The carbon debate at the moment is a bit like the story of Chicken Little. Just as Chicken Little declared that the sky was falling, we’re seeing a lot of people in the business community claiming that the introduction of a carbon price will spell disaster for Australian exports, jobs and industries.
(We cheated here and went for the Hokey Pokey rather than Henny Penny. But the clip is worth a re-visit.)
BHP Billiton and Xstrata want protection on coal exports; BlueScope Steel and OneSteel want steel manufacturing exempted from a carbon price; Woodside Petroleum want LNG exports to be exempted from a carbon price. To top it off, we’ve had the Australian Workers Union declare its opposition if a single job is lost as a result of a carbon price. And the Australian Food and Grocery Council is now calling for exemptions and running the line that food prices will rise.
You would be forgiven for thinking the Chicken is right.
Of course, it’s only natural that these concerns, fears and demands are feeding into the political debate being fought by our nation’s politicians. It would be strange if it wasn’t so.
But like Chicken Little, these fears are not just overblown, but downright misleading. As if to give succour to this argument, just yesterday we saw BHP – the same company that says it wants coal export protection – announce a $48 billion investment in expanding its iron ore operations.
As one of the world’s leading mining companies with revenue last financial year of more than US$52 billion (not including revenue in the six months to 31 December 2010 of US$34 billion), it would be wrong to assume they haven’t factored in the impact of a carbon price and that they aren’t managing that transition already.
And what hasn’t featured so far in the debate is the growing number of companies and organisations that actually do support a carbon price.
Last week we saw no less than twenty separate companies and organisations including some of our largest energy producers, generators and retailers like AGL, BP and Pacific Hydro; national transportation organisations like Linfox Transport and the Australasian Railway Association; and international businesses like GE and IKEA, all publicly support a carbon price mechanism. Combined, these major national and international companies help power our homes and businesses, keep us clothed, fed and warm and help ensure that we get what we want when we need it.
Then there are the nation’s institutional investors, representing around $600 billion in investments under management. Companies like AMP Capital Investors, Aviva, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Mirvac, Stockland and BT Investment Management, amongst the nearly 60 members of the Investor Group on Climate Change have all said they support the Government taking action on climate change through the introduction of “a well-designed carbon price to support the transition to a low-carbon economy”.
By virtue of their business, these are conservative institutions that balance risk across their investments, including investments in carbon polluting industries. For them to come to an agreed position in support of a carbon price is significant.
These companies don’t take steps to publicly support a move like the introduction of a carbon price without good reason. And the good reason is that a carbon price will help reduce the worst excesses of carbon pollution on the environment by encouraging businesses and consumers alike to ensure that we prepare now for the future as best as we are able.
Taking a sensible, economically efficient way of cutting pollution through the introduction of a market mechanism to set a carbon price will create the necessary incentives for business to cut pollution and invest in cleaner forms of energy generation. It will give the economic certainty investors need in new forms of energy generation over the life of those investments.
Failure to act now means that not only will we continue to be one of the world’s 20 most heavily polluting countries, but that we will also be at risk of being left behind as countries like India, China, South Korea, the United States and all of Europe either adopt carbon pollution mitigation measures or expand the ones they already have in place.
That will mean that the emerging global architecture on carbon pricing will be informed without Australia’s input. Failure to act also carries the very real risk that Australia will be exposed to ‘carbon barriers’ as our trading partners factor in the real carbon cost of production for us.
In the end, Chicken Little was wrong because the sky didn’t fall in, despite his fear-mongering and hysterical pleadings to the contrary. The good money is on the Chicken Littles in Australia being wrong on the carbon price too – for Australia to walk away from a carbon price really would mean the sky falling in for our economy, businesses and consumers.
And that can’t be good news for us now or into the future.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
@pryorlisa I had exactly the same feeling when I bought the Women's Weekly the other day. I think it's demographic creep!
@ClaireRConnelly hops into CSIRO and the government for the total non-campaign for the square kilometer array http://t.co/GOte9QFy
RT @mumbletwits: +1 MT @meadea Adding voice to the boss RT @abcmarkscott: Hereby instruct @Colvinius to make a swift return to good health. (Take care Mark.)
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project
I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…
Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics
When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…
Please enter your password
Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…
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]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented