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

But the right kind of direct investment in renewable energy could make a very significant difference, combined with other incentives. In particular new public initiatives in the power industry could be combined with a German-style program, mandating compulsory purchase of energy from renewable sources fed into the national energy grid. In 2009 Germany enjoyed a share of over 16% of the power supply provided from renewable sources.

But in Australia the figure is only slightly over 5 per cent.

Writing for Green Left Weekly, David Nichols described in 2008 how the costs of power privatisation in Australia have been passed on to the public. He wrote that "private capital has to earn a higher rate of return than public investment" and this means large enterprises with significant purchasing power can bargain for a better deal than, say, pensioners and others on low incomes.

He also explains how according to privatisation consultant KPMG, "the rate of return on publicly owned electricity generation capacity [was] 7.1% in Queensland and 10.6% in NSW, while corporate investors wouldn´t touch electricity generation until the rate was 15%."

Finally, Nichols contended that "private debt is more costly than public debt." The consequence of this is that public ownership could deliver a 30 per cent cut in costs as flowing from lower finance costs alone."

As Guy Rundle effectively contested at QandA, privatisation is the 'elephant in the room' that the conservatives will not acknowledge when it comes to cost of living pressures. But for that matter, neither will Labor, which had long since assimilated the privatisation ideology and effectively abandoned the mixed economy.

Perhaps there is now a need for introspective reflection within Labor on a cross factional basis, to reconsider the mixed economy and concede past mistakes. Even within the Liberal Party, there could well be recognition that the mixed economy was undisputed under Menzies.

The final issue we will consider here will be the nature of carbon tax compensation.

In 'The Age' on 1^st June 2011, Ross Garnaut was quoted as arguing for 55% of carbon tax revenue to be passed on to tax-payers, rising to 64 per cent by 2021-22, with industry receiving 35 per cent, moving down to 20 per cent by 2021. This will occurr presumbly as industries adapt and modernise.

But, 'The Age' also reported him as arguing that there should be "less compensation for pensioners and welfare recipients…because of [the] 2009 rise in benefits." Effectively this would mean 'no overcompensation for pensioners.'

There are a few issues here:

Firstly, overcompensation is essential for Labor in 'selling' the carbon tax. This is as much the case for pensioners as for anyone else. Pensioners vote!

It is also key for social justice imperatives. Pretty much all pensioners struggle and many disability pensioners and carers, in particular, don't have many options to improve their financial circumstances.