The Federal Government has finally unveiled its plans to tax the Australian economy’s energy inputs, where competitor countries do not. Eyebrows might legitimately remain immobile at the news that the Greens (“coal mining is responsible for Cyclone Yasi and should be closed down immediately”) are not happy that their more extreme nostrums have been ignored, but delighted that they see themselves in a position to force them on the country in coming years. Let’s have a brief think about what the Government’s policy means, and where its justification lies.
The tax is intended to reduce five per cent of 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. We might be justified in considering that to be a matter of no consequence, when the major emitters (China, India, USA) aren’t doing anything to reduce their emissions — merely (and then only possibly) to reduce the rate of growth of those emissions. The Federal Government has decided to shoot Australian industry and commerce in at least one foot. It persists in that our emissions per capita are the highest in the developed world (we’re 12th on the list, behind such countries as Qatar (over 250 per cent of our score), the United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, and the USA, according to the 2007 figures published by the World Bank). That’s not even vaguely relevant to the total emissions which, even if you accept the contention that atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming (we’re currently experiencing global cooling, but don’t expect that to be acknowledged by the Federal Government), still means that anything we do is of no consequence.
The Federal Government ignores the rather simple fact that one volcanic eruption puts human output of carbon dioxide in the shade. Fortunately, it hasn’t opted for the logical consequence of trying to outlaw volcanic eruptions; it chooses to ignore them and to act as though our trivial reduction in a trivial output volume will save the planet. The Federal Government stands accused of mathematical incompetence; whether this amounts to culpable stupidity is a matter for individual decision.
It’s doing all of this in the face of evidence — not overwhelming, but sufficient to cause concern — that human-generated carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible for the global warming (that isn’t taking place), and that reducing those emissions will miraculously reverse what isn’t happening. The proponents of global warming base their contention on distorted statistics (where did the Maunder Minimum and the Mediaeval Warm Period go, Dr Mann?), and claim that the “Precautionary Principle” (if there’s a chance that we might be right, everybody must accept our prescriptions) demands that we point the rifle at our big toe and pull the trigger. Perhaps the “Precautionary Principle” would be better applied to demanding adequate proof before we do substantial harm to our economy, our lifestyle, and the future of our children and their children in turn. That would indeed be precautionary. The same argument about posterity applies to the danger of their pet remedies for a non-existent problem. The difference is that they’re actively pursuing dangerous and damaging action, where others would prefer to see reliable evidence, devoid of self-interest and rent-seeking, before committing themselves to panic actions.
Brian Panisset,
Port Macquarie.
