Opposition leader Tony Abbott claims the proposed carbon policy is “socialism by stealth”? I wish!
I suspect we do need some emphasis on the common good and public benefits to counter the attempts to sell us a tax change via short-term self interest – but this is not the case.
The whole justification for this package ought to be the future. A package that promises no pain for most of us undermines the possibilities of real political leadership that tweaks of our social conscience.
“We” rather than “me”
The one factor missing from the carbon debate is the appeal to our collective good-will by using the words ‘we’ and ‘us’.
‘What’s in it for me?’ is the primary driver of both the Abbott and Gillard battles for our hip pocket calculators.
What we, as citizens of a developed nation, should put into a making a cleaner environment is barely mentioned, except to point out it’s not us but the polluters who will be paying.
We need a bit more, or even much more, discussion of our possible engagement as responsible citizen with goodwill.
If one major party had taken such an approach, it may have given us the option of seeing this type of change as a joint nation building commitment to cleaning up the environment. Instead we have a Dutch auction for our votes.
Wider vision
We are capable of wider vision. Remember the gun buyback levy? The roads levy? And we have many other such responses of hypothecated taxes which people took on as their share of the common burden.
The evidence is there: in many tax studies people respond to extra taxes they know are being used for good purposes. Many objections to tax rises are based on distrust of government‘s use of the money. The more this is specifically tied to a good purpose, the more people are willing to pay.
Sure, tax the rich and the actual polluters; but most of the rest of us could also contribute and may well be prepared to.
If the government wants us to take climate change seriously, we need to buy in and make some commitment to it as well. Instead the tenor of the debate is that we are sitting at home trying to work out how to manage our income to maximise our tax cuts.
No gain without pain
Why should most of us not feel any pain – or in fact make some gain – from this process? Changing energy consumption needs to start with the consumer and the current policy does not put the wood on us at all.
Why take energy reduction seriously if it is not going to affect our overall spending?
Letting motorists off extra payment for petrol, so there is no incentive to cut car use, makes no sense. Yes, those with no public transport have no other options, but we have too many cars and many are new SUV gas guzzlers.
Now, no one has a financial prod to change behaviours.
Power bills go up regularly for many reasons, yet the climate rise will be offset by the compensation, so most households have no reason to cut the bills.
We have the second biggest houses in the world, so maybe having some penalty on heating and cooling all those empty rooms would be good for us.
Making high power use hurt, at least in some minor ways, for those of us with some discretionary spending, would be a good indicator of social responsibility.
Political self-interest
However, the message is that we can get away with political self-interest, so why bother being responsible for others?
The whole political debate has become increasingly bizarre as both major political parties treat voters as venal consumers looking for the best political bargain.
Abbott messages appears to be: Buy me as your political leader and I’ll save you more per week that she does.
This tone is sets up the whole debate and Gillard appears to accept it. To paraphrase Malcolm Fraser, the Coalition is much better at self-interest, so the ALP should not try and compete.
Good initiatives overlooked
Despite the good initiatives in the package, reporting has focused on what it will cost households, allowing the anomalies to be emphasised and good bits overlooked.
Yes, protecting the poor is good, but many of those getting extra, like those with the senior health cards, are not needy.
At the real bottom end, the people on benefits are getting less than those on pensions. This is absurd as they are already deeply underpaid and their power bills are no cheaper than those on age, disability and carer payments. So why do they get $120 per annum less?
These types of anomalies further suggest the packet is about the cynical buying votes from swingers in the middle and upper middle income areas and not even a serious redistribution. Socialism indeed!
Join the conversation
Comments (6)
Michael J. Biercuk
(Senior Lecturer in the School of Physics at University of Sydney)
Unfortunately, that's "retail" politics, emphasis on retail. None of the discussion about compensation, cost, etc. is serious. It's Party A vs Party B, where Party B will always oppose Party A in an effort to differentiate itself.
If any of these politicians were serious about reducing household costs, they'd move on to a target with real prospects to improve affordability in Australia - negative gearing. When considering the housing inflation produced by an incentive given to wealthy investors to take a loss in the market, the consumer costs of the carbon tax are fully immaterial.
But of course, this isn't about reality...it's about pandering in order to maintain/gain power.
John McLean
(logged in via email @connexus.net.au)
You repeat mendacity when you say "cleaner environment is barely mentioned, except to point out it’s not us but the polluters who will be paying"
We're talking about carbon dioxide, a colourless gas, not carbon, which is usually black. Cleaner environment by reducing an invisible gas? Give us a break!
We're also talking about a gas that's essential to life on this planet. It regulates breathing and is vital fertiliser for plants. By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a pollutant.
Do you describe a flood as "water pollution" or as a more precise analogy, "hydrogen pollution"?
Mark Matthews
General Manager (logged in via email @gmail.com)
And here you are again...
The term carbon is used as it is the burning of carbon to generate CO2 that is the problem.
This gas (CO2) may be essential to life on this planet, but then, like any farmer might tell you, so is a stable climate.
So what is your point, aside from your usual diatribe John? Is it really all about semantics? I can only assume at this point that you believe AGW is a complete myth. In which case, stop messing around with all this anti-AGW trolling and publish your findings counteracting the overwhelming evidence that proves AGW is real and happening.
David Vender
(Tutor at University of Tasmania)
Hi John
The dictionary entry for 'pollution' might help you if you don't understand how the word is used. Both light and organic waste can be pollutants, but in the right quantities they're great for growing veggies.
Hope this helps.
Paul Richards
John, do I appreciate hearing your view point, it reminds me how far as a society we need to go.
Eva is talking about a change of mindset, and like most in this debate you are caught up in fear of change. Overwhelmed by fear we all could imagine of dire consequences of the much needed change of behaviour.
Eva is simply pointing out that this issue could be collaborative, with great outcomes by working together with the natural carbon cycle. Further developing a'win win' attitude to planetary…
show full comment
Marc Sassella
Freelance writer (logged in via email @me.com)
What fascinates me is the ability of Tony Abbott to regard compensating individuals as socialism but compensating businesses as capitalism. But I guess if our media is silly enough to let him get away with it, you can hardly blame him. He must laugh himself to sleep every night.