ETS 1: Sceptic Voters Scared the ETS is a Scam Tax
November 28th 2009 08:51
The Emissions Trading Scheme bill, whereby credits are generated to trade polluting emissions amongst industrial organisations has brought out a huge proportion of the public to declare they don't believe that humans are causing climate change.
Antagonistic right wing climate scepitcs like Andrew Bolt misuse their position of public influence in the most irresponsible way when they play upon the less informed public's mistrust of politicians and the hatred of new taxes. Suddenly Abbott has resigned from the bench and several other key Liberals who, with their level of expensive education and supposed travels in the community, could surely work out that Global Warming is not a religion, but a threat that has massive consequences of the way we farm, produce, live and pollute.
There are several key points of resistance to passing any form of ETS legislation, all which abdicate the responsibility of reducing pollution. The anti-ETS campaign claims:
1. Climate change doesn't exist and even the scientists can't agree on how exactly it occurs and there are so many natural variations in temperature.
Natural phenomenons such as bushfires, earthquakes, and floods always have and will occur. However, that shouldn't stop us from not taking responsibility for pollutants we create. Let’s focus on the things we all agree on such as improved air quality reduces respitory illness, reduced phosphorus and careful farming practice reduces salinity and economical use of long-life packaging and building products reduce waste.
2. Global Warming is a big scare tactic, akin to Y2K but in Armageddon proportions. It is hyped up in order to scam people into a new tax.
Many green campaigns focus on warning of environmental disaster and the negative repercussions of not passing an ETS instead of appealing to mainstream environmental concerns in the positive. Positive benefits for controlling pollution include clean beaches and natural bushlands. Additionally, when people perceive an issue to require expert advice and then those experts are in disagreement, they become uncertain and start shutting off any notion of change.
The perception that some environmentalists manipulate facts combined with cynicism of rich people in power is a core component of the backlash against Global Warming. An example of this is the current trend to dismiss Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize as a conspiracy without seeing his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Fence sitters on the Global Warming debate and Anti-ETS voters alike claim the movie has no merit because Al Gore's family has a lot of money.
3. Even if Global Warming is a problem. Australia is such a small emitter on the world scale and therefore should wait until bigger emitters do their fair share first.
The you go first mentality is a major influence in Australian foreign policy. If Australia took the bull by the horns, signed an ETS and pushed forth more efficient and cleaner ways to produce products, then it could position itself as a key innovator in the green economy.
Germany became a market leader in producing on 5 star environmentally friendly products by taking strong and early action in the 1990s.
4. The cost to the taxpayer and the economy is larger than any possible and unproven benefit to be gained and could lead to another financial crisis.
It is fair to say that ideally, the ETS should be funded by the industries it affects, not taxpayers. However, it is not politically feasible at this stage given that some of the industries affected most are key contributors to government coffers. A possible solution (that the Greens will disagree with) to fear of economic downturn would be to introduce an ETS in stages.
The financial benefits will come later on, when Australia is a step ahead in the green economy, when there is less pollution and industries start taking their own action to negate their own waste and wow us all with great new technology.
5. The actual details of the ETS have not been shown so how can anyone understand it?
The implications of an ETS have been studied and debated since the 1960s and they are proven to provide economic incentives for companies to reduce pollutants. Greens want the Bill passed their way, Labor slightly moderated on that, and the fact that Malcolm Turnbull is agreeing to ratify the bill is very progressive on behalf of the Liberal Party, even if the bill is not in the shape to maximise environmental benefits. It can be refined down the track when the culture of the system develops and the benefits (and any oversights) after fully apparent.
Antagonistic right wing climate scepitcs like Andrew Bolt misuse their position of public influence in the most irresponsible way when they play upon the less informed public's mistrust of politicians and the hatred of new taxes. Suddenly Abbott has resigned from the bench and several other key Liberals who, with their level of expensive education and supposed travels in the community, could surely work out that Global Warming is not a religion, but a threat that has massive consequences of the way we farm, produce, live and pollute.
There are several key points of resistance to passing any form of ETS legislation, all which abdicate the responsibility of reducing pollution. The anti-ETS campaign claims:
1. Climate change doesn't exist and even the scientists can't agree on how exactly it occurs and there are so many natural variations in temperature.
Natural phenomenons such as bushfires, earthquakes, and floods always have and will occur. However, that shouldn't stop us from not taking responsibility for pollutants we create. Let’s focus on the things we all agree on such as improved air quality reduces respitory illness, reduced phosphorus and careful farming practice reduces salinity and economical use of long-life packaging and building products reduce waste.
2. Global Warming is a big scare tactic, akin to Y2K but in Armageddon proportions. It is hyped up in order to scam people into a new tax.
Many green campaigns focus on warning of environmental disaster and the negative repercussions of not passing an ETS instead of appealing to mainstream environmental concerns in the positive. Positive benefits for controlling pollution include clean beaches and natural bushlands. Additionally, when people perceive an issue to require expert advice and then those experts are in disagreement, they become uncertain and start shutting off any notion of change.
The perception that some environmentalists manipulate facts combined with cynicism of rich people in power is a core component of the backlash against Global Warming. An example of this is the current trend to dismiss Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize as a conspiracy without seeing his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Fence sitters on the Global Warming debate and Anti-ETS voters alike claim the movie has no merit because Al Gore's family has a lot of money.
3. Even if Global Warming is a problem. Australia is such a small emitter on the world scale and therefore should wait until bigger emitters do their fair share first.
The you go first mentality is a major influence in Australian foreign policy. If Australia took the bull by the horns, signed an ETS and pushed forth more efficient and cleaner ways to produce products, then it could position itself as a key innovator in the green economy.
Germany became a market leader in producing on 5 star environmentally friendly products by taking strong and early action in the 1990s.
4. The cost to the taxpayer and the economy is larger than any possible and unproven benefit to be gained and could lead to another financial crisis.
It is fair to say that ideally, the ETS should be funded by the industries it affects, not taxpayers. However, it is not politically feasible at this stage given that some of the industries affected most are key contributors to government coffers. A possible solution (that the Greens will disagree with) to fear of economic downturn would be to introduce an ETS in stages.
The financial benefits will come later on, when Australia is a step ahead in the green economy, when there is less pollution and industries start taking their own action to negate their own waste and wow us all with great new technology.
5. The actual details of the ETS have not been shown so how can anyone understand it?
The implications of an ETS have been studied and debated since the 1960s and they are proven to provide economic incentives for companies to reduce pollutants. Greens want the Bill passed their way, Labor slightly moderated on that, and the fact that Malcolm Turnbull is agreeing to ratify the bill is very progressive on behalf of the Liberal Party, even if the bill is not in the shape to maximise environmental benefits. It can be refined down the track when the culture of the system develops and the benefits (and any oversights) after fully apparent.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
