The ETS Debate Broken Down

The Emissions Trading Scheme is a bad idea. We should do it.

The debate is stupid. Or as Shaun Ryder would say, it's 'Stupid, stupid, stupid'. Peter Costello wrote the politicised statement today in the Age:

The overwhelming view of the [Liberal] party membership is that sensible measures that will not undermine Australia's competitive position should be undertaken in step with developments among major emitters. There is considerable consensus on that.

The first and easiest one of two pieces of information in this statement that is I believe fairly representative of the Liberal parties arguements is the 'in step with developments among major emitters'. This would be easy - adopt a policy that says our policy will be exactly the same as whatever policy the US developes. Which is a clear follower statement.

What we hear more of is the 'we should wait until after Copenhagen' which on the surface makes sense, just like living with your parents for economic reasons. Except it will always make sense to wait until somebody does something first before we decide what to do. Just like it will still make sense to live rent free with your parents when you are a swinging 50 year old bachelor.

I'm pretty sure that there will be no end of 'Copenhagen' summits available over the next 5 to 10 years. The ability to delay making a decision or commitment on similar pretences will be in endless supply.

But in sheer logical terms, the fatalistic platform of we shouldn't do anything unless everyone else does something first is exactly ye olde 'if Billy jumps off a cliff would you do it.' it's only logical to a cringing follower.

As always when faced with an unpleasant task, what we want to do is nothing. What we need to do is something. An actual leader would say something along the lines of 'In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.'

It's why Climate Change is to society what weight loss is to the individual. To work it will involve probably a substantial sacrifice of lifestyle combined with a lot of work. What sells though are the methods that seem 'achievable' or require no work at all.

Waiting to see what other nations do is exactly the definition of 'indecision' and exactly the same predicament that every other country is in. We are a circle of children with the question 'who will do the dishes?' hanging in the air. Somebody just needs to volunteer because its the right thing to do, and many will follow, but whoever goes first and with conviction will get a lot of credit, and a place in history.

As for 'sensible measures that will not undermine Australia's competitive position' there is really one competitive 'advantage' Australia possesses, coal, the dirtiest form of energy available. Of which Australia is the numero uno exporter in the world.

It is interesting to note that this industry is encouraged and protected (from undermining) seemingly at the expense of things like Solar and Geothermal Energy of which Australia (at least so far as Solar is concerned) numero uno. As for wind etc.

The relevant particular here is that if there had been a Ministry of Transport in 1900 we would all still be riding horses. Or Henry Ford's 'if I'd asked people what they wanted they would have asked for a faster horse' and as Drucker says - 'no matter how serious an environmental problem the automobile poses in today's big city, the horse was dirtier, smelled worse, killed and maimed more people, and congested the streets just as much.'

The same applies, furthermore Coal fired energy needs to be run constantly (meaning base load isn't variable with demand) and centralised requiring huge transmission expenses which often aren't factored in to the 'price advantage' coal holds over Solar or other forms of energy.

Most tellingly though, they don't factor in the cost of correcting the damage coal does to the environment those expenses are 'externalised' the costs of which really form the debate we are currently having on who should pick up the bill, and it won't be the retained profits of the industry, nor the savings of those employed by the industry, nor from the assets held by the beneficiaries of the industry. The industry asks instead for compensation for loss of revenue.

Really the moral guidance of our childhood should settle this debate, ignorance is no excuse, do what is right even at the risk of popularity, don't steal, don't cheat, don't be lazy etc. It's not surprising that we should be struggling so, after all its hard to get children to do these things done. What chance does adult society have.