Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Energy policy: can we have a Carbon-Cutting Reliable Affordable Programme (C-CRAP)?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 20 September 2017


But we can't have all three to the degree politicians are promising punters.

In short, three into two won't go.

I learned that in primary school.

Advertisement

Being honest with punters: why won't politicians tell us the costs and benefits of trade-offs?

The challenge for governments (Commonwealth, State and Territory) – and even more so Labor and the 'Greens' – is to explain to the punters who are paying for their mistakes why this opinion piece is wrong. And they need to do so with hard, verifiable numerical evidence, not generalised, number-free, assertion-heavy, waffle as hitherto.

Lots of 'green' readers will complain about going back on RET targets, and argue we should do more. I have my own views about the best way, if we must, to deliver emissions reductions, anyway. (See my papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?.)

But in a democracy surely the trade-offs and cost implications of different policy options should be made clear up-front to the punters who will pay for them. Not so in Australia at present. Unless this information is provided, the 'Tower of Babel' nature of our energy policy debate (sic) will continue. The religious nature of the 'substance' will encourage the ranting on all sides to continue (wonder what Galileo would think?).

And, maybe this summer, while politicians of all stripes are still blaming each other rather than doing their jobs, we can continue this fruitless debate – by candle-light.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy