Archive for April, 2022

Labor and the Carbon Tax

April 26, 2022

Yesterday right wing radio host Ray Hadley asked Anthony Albanese, the leader of the Australian Opposition repeat after him: “There will be no carbon tax, ever.”

Personally I would have preferred, he had not been sick and that he had said to Hadley:

“Sorry but I’m not going to allow Australian Policy to be dictated by a Radio host, no matter how popular or well intentioned. If we get into government, we will do what is best for Australia, not what you think is some gotcha moment. Besides, as Peta Credlin has admitted, we never had a Carbon Tax; we put a price on Carbon, and we redistributed the money back to the electorate so they would not be affected by price increases. All the price rises that Mr. Abbott predicted to come from the carbon price turned out to be complete rubbish, and emissions came down. It turned out to be an inexpensive remedy for a problem which was scrapped for no reason.

However, as you know we do not plan to install another Carbon Price of that sort – we will just use the same mechanism of pricing that the government has installed, but we will try to stop it being a tax-payer subsidy to companies who may never reduce their actual emissions.

If we cannot make the government’s policy mechanism of carbon pricing work, then we may have to reconsider. After all we have just been told by two Coalition members that the Government’s targets are not even targets – this may imply they know that the government’s pricing method may not be able to work.

The question Ray, is whether you want Australia to continue with the highest temperature increases in the world, massive bushfires, massive droughts, and floods. We live in one of the most fragile ecologies on the planet, and all the government can do is make the conditions worse, and fail to help people after they have suffered the consequences. I pledge that we will not only try and diminish climate change, move away from fossil fuels, but be ready to help communities that suffer from the climate change we have known about for over 30 years.”

Something like that would have been better… although it would have had the media screaming.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

More on Climate Denial and Defence

April 24, 2022

This is to some extent a simplification, or recasting of this piece, reducing the main number of defenses to four.

1) Climate change is real but we only need to do one or two things to solve it

This is a standard position amongst the supposedly concerned.

  • We just need to put renewable energy in place.
  • We just need to curb population
  • We just need to follow the sustainable development goals

These points generally forget the massive, widespread and systemic, nature of the ecological decline we are facing, and the almost certain arrival of tipping points, such as methane release from those frozen ‘wastelands’ which are heating up and melting. The position minimises the problems and we may need to bother about all of these factors at once, and more. We cannot keep destroying ecologies through over-extraction, we cannot keep polluting and poisoning. We need to change the economic system which only flourishes through destruction and siphoning wealth up to a relatively small group of people – who probably think they can buy survival. Population will eventually become a problem if it does not plateau and decrease, but at the moment, the main problem is over-use of resources and destruction by the hyper-wealthy and powerful.

The crisis calls for almost a change of everything. Sure, this is difficult, and let us go one step at a time, as long as we take those steps. But just changing to renewables will not solve the problem. Culling population will not solve the problem (and how do we do this?). How do we attain the sustainable development goals, in the current system, without increasing use of energy and pollution?

2) Climate change is real but not that bad, we have no urgency to do anything. Everything is ok. We are already doing enough

This is the classic set of moves by those who don’t want to risk social change or disruption to the power and wealth arrangements. But ecological destruction and upheaval of the magnitude expected, will cause social change and social upheaval. The only way to preserve a destructive regime when the destruction bites back hard is through violence and enforced stability. This can only hold change back for a while until it becomes unavoidable for most people.

In this ‘relaxed’ set up, corporations who benefit from pollution simply lie about what they are doing to reassure people all is well. Carbon Capture and Storage is nowhere near being able to reduce emissions either significantly, or to zero, anywhere in the world. If they claim they are moving into renewables while actually increasing gas and coal production, they are not helping. If people are engaged in large amounts of destructive mining, deforestation or pollution, they are not helping, they are making the situation worse.

3) We can do nothing about Climate Change as it is natural. “The climate is always changing.”

The argument is that humans have done nothing to cause climate change and can do nothing to stop it. This is silly, humans have done lots to survive events they did not cause. They have not always given up immediately a ‘natural problem’ arises. Even if we did not know what human actions make climate change worse (pollution, greenhouse gases, ecological destruction) we could still start preparing for adaptation to the problem and surviving it, if this acknowledgment of Climate change was sincere. We could still ask: How are we going to deal with increased intense flooding, increased intense fires, increased intense storms, increased intense droughts, changes in weather generally, decrease of Ocean life, decrease in water supplies and dying rivers? etc… If we don’t act then many people will die and wars will be fought. The problem here is that the position surrenders to a fatalism which seems unnatural and overly defensive. The position is again from people who don’t want to do anything or recognise the problem.

4) Climate change is a complete falsehood

This is still relatively popular, with those embedded in the old system, who seem system change as fatal or massively uncertain. They are right. System change is fatal to the old system, and the results of conscious change are incredibly uncertain. However we are as certain as can be that ignoring the problem will not make it go away. It will just get worse and harder and more expensive and disruptive to deal with. We need to start acting now, even if we don’t completely know the effects of what we are doing.

Conclusion

The main obstacles to action are defensive political formations, not technology.

The system of destruction has grown up in a world of relative plenty, and we don’t know, for sure, how to get prosperity without it and this arouses fear.

The fact that society can grow around technology and particular forms of extraction and pollution, means the technology, extraction and pollution become ingrained into regulation and custom. Everything in the system tends to be geared to reinforce each other. Regulations assume centralised fossil fuel energy and need to be changed to support localised community energy, because they stop social change. This is not always visible until lots of people try to change and run into social, political and regulatory problems – which can discourage them if they don’t know what is happening.

Survival means:

  • Renewable energy
  • Electrification of most energy uses
  • Stopping new fossil fuel mines.
  • Reducing all pollution – even from renewable construction.
  • Reducing the damage of extraction in general.
  • New ways of large scale and small scale agriculture.
  • Conservation of fish stocks, and other natural bio-worlds.
  • Reducing the ecological footprint of populations.
  • Not exceeding the capacity of the planet to supply our lives.
  • Political change and experimental and exploratory policies.
  • Social and economic change, so destruction and pollution no longer look sensible.
  • Collapse of distant concern, so that pollution and destruction events which happen elsewhere, cannot be ignored.
  • Recognising, discovering and tending to planetary boundaries.

Non of this is impossible, and the main obstructions are political.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The 2022 Australian Election???

April 18, 2022

What should this election be about?

1) Climate change and energy transition.

The Federal Coalition are demonstrably completely useless on this front. They are locked into more fossil fuels, extending the life of fossil fuels and increased ecological destruction to save “the economy” or really the fossil fuel and mining corporations. It is because of people like them we will be locked into massive floods, fires and droughts in one of the most fragile ecologies on earth. At best they don’t want to know there is a problem or don’t want to accept any responsibility.

Labor is not good enough, but it is better. So ’round 1′ to Labor.

2) Disaster response

“I don’t hold a hose” and help only for people who vote for them. These ‘facts’ make the point clear. The Coalition leave people alone to suffer, and send their prayers. They let go of any responsibility, and are completely useless in practical terms, and its clear the disaster situation is unlikely to get better by itself.

Labor could not be worse than the Coalition. So they win on the probabilities.

3) Corruption.

The Coalition seems to love corruption and rorts. There are so many examples around that its hard to list them. From Christian Porters’ anonymous donors, to Angus Taylor’s land deals, to sports and car parks, to carbon credits and land clearing, to travel expenses, the Coalition is wrapped in rorts.

The Coalition has delayed for over three years in bringing forth a federal ICAC, and has had its legislation for over a year but not brought it to Parliament for debate. The legislation seems designed to allow the government to continue to rort, and they blame Labor for them not bringing it forward. They are the government not Labor. “We don’t need no responsibility” is their slogan.

Labor at least has a plan for something. Round 3 to Labor.

4) Health and Medicare.

The Coalition have traditionally hated Medicare, apparently because it helps keep poor people alive. They have already started cutting away benefits on standard medical tests, and have appointed a new minister who appears to be hostile to medical or social services expenditure and has previously promoted big cuts for Medicare.

The Coalition cannot be trusted on this, Labor has a points score in this round on the probabilities. But we will be told this is another fake mediscare (even if the original mediscare was based on Coalition documents). Your health is your responsibility, and they have no responsibility to help you – you are not a fossil fuel company.

5) Growing suppression of free speech by a right wing media.

The Coalition’s response to this problem is to give more taxpayer funding to Murdoch for nothing, and to nobble the ABC.

They have no interest in fixing this problem as the situation benefits them, as is shown by most media headlines during this campaign.

Labor has some interest in balancing things out, but there is little they can do. Labor has a marginal victory in this area as they won’t try to make things worse.

6) Growing inequality

The predictable result of neoliberal policies and governing on behalf of the already rich, who then fund them to make the situation worse. This is tied in with almost everything that is going wrong. The Government is not responsible for what the market delivers, unless it does not profit the fossil fuel, mining or development companies, then it gets antsy.

Its hard to imagine Labor will do much about this, but at least they have shown some responsibility towards the less wealthy. Labor wins on the probabilities.

7) Indebtedness.

Government debt has grown under the Coalition, as is usually the case. Given the money thrown away on defense purchases we won’t ever see, or won’t see for years, or which is wasted through climate policies which are subsidies for polluters, Labor can’t be worse, so Labor wins again.

7) China

Is China a real threat to Australia? New ascending Empires always are a threat, but ‘when’ is the real question. Not in the immediate future, I’d guess, as we don’t share a border. The reality is that no one knows what to do with a potential enemy who is also one of our biggest markets.

However, allying with the UK and the US (again) is not a solution. The UK will not come to our rescue. Neither is selling Darwin port to them, or offending nations in the Pacific Region and giving the Chinese a way into our neighbourhood.

The Coalition has shown complete lack of competence again. No idea of how much different Labor would be, but this area is definitely not a win for the Coalition.

Conclusion

By my understanding the media should be jumping on the coalition for what they are: an incompetent bunch of corrupt, irresponsible, time wasters. But will it happen? Of course not.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Positive effects of Neoliberalism?

April 15, 2022

If you want to discuss positive and negative effects of any movement, you usually have to ask “for whom?”

Definition

To some extent neoliberalism can be defined as the doctrine that the only part of society which is of any value is established business, and the bigger and more successful the business the better. A person who supports or benefits business is valuable, everyone else is not.

Positive effects

Neoliberalism has had a large positive effect on the earnings and wealth of already wealthy people.

The income of CEOs and high level executives has increased massively relative to the median income, while the income of ordinary people, factoring in inflation, has remained pretty stagnant, at least when compared to the increases in prosperity that ran through the 50s, 60s and early 70s of the last century.

The share of corporate profit in the GDP has increased, and that of wages has declined.

How has Neoliberalism achieved this?

It has allowed those hyper-wealthy people to buy political parties to help structure the market to transfer more wealth to them under the guise of ‘market liberty’ and the supposed efficiency of ‘free markets’.

It has shifted the tax burden onto the middle classes, by regularly diminishing the tax levels of the already wealthy.

It has diminished the possibility of democratic control of corporations through the same mechanisms of buying politics and tax legislation, so there is little restraint on corporate profiteering, corporate damage, or corporate extraction of wealth from workers.

Jobs have been transferred from wealthy countries to places where labour is cheaper, and this has helped prosperity elsewhere in the world, by accident, but it has significantly lowered the prosperity, work conditions, security and power for workers in the West.

It has diminished the number of large companies, as big corporations have taken over many different smaller companies. There is now little in the way of market competition, just illusory competition between parts of the same company. It has also consolidated centres of wealth and power.

Neoliberal Knowledge and Propaganda

In neoliberalism, you only listen to the market and to established profit. That is the only recognised source of wisdom and knowledge.

It trivialises the truth of information as what counts is: what sells; what promotes sales; or what promotes neoliberal power.

It has allowed the wealthy to buy “think tanks” and media, which promote neoliberal common sense, and rationality, and dismiss alternate views.

Science is to be dismissed if it suggests some forms of established profit making are destructive.

It has greatly hindered any attempts to mitigate or adapt to climate change – this will lead to problems for ordinary people who don’t have the money to move somewhere safe.

Neoliberal Virtue and liberty

It has reduced all virtue and values to profit, and thus furthered corruption.

In neoliberalism the established wealthy are virtuous, by virtue of their wealth, which proves virtue. Ordinary people are talentless fools or scum who corrupt the perfect market through laziness and envy.

The only liberty in neoliberalism, is the liberty provided by wealth and corporate hierarchy. Liberty comes down to what you can buy – liberty is to be enjoyed by the virtuous.

The Neoliberal State

Neoliberalism breaks up the ‘Welfare State’ that is potentially helpful to most people, and makes the State helpful to wealth and corporate power alone. Remember non-wealthy people are scum who need to be disciplined . Social service becomes persecutory.

This is what is meant by ‘small government’ – government defense of corporations, and a government that holds people down and gives no help unless they are wealthy and thus have virtue.

Any power used to contain the corporate sector, is an interference in the free market. Any power which supports corporate freedom to harm is the free market in action.

Some people think the only way that neoliberals can keep flourishing in a democracy is to support fascism (neoliberals love hierarchy), and to break up working class unity through culture wars. This seems to be happening.

Conclusion

Neoliberalism is great for the corporate sector although it may lead to problems if mass markets collapse through lack of money in circulation amongst not-so-wealthy people. It is not so good for ordinary people.

At best neoliberalism, is an idealism, proposed by people who know what is best for you.. It is a failed “vision of the anointed”. At worst it is a massive intensification of class war by the wealthy on everyone else.

Tags:,
Posted in free markets economics, | Leave a Comment »