Outlaw Junction News-Chop "Carbon Tax versus Land Tax" Edition

110927 Outlaw Junction News-Chop "Carbon Tax versus Land Tax" Edition

Since the climate change issue arose to parliamentary and media mainstream squabbling levels, I've been supportive of pretty-much any policy attempts by the federal, and or lesser governments to mitigate our excessive, unsustainable culture and pollution.  For 4 decades I've been aware of the deep wrongs of the way we abuse the environment, and also that the mainstream Australian and white, western world generally is/are selfish, stubborn and blind consumers of any commercialized product which appeals to our lowest levels of "pleasure" - our senses mainly.  

Therefore changing an whole society's habits is nigh-on impossible, short or long term.  Especially when we are, in the majority, hypnotized, anti-intelligence zombies.

So, seeing those who take the battles to save the environment into the political arenas, local and global, as Champions better than myself, for the tasks they take-on, I accept that the decisions they make, are the best they can expect positive, slow, but positive outcomes from.

So policies like the actually pretty "crude" "Carbon Tax", are OK with me.  

One, because I hain't got the depth of information-absorption skills, enough to take-in everything a politician has to cram in, of the breadth of info & knowledge needed to fully understand the whole range of issues at hand, which the politicians and parties have to weave their way through, and finalize their stand, approach and policy from, and 
two, accepting that we are slow to change our awry habits (that's western cult mind-manipulation for yer!), while policies like a carbon tax are actually sort of 'tinkering around the edges' of the changes we really have to see and take-on, it's better that we, the nation, the planet, start somewhere, and use these decisions to both move the common awareness forward, and through perhaps reverse-psychology, incite reaction, thus debate, thus eventually, an awakening to the more crucial, underlying factors we have yet to acknowledge as fundamental.

Because, if nothing else, the rising popularity of the call to correct our cultural and it's industrial misbehavior in regard to the environment, is changing us for the better, and, slowly - too slowly for the biosphere - the mass of human beings are becoming aware that the planet is not in fact, so big that we cannot and do not influence it's overall well-being.

This last point, is in fact what has driven the right-wing attitude against all "Greens" type movements.  

That same "we are so small, compared to the planet" perspective, is what has been behind most every person's readiness to begin environmentally disasterous industries and enterprises, especially since the start of the industrial revolution.  That, and their whitefaced greed.

Their usual perspective is limited to their own little worlds, and is not trained to see the whole world as one finely-balanced, interactive entity, which is in fact effected by Human behavior.

So there's totally no chance that the right-wing "me-first" political animal of today can come close to accept the idealised metaphor of "When a butterfly in the Amazon flaps it's wings, eventually a storm will result across the Pacific", or however the metaphor was originally phrased.

But there is clearly an abhorrent paucity of vision or intellect when the right wing politicians and their supporters fail to see, and reject the notion with violence when it's pointed out, that the enormous mass of the Human population now living is having a very serious effect on the way the planet's natural ecosystems maintain themselves, thus maintain the necessary elements we need to survive.  

They are stuck-fast to their greedy over-consuming westernized zombie lifestyles, because the western religions have killed their ability to discern their intellects and thus their ability to find satiation and happiness through living frugally, humbly and Wisely.

So the debate goes-on, and with each stupid delay, pushes us closer to the apocalyptic cliff.

Nevertheless....., stumble I did, onto the "Industry Search" browser website, and am happily opened to what do appear as good or better quality articles than the other browsers seem to highlight.

And, to the comments I make above, here's an article which challenges the Carbon Tax policy the government is pushing through federal parliament, which I was driven to comment on, as follows after ......:

Carbon pollution and tax are two different issues: Anderson.

12/09/2011- While the words "Carbon" and "Tax" seem inextricably linked in political debate they are separate issues and should be viewed as such, a group of Melbourne’s leading industry CEOs has been told.

Illustration 1: thanking the website for the article & picture


Peter Anderson, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry – and also a member of the government’s Business Round Table on Climate Change – told a Printing Industries CEO lunch that "carbon" and "tax" were two distinct issues.

"While the Carbon Tax issue is highly political, a great disservice is done to the issue by the oversimplification which characterises political debate," Anderson told the gathering.

"In this instance, this has led to a most unfortunate view that to be opposed to the tax equates to being opposed to the sustainability agenda – a view which is simply not true.

"Many manufacturing businesses, and printers are a great example, are strongly committed to sustainability, not just from an ideological viewpoint but because it makes sense on an economic basis, driving stronger business and meeting commercial imperatives."

While a carbon tax remains the Gillard government’s key policy for tackling climate change, Anderson reported that the business community believes the mechanism is flawed and is also most concerned about the timing proposed for implementation.

"Trying to bring about a faster rate of change to our behaviour and methods of production is not a silly idea," he said.

"The motivation is right – but the mechanism and the timing are both open to debate and, I believe, are significantly flawed.

"Firstly, structuring it as a tax, at least until a proper global emissions trading scheme is implemented, means it is a policy likely to collect revenue rather than drive behavioural change, making it unlikely to achieve the latter objective. Offering so much compensation also blunts the instrument.

"Secondly, introducing a tax here in the absence of international agreement means we will suffer considerable pain...for little gain. While Australia naturally wants to be part of the solution, implementing a carbon tax while competitors remain unfettered by such costs means this tax is likely to impact disproportionately on our industrial base – and that impact will be difficult to mitigate.

"Australian manufacturing already faces tough competition from countries where wages and conditions are not as high as they are here, and where skills and innovation are fast catching up.

Anderson said while we do not want to see our standards reduced, the reality in a trade-exposed economy is that we must make every other post a winner. In the past, our access to relatively cheap sources of power has been a key factor in our ability to compete.

"If we remove that competitive advantage, where are we going to make up that ground?" he asked.

Even if a carbon tax were accepted as the correct mechanism, Anderson points out, timing is critical and, in the view of most business leaders, the broader economic situation and particularly the impact of the high Australian dollar make this the worst possible time for such change.

"Any major reform which is going to affect the economy has to work in the real world context of people doing business," he said.

"Current trading conditions would make a strong case for any government to hold back on policy change that would embed costs into globally competing products and services."

Despite these views, Anderson believes current political instability makes it almost impossible for the government to change course without it being seized on as a sign of weakness by the media and opposition.

"Regrettably, I have to say that this issue is deeply related to the politics which formed the current minority government," Anderson reported.

"Will it be implemented in July 2012? Who knows. That will depend on whether this current government is in power. If not, however, we’d have to look carefully at what an Opposition government would implement in its place.

"Unfortunately, this simply continues the climate of uncertainty not just in manufacturing but feeding through into general business and consumer sentiment. This is creating a terrible dynamic, with soft demand, difficult international competition and rising domestic costs. Adding a carbon tax to that mix would certainly be a cause for real concern."

While businesses can do little but "wait and see", Anderson says the fight is far from over.

"Peak industry and business groups, including ACCI and Printing Industries, are not going to stop taking our view to government and the parliament," he said.

"In the meantime, my advice would be to continue to work on constructive agendas towards sustainability where they make good business sense. This will always deliver benefits, regardless of government policy or political agendas."


In 2010 the fed govt tried to correct the whole taxation issue, by advocating a National Land Tax (NLT), to replace the bulk of penalizing taxes, but was sent to the sinbin for it by offshore and selfish local speculative interests. Crazed agenda in parliament and corporations, and a seriously misinformed public stop good policies like the 'NLT', thus stop us from attaining a fair and balanced economy, and a secure society/planet.
While a global emissions scheme is good, better we focus and install a global land tax, thus eliminating the world's drive to unnecessarily over-use resources, and thus put a dramatic slow-down to pollution, and wasteful behavior.
But, debased creators (TYPO! Should have been “creatures”) that we are, a global meltdown has to occur before we look, see, and act reasonably in raw economic terms.