The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon tax and other dirty language > Comments
Carbon tax and other dirty language : Comments
By Nicki Roller, published 30/9/2011Our distrust in politics makes us sceptical of their promises, but might the Carbon Tax be not as bad as it all seems?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Citing Max Planck is most apt...."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I've often though this in my working life trying to facilitate progressive change in land management.
Re your call to 're-conceptualise the climate change debate and stop using dirty language', I think it was a mistake from the start to tiptoe around the 'tax' word. It's more truthful and constructive to think of a carbon price in whatever form as long overdue tax reform. Tax the waste (energy waste) rather that productivity. This is precisely what the Government are doing by raising the tax free threshold to encourage those on the margins into work. The carbon price is really a progressive (good) tax that encourages more effciency and productivity. Also it provides an opporutunity to divert more of the revenues into kick starting renewable energy. This should be read as 'energy security'- freedom from future petroleum and coal price rises and shortages. Sun and wind are free energy whereas the price of fossil fuels can only go one way - up.
PS. I think we'll see the time when we'll wish it had remained a straightforward tax. Trading schemes provide so many avenues for dodgers and sharks (excuse the 'dirty language' but I couldn't think of better words). Then there's the uncertainty of fluctuating market prices. I think many in industry would even now prefer the certainty of a straight tax; it's becoming clear it wont be very burdensome anyway and the small CPI hike of less than 1% will be one-off.