Compare the pair. Which newspaper published an editorial featuring the following sentence in 2013?
“The key, therefore, is to facilitate a market-based mechanism which does not punish producers at a delicate time for our economy but rather enhances competition and encourages new technologies that in time can deliver clean and affordable electricity for consumers.
Most important is that all sides of the debate approach the problem in a measured, rational and sensible way. Otherwise what kind of world are we trying to save?”
The Age? The Australian? The Betoota Advocate? Guess again, it was the Daily Telegraph. Yes, the same Daily Telegraph that published this front page yesterday warning us of a zombie carbon tax coming to eat our brains/economy.
*Heard anything that might interest Crikey? Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or use our guaranteed anonymous form
It’s pointless trying to explain News Ltd’s inconsistencies – they do it deliberately as scant cover for their overwhelmingly ridiculous views. The Australian will also sagely editorialise about the dangers of climate change on the same day they publish half a dozen pieces on Climategate, “the pause”, windmill fever, the upcoming mini-ice-age and why more carbon dioxide is good for your garden.
Market Based Mechanisms can include taxes, subsidies (like Direct Action) and cap and trade schemes like an ETS. Anything except regulation.
The Tele mentions “a market-based mechanism which does not punish producers at a delicate time for our economy but rather enhances competition and encourages new technologies that in time can deliver clean and affordable electricity for consumers.”
That doesn’t sound like support for a tax. Smells like a call for “Direct Action”.
Can you possibly explain how “Direct Action” isn’t a carbon tax?
Labor had a price on emissions, payable by polluters and largely passed through to consumers through higher prices. This was then considered a “carbon tax” on consumers.
Direct Action is a payment to polluters, funded directly by relatively higher taxes levied on consumers.
Direct Action is a far more direct “tax” than carbon pricing ever was. Money and tax revenues are fungible – just because the Government chooses not to link their spending to a specific revenue source, it doesn’t mean we’re not paying for it.
But Scott, they call for ‘rational and sensible’ debate. Does the Tele even know what that means?
Its a negative tax (otherwise known as a subsidy)…
As the old adage goes, there are two ways to get people (or donkeys) to change behaviour…the “carrot” (or an incentive to do the “right” thing) or the “stick” (the punishment when you the “wrong” thing)
A Carbon tax is a “stick”, punishing the donkey for large emissions; Direct Action is a “carrot”, rewarding the donkey for reducing emissions.