Right-Populist monopoly media attempts to ‘deprive carbon debate of oxygen'

This 'trivialisation' of politics in Australia is a regular phenomena, and perhaps a deliberate one, having the effect of weakening our democracy. Australian social commentator, Guy Rundle, also a participant in the 'QandA' episode, observed tellingly that the conservative response was 'a beat-up.'

Perhaps the greatest deception of all by the conservatives, is the underlying assumption that a carbon tax would see cost-of-living pressures passed on to the public, while an Emissions Trading Scheme, or Abbott's so-called 'direct action,' would not. This is crucial as an ETS has previously been supported by past Liberal Party leaders John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull.

In reality, a market-driven ETS would see the price paid for carbon credits being passed on to the public in about the same dimensions as with a carbon tax.

Malcolm Turnbull has estimated the cost of Abbott's 'direct action' approach could approach the vicinity of $18 billion a year were the government "buying offsets or otherwise directly paying for abatement," and aiming for an 80 per cent reduction of emissions by 2050, as urged by scientists. A much more modest target of a 5% overall cut in emissions by 2020 would cost $2.1 billion/year in today's terms.

These costs would of course be passed on to Australian families via the tax system. Only it would be 'hidden' in a wide range of other different taxes, rather than an overt and obvious carbon tax.

It should be noted, that Ross Garnaut also argued in 'The Age' on 1^st June 2001, that a carbon tax at $26/tonne would raise $11.5 billion in the first year. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of this money would be returned to low and middle income families.

Again, the point is not to raise revenue, but to change consumer and investor behaviour. While the ultimate rate is probably more likely to be $20/tonne, once compensation is provided low and middle income groups will actually be better off.

Although over the long term, any kind of structural adjustment to deal with climate change will come at a cost (even if only as a 'once off') as it will necessitate investment in new technologies and infrastructure (including under Abbott's 'direct action').

The point is that any kind of action on climate change will cost elements of the public directly or indirectly. By raising the spectre of 'cost of living pressures' while supporting 'direct action,' Abbott is obfuscating this essential truth, and deceiving voters.

That said, there are some kinds of 'direct action' that make sense and others that don't. At QandA Guy Rundle pointed out that Abbott's program was one of 'socialising' the costs and losses of business, to be paid for by the public, while 'privatising the profits.'

An example is Abbott's preference to pay businesses directly for changed practices on climate change. This kind of 'corporate welfare' has become standard fare in recent decades.

And it also begs the question: Where has the rationale for privatisation gone (supported by both Labor and the Liberals) where there is effectively no 'risk?' For example, when things go wrong 'government picks up the pieces.' The same could be said of Public Private Partnerships, also supported by 'both sides' of politics.