Grim reaper of Australian politics returns

With the avoidance of other participants at the upcoming productivity summit, to draw attention to one of Australia’s largest, most prominent and easy -to -be corrected efficiency solutions was left to the Productivity Commission (PC): a carbon price.

Labor is very afraid of the policies of serious emissions from the Coalition, the work content to reduce emissions as little as possible, and the work of the climate-domestic trade unions CFMEU and AWUThis month, the government had a conspiracy on climate before the productivity and tax summit.

Ross Garnaut broke Omerta Last week, the government was criticized by the Minister of Energy for his problems by criticizing that the government did not meet renewable energy targets and could not call carbon price.

The intersection of emission reduction and productivity is due to the fact that the Labor Party refuses to correct the nine -year coalition climate denial by restoring a carbon pricing plan, and instead uses a shambolyal mixture of less efficient policies including regulation, subsidies, tax concesses and scientifically discredited Australian Carbon Credit Unit Offset systems. The result has made the zero carbon transition to the future, slower, more expensive and more susceptible to the game.

Considering how enthusiastically the media and political class is now about everything about productivity, you expect this obvious and easily corrected policy failure to be the central stage in discussion, every day with pieces of thought every day Financial review Commentists show position documents from trade unions and business worlds and state ministers to play “Rule-off-Out”. Instead, Zip.

Therefore, it was left to PC to attract polite attention to the problem that everyone prefers to ignore. Publish your own suggestion set. And you can choose from a macro broadcast or a micro broadcast from Danielle Wood and CO. Not because the commission is not interested in bagging the government – in fact, it comes out of its own way to avoid doing it – but it is impossible to read the temporary report. completely Stupid consecutive governments have been and continue to be in emission reduction.

The removal of micro broadcasting is to indicate how inadequate Labour’s “signature” protection mechanism is really inadequate. From the original version of the coalition (the only positive introduced by the Greens in the Senate), the Labor Party is slightly adapted, the protection mechanism does not cover one -fifth of heavy spreaders. PC is dropping the threshold. And the rules of prevention of “carbon leakage” – heavy pollutants moving in the open sea – “will limit the heavy industry’s ability to contribute to Australia’s emissions targets and force to önemli reducing base lines and therefore strengthen incentives.

And this depends on a reliable carbon offset system. Since scientists are not scientists, they do not discuss the validity of the government’s propaganda about the validity of human -based renewal and other forms of “land magic”. But he notes concerns about his legitimacy. “In the future, it is important that Accus represents real decreases in atmospheric carbon.”

We know a difficult truth, no matter what, they don’t know.

However, the PC has the removal of the entire shambolic system of overlapping and inconsistent emission reduction plans from a macro publication. He refuses to follow the leadership of the previous generation PC leaders – most importantly, when Peter Harris asked for advice on how to do it by Scott MorrisonChange the dial “Listed a carbon price as an important tool-and CO2 emissions proposed a return at an economic price. But it finds the best thing: a virtual price.

The Australian government should be assigned to an independent agency with relevant expertise in developing national carbon values. These values-Estimates to meet the emission targets of Australia should be used in regular reports on the cost effectiveness of emission reduction policies as policy criteria throughout the government.

That is, find out how much it costs our internationally committed goals to meet our registered goals, and then you can compare all other policies you use instead of a carbon price and see how much they get instead of carbon price.

The result will not be too free for the current policy package or governments that push them.

It is not as good as having a real carbon price. This, when its independence is not cut by the coalition, the infrastructure, indicating that the work case for a large infrastructure investment is garbage, is like having Australia. The only thing he can do is to shed light on how bad the policy pushed by politicians is. However, this gives us some transparency about the costs of these bad policies.

Most of the discussions about the pre -roundable efficiency, frankly, nonsense: bullshit of business lobbyists who demand that everyone has to subdiate them, nonsense from trade unions, more arrangement and punishing high -punishing taxes, nonsense from economists, and the economic models that do not offer anything else. And nonsense from labor, which is very timid to watch a good policy. In case of emission reduction, not The volumes are also discussing.