Julia Gillard has always been good at calling a spade a spade. And that’s exactly what she’s done in her letter to the Business Council of Australia today.
Addressed to BCA president Graham Bradley, the prime minister notes Australia’s target of reducing emissions 5% by 2020, writing:
”I would appreciate it if, on behalf of the BCA, you are able to indicate whether or not you support [it]. I would also appreciate your views on whether the BCA agrees that the preferred means of achieving this unconditional target is through using a market mechanism to put a price on carbon.”
Yes, do tell.
As Bernard Keane wrote in Crikey last week, the BCA in particular likes to brag about its record on reform since its inception in 1983. But the BCA’s track record tells a very different story.
And when it comes to a carbon price, there’s a “…pretence of commitment to the national interest and the ostensible rigour of detailed analysis, coupled with a strange inconsistency that only accepts the benefits, and never the costs, of reforms”.
But then, what do we know? We’re just a bunch of warmenists.
Hmmm. Beyond the name-calling, McCrann does make some substantive points, especially about the likely non-coal alternatives i.e. gas and wind. Pity you didn’t respond to those.
Appears to me that most people have already made their minds up on this issue, and evidence from either side is going to be discredited by the other,
For myself, there are simple 3 points that I feel need an explanation from the Govt.
Why continue to export coal offshore if it is doing damage?
Why is the the Govt ending the solar rebate scheme?
Why are the proceeds of this tax being redistributed to the community, instead of funding alternative energy initiatives?
Surely these questions are relevant and require someone…………., anyone from the media to ask them.
For me the media is the main concern out of this whole debate, not a lot of obvious questions being asked.
What reality is McCrann referring to? Economic or environmental? I see a lot of carping but no solutions. Perhaps he doesn’t think there’s a problem.
If the price needs to end up at $50 / tonne – as he asserts – to turn our self-interested invisible hands to other trades, then so be it.
I’m pretty sure Earth’s ecosystem doesn’t give – if you permit the personified conceit – a rat’s ar$e how many TVs people can afford. In fact, it would treat the passing of homosapiens with as much pause and regret as it has for any other former residents. None at all.
mccrann….good points…..lol
Interesting link to the Terry McCrann piece. I have seen that argument pushed many times by various members of the Murdoch politburo: that we, in Oz, can have no significant effect on the outome, but any attempt to try will cost us dearly, and that therefore we should not try. I find it a morally repulsive argument, but, difficult to counter. I would be interested to hear how others deal with this line.
The first thing I would note is that they always hypothesize or imply Australia acting alone. I would agree that “Australia putting a price on carbon (dioxide), indeed cutting our CO2 emmissions all the way to zero …” will have little (not zero) impact on global warming – assuming we act alone and no-one is watching. If we are a part of a community of nations and wish to do, and be seen to do, our part in cutting emmissions, then that changes the picture entirely. If we wish to behave morally then that also changes the picture entirely.
I often think of the film Amazing Grace (2006). The story of William Wilberforce and his campaign to end slavery, in Britain. If one substituted “ending slavery” for “cutting CO2 emmissions” in this argument put by Terry McCrann (and Andrew Bolt and others), it would have been equally valid in Wilberforce’s Britain. Britain, ulitmately, ended slavery through parliamentary processes, while the USA had to go to war with itself. Could this be prophetic?