The 'tax' word doesn't have to hold us back from commencing a serious discussion about carbon pricing

With Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his merry band of hysterics literally frothing at the mouth over the carbon pricing proposal (announced by the Gillard Government on 24 February 2011) and seeking to distort any legitimate debate, perhaps it is time average Australians wrested back control from those conservative prima donnas now prancing across the nations television screens shouting various versions of “L.I.E. Tax!”

One of the first ways to do this is to look again at the information which is at hand.

Cast your mind back to those media reports prior to the August 2010 federal election which clearly show that the Gillard Government had let the electorate know its thinking on establishing a carbon price in 2012 and, recall the fact that in December 2010 the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet was reported as having; sent a strong signal the federal government is considering implementing a fixed carbon price, followed by a fully fledged emissions trading scheme, to solve the political impasse. Mr Combet said while the government had not formed its final position on carbon pricing, a fixed-price start could defer the divisive debate on emissions reduction targets, but ensure short-term investment certainty for business.

Then go to the MULTI-PARTY CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE created in the wake of the last federal election.

Membership of this committee comprises:Prime Minister Gillard (Chair), Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer Wayne Swan, Minister for Climate Change & Energy Efficiency Greg Combet, Senator Christine Milne (Deputy Chair), Senator Bob Brown, Tony Windsor MP, Rob Oakeshott MP. Assisted by Adam Bandt MP and Mark Dreyfus MP, with Professor Ross Garnaut, Professor Will Steffen, Rod Sims and Ms Patricia Faulkner acting as advisors.

Opposition MPs are noticeable by their absence from this committee because the invitation to join was firmly rejected by Tony Abbott in 2010.

The Committee’s stated operating principles for creation of a carbon price mechanism are:

1. Environmental effectiveness: The mechanism should be capable of delivering reductions in carbon pollution that are informed by the climate science, to ensure that Australia contributes to the global mitigation task and to help transform our economy by driving investment and innovation in clean energy and low emissions technologies and processes.
2. Economic efficiency: A mechanism to price carbon should harness the most cost-effective pollution reduction options and facilitate informed and efficient investment decisions. It should also minimise costs of our pollution reduction to the economy as a whole and be consistent with Australia’s broader economic reform agenda.
3. Budget neutrality: The overall package of a carbon price mechanism and associated assistance measures should be budget-neutral. This does not preclude other measures to address climate change being funded from the Budget, consistent with the Government’s fiscal strategy.
4. Competitiveness of Australian industries: The overall package of carbon price design and associated assistance measures should take appropriate account of impacts on the competitiveness of all Australian industries, having regard to carbon prices in other countries, while maintaining incentives to reduce pollution.
5. Energy security: Introduction of the carbon price should be accompanied by measures that are necessary for maintaining energy security.
6. Investment certainty: A mechanism to price carbon should provide businesses with the confidence needed to undertake long-term investments in low emissions technology and infrastructure, which will reduce costs for households and businesses in the long-term. It should keep our industries at the forefront of the research, development and deployment of new clean technologies, attracting global investment flows and creating new jobs.
7. Fairness: The introduction of a carbon price will affect Australian households and communities. Assistance should be provided to those households and communities most needing help to adjust to a carbon price, while striving to maintain incentives to change behaviour and reduce pollution.
8. Flexibility: Internationally, climate change policy is continuing to evolve. A mechanism to price carbon should be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing international circumstances, including improvements in international accounting rules, developments in climate change science, and tangible international action to deliver an effective global solution.
9. Administrative simplicity: A mechanism to price carbon should be designed with a view to minimising both compliance costs and implementation risks.
10. Clear accountabilities: A mechanism with transparent scheme rules and clear accountabilities will help promote business and community confidence in carbon pricing.
11. Supports Australia’s international objectives and obligations: An effective global solution requires action from all major emitters to limit the global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees. A carbon price mechanism should support the goal of promoting international action to deliver an effective global solution, and be consistent with Australia’s foreign policy and trade objectives.

The Multi-party Climate Change Committee webpage contains a history of how this particular carbon pricing mechanism proposal actually came about:

• Meeting 4 - 18 February 2011: Communiqué—18 February 2011
• Meeting 3 - 21 December 2010: Communiqué—21 December 2010
• Meeting 2 – 10 November 2010: Communiqué—10 November 2010
• Meeting 1 – 7 October 2010: Communiqué—07 October 2010
• Establishment of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee—27 September 2010: Prime Minister establishes climate change committee

Papers have been released by the Committee since November 2010 and on 24 February 2011 it invited members of the public and interested parties to provide input on this approach via an email to: MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au, or by letter to The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee Secretariat, GPO Box 854, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Despite the accusations about specific cost of living increases being thrown about by Opposition MPs; To date no final decisions have been taken about the design of a carbon price or its associated features including assistance packages for households and industry.

However the general proposal is clearly outlined by the Committee:

…….a proposed carbon price mechanism that has been discussed by members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC). The proposal has been agreed by the Government and Greens members of the Committee. Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott have agreed that the proposal be released to enable consideration by the community and to demonstrate the progress that has been made.

The MPCCC has discussed a number of different ways in which a carbon price could be introduced into the economy and the advantages and disadvantages of each. This paper outlines the result of that discussion.

The proposal focuses on the high level architecture, start date, potential mechanisms to allow flexibility to move to emissions trading, sectoral coverage and international linking arrangements.

Further detailed discussions will be required in relation a starting price for the carbon price mechanism, and in relation to the associated assistance arrangements for households, communities and industry, and support for low emissions technology and innovation.

The outlined architecture also allows for consideration of other design options such as phased coverage of sectors over time and coverage of the electricity sector via an intensity-based allocation scheme.

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme, with the following broad architecture.

Start date

The mechanism could commence as early as 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate agreement with a majority in both houses of Parliament and pass legislation this year.

Length of fixed price period

The fixed price phase could be of between three and five years, with the price increasing annually at a pre-determined rate. The initial fixed price could begin to drive economic transformation and investment in low emission technologies, and ensure greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Transition arrangements

At the end of the fixed price period, the clear intent would be that the scheme convert to a flexible price cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. In relation to the transition to a flexible price, it would be important to design the arrangements so as to promote business certainty and a smooth transition from the fixed to flexible price……………….

The full version of this document can be downloaded as:

• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Carbon Price Mechanism (RTF 83Kb)
• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Carbon Price Mechanism (PDF 135Kb)

In the last few days an unlikely duo, Joe Hockey and Gretel Killeen, have independently complained that this ‘tax’ has been sprung unannounced on an unwitting population reeling from domestic natural disasters and international political unrest and that this was unfair – presumably because they both consider that a national government should not continue with policy implementation whenever communities are rebuilding or news is bad somewhere in the world.

Indeed on the ABC’s Q&A on 28 February Killeen waxed poetic on the subject in a manner which demonstrated that she had probably not investigated the issue beyond a quick look at the mainstream media or cheat sheets used Coalition politicians:

There was no catalyst to cause this announcement to be made. It's not as though we suddenly got now [sic] figures on global warming, let's come in with our tax. It came out of the blue and when I say out of the blue after, what, five days of us being shattered in sharing the New Zealand earthquake trauma, Egypt, Libya, another boy dying in Afghanistan. We were preoccupied with other issues. This one came in for no apparent reason. Not only did it come in, it came in unprepared. We didn't even get any facts.

While Liberal Party MP Hockey stated on 1 March in a doorstop interview:

Now, to add on top of that rising interest rates, to add on top of that a flood levy, to add on top of that now a carbon tax, it’s going to rip the heart and soul out of small business and families and here’s the proof. And they’re dealing with all the other impacts, as Rita was saying, the impact of the cyclone and the floods, it’s around you.

So what does all this tell us?

Well it indicates that:

1. Australia went to the ballot box in August 2010 knowing that a re-elected Federal Labor Government would introduce a carbon price and after that general election the country also knew that, despite having to form a minority government, Labor’s plans for a carbon price were proceeding.

2. Ordinary Australians can contact the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and give their personal opinions of carbon pricing before all details of the plan are finalised.

3. Tony Abbott and assorted Coalition MPs are issuing media releases and conducting interviews which deliberately ignore the fact that the electorate could hardly have been ignorant of the coming national price on carbon and are telling hardcore political lies with impunity because they apparently believe journalists and voters are monumentally stupid.

4. Some allegedly intelligent adults are obviously basing their own positions solely on Coalition political spin and looking no further into the matter of carbon pricing.

5. To date there is very little reasoned and reasonable national discussion on the announced carbon price mechanism framework.

6. Remedy for any deficiency in either the national discussion or the mechanism currently under contruction lies in our hands.

So if you believe climate change must be addressed with strong mitigation measures it's time to shake off that natural lethagy and start reading and writing - you only get what you fight for in any democracy.

STOP YELLING ACROSS THE HOUSE

Thanks, GG from Dubbo, for passing this one on.  

Ahhhhhhhhhh! The memories!

Albanese and Borger find something to crow about

In a tough fortnight in politics, a good news media release last Monday from Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Roads Minister David Borger:

NORTHERN SECTION OF BALLINA BYPASS OPENS TO TRAFFIC

The newly completed northern section of the Ballina Bypass on the Pacific Highway will tomorrow – Tuesday, 1 March 2011 – open to traffic for the first time.

Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said this opening is occurring many months earlier than original scheduled thanks to the Federal Labor Government’s decision to bring forward $100 million in our very first budget.

“The opening of the 5.9 kilometres northern section between Cumbalum and Ross Lane marks a major milestone in the delivery of the Bypass,” said Mr Albanese.

“Once fully completed in 2012, this new piece of road infrastructure will improve safety, cut travel times by up to 12 minutes and ease congestion on the streets of Ballina.”

“Importantly, the construction of the Bypass is just one of many projects being funded as part of the $3.6 billion capital works program being rolling out up and down the Pacific Highway.

“Indeed compared to the former Howard Government we’re investing more than twice as much in the half the time.”

The Ballina Bypass is a jointly funded project, with the Gillard Labor Government contributing $526 million and the Keneally Labor Government a further $114 million.

NSW Roads Minister David Borger said work began on the wider Ballina bypass in 2008, and is on schedule for the southern section to be open to traffic next year.

“This is good news not only for motorists using the Pacific Highway, but for the people of Ballina – as it will improve both local road safety and traffic flow,” Mr Borger said.

The fully built Ballina bypass will feature 12 kilometres of four-lane divided road – six lanes between the Bruxner Highway and Teven Road – as well as new interchanges at Teven Road and Ross Lane, and bridges over Emigrant and Sandy Flat creeks.

The southern section will also include a new Cumbalum interchange with roundabouts on both sides of the Cumbalum bridges.

Some MPs shouldn't tweet without a pocket dictionary handy

At least the NSW Member for Clarence spells his own name correctly on his Twitter account which displays less than ninety tweets sent since September 2009:

Premier Paris Hilton is making her altar ego look intelligent,,,,,& boring #fb
4:39 PM May 13th, 2010 via OpenBeak

Altar ego?

Premier Paris Hilton is starring in a remake of a classic all time great movie as capton of the "TITANIC" #fb
5:01 PM May 12th, 2010 via web

Capton?

C'mon Paris, I know ur reading this. Show some real compassion & contact the Zanuso family & give them some digree of closure #fb
Tuesday, 18 May 2010 4:08:10 PM via OpenBeak

Digree?

And a few more......

birth cirtificate
thankU cirtificates
bi-election in penrith
There aim is
THE Opeta House

Meanwhile, a Cansdell former staffer gets the twittervese spelling correct but the sentiment very wrong as he embarrasses this Nationals MP.

Japanese response to whaling fleet returning home early

The Asahi Shimbun newspaper editorial of February 22, 2011 indicates that whaling is still being supported by elements within Japanese society, but the focus appears to be turning towards coastal hunts in the vicinity of Japan's territorial waters:

Violent acts of harassment must never be condoned, but the victims should not allow themselves to be pushed around and resort to knee-jerk reactions.

After repeated harassment of Japanese whalers by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the government last week called off a research whaling mission in the Antarctic Ocean.

Sea Shepherd's harassment tactics included bringing their vessels dangerously close to Japanese whalers and hurling bottles of hazardous chemicals at them. The international community must condemn such activities by this radical anti-whaling group.

That said, however, anti-whaling sentiments run high in the governments and societies of the West. Together with other whaling nations, Japan has for years asserted and defended its right to whaling before the International Whaling Commission (IWC), but there is no solution in sight.

The arguments of the opposing camps are fundamentally irreconcilable. The pro-whaling camp asserts that whales are a "utilizable resource," while the anti-whaling camp sees them as "wild animals that need to be protected."

The Japanese government makes a scientifically valid argument when it points out that there are species of "resource whales," such as Antarctic minkes, that whalers are allowed to hunt. However, the prevalent thinking around the world today is that there is no need to hunt and eat those whales just because of their large population.

So long as the opposing camps hold on to their mutually unacceptable arguments, no resolution to the dispute can be hoped for. Both sides must recognize that no single value system should be forced on the entire world, and try to seek a compromise.

Following last week's decision, the government must think calmly about its future policy. While planning a long-range strategy, we believe the government should ask itself this fundamental question: Is Antarctic whaling truly necessary for Japan?

Japan's position is that it wants to resume commercial whaling in the Antarctic, and that research whaling is a preparatory step. Anti-whaling nations have all sorts of reasons of their own, but they are united in their opposition to commercial whaling in any form, and they are not giving an inch.

Demand for whale meat is not growing at all in Japan, and the nation's ocean-going whaling industry is effectively dead. Given this reality, there is little justification for Japan's stated need to resume commercial whaling in the Antarctic.

The most notable compromise plan so far floated by the IWC is to allow coastal whaling but ban hunting beyond 200 miles of the coast. The basic thinking is that each country should engage in coastal whaling at its discretion. But the international community's majority opinion should be honored for whaling in the Antarctic and other open seas.

We believe this is an appropriate plan. It requires anti-whaling nations to acknowledge whales as a "utilizable resource." But at the same time, Japan should rethink its position and switch course, namely, to downscale and eventually give up Antarctic whaling so long as its right to coastal whaling is guaranteed.

Whether we eat whale meat is our business and nobody else's. And we tend to react with anger when foreign countries tell us we shouldn't eat it. But while refusing to bend to the tactics of Sea Shepherd, we do need to explore a new way of whaling.

Barry O'Farrell and electoral priorities on the NSW North Coast

These problem are chronic and will affect tens of thousands of NSW families - many of them living on the North Coast:

BABY BOOMERS taking a seachange in their dotage face the prospect of widespread shortages in aged care, revised projections of the impact of dementia show.Australia will be 279,000 aged care places short by 2050 without significant policy changes, and hardest hit will be coastal areas popular with retirees, a study by Access Economics has found.The heavier than expected demand for aged care results from the failure of official projections to take account of the increased prevalence of dementia that has emerged from the growing number of people aged 85 and over, the report says.At present, aged care projections are based on numbers of people aged over 70.The expected growth points in elderly populations show that sea-change locations such as Port Macquarie, Tweed Heads and the NSW south coast would experience shortages of 2000 or more aged-care places by 2050 without a change in policy. In the Paterson electorate in the Hunter region, the shortfall would be just under 3000 places. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 February 2011]

TWO crashes, two dead, two injured, two straight stretches of road, but only one question: how did it happen? [The Daily Examiner,25 February 2011]

Erosion due to higher sea levels is also a key risk for coastal areas. In New South Wales there are approximately 3,600 residential buildings located within 110 metres of ‘soft’ erodible shorelines, of which approximately 700 are located within 55 metres of ‘soft’ coast. [NSW Parliament, Briefing Paper,June 2010]

So what is NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell focusing on as he begins election campaigning?

Mr O'Farrell on Thursday said that, if he wins government at the March 26 state election, he will take his fight against the introduction of a national carbon price to Canberra. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 February 2011]

While at the regional launch of the Coalition election campaign last Sunday O'Farrell endorsed the possibility that speed limits would be increased on country single lane highways.

That’s right. O'Farrell appears to believe that one size fits all. That on the NSW North Coast where we are on the climate change front line in many small towns and villages, where highway deaths are a constant concern and where an aging population is a big issue; ignoring the coming dementia care crisis, adding another 10k per hour to traffic speed and actively fighting against climate change mitigation measures will win over local voters in March.

Can’t you just tell that his focus groups are probably all in metropolitan areas and that the North Coast comprises very safe state Nationals seats this time around.

One of life's little mysteries........

One small cyberspace puzzle courtesy of Google's search engine on 25 February 2011:

The requested domain name is not configured for any web site: http://www.abbotttaxhike.com/
If you're an administrator of this site, you need to go to Site Manager -> Sites and use the following domain name either in the Site properties or add a new domain alias: www.abbotttaxhike.com

Sarah Palin is elevated to higher office

Had to share this piece of weirdness on a Christian far right blog called “ChrisTwire”.

Until Jesus comes back, we have Mrs. Palin. She selflessly stands up for the rights of all Americans, only to be thanked by the liberal media with unflattering stories containing outright lies and communist propaganda. The women who hate her are jealous of her, the men who hate her are gay.

Maeve

Coffs Harbour

The Abbott Monologues: a shrill man falls foul of Shakespeare and history

Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is nothing if not predictable – back with his great big new tax on everything mantra and a time wasting censure motion on the last parliamentary sitting day of the week which inevitably fails to get up.

This week's obviously rehearsed sound bite was; She has never seen a tax she did not like. She has never seen a tax she would not hike. Unfortunately the contrived nature of this utterance was exposed by the grinning backbencher sitting immediately him in the House clearly mouthing the words along with his leader.

Last Thursday’s very shrill effort during Question Time also saw the inevitable botching of detail as Abbott got carried away for the benefit of cameras and media.

Though this time one of the wonky details came from a surprising source. Waxing lyrical when speaking of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, he cried “Out, out foul spot” when supposedly quoting from Shakespeare’s play Lady Macbeth.

Of course Year 10 high school students would be able to tell him that the spot was not foul but damned and, although Lady Macbeth was a notorious sleepwalker she was not given to stuttering.

But then, at the beginning of this week Abbott obviously thought a form of modern government existed in New South Wales during the time William Bligh when he attempted a comparison with the Keneally Government. Bligh of course as a military governor of a British colony was virtually an absolute local ruler answerable only to the British Parliament. He had long left the colony by the time a legislature came into being. Abbott also appears to believe that it was definitely warmer when Jesus allegedly walked the earth than it is today.