arts › Carbon Punishment

Carbon Punishment

Lucy slams her bedroom door. It’s just not fair. She didn’t clean her room and now her mum is taking money out of her allowance. HER allowance. Lucy can’t be bothered cleaning, it’s easier to play with her dolls when they’re already out. Maybe she could just take some of her brother’s allowance for letting him use her computer. Or maybe she can get out of cleaning because she already did all her homework. Instead of making the house a nicer place to live in, Lucy brainstorms ways to shirk her responsibility.

Yes, big carbon polluting industries can be like six-year-olds. When the carbon tax hits, companies don’t have to be mature and responsible about it. For one, they can decide to cover the new cost by adding it to their customers’ bill. In Europe, where similar systems have been put in place, some industries even formed lobby groups to become exempt from the tax. Now that Australia plans to tax naughty polluting behaviour, there’ll be much enquiry into how effective it is. It’s worth noting that despite the carbon punishment, industries will be receiving financial compensation from the Government. It’s kind of like Lucy’s mother taking money out of her allowance, only to buy her chocolate cake with it later.
 
Despite these concerns, many see the carbon tax as a good start for Mother Nature’s detox. It sends an official message to Aussy industries that consumers want a more responsible approach to the environment. Whether this carbon punishment strategy works, I think, will in part depend on how much it inspires the public. The initiative has the potential to create a culture of environmental savvy.
 
The reason this is important is because we have to assume that economic systems have no intrinsic morality. Industries are designed to function based on what makes money. Thus, the desire for more ethical practice has to come from us, the consumers. If we only support industries that appear to be doing what’s best for the environment, then the market will adapt its practices. This also includes supporting other initiatives and businesses that push forward with clean energy alternatives.
 
As exciting as the carbon tax is for many, it won’t do all the work. If consumers become complacent about ethics then the initiative is all in vain.  It’s still on all of us to decide how our own moral choices will change the shape of the economy.
 
Looks like it’s already started to happen.

Check back weekly for Moral Melbourne with @MrSimonTaylor (Twitter).

australia
government
Europe
Lucy
initiative
Morality
Avengers: The Initiative
Capitalism
Economics
Environment

Comments

Posted by David Meister on July 29, 2011 @ 5:51pm
David Meister's picture

you know what works demonstrably better than carbon taxes? feed in tariffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff

why? because they provide a real market force to encourage renewables by making them an attractive option for investors of all sizes, whereas carbon taxes are pure negative reinforcement.

the thing that we often forget is that the "big evil polluters" are satisfying a demand for energy that we as consumers create.

there are real economic reasons why you wouldn't invest in renewables, even with a tax.

if i was a potential investor, today i could buy a solar farm for a few million dollars, the money i invest makes solar farms cheaper to build for future investors thanks to the research i had to fund out of necessity to undercut my current competitors... fast forward 10 years and i can't make a profit any more..

Posted by MrSimonTaylor on August 2, 2011 @ 12:55pm
MrSimonTaylor's picture

Why do you think that wasn't put in place? Was the carbon tax just a misguided project?

Posted by David Meister on August 2, 2011 @ 2:50pm
David Meister's picture

well the following is an oversimplification based on what i found last time i was reading up on all this in late 2009, but Australia is (or was then) part of "The Umbrella Group" which is an alliance of sorts at international political discussions around climate change, it basically includes Australia and America, and nobody else.. Other groups include the EU, China, and then the small island states.

The Umbrella Group has always fostered "uncertainty" around global warming science. Note, that i say uncertainty around the _science_ not the data itself. Really just a whole lot of petty academic name calling.

I don't know too much about America, although I'm sure your Zeitgeist and Michael Moore fans could rant about it, but here's a few reasons why Australia prefers taxing "the bad guys" over investing in "the good guys":

# 80% of our exports are mineral based, something outrageous like $40 billion a year of coal is sold to China
# the government has to choose between a tax they can fire and forget, or actively investing in either solar or nuclear power - Europe has most of the expertise of the former because they got in early, so we'd be importing skilled workers and the latter is unpopular despite Australia's huge natural supplies of Uranium
# our power bills are a fraction of what they are overseas, because we're not paying what we should be - the government runs coal mines and power plants at break-even or at a loss to generate jobs, so there would be little benefit to a FIT scheme initially. It would likely take longer than a single party's term in power to reap the full benefits, so whoever implements it wouldn't get the credit.
# it would probably be seen as a political backflip internationally, since we've spent the last 20-30 years claiming that global warming is all made up, ironically we kind of have to continue being backward as to not be seen as hypocritical

MrSimonTaylor's picture
MrSimonTaylor
Joined: 25th February 2011
Last seen: 28th September 2012