I write in response to Brian Panisset (Letters 4/8).
In regard to the issue of Australia’s goal regarding global emissions, I think that it is fairer to say that both our Government and Opposition wants Australia to do its fair share in reducing global emissions. Both sides of politics have accepted man-made climate change and have accepted the same targets of CO2 emission reductions by 2020.
I fully agree with you that “it is rash to assume that business will not seek the lowest cost environment in which to operate”, and the treasury modelling relies on this. The whole point of the carbon tax in achieving its goal to reduce emissions is based on the fact that business will seek lower cost solutions, and that consumers will also endeavour to keep their costs down. In particular, electricity retailers will purchase more electricity from lower emitting CO2 sources because they will be relatively cheaper than the electricity from higher emitting CO2 sources, and this will drive investment in both renewable and natural gas-fired power generators. Other businesses may consider replacing or refurbishing equipment earlier in order to keep their costs down. I urge you to reconsider what you think of Treasury modelling. Treasury’s view is supported by the majority of Australia’s leading economists. Treasury have pretty much got it right for the last few decades, and I have yet to hear a good reason as to why we would start to doubt their modelling.
On the concern that jobs may be exported, I consider this to be unlikely as a consequence of the carbon tax. Trade affected industries, such as the steel industry, are being targeted with either compensation or assisted with restructuring. I have no doubt that there will be manufacturing that may move overseas in the coming years, as has occurred in the last few decades, but this will be as a consequence of exchange rates and cheaper labour, which has an impact on business costs, many, many times larger than the carbon tax could possibly have. However, as has also happened in the last few decades, industries will move into Australia and expand Australian operations. Treasury expects that employment will continue to increase in Australia despite the carbon tax.
I am not going to argue scientifically with about the evidence for or against man-made climate change. As I am not a climate scientist, all I can do is rely on the writings of others, as I suspect you do. Your example of historic scientists such as Galileo Galilei is a reminder that the consensus science does not always get it right. However, scientific education and methodology has been improving since the time of Galileo and, with peer reviewed papers and academies of science in every major developed country, the likelihood of such errors is reducing.
I would ask you to consider the conspiracy (some have called it a socialist conspiracy) that would have to exist across both Australia’s and the USA’s Academies of Science, the CSIRO, NASA (the mob who we are led to believe, put people on the moon), Australia’s chief scientist and the IPCC. You would also have to consider that the federal Labor Party, Liberal Party (most of them, some of the time), the Nationals (some of them, some of the time), John Howard, Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron and the UK conservative party, The New Zealand National Party, John Hewson, Malcolm Fraser, Barry O’Farrell, Marius Kloppers (BHP), Ralph Hillman (head of the Coal association), Arnold Schwartnegger (US Republican), to name but a small few, are all either part of the conspiracy or are deluded by it.
I personally find it easier to believe that our climate is warming as a consequence of man-made CO2 emissions and that dangerous change can be averted, at a relatively low economic cost, by reducing our emissions.
Peter Alley
Labor Spokesperson
Lyne Electorate
