We Can't Pay We Won't Pay - the Carbon Tax gap in public logic that no one's closing.

Why is it that tsunamis always obliterate farms, villages and tropical islands and miss densely populated cities such as Tokyo? 

I'm not trying to be funny by asking seemingly irrelevant questions.
But this sprang to mind after I asked another question: 
Are the earthquakes and natural disasters the planet's way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Reasoning: Get rid of the species causing the problem, or at least reduce the problem.
Maybe there are other considerations which we are not yet aware of in the way climate change affects the Earth's crust?
All you see is that there's a gap in my logic.

 

(This is a gap. This is a gap. This is a gap. This is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...)

 

How is it that so few people seem able to see the gap as wide and as high as the tsunami that hit Japan in this country's thinking about what should be done about climate change?

 

(This is a gap. This is a gap. This is a gap. This is a gap...his is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...)

In the polls we cry: "Do something!"

(This is a gap. This is a gap. This is a gap. his is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap......)

 

The Climate Institute's 2010 exit poll on the night of the election of a hung parliament found that 32 percent of Green voters would have voted Labor - if Julia Gillard had shown leadership on Climate Change and not delayed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Labor could have won outright and had a mandate to take action - instead they lost the farms and villages. 
And Opposition Leader Tony Abbott insists that people flat out don't want change.
All the surveys show that Australians do want action on climate change but they're petrified of taking their private "Tokyo" down.

(This is a gap. This is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...

How you ask the question makes the difference. 
For instance, the Climate of the Nation survey taken by Auspoll for the Climate Institute last year asked people: "Do you want cheaper clean fuel through large-scale development of solar, geothermal and wind power?"
Only one percent of respondents opposed it.

(This is a his is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap... is a gap...)

 

And at least three-quarters of those surveyed wanted either a "detailed plan to change Australia using cleaner sources of energy" and/or they want "a plan to reverse our rising pollution in the next three years" - btw, that countdown is now just over two years.
Act now! Just don't direct charge us - say 5 percent of the population surveyed. 
And what ever you DO do ... do not set up an emissions trading scheme that will raise our cost of living - 16 percent of respondents opposed an emissions trading scheme. This was before the election.

 

(This ihis is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...

Reminds me of a Dario Fo play called We Can't Pay We Won't Pay - it's Nobel Prize-winning high Italian farce by a communist leaning thinker. 
And exactly where is the leadership of this country heading with this?

 

his is a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...

This is a gap in logic which no political party seems willing to breach. We have a "Multi-Party Climate Change Committee" which reports to the Prime Minister and Cabinet and it sits behind closed doors - no attempt to breach the gap in public thinking on this issue. They simply proclaim the decision to introduce the very thing that everyone is "afraid" of: a carbon tax. Which I support but that's beside the point.

a gap.this is agapthisisagapthisisagapthisisagap...

 

Maybe we need a TV reality show: So you think there's a gap in my reasoning? 
Perhaps it should be the title of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's Global Warming action manifesto - the one he has yet to write.
Meanwhile, the 6th update of the Garnaut Climate Change Review recommends tax reform to compensate low to middle income earners for the effects of the mooted carbon tax.
"Most other developed countries now have falling or steady emissions but, largely as a result of the contemporary resources boom, our emissions continue to increase rapidly," Ross Garnaut writes in this latest update.
Any gaps here when you consider this in the context of our future demand for electricity as shown in the graphs from Chapter 20 of the Garnaut Review: 


Greenhouse is personal - but when does the national interest take priority? 2020? 2050?

When you cut open a piece of fruit, you discover something about its intrinsic nature. 

The fruit is divided into sections. 
A cross-section reveals a floral pattern - you might even think that you have discovered straight lines in nature (a rarity).
But if you look closely you will see an ever so slight gentle curve in the lines. These are called observations.

If you were a scientist, an agrarian economist even, you'd create an avalanche of statistical data: where does it grow, how much is harvested, how much is exported, the sugar content level optimals...
Observations and data make up the weight of evidence about the nature of the thing...

An artist's perspective is different to a scientist's which is different to a grocer's view or a shopper's view. But all views take in a level of uncertainty: cost versus quality (is it rotten inside?), how much can I sell (popularity?), why does the season shift (climate change?).  

Your personal interest and taste determines whether or not you buy and eat the fruit - your personal taste may run against popular taste or industry interests.
So when does it become necessary to put personal interest - or industry interests - aside?
You can't keep growing persimmons if the cost of production skyrockets. Similarly, the cost of production for many industries (affecting many people's personal interests) are going to skyrocket if we fail to make a transition to a low-carbon economy.
This is true whether or not Australia takes action to reduce the human carbon footprint - as Ross Garnaut says, any money raised by a carbon tax should benefit the future not be used to "smooth the pillows of dying economic activities". This is not a threat to our way of life. Even coal-fired power plants like Tarong are looking clean alternatives such as bio-sequestraion - they see the need to make the transition.
At the CSIRO's Greenhouse 2011 Forum in Cairns last week, economist Ross Garnaut reiterated the point he has been making since 2008 when he presented his report to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
"Economics says it's worth doing something about the issue (of climate change) and that it won't be unmanageably expensive if we do it well," Garnaut preached to the converted. 
It was an assembly of representatives of the mainstream scientific view: human contribution to climate change must be mitigated as it poses a significant threat to our civilization (and our global economy).
"We can't solve the problem on our own," Garnaut said, "but we make it much harder if we don't participate." The lowest possible cost way is to put a price on carbon.
"China has moved emissions growth a long way from business as usual and that makes quite a big difference to the risks humanity faces. Even they have a long way to go but we have even further."
The awful reality is that Australia is not pulling its weight. Our skyrocketing consumption of electricity and excessive use of motor vehicles makes us one of the most wasteful countries (per capita) on Earth.
"Setting an economy-wide price for carbon on external costs will gie us the lowest cost solution," Garnaut advises. 
Australia is richly endowed with renewable energy resources and with the technical expertise (engineering, geological and earth sciences) to thrive in a low-carbon global economy, he says.
"Uncertainty is not a case for not acting that's an unanalytical way of approaching this," Garnaut said. Humans take out insurance against uncertainty - what's the difference here, he asks. "It would be a reckless country and a reckless species that turned its back on the weight of authority coming from mainstream science. 
"We know from that the world is warming. We know that from observation without much science except statistical analysis."
Shifting seasons, flowering plants, bird migration - these are observations biologists and gardeners have been making for years.

 

This is an article I wrote for a newsletter sent to financial planners - I'm publishing it here because the comments made in response might be of interest. I'm not identifying the authors of the comments.