Whacking heavy industry would provoke just as much bad press as a carbon tax - the same people will wail.
Huh?! How can a carbon tax that raises electricity and fuel prices for everyone possibly have the same impact as closing smelter or two? That's like saying Rudd raising the fuel excise by 10c/L would have the same impact as Mitsubishi closing. No-one really cares about Mitsubishi apart from the people who lost their jobs, but you'd have 10 million irate motorists if petrol jumped 10c/L because of a new tax.
If you offset carbon tax with income tax cuts then the consumer isn't hurt - and they get to feel good about themselves too.
I agree, I think a well thought out income-to-carbon tax switch could have very little impact on most consumers. However, I doubt we'll find a politician with the courage to try it. After all, Howard almost lost the GST election in 1998 after winning a landslide two years before.
What subsidies to the smelters get ?
They get electricity at a much cheaper rate than most industry, and a fraction of the residential rate. They'd all be off to China in a flash if they were asked to pay anything like the residential rate.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is politicians are desperate to come up with a way to reduce carbon emissions without any electoral damage. I caught Tony Blair on CNN at Davos saying this in a roundabout way a few nights ago. They know in their heart-of-hearts a carbon tax is the right thing to do, but they also know it will probably get them kicked out of office.
So, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that Kevin invites me to his summit, my suggestion to him would be hit heavy industry with higher energy prices. If they fold, or go to China, then he can wipe a few megatonnes of CO2 off Australia's slate. If they can afford the extra cost (like the miners) then we might see some conservation.
Huh?! How can a carbon tax that raises electricity and fuel prices for everyone possibly have the same impact as closing smelter or two? That's like saying Rudd raising the fuel excise by 10c/L would have the same impact as Mitsubishi closing. No-one really cares about Mitsubishi apart from the people who lost their jobs, but you'd have 10 million irate motorists if petrol jumped 10c/L because of a new tax.
I agree, I think a well thought out income-to-carbon tax switch could have very little impact on most consumers. However, I doubt we'll find a politician with the courage to try it. After all, Howard almost lost the GST election in 1998 after winning a landslide two years before.
They get electricity at a much cheaper rate than most industry, and a fraction of the residential rate. They'd all be off to China in a flash if they were asked to pay anything like the residential rate.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is politicians are desperate to come up with a way to reduce carbon emissions without any electoral damage. I caught Tony Blair on CNN at Davos saying this in a roundabout way a few nights ago. They know in their heart-of-hearts a carbon tax is the right thing to do, but they also know it will probably get them kicked out of office.
So, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that Kevin invites me to his summit, my suggestion to him would be hit heavy industry with higher energy prices. If they fold, or go to China, then he can wipe a few megatonnes of CO2 off Australia's slate. If they can afford the extra cost (like the miners) then we might see some conservation.