Thus Spake Mungo: More carbon pollution spin

By Mungo MacCallum

In one version Anzac was a glorious exploit, in another a disastrous blunder. And given that politics has been described war without blood, the analogy is hard to resist, especially for the present beleaguered Abbott government.

Anzac began as an act of gallant, perhaps reckless, bravado but it never achieved its intended objectives and ended in retreat. And so it may well be for the latest adventure – the direct action scheme for curbing carbon emissions.

The first of the so-called auctions for polluters was announced by an exuberant Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the eve of Anzac Day itself, which of course meant that it was swamped by the commemoration; the mainstream media had neither the time nor the inclination to give it even the most minimal critical appraisal.

Instead, Hunt’s initial spin ruled, and as a result the assertion that just this first round had already produced four times the result achieved by the whole of the previous government’s carbon tax was allowed to sit unchallenged. Indeed, it was parroted on the front page of The Australian by Greg Sheridan, who whatever his dubious talents as a foreign affairs guru, has neither expertise nor scepticism as either a scientist nor an economist.

Even the most cursory inspection would have shown that the comparison claimed by Hunt was one of apples and oranges – or more appropriately strawberries and broccoli, so patently absurd was it. For starters, The carbon tax was not a cost to revenue but a profit; the money came into Treasury coffers, not out of it. True, there was a price to be paid in compensation measures for some of the less wealthy consumers, but this has been maintained anyway by the current government. In other words, it is all red ink.

But perhaps more importantly, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will produce any results whatever, less alone the promised bonanza. The profits garnered by the carbon tax were banked and audited over the brief two years of its existence, and the extent of emission reduction monitored.

They were considerable; of course not all the cuts came directly from the tax, but the simultaneous falls in demand obviously had at least an indirect influence on their successes as well as deliberate economies from the various suppliers. The promises from the polluters who have trousered Hunt’s handouts are just that – promises. Some are projected to cut in before the putative five-year deadline of 2020, but others are longer term – a decade if we’re lucky.

Thus the target trumpeted by Hunt, reducing Australia’s overall emissions by five per cent by 2020, remains at best a blue sky scenario, and the predictions of failure by the climatologists and economists are still a lot more credible than the minister’s triumphalism. Hunt brags that he is on track to ‘breeze past’ the five per cent, but the Climate Institute, for one, calculates that while the $660 million already represents a quarter of the total $2.55 billion allocated by the government, it will only achieve about 15 per cent of the 2020 promise.

Not for the first time, the government’s arithmetic just doesn’t add up. Planting trees is all very well, and no doubt a nice idea in its own right. But it will never produce the hard and fast solutions of making those who do the damage pay for it, or take the financial penalties for the operations.

And of course, there is something rather perverse about Tony Abbott and his mates morphing into tree huggers instead of economic rationalists. The much despised and reviled Greens are a lot hard-headed in their approach to the issue. They insist that for once the point is not trees, it is coal-fired electricity generators and that there are no serious plans to deal with them.

They may come up in the next auction, but if they do it will be a much more expensive business, and not one of actually closing them down (unless they are seriously obsolete and will then in any case be replaced) but in making them still more central to the Australian economy. And the new and gigantic mines in the Galilee Basin are still an integral plan to enlarge the country’s reliance on coal, which, is, of course, regarded not just as an export but as being good for humanity at large.

In the circumstances Hunt’s vainglorious boast that the first part of his auction is not just a win for the government but for the whole planet seems just a fraction hyperbolic. The current international thinking is that the emission reductions need to be accelerated and enlarged; the aspirations talk seriously about 30 per cent by 2025, 40 per cent by 2040, and the lot, or something very close to it, by 2050. Neither Hunt nor Abbott is even likely to imagine such scenarios. They will plough on with dealing with waste management and not planting (or more likely just not chopping down) trees.

The pity of it is that there is a more rational, more efficient and far simpler tried and trusted solution; a cap and trade emissions trading scheme, coupled with government support for moves to a more vigorous approach to renewable energy sources, especially in the electricity industry But Abbott, won’t, and can’t, even consider such ideas: the denialists, sceptics and apologists within his party room are the ones he relies on for support. They made him leader in 2009 and they can, and will, tear him down in 2015 if he steps out of line.

The Abbott government is already out of step with the world, but who cares: we will decide what we do with our emissions, and the circumstances in which we manage them. And if we leave the place a bit of a mess, we’ll worry about cleaning it up when the time comes.

To return to the Anzac analogy, we can always fall back on Simpson and his donkey. Well, perhaps not on Simpson – he was, after all, a pacifist and a socialist. But we can certainly find an appropriate donkey.



4 responses to “Thus Spake Mungo: More carbon pollution spin”

  1. Len Heggarty says:

    Well what is the truth about ANZAC? The truth is whatever you want to believe.
    The only truth was to actually be there when it happened.
    We in the 21st century call it the ANZAC Legend and a legend is a non-historical story handed down from the past by tradition and accpted as historical.

  2. Doug says:

    I was thinking that we should have a session of Parliament in ChinChilla or Tara: show this lot what it really is like living in a wasteland. Possibly then, or at least for a time, the Mining Companies might not spread their waste water on the roads!


  3. Roma Newton says:

    Hi Mungo – can’t resist asking:-

    Don’t you mean: “We will decide what we do with emissions, and the circumstances in which we MISMANAGE
    them ???

    Best regards,

  4. Tim says:

    Hi Mungo,

    I think you are seriously understating the stupidity of the whole scheme and the seriousness of the situation. The economy has to be completely turned around so that we are no longer relying on fossil fuels. This has to be achieved by, say 2050, (although that date is somewhat arbitrary, it is at least a target). I see no plan to do that.

    If we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change most of the coal and other fossil fuels currently in the ground will have to stay there. That means a lot of companies with a lot underground ‘assets’ should have a net worth which is a tiny fraction of their current book value. Such financial incentives result in a lot denial.

    So the current Government’s idea of early action on green house gas emissions, unlike that recommended by the likes of Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut, appears to be to sell as much coal as quickly as possible before the world wakes up to the damage being done. Meanwhile they have a scheme providing a pretence of action so that they can answer reporters’ questions and placate enough of the electorate who know no better.

    I can only think that the Government either has no idea of the world they are creating or they do not care.

    Unlike the ANZAC defeat, I can guarantee that this one will be not be the making of the Nation.

    No wonder I am depressed about the future being created for my children and grandchildren.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Become a supporter of The Echo

A note from the editorial team

Some of The Echo’s editorial team: journalists Paul Bibby and Aslan Shand, editor Hans Lovejoy, photographer Jeff Dawson and Mandy Nolan

The Echo has never underestimated the intelligence and passion of its readers. In a world of corporate banality and predictability, The Echo has worked hard for more than 30 years to help keep Byron and the north coast unique with quality local journalism and creative ideas. We think this area needs more voices, reasoned analysis and ideas than just those provided by News Corp, lifestyle mags, Facebook groups and corporate newsletters.

The Echo is one hundred per cent locally owned and one hundred per cent independent. As you have probably gathered from what is happening in the media industry, it is not cheap to produce a weekly newspaper and a daily online news service of any quality.

We have always relied entirely on advertising to fund our operations, but often loyal readers who value our local, independent journalism have asked how they could help ensure our survival.

Any support you can provide to The Echo will make an enormous difference. You can make a one-off contribution or a monthly one. With your help, we can continue to support a better informed local community and a healthier democracy for another 30 years.”

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.