Carbon Tax Package finally Unveiled

above:  Julia Gillard announcing the government's Carbon Tax package

Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax package has suffered a very critical reception despite extensive compensation for trade-exposed industry and low-middle income households.  So how will the tax work to reduce emissions?  And what are we to make of charges of 'redistribution' made by Abbott and others?  In any case - is 'redistribution' such a bad thing?

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Tristan Ewins

12/7/2011

In the face of an almost all-pervasive fear campaign, what is the truth concerning Gillard Labor’s carbon tax?  How will it really be implemented? Who will it affect – and how?  Can it succeed in its object of restructuring the economy?  Does it involve elements of economic redistribution; and if it does, is that necessarily a bad thing?

According to ‘The Age’ (11/7) The Gillard government’s carbon tax will provide “tax cuts for those on incomes under $80,000” leaving “6 million households better off or fully compensated.”

Peter Martin has noted how “for more modest earners, the benefits are large: $626 a year for a single earner on $20,000; $1226 for a dual-income couple with two children on $75,000.”

(see: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1RmjetGLR )

 Some of this compensation will be provided for by a restructuring of the tax system.

 For instance; the tax-free threshold will be “more than trebled to $18,200”.  And individual pensioners will receive compensation of up to $338 a year; with up to $510 for couples.

 Furthermore: $9.2 billion will be provided in the form of business compensation over a three year period – aimed largely at trade-exposed industries

 But “more than three million households” – those on the highest incomes - will lose out to some degree.  Some will only be partly compensated.  Around “one in ten” – the wealthiest of all - will receive nothing.  (‘The Age’, 11/7,  p 1)   

The most intensely affected areas of the economy will be energy generation and distribution. 

 Again, Peter Martin has noted how:

 “From mid-next year, the price of electricity will rise a further 10 per cent as a result of the carbon tax and the price of gas a further 9 per cent.”

But:

“The price of food is expected scarcely to move, advancing less than one-half of 1 per cent.”

(Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1Rmkguly2 ) 

The response from the Conservative side of politics was predictable.  Tony Abbott argued:

“[This is] socialism masquerading as environmentalism… This is redistribution pretending to be compensation.  It’s a tax increase pretending to be an environmental policy.”  (‘The Age’, 11/7/11, p 1)

And in the Herald-Sun in Melbourne reporter Steve Lewis seemed to be echoing Abbott by referring to tax cuts for struggling lower-income workers as a “classic ‘soak the rich’ Labor program.” (11/7, p 7)

In assessing the government’s policy it is best to respond to the claims of critics directly.

But to begin we should first return to basics: and that is recognising the virtual consensus in the global scientific community that global warming is real, and that carbon emissions by human beings contributes to this.   

So to what extent will the carbon tax and associated programs add up to a reduction in emissions?

The carbon tax will give a strong market signal for both investors and consumers to reduce emissions however practicably possible.   Indeed, Prime Minister Gillard has stated that this will result in:

“a reduction in carbon pollution of 160 million tonnes by 2020. [That’s] the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.'” (See: http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=636042&vId= )

Businesses will seek energy-saving measures, while households will do likewise – and also consider investment in renewable energy.  Indeed, there could well be a boom in the micro-renewable energy sector.  Overwhelmingly this will occur without financial pain for middle and low income households - as with compensation the main aim is to provide the market with a ‘price signal’ and not to raise revenue.

Meanwhile a “$2 billion-a-year Clean Energy Finance Corporation” will drive investment for research and development of clean energy technologies.  In this field Australia stands to become a genuine ‘world leader’.  ( see: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html )

Finally, Adam Morton from ‘The Age’ has noted how

“some carbon tax revenue will also be spent buying out and shutting down about 2000 megawatts of coal power, most likely either the Hazelwood or Yallourn power plant in the Latrobe Valley, plus the smaller Playford station in South Australia.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

Morton has also observed how::  “the money to shut the plants will be from tax revenue paid by ''big polluters'', not budget cuts that reduce services.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

This is absolutely crucial because Tony Abbott has committed to expensive forms of “direct action” on climate change running into billions and billions - which would be paid for through savings elsewhere in the Budget.   Refusing to submit his proposals to Treasury for costing, Abbott must nonetheless be aware that his proposed initiatives could not be funded simply through “efficiencies”. They would inevitably involve austerity measures. Perhaps these would apply in health and education; or perhaps through further privatisation of roads and imposition of flat ‘user-pays’ tolls - for which working class Australians would pay.

So before we even begin to address accusations of “socialist redistribution” we need to observe that price signals and direct intervention will make significant inroads into Australia’s carbon emissions, and as such is well-justified on environmental grounds alone.

That said, however, Abbott and right-populist elements of the media are raising alarm at the prospect of even mild redistribution via the chosen structures for compensation via direct payments and restructure of the tax system.

 In Melbourne on July 11th the Herald-Sun alone ran the headline ‘Kick in the Teeth for Hard Workers’ referring to a family on a combined annual income of around $130,000.  Another article in the same Herald-Sun supplement concerned ‘Sparkie’ (ie: electrician), Luke Peterson, who earns $150,000 - with his partner remaining at home to raise their children.  In this instance the headline ran: “ ‘Punished’ for wife staying at home with kids’.”

 Like several previous articles in the ‘Herald-Sun’ accusing Gillard Labor of ‘Class War’, these articles attempted at the same time to portray higher income groups as ‘average working Australians’ being ‘punished’ for effort.  Indeed the term ‘Sparkie’ could be interpreted as a colloquialism inferring working class status.

 But both the households considered in the Herald-Sun articles concerned would occupy a position in at least the top 20% of household incomes.  A single-income household with one income-earner bringing in a $150,000/year income would not be considered by most as ‘working class’ – colloquialisms aside.  Indeed, in this day and age few households servicing a mortgage and raising a family can afford for one partner to remain at home.

This raises the question that if action must be taken on climate change, how should we balance the burden?  The principle concerned could also be extended to other necessities: for instance, provision of health care, education, aged care, social housing, welfare and infrastructure.

Many Australians work hard for comparatively little return compared to the Herald-Sun’s chosen examples.  There are some dual-income households – with members employed in cleaning, retail, childcare, hospitality, textiles, and manufacturing – who bring in barely $50,000 before tax.  To speak of ‘punishment for effort’ for higher income households, and yet to prefer putting a disproportionate burden upon these families - would be revealing of the priorities and values of those concerned. 

In the labour market scarce skills usually bring in greater return, but many of these lower income individuals and households work under unpleasant and alienating circumstances – and with sometimes inconvenient or onerous hours.  In Australia, also, there is a recent history of falling minimum wages being compounded by housing market stress, past regressive restructure of tax, and increased energy costs as a consequence of privatisation.  It is not at all radical – or necessarily ‘socialist’ – to support a degree of redistribution to compensate those Australian workers and pensioners affected by these trends.

 And while there has to be reward to give incentive for workers to acquire skills, other ‘middle income’, ‘average’ individuals and households also deserve a ‘fair go’.  A worker on a wage of, say, $50,000/year should not be paying the same kind of tax as a worker on $150,000/year. Under circumstances where both workers were applying themselves with comparable levels of effort and effective sacrifice, skill differentials alone do not justify massive discrepancies in income. 

Finally there are the truly vulnerable: those who are unable to work as a consequence of illness or disability. Or those who have worked all their lives and deserve a peaceful and fulfilling retirement.  And to this we could add the unemployed: those who overwhelmingly are searching for work – and are subject to harsh active labour market provisions – but who need our assistance to ‘keep their heads above water’ and avoid social disengagement and isolation during the interim.  (such isolation can provide a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ of long-term unemployment)

 A progressive taxation system is therefore well justified in moderating discrepancies of income which are unjust, and ensuring universal access to social necessities . And the tax system more broadly is justified in providing best-value ‘collective consumption’ of essential social services from which most Australians benefit. Again: whether we speak of health, education, aged care, social security, social housing or other infrastructure – often these are provided more fairly and more efficiently via the ‘social wage’ than would be the case if ‘left to the market’.  

 Such principles have historically been acceptable to a variety of ideological perspectives – whether we speak, here, of liberalism, or of social democracy, or indeed of socialism.  It is only at the extremes propagated by the likes of Hayek and Rand – that the principles of progressive taxation, the welfare state and the social wage – have been rejected sweepingly. But such is the ideology which ‘has a grip’ on some parts of the Liberal Party of Australia today.  It is an ideology which threatens the ‘Americanisation’ of Australian society, with greater extremes of poverty, and a lack of basic social solidarity.  And it is an ideology that needs to be criticised explicitly by Labor.

All this said, there are dangers for Labor. In regions such as the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria there are well-grounded fears that the shift to renewable energy will ultimately cost jobs in coal-fired energy, and as a consequent will destroy many ‘flow on’ jobs which use that industry as their economic base.  Hazelwood power station is very likely to find its operations scaled back.

According to ‘The Age’ Greg Combet has announced that the LaTrobe Valley alone will receive “a $200 million package over seven years for ''strongly affected'' regions, with help in training and diversifying.”   But in the same article Electrical Trades Union state secretary Dean Mighell is quoted as arguing more needs to be done to create local jobs. This begs the question of whether government ought ‘get its hands dirty’ with more direct industry policies – reforging the ‘economic base’ in the LaTrobe valley and other affected regions – which would ‘flow on’ in maintaining thousands of other ‘peripheral’ jobs. 

(See: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/brown-coal-cloud-of-doubt-hangs-over-latrobe-valley-20110710-1h8zg.html#ixzz1RnEZ7q9D)

And in another concern, the Financial Review has reported an impending $4 billion ‘budget toll’ over the next four years in order to pay for industry and household compensation.  Labor is flagging its intent to make ‘savings’ in order to reach its projected surplus for 2013, but had already been struggling to find savings for 2011-12 without impacting on crucial programs and initiatives.

(See:http://www.financialreview.com.au/p/national/gillard_carbon_blueprint_gfV7V7WexwrES8lrl47yaI )

Between now and the next Federal Budget, therefore, progressive forces across the factional divide in Labor need to build momentum behind an alternative response for the government to this shortfall.  Importantly, Labor has the choice of revising its party platform in December to open the way for a moderately increased tax take as a proportion of GDP.

 Such a decision could be followed with modest tax reform to the extent necessary to avoid austerity, or to the extent necessary to fund a bold package of initiatives addressing what is seen in this country as a ‘cost of living crisis.’  This would also attract the charge of ‘redistribution’, but there is the potential that by improving the circumstances of average Australian families this is a debate Labor could well win.  Indeed, that could properly be the object of an article in of itself.  

 A ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme’ is another potential choice for Labor in seizing the initiative and delivering on a reform agenda – but would also need to be backed by tax reform and increased revenue.  That would be another reform Abbott would find very difficult to undo.

 One option in this context could be a 1 per cent increase in Company Tax – which would still leave Australia way short of Company Tax rates in the United States.  Another option could be a modest reduction in dividend imputation to 75%.

 In conclusion, Labor has a long way to go in convincing voters of the merits of this carbon tax package.   What is interesting is that Gillard’s carbon tax package is very similar in its dimensions to the earlier proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.  But what is notably different is the word ‘tax’.

 The fear campaign spread in the right-populist monopoly media has found its mark. And many Australians are angry that Gillard is exceeding her mandate in this way – despite the fact she has had no choice in the context of minority government.  

 This will only change once the package is implemented and most people see for themselves they are no worse off.   Most Australians will only pay with the costs of structural adjustment being passed on over the very long term. We talk here of large-scale future investment in renewable energy.  But the same could be said with Abbott’s ‘direct action’ – where the costs of industry adjustment could be paid for with direct subsidies from tax-payers: paid for via sweeping austerity.

 And yet we all should be willing to make small sacrifices in fighting climate change – for the sake of our planet, and for the sake of our children. If all comparable nations also refused to take action the effect would be to cripple the global movement to address this crisis.

But by putting implementation off until mid-next year Labor is giving time for fear and anger to fester. All those political, environmental, industrial and social movements which support the policy therefore need to begin a mobilisation immediately if the situation is to be saved.  An information campaign involving all these movements needs to begin, even including advertisements and letter-boxing – as surely as if the election were this year.

Right-Populist monopoly media attempts to ‘deprive carbon debate of oxygen'

above: Cate Blanchett in the recent advertisement backing action on climate change

In this article Tristan Ewins reflects upon the Australian carbon tax debate as transpired recently on the ABC television program 'QandA'.  (Questions and Answers)  He considers issues such as compensation, welfare reform, and 'trivialisation' in Australian politics. The treatment of Cate Blanchett for participating in a related commercial is a case in point.

nb: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Tristan Ewins, 2nd June 2011

In a recent episode of  ‘QandA” (Questions and Answers) the debate over the Australian Labor government’s proposed carbon tax continued in the same manner as it has for quite some time now.  In particular, the representative on QANDA for the conservative parties,  Liberal Senator George Brandis, repeated the usual line citing cost-of-living pressures and job destruction as the essential reasons the tax ought be rejected. While Labor MP Kate Lundy repeated again and again that low and middle income groups would be fully compensated (the point of the tax being not to raise revenue - but to create ‘market signals’ and so change patterns of consumption and investment)   Brandis calculatedly avoided engaging in his response – as to give any recognition here would ‘give the debate oxygen’ and reveal the ‘convenient fictions’ propagated by the conservative parties in attempting to build up pressure for an early election.

Brandis ignored the issue of what would have happened to the Australian economy without Labor’s stimulus; and the extent to which the most recent budget deficit was exacerbated by natural disasters beyond the control of any political party.  He also continued with the same ‘line’ that ‘Labor is addicted to debt’, ‘cannot handle money’ etc: not because it is true, but rather because Liberal focus groups must be reporting that these kind of truisms ‘resonate’ with the public. But if this is so it is only because these kind of ideas have been reinforced again and again over decades by the right-populist monopoly media.  The same focus groups must be telling Abbott that opportunist ‘lowest common denominator’ politics – especially in the case of vilification of refugees - are eroding Labor’s support base; ‘backing Labor into a corner’.  The human suffering of refugees is little consequence for many on the Right: ‘Anything goes’ for Abbott, and for ‘fear campaign shock troops’ like Scott Morrison in pursuit of personal ambition.

Debate on the proposed carbon tax had intensified as a consequence of a recent advertisement in favour of action on climate change – sponsored by progressive lobby association ‘GetUp!’, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).  Australian actress Cate Blanchett in particular had ‘come under fire’ from conservative forces, including most of the right-populist monopoly media, for taking a stand on this issue.  Opposition leader Tony Abbott, George Brandis and others had accused her of being ‘out of touch’ with struggling Australian families trying to make ends meet as a consequence of her personal wealth.  And yet the conservatives and their media allies want to attack truly vulnerable pensioners, while pleading for upper-middle class welfare for those on $80,000/year and more…

 If anything the focus on Cate Blanchett as a personality detracted from the real debate over climate change.  This was no accident – but was a tactic of distraction intended to avoid engaging on the issues; to prevent the message of this campaign from ‘getting through.’  This ‘trivialisation’ of politics in Australia is a regular phenomena – and perhaps a deliberate one – having the effect of weakening our democracy.  Australian social commentator, Guy Rundle – also a participant in the ‘QandA’ episode - observed tellingly that the conservative response was ‘a beat-up’.

 Perhaps the greatest deception of all by the conservatives, here, is the underlying assumption that a carbon tax would see cost-of-living pressures passed on to the public: while an Emissions Trading Scheme or Abbott’s so-called ‘direct action’ would not. This is crucial as an ETS has in the past been supported by past Liberal Party leaders John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull. 

 In reality a market-driven ETS would see the price paid for carbon credits being passed on to the public in about the same dimensions as with a carbon tax. And Malcolm Turnbull has estimated the cost of Abbott’s ‘direct action’ approach could approach the vicinity of $18 billion a year were the government “buying offsets or otherwise directly paying for abatement”, and aiming for an 80 per cent reduction of emissions by 2050, as urged by scientists.  A much more modest target of a 5% overall cut in emissions by 2020 would cost $2.1 billion/year in today’s terms.

 These costs would of course be passed on to Australian families also – via the tax system. Only it would be ‘hidden’ in a wide range of other different taxes – rather than an overt and obvious carbon tax.

It should be noted, of course, that Ross Garnaut also argued in ‘The Age’ on 1^st June that a carbon tax at $26/tonne would rase $11.5 billion in the first year. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of this money would be returned to low and middle income families. Again – the point is not to raise revenue, but to change consumer and investor behaviour.  While the ultimate rate is probably more likely to be $20/tonne, once compensation is provided low and middle income groups will actually be better off.  Although over the longer term any kind of structural adjustment to deal with climate change will come at a cost (even if only as a ‘once off’) as it will necessitate investment in new technologies and infrastructure.  (including under Abbott’s ‘direct action’)

The point is that any kind of action on climate change will cost elements of the public directly or indirectly. By raising the spectre of ‘cost of living pressures’ while supporting ‘direct action’ Abbott is obfuscating this essential truth, and deceiving voters.

That said, there are some kinds of ‘direct action’ that make sense; and others that don’t.  At QandA Guy Rundle pointed out that Abbott’s program was one of ‘socialising’ the costs and losses of business – to be paid for by the public – while ‘privatising the profits’.  An example is Abbott’s preference to pay businesses directly for changed practices on climate change. This kind of ‘corporate welfare’ has become standard fare in recent decades.  And it also begs the question: where has the rationale for privatisation gone – supported by both Labor and the Liberals - where there is effectively no ‘risk'? (ie: when things go wrong ‘government picks up the pieces’)  The same could be said of Public Private Partnerships – also supported by ‘both sides’ of politics.

 But the right kind of direct investment in renewable energy could make a very significant difference, combined with other incentives. In particular new public initiatives in the power industry could be combined with a German-style program mandating compulsory purchase of energy from renewable sources fed into the national energy grid. In 2009 Germany enjoyed a share of over 16% of the power supply provided from renewable sources. 

 But in Australia the figure is only slightly over 5 per cent. 

Writing for Green Left Weekly, David Nichols also explained in 2008 how the costs of power privatisation in Australia have been passed on to the public.  He explains that “private capital has to earn a higher rate of return than public investment” and this means large enterprises with significant purchasing power can bargain for a better deal then, say, pensioners and others on low incomes.   He explains also how according to privatisation consultant KPMG, “the rate of return on publicly owned electricity generation capacity [was] 7.1% in Queensland and 10.6% in NSW, while corporate investors wouldn´t touch electricity generation until the rate was 15%.”  Finally Nichols contended  “private debt is more costly than public debt.”  The consequence of this is that public ownership could deliver a 30 per cent cut in costs as flowing from lower finance costs alone.”

As Guy Rundle effectively contested at QandA – privatisation is the ‘elephant in the room’ that the conservatives will not acknowledge when it comes to cost of living pressures.  But for that matter – neither will Labor – which had long since assimilated the privatisation ideology and effectively abandoned the mixed economy.

Perhaps now there is a need for introspective reflection within Labor on a cross factional basis – to reconsider the mixed economy, and concede  past mistakes. And even within the Liberal Party there could well be recognition that the mixed economy was undisputed under Menzies.

The final issue we will consider here will be the nature of carbon tax compensation. 

In ‘The Age’ on 1^st June 2011 Ross Garnaut was quoted as arguing for 55% of carbon tax revenue to be passed on to tax-payers, rising to 64 per cent by 2021-22, with industry receiving 35 per cent, moving down to 20 per cent by 2021. (presumbly as industry adapted and modernised)  But ‘The Age’ also reported him as arguing that there should be “less compensation for pensioners and welfare recipients…because of [the] 2009 rise in benefits.” Effectively this would mean ‘no overcompensation for pensioners’.

 There are  a few issues here.

 Firstly overcompensation is essential for Labor in ‘selling’ the carbon tax.  This is as much the case for pensioners as for anyone else.  Pensioners vote!

 It is also key for social justice imperatives. Pretty much all pensioners struggle, and many disability pensioners and carers in particular don’t have many options in improving their financial circumstances.

Writing in February 2011, Peter Martin noted that :

“Working households faced extra costs of 4.5 per cent in the year to December, age pensioners 3.1 per cent and welfare recipients 4.5 per cent. The CPI grew 2.7 per cent.”

He also noted how the Bureau of Statistics had argued:

“Age pensioners spend a relatively high proportion of their income on utility bills and fruit and vegetables, both of which shot up in price in the year to December.But while aged pensioners had their payments adapting to  “either the CPI [or] the pensioner living-cost index or male total average earnings (whichever is most favourable),  Newstart Allowance is only adjusted to only “what is…the lowest of these.” 

This means that even in the face of onerous active labour market policies and ‘work for the dole’ programs, Newstart has been eroding greatly relative to other pensions for a long time. 

Carbon tax overcompensation is a great opportunity to finally provide for the basic cost-of-living pressures faced by all pensioners, and especially by Newstart recipients.  Most Newstart recipients ought receive overcompensation of $50/week. And those working two days a week under the government’s new ‘work for the dole’ provisions could receive overcompensation of at least $100/week.  (for progressives this would be ‘making the most of a bad situation’)

Other full-pensioners (disability, carers, aged pensioners), whose financial situation is not necessarily so dire as that of the unemployed, could receive overcompensation starting at $25/week. Single Parents also deserve a significant extension of benefits.

And all such increases should be fully indexed on top of existing formulae.

Although improvement for Disability and Carers pensions – and associated services- could also be achieved via a National Disability Insurance Scheme; which would have Labor seen as ‘moving onto the policy front foot’. Perhaps providing such reform for Disability Pensioners and Carers separately would enable proportionately greater carbon tax-related compensation for other low to middle income groups, making the carbon tax ‘easier to sell’. But on social justice grounds Gillard Labor would still have to provide for Disability pensioners and Carers separately via a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) well before the end of the current term. Labor needs a positive message to re-engage with voters, and a NDIS could be crucial here.

The Greens and Independents especially need to make the most of their leverage over Labor to promote this reasonable and achieveable social justice agenda.

Here’s hoping that conservative forces fail in their strategy of attempting to ‘deprive the climate and carbon tax debate of oxygen’; manipulating voters through distraction and focus on trivalities. The issues are just too important to be engaging in these kind of cynical games.

Which way forwards in response to climate change?

nb: the article focuses primarily on the Australian context: but the arguments and issues are relevant for a truly global audience...

By Tristan Ewins

Towards the conclusion of 2009 perhaps one of the most significant events of that decade was the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change to authorise a comprehensive and binding response to the climate crisis.

Given the virtually universal consensus across the entire body of global scientific opinion, with regards to the reality of human-induced climate change, resistance to action must be seen as being harder and harder to justify.

Apart from the threat of rising sea levels, other effects of continued global warming could include damage to eco-systems and biodiversity. Acidification of oceans may result in extinction of many species - with the consequences of the disruption to the food chain ultimately flowing to humans. And with extremes of weather, life for many would become more uncomfortable.

But while some from the conservative Opposition in Australia saw the failure of Copenhagen as a vindication of sorts, the potential consequences of this failure are such that none should be seeking to milk these developments for opportunistic political gain.

In Australia, with regards to the environment, the Rudd Labor is besieged on both sides.
Bipartisan support between the government and the Coalition Opposition for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in Australia has collapsed after the relatively liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, was usurped by arch-Conservative, Tony Abbott.

Now, while the Australian Greens deplore the government’s target to reduce greenhouse emissions to somewhere between 5 per cent and 25 per cent of 2000 levels saying it is vague and insufficient, the conservative Coalition is generating fear about what their leader Tony Abbott derides as “Labor’s great big tax”.

But what is the proposed ETS anyway?

“In a nutshell”, the Emissions Trading Scheme advocated by the Australian Labor government comprises a “cap and trade” system whereby polluters are provided with a limit on greenhouse emissions. After this “cap”, polluters need to invest in emissions permits if they are to continue such activity. A market is effectively created: usually whereby polluters must buy permits from economic actors whose activity is not so intensive in carbon emissions.

Importantly, Labor claims the ETS does not comprise a tax in the commonly-accepted sense of the word. For the government this is important: as it is official Labor policy not to increase tax as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Given the need for investment in social services, welfare and infrastructure, critics may well point to the short-
sightedness of this policy. But advocates of the Labor ETS might believe it is a way to potentially “have one’s cake and eat it too”. Although after corporate compensation - and compensation for those on low and middle incomes - there is not much left over.

Ultimately, though, the proposed ETS would still comprise a system of “sticks and carrots”: impositions upon business and consumers to pressure them into changing their habits when it comes to investments and the purchasing of goods and services.

Achieving real change obviously cannot come without a cost. The question is who pays for reform and how.
Conservative Opposition leader, Tony Abbott has been quick to deride Labor’s ETS plans and the financial pain which will follow for many Australians. He has claimed that 50 per cent of middle class households will be worse off. In contrast, the government is claiming that 2.9 million low income Australian households will actually be better off as a consequence of the built-in compensatory mechanisms.

I will address this in greater detail further on in this essay.

Instead of an ETS or carbon tax Abbott has been spruiking the benefits of a more “direct” approach to reducing carbon emissions. The question hanging over such proclamations, however, is the same. Again: change cannot come about without cost: and someone will have to pay for “direct” change: or else perhaps there will be no change at all …

That said: there is a variation on the theme of “direct action” on climate that may have merit: although the author seriously doubts this approach would appeal to the Conservatives and neo-liberals - with their fetish for ever smaller government “no matter what”. I will also consider this later.

Into this “mix” we need to consider the human impact of action on climate change.

For all parties involved there was a concern with any ETS that it could have a negative impact on industry and jobs. As a consequence of cheap coal, benefits have historically “flowed on” to other export industries, and import-competing industries. With an increased cost for power, though, the reverse impact of this would flow on through the entire economy.

In response to this and other issues surrounding the competitiveness of Australian industry, the Australian government has included as part of the proposed ETS an “Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed Industry Assistance” (EITEIA) package.

The aims of this scheme are manyfold.

To begin with, the scheme aims to reduce the risks of investors simply relocating offshore to countries with more “carbon friendly” conditions. If the only impact of any ETS is that carbon intensive industries simply move offshore then obviously nothing is achieved.

Second, the program is aimed at enterprises which are “trade exposed”.

One test of this is if such enterprises “[demonstrate a] lack of capacity to pass through costs due to the potential for international competition.”

Under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, the Coalition had also secured through negotiation broader compensation for industries affected by the proposed ETS. Among these were coal-fired electricity generation and agriculture.

There are many who feel compensation goes too far. In March 2009 the Australian movement Friends of the Earth (FOE) condemned the inclusion of the EITEIA in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) package.

FOE’s aim for the energy industry of “100 per cent renewable [energy] by 2020" seems especially ambitious. Nonetheless, the massive aid commitment for coal-fired energy providers - in the face of blackmail by those interests threatening continuity in energy supply - seems misplaced.

Properly such threats ought to have been stared down. Should these threats have come to fruition then, as Ken Davidson argues - in the case of Victoria: “the State Government has emergency powers that allow it to take over and run the assets.”

But worthy of closer consideration is FOE’s demand for “sector-by-sector transition plans for affected workers and communities”.

What, then, is the way forward?

Proposals for “transition plans” are refreshing, comprising a call for more direct government intervention than usually acceptable under the neo-liberal consensus that one way or the other everything must be “left to markets”. Indeed: the psychology behind such thinking - including the stigma associated with tax reform - is partly the reason why the ETS has been promoted without greater consideration of alternatives such as a
simpler carbon tax.

Active industry policy must be applied to create new jobs (especially in affected regions), maintain good incomes and income support (including during the transition process), while also supporting re-skilling - at no expense to affected workers.

At this point, therefore, it might also be appropriate to consider another interpretation of “direct” action on climate change.

Instead of only “sticks and carrots” being applied to “prod” markets into reform, the alternative could be massive and direct public investment to renewable energy and sustainability.


In the Australian e-journal On Line Opinion, social commentator Leigh Ewbank proclaimed that: “A new nation-building project on the scale of the Snowy Mountains Scheme is needed.” Here, Ewbank was correct in observing that “our windy southern coast; our vast deserts; and our rich geothermal resources, are untapped”. Utilising these natural assets - with public investment in sustainable energy infrastructure - could be instrumental in the creation of “a renewable electricity grid”.

This program could also include micro-energy reforms: making the inclusion of solar panels and micro wind turbines compulsory for new constructions - supported with generous government subsidy for those on lower incomes. Also integral in this process could be extensive “Green building” regulations, so our homes and workplaces are “resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle”.

These and other measures could gradually ween Australia away from dependence upon coal between now and 2020.

Importantly, tax, social wage and welfare reform would have to be enacted to prevent the costs of such change “flowing on” to more vulnerable groups and individuals.

Progressive tax reform - combined with a progressively structured ETS (made possible through compensatory payments) - is also critical given that the debt from massive public investment in renewables would need to be serviced in as fair a manner as is possible.

If the Australian government does go ahead with some form of ETS, it must be so structured as to have a more progressive impact on wealth and income distribution, and access to necessities including energy.

Towards the end of 2009, Lindsay Tanner, the Australian Finance Minister, affirmed that “low-income households will be hit around $420 annually under the scheme but will be compensated on average by $610 per year”.

The question here is why the government is not using this opportunity to do more in the interests of distributive justice.

Given that the broader tax system in Australia is in need of radical reform for purposes of distributive justice, an ETS - while not a tax - could be levied at a higher rate. By this we infer regulation ensuring a higher rate for carbon permits issued by the Federal government - and also central regulation of permit values thereafter. This is an alternative to the wild speculation some suppose might otherwise follow with the scheme’s implementation.

If accompanied by greater compensation for those on low and middle incomes (especially lower incomes), though, such reform (as advocated in this article) would comprise a “step forward” for fairness.

As Ken Davidson, writing for The Age, has noted also, if emissions permits are too cheap then there will be no incentive for corporations to make “higher cost investments” anyway.

While Davidson rejects the prospect of an ETS altogether - and a carbon tax would be more simple and potentially less volatile - there are ways of improving the proposed system.
In the wake of Copenhagen international action is necessary

The failure of nations to arrive at a legally binding framework (via an international treaty) for emissions reduction at the Copenhagen conference shows a disturbing lack of resolve and good faith among what some call “the global community”.

Among the most pertinent of issues was the failure of the developed world to provide the necessary compensation for poorer nations to continue development in an environmentally and socially sustainable fashion. Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Andrew Hewitt lamented that: “The promised $US100 billion a year by 2020, aimed at helping poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate, is less than half the amount needed.”

The quest to eradicate poverty, here, need not be abandoned as the price of sustainability. Technology transfer is of central importance, as is funding tied to the construction of sustainable infrastructure in developing countries.

In the same spirit, international co-operation in key areas of research, such as renewable energy, is critical. The world would do better pooling its research efforts rather than individual research units competing against each other - and quite likely not sharing their progress and their breakthroughs.

Here - in the wake of Copenhagen’s failure - there is nevertheless still the option of Australia “leading by example”. This applies to other countries in the developed world also: including the United States.

A good start for Australia would be a radical expansion of foreign aid: with Australian contributions being raised from approximately 0.32 per cent of GDP (2009 figures) to 1 per cent: significantly beyond the “UN benchmark” of 0.7 per cent.

For Australia’s part, Hewitt was also correct in observing: “We must … contribute our fair share of climate finance, based on our historical responsibility for emissions and our capacity to pay.”

This additional expansion could be tied exclusively to the development of environmentally sustainable infrastructure and industry, with funds devoted to Foreign Aid from Australia alone rising to significantly over AU$10 billion annually.

With Labor in power in Australia we have the right to expect better. But accountability of governments is only ever secured at the cost of eternal vigilance on the part of citizens. We must hold Labor accountable now, for the stakes are too high and the costs of failure too great.


nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Also:  Leigh Ewbank's material was cited in this article: a plea for massive public investment in renewable energy infrastructure.    Leigh's blog focuses on environmentaland social issues - and can be found here:      Meanwhile: his contributions to On Line Opinion can be found here.