s lying now. Sorry.
      I’ll start again. When Hunt lied about the need for a particular line of action in his Honours Thesis or when he lied today,(I honestly don’t know which is the case), did Abbott haul him before the Liberal Court of Integrity and order, “Please explain”?
      Or did he tell him that he had just passed the Liberal Cabinet exam?
      There is no Carbon Tax, and as much as liars like Hunt and those who agree and support him insist, this is not a case of ‘a rose by any other name’, but simply a penalty for over-pollution.
      I won’t pay it, you won’t pay it, and only the polluters of the planet will pay.
      Then of course there are those like Abbott who will disagree, but only because it is a Labor plan, not because his is a better alternative. Simply put, by one scheme the polluters pay, by the other scheme every Australian pays, (except the polluters). Abbott says, “Reward the polluters”, Labor says, “Penalise the polluters”.
      Bill’s shop puts his prices up to allow for his supplier’s higher prices re-couping his pollution penalty. Fred buys from a non-polluter, (i.e. one who controls his pollution), so his prices remain down and constantly down.
      Who will you buy from, and then who will be forced by the market to reduce pollution? Bingo!
      Now how hard was that? And not a lie to be seen.
      Please don’t let the fear of being beaten prevent your acknowledgement of the facts.
      Now here comes the “Liar!”, “Communist!”, “Rusted on Laborite”, (true), and all of the other terms the “Abbotteers” use for constructive criticism.
      How easily the Leader of the Opposition became the opposition of the leader.

      Reply

    • Pando says:

      01:46pm | 10/10/11

      They’re just trying to wreck the economy so they can say to constitutional lawyers, “It’s broke now, let us fix it with a new constitution.” History has seen mobs like theirs all across eastern europe and asia, and they never really govern for anyone but their toadies and bank accounts. The ALP try to set the terms of debate by blaming the others for what they are about to do themselves.

      Reply

    • wm says:

      02:21pm | 10/10/11

      So Mr Hunt, you’ll cut 1280 tonnes by 2020 for $3.2B!!!! lol. Through magic carbon soil, trees and giving most of it to the biggest polluters and praying that they ‘clean’ up their act?!?! Funny man. You must think we are stupid or something. I pity you, seems Abbott gave the most difficult jobs to the Turnbull loyalists, as punishment. lol

      Reply

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      02:34pm | 10/10/11

      hahaha wow, you know something is wrong when a Liberal is getting his arse handed to him on the Punch!

      Reply

    • jf says:

      06:06pm | 10/10/11

      It’s ok Simon, Combet’s getting his handed to him on the other side.

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      03:37pm | 10/10/11

      Rather tha new taxes, prices & expensive so-called “Direct Action” plans if our politicians shut up for a little & listened to those who employ them the entire issue of CO2, other emissions, global warming, climate change - or whatever happens to be the latest fad expression!
      Make the creators of the biggest single pollution (Electricity generation) pay but forbid them to pass on those charges to the Public.
      Make them stop doing sweet-heart deals with the really big users of Electricity where, it has been reported, some of these huge Industries are paying as little as 7 cents per kwh whilst families & single people, many of whom are actively reducing their use of energy to try & contribute something to address the pollution problem, are being charged 3 & 4 times as much.
      Stop manufactureres of all foodstuffs using non-recyclable packaging. If that means the Supermarkets have to stop packing everything in non-recyclable plastic trays, bags & seals so be it. Let them turn what they so inappropriately call their “Butcher Shops” back into real butcher shops with real butchers & make them use recyclable wrapping - this might alos stop them surreptitiously pumping their meat cuts full of water to increase the weight so that when braising or browning or roasting the meat shrinks to a scrap of nothing floating in a sea of liquid! - We have long-since returned to our Real Butcher!

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      03:40pm | 10/10/11

      Does no one in this argument ever look at the by-products of direct action on other areas of the environment?

      I’m astounded that Greens are against cleaning up the environment in our own backyard, and would rather put in place a tax that will have dubious benefits at best.

      Reply

    • Mikko says:

      04:51pm | 10/10/11

      Meanwhile, Labor is saying we must reduce carbon emissions to save the world etc etc, but at the same time the Queensland Government with federal sanctions is arguably turning one of Australia’s best natural harbours at Gladstone into an industrial drain with a massive dredging program - one of the world’s largest - to cater for at least three LNG plants on Curtis Island in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, as well as the eventual doubling of the port’s coal exports from the present 80 million tonnes a year, all of which will be going to countries with no carbon tax and fewer emission controls. Is that having your cake and eating it too or just rank hypocrisy?
      See http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/somethings-really-fishy-in-the-gladstone-waters/

      Reply

    • PTom says:

      06:51pm | 10/10/11

      How do you think those wild rivers will run?

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:04pm | 10/10/11

      “...we need real incentives, not another tax…” - You mean like the $473 million in tax breaks for companies investing in R&D into alternative energy sources that Peter Costello removed in his first budget - those sorts of incentives?

      Reply

    • anti ripoff says:

      05:58pm | 10/10/11

      It is official. There is NO consensus by ANY reputable & eminent unbiased environmental climate scientists on Global Warming because OFFICIAL figures clearly show temperatures are now actually decreasing & have done so for the past decade, so the science is NOT settled.

      Australians believe in Climate Change because climate has always changed & is NORMAL. But we totally reject a diabolical carbon dioxide tax to deliberately increase our energy & cost of living costs that does NOTHING for the environment, because Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant but is actually beneficial & absolutely essential for ALL life forms.

      It is a fact the majority of countries is NOT going to sacrifice their standard of living & join this catastrophic alarmist govt funded UNSCIENTIFIC, unproven fraudulent ETS global hoax.

      The people want their govt to act to ensure reliable cost effective energy supplies, stem the escalating cost of living & to indulge in good environmental stewardship & a carbon dioxide tax will have exactly the opposite effect.

      We have an incompetent, wasteful self serving untrustworthy arrogant Juliar Labor Party that must be obliterated for their treachery and contempt! Totally loathed!

      Reply

    • sunny says:

      06:54pm | 10/10/11

      Keep talking “anti ripoff” - you’re doing wonders for the other side o’ the argument. cheers.

    • PTom says:

      06:56pm | 10/10/11

      Which offical figures would that be?

    • anti stupidity says:

      07:48pm | 10/10/11

      Boy are you out of your depth.
      Where have you been this last decade that you haven’t heard the science is settled.

      I know, let’s replace the government because someone is too dumb or lazy to find out the facts.

    • Kipling says:

      06:54am | 11/10/11

      1. New taxes are required because of the significant long term revenue deficit created by privatisation.
      2. Privatisation sends billions of dollars off shore due to large scale foreign investment, yet this seems supportable, whilst the carbon tax utlimately doing the same thing is not. Go figure.
      3. Our current range of politicians represent the most significant drain on public revenue - perhaps a hot air tax would be more appropriate.
      4. Expect a litany of “plausable” excuses for not removing the tax if the other useless mob steal power.
      5. The political show has demonstratively failed to show even a tiny bit of care for any environment outside the cabinet room, even that environment does not escape being toxic though

      Reply

    • Ian Cognito says:

      09:16am | 11/10/11

      i support direct action in the form of tax concessions for any business or worker involed in the research, development, manufacture of reusable sustainable energy - ie solar, wind, geo thermal etc etc.

      instead of making current prices more expensive, make alternatives cheaper.

      its called a win-win situation, a concept, even though amazingly simple, our thickhead politicians just seem unable to grasp.

      must be the aussie idiosyncrasy of laughing at ourselves why we must continually elect such clowns to office, our way of letting the world know we can take a joke. pity we cant tell when its not funny any more.

      Reply

    • lp says:

      12:12pm | 11/10/11

      The argument about what policy measure is more efficient is straightforward. Basic economic theory explains that GHG emissions are a negative externality.  It’s a form of market failure.  Without a price on carbon, the full cost of GHG emissions in terms of climate change are not borne by the emitter, therefore there is no economic incentive to reduce emissions.

      A carbon price renders businesses financially accountable for their pollution. Hence, businesses that are driven by “profit maximising behavior” will be led to produce the efficient amount of pollution abatement at minimum cost.

      On the other hand direct action policies have proven to be hopelessly inadequate and unnecessarily costly.  This report shows that non-market based policies can raise emission reduction costs by a factor of 10.
      http://kec.kansas.gov/reports/GHG_Review_FINAL.pdf

      The most environmentally effective and cost efficient approach to reduce carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon.  Why are we still having this debate?  Both scientists and economists agree that market based solutions are the best way to address the problem.  Yet the general public is influenced by right wing scare campaigns.  Science trumps political rhetoric no matter how you view it.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 01:56PM

I was responsible for this headline. It was quite difficult to think up. http://t.co/q5rnWpLM

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 01:10PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 I think I have found the winner: 'Bladder and Bowel Website'

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 12:53PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 12:52PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

by Paul Toohey

1

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

by Anthony Sharwood

99

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

by Richard Marles

74

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed