WSJ: The Last Carbon Taxer

This is a must read article by the WSJ - The Last Carbon Taxer.

 

Andy Semple 

Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt

Comments

[Marksouth]

1.

Sometimes it takes a short, sharp summary of things like this from the foreign media to point out your country is on the wrong path.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

2.

Saul Eslake, who is hardly right-wing, and a program director with the Gillard government's PR agency the Grattan Institute, makes an honest assessment on the carbon dioxide policy:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-plan-great-in-theory-20110719-1hn4r.html

and comes to the conclusion

1. First, the government seems to lack the confidence in the efficacy of putting a price on carbon to deliver the necessary changes in industry and household behaviour that its rhetoric implies. (i.e. it won't achieve the effect the government is claiming, which (I'd say) effectively makes it just another tax).

2. Second, the compensation package for households is flawed.

3. Third, the government's proposals are not revenue neutral. (i.e. you are going to be taxed more than the compensation)

But nor am I going to say that these compromises represent ''good policy''. They don't.

[liberal elitist]

3.

It's always good to see what foreign publications have to say about our political affairs. No doubt The Register's article is too affected by left-wing media bias to be published on MH. But perhaps The Economist's take on the carbon tax might fall within the conservative/libertarian 'broad church'? After all, characteristic of that magazine is its belief in free trade and free markets...

The WSJ article is the first article I've seen from a foreign publisher that was critical of the carbon tax.

[Marksouth]

4.

Well The Register is a tech blog; so I'd give their economic opinion as much regard as a V8 Supercars review in New Idea. And the Economist piece is still fairly disparaging of the Australian govt's scheme, even though that mag has swallowed the global warming line in order to stay mainstream.

Carbon trading only looks like a market to people who know nothing about markets. There is a minimum price, for god's sake. What stock market in the world could forbid a company's value falling below $15 a share and keep its credibility?

[SignedIn]

5.

"It is if you believe in the theology that loathes carbon fuels..."
I'm not really surprised that a News Corp/Murdoch rag would write an opinion piece that dismisses science as just another theology.
Then again they needed to publish something in the paper while they ignored the troubles of News International in the UK.

British Columbia appears to support carbon pricing, and they are a competitor of ours.
http://www.economist.com/node/18958387

[SignedIn]

6.

Typically you ignore the important of Saul Eslake's article:

"As a result, I support the Gillard government's proposal to ''put a price on carbon'', initially in the form of a tax, and subsequently in the form of an emissions trading system - even though I will be personally worse off financially, and even though only 39 per cent of my fellow citizens support it, ..."

[Michael Sutcliffe]

7.

I didn't ignore that all. I'm sure he feels that way. I'm sure that's exactly the truth from his perspective.

The point is: despite the fact he supports the notion of a carbon dioxide tax, he is openly claiming the current Gillard government's policy 1) won't achieve the carbon abatement goal 2) will cost people extra in daily living expenses despite the compensation, 3) is designed to achieve wealth distribution as well as carbon abatement and 4) is generally bad policy that he, as a left-leaning economist, can't support.

And he's felt the need to put forward this perspective even though he works for the left-leaning Grattan Institute who has done nothing but promote the scheme and shill for the government.

As usual Johnson, you ignore the content of the argument and try to throw in some semi-logic from left field because you know you don't have anything of value to add.

[SignedIn]

8.

LoL

"is generally bad policy that he, as a left-leaning economist, can't support."

Except that he says "I support the Gillard government's proposal to 'put a price on carbon'"

Amazing how you ignore this content again to give your own spin to his article.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

9.

You are a moron. You really, really are. I bet you are widely regarded as a bore by most people who meet you.

The whole point of the article is his conclusion (again highlighted for the intentionally ignorant): But nor am I going to say that these compromises represent ''good policy''. They don't.

The point - again for our resident moron - is he's an economist, he's left wing, he supports the price on carbon dioxide, he works for the Grattan Institute, and yet even he says the Gillard government legislation is bad policy.

I'm guessing this article could damage his career. But he obviously felt the need to go on the public record the way he did.

(You may be a moron but you serve a purpose. You let me reiterate clearly the key points for our other more intelligent readers who might just be passing through. So even though you may be the class bore, don't stop posting!)

[Michael Sutcliffe]

10.

Andy, another good article that might deserve a post of it's own:

(via Andrew Bold and, most surprisingly, courtesy of the ABC)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_professor_speaks_out_money_has_corrupted_our_global_warming_debate/

-------

Australian physicist Professor Brian J O’Brien has worked on the Apollo moon missions. In this interview with the ABC, just 8:15 from the end, he suddenly cuts loose on man-made global warming, and commits a series of heresies that pin back the ears of the interviewer.

- It’s been wildly exaggerated. When he first started researching the topic, “I got rather frightened at the exaggerations that were going around.”

- It’s “certainly not proven” than man is largely to blame for any warming.
- “The sad part was that there were no senior scientists that were independent” in the field.

- He discovered that “the funding for climate change researchgwas only going to what you call true believers and when that happens inevitably you get a bias”.

- An Australian professor of physics told him he “completely” supported his concern but had to keep his team of 65 researchers going with work, and “the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or whereever”.

- “For 20 years people have been indoctrinated with the abuse of language” so that “climate change” is meant to suggest that all change is man-made. Of course, there’s climate change. That’s not the question

- He’s worried we’re going ahead of the world in cutting emissions.

[SignedIn]

11.

Now call me a moron as much as you want. It really doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is that you feel you can misrepresent Saul Eslake's opinion to suit your own. Overall he supports this pricing mechanism.

I disagree with some of the policy, I think some of the exemptions are unnecessary or overly generous.
However I understand that not everyone would agree with me on that, and if this is the best agreement we can get, then I support this carbon pricing mechnism - as does Saul Eslake.

I hope you can understand that and stop misrepresenting his disagreement with compromises (being only portions of the exemptions and green project funding) as him being against the entire mechanism.

If you continue to do so you only make yourself look like an idiot.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

12.

Just go away.

[Andy]

13.

Well said in reply to liberal elitist, Mark South

[Andy]

14.

What I find surprising is how most economists have ignored the amount of money that will be spent on buying overseas abatement – if there ever was a con – that’s it – buying CO2 abatement from countries like India or China.
At least Tony Abbott’s plan is to reduce 5% in AUSTRALIA and not buy 60% of the 5% from foreign sources – I mean have you heard of anything more absurd?
Gillard has basically admitted she cannot cut 5% of domestic CO2 emissions – and the rorted system allow you to buy them from an overseas source – what a scam.

[Andy]

15.

Yes, Michael, a very good article.
Given that BoltA has it won't bother repeating here but thank you for highlighting the article for our other readers.

[SignedIn]

16.

Oh boohoo ... you can't respond to facts so now you have a cry ... diddums.

Did you bother to check the article from The Economist
http://www.economist.com/node/18958387

A carbon price that is working well, without the histrionics of the deniers.

[SignedIn]

17.

apologies wrong link:
http://www.economist.com/node/18989175

[SignedIn]

18.

"Heard the one about the carbon tax working perfectly nicely, enjoying popular approval, reducing emissions, not killing capitalism? No, it’s not a joke, or a fantasy – it’s British Columbia."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-carbon-tax-is-working-nicely-20110725-1hw2y.html#ixzz1T5Ci0bLo