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."
MY COMMENT:
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.
