Comments on: Rudd’s 39% by 2020 CO2 reduction – boiling the frog slowly

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:23:16 +0000

Graham — exactly right about the trading v taxes. Proponents of trading have explicitly said that one of the main benefits is that a trading system will be politically harder to remove.
If climate change policy is inevitable, then somebody needs to put a (revenue-neutral) carbon tax back on the agenda.
And when I say “revenue-neutral” I mean that it should be linked to other tax cuts, so that we are NOT increasing the size of government and the inevitable distortions that entails.
Another issue is that a carbon tax stays constant, while a trading system will become steadily more restrictive over time.
Ronda — our population doesn’t have to contract. Though the population growth will continue to slow naturally as the population ages.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:22:58 +0000

Given the tenor of this post, and the one from yesterday, could it be that Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have got it right, based on the Goldilocks principle?
As Labor faces a hostile Senate, and as there is no way of reconciling the Bob Brown/Clive Hamilton/Tim Flannery position with the Wilson Tuckey/Barnaby Joyce/Piers Akerman one, is there no virtue in a moderate, middle ground position?

By: ronda jambe

ronda jambe — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:02:15 +0000

You’re kinda missing the point, Graham. Our energy costs will have to rise, and our population will also have to contract.
And my understanding is that cap and trade systems are not the favourite approach of green groups, as they permit too much benefit to the polluters. An outright tax on carbon is more flexible and gets to the source and provides direct incentives.
Gee, I’d love to have this discussion in 10 years time.