I'm still not on Joe Hockey's 'friends' list on Facebook, so I can't comment in response to his plea to his 'followers' (he uses Twitter almost exclusively which repeats to Facebook) for opinions on the CPRS/ETS, as some of you may have seen on the evening news. I can, however, email him via Facebook and amusingly enough, always get a response. So I thought, what the hell.
As a Climate Change response, 5% to 15% over a ten year period is pathetic. As a political tool, the CPRS has been masterful and will continue to be so UNLESS those opposing it as an ideological stalking horse get out of the way and allow those with the party's best interests at heart to step up, avoid the embarrassment of a double dissolution election loss, and deny the government any further political points.
The CPRS, as I understand it, is little more than a cash cow for the government coffers, purpose designed to eradicate government debt through carbon taxation. Consumers (voters) will not be adequately compensated for the costs of a measly 5%-15% cut in emissions. There's already been a concessional cut in consumer compensation of $914m in order to secure the support of conservatives. Now they've reneged. Government is already clawing back its $900 cash handouts through covert cuts to medicare. Why should we - who will bear the brunt of government feeding itself - blithely allow the government to secure itself at least two more terms because of troglodyte conservative ideologues who do not understand true Liberalism, and don't support it.Without a viable, concerted and united Opposition, keeping government in check and holding it to the hard light of public inspection, democracy fades away leaving Australia as a one-party state. We're very close to that now. If you, as a potential leader, allow the conservative side of the party to take the stance of opposing government because opposing is what they feel they need to do, without actively and constructively contributing to the process of parliamentary democracy, then the Liberal Party ceases to be what Menzies created, is not what your stated mentor - John Stuart Mill - defined as Liberalism.
Stand up, Joe!! Grab your gonads and take the party down the road you know it needs to tread. CPRS/ETS is a mere bump in the road and one neither you, Turnbull, Minchin, Abbott or indeed any other member of the coalition parties can avoid or defeat. A Double Dissolution election loss will consign the coalition parties to the wilderness for two terms, minimum. Lords only know how government will grow in that time, how it will lose touch in that time, and how Australians in general will suffer from the inevitable arrogance and ignorance. Stand up and be counted!!
Political theatre aside, there is a plethora of confused opinion buzzing around in the ether regarding the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There's the economists view as reported by Robert Gottliebsen on Business Spectator this morning which has all the overtones of the sky falling, then there's the government spin touting the $49b package for consumers over ten years to accommodate low to middle income earners. Bearing in mind that government spin is predicated upon getting the CPRS legislation passed in the Senate this afternoon, thanks to a deal with the Liberal Party (or some of the Liberal Party, anyway) which includes a $914m decrease in consumer funding to better grease the palms of business and industry, thereby making the free market capitalists feel better about helping the planet. And that's what a CPRS or Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) if you prefer that acronym. Helping the planet. Not that the planet cares either way whether we pathetic human beings pay attention to the environment we live in. If we shit in our nest, we'll die off and the planet will recover over an eye-blink in cosmic time scales. The planet will be as if we've never existed, life will recover, evolve and move on. I find myself asking whether "a reduction of between 5 and 15 per cent in carbon emissions from 2000 to 2020" is going to have any effect whatsoever in the grand scheme, in light of the proposed cost to you & me, the consumer (and voter) here in Australia? Even the United States is seriously looking at a target in excess of ours, and given that nation's previously recalcitrant attitude to climate change, that's a huge step forward. Five to fifteen percent? Are we in any way serious? It certainly doesn't look that way. Then there's the economics of the CPRS. If you care to take the time to read the governments latest release on the proposed changes to the CPRS currently before the senate, you'll note that forward budget estimates are predicated upon a carbon price per tonne of emmission of $26/tonne. The current world carbon price is hovering around $15/tonne. Then there's the inevitable profiteering which will occur when emission permits are handed out, which if the world carbon price stays the same, will immediately attract a post-Kyoto bargain basement sell off of the freebies by those who have them to those who don't at an exorbitant price over the world mark, leading to a drop in the value of said freebies similar to what occurred in Europe in the latter part of last century. This whole issue is so complex, so convoluted, that it's little wonder the Business Council of Australia is staying quiet, preferring to be inside the political tent closer to the action, than outside complaining with no leverage when it's needed. I strongly suspect, as Gottliebsen writes, that a CPRS for Australia, when viewed through the prism of maximum 15% emissions cuts by 2020, is little more than a cash cow for government, and a damn fat one at that. Will voters be swayed by the inevitable back pocket injections come election time? We all know they will. History proves the point. I'd suggest that one way or another - either through the Senate @ 3:45pm this afternoon, or via a double dissolution early in the new year, Australia will have a carbon trading regime in place which will net the government coffers multiple millions if not billions of surplus budget dollars, clearing the GFC-inspired spending deficit in no time flat. Rudd et al will appear as Little Jack Horner on a number of fronts, the anti-Labor parties will still be wandering in the political wilderness, we'll all be grumbling about the 30% increase in our power bills and wondering when the handout subsidies promised as a part of the CPRS will arrive. But will we have achieved something momentus in response to climate change? Will this era's generations be remembered in 2079 as those who took a stand, or those who simply said, "ok, where do I sign?"
Politicians and Facebook would seem to be something of an anachronism. Here's Joe 'I'm not fake' Hockey
trying very hard to take a jibe at Rudd's staff's rumored collating of twitter
followers by using a software spider. Seems some of his 'friends' don't like just being another number in a popularity contest.
Joe Hockey I need 77 new followers to get to 5000...c'mon Australia
3 hours ago
There's sparse information available in this article, and clearly none will be available until after Senator Reid has arranged to brief his political fellows in the US senate, but I'm betting right now that conservatives will be shrieking loudly, gnashing teeth & tearing out hair over the mere mention of cuts to medicare. Heavens forbid that wealthy Americans aged more than 65 should have to forgo some presumably minor benefits for the betterment of their society as a whole. Capitalism just doesn't have room for the under-privileged.
Seriously fellow voxers.....there are some genuinely fucked up people in the US of A. This one ought to be in therapy, or more to the point, in a nice quiet room all to himself with photos of Ronald Reagan covering the rubber tiles on the wall.
There was an interesting conversation on Australia Talks this evening, discussing what commentators and callers thought about Barack Obama's achievements in his first 10 months in office. The theme of the conversation was aimed at Obama's election anniversay, which, frankly, I found just a little misguided.
