I am getting pretty sick of being told by blathering pollies and nuts from both sides that I am either:
1. An ignorant climate change skeptic, or
2. A proponent of a new tax that will the “roon of us all”
- Am a believer in the impact humans have had on the climate, and that we need to do something about it or our kids and grandkids will have a huge bill to pay. The weight of scientific opinion appears compelling, and
- I am an opponent of the carbon tax as it has been pronounced, as I see little value in adding more burden onto the already fragile part of the economy that is not mining by making them more uncompetitive by the addition of a further cost impost relative to their international competitors than they currently are.
Both are wrong, I am neither, yet there appears to be no sensible middle ground in what passes for debate in this country. It seems that if you oppose the tax, by definition you do not accept climate change, and our part in it as fact, but equally, if you accept climate change, it seems you must by definition, be in favour of the tax. This either/or logic is fundamentally flawed, or more plainly, crap. It is not a game of mutual exclusion.
In fact I:
Imposing a carbon tax knowing that it will do absolutely nothing for global warming, just export jobs and capital at an increasing rate seems to be a simple minded, shallow, and emotional response to what is really a fundamental and extremely serious challenge to Australia Pty Ltd, and we should treat it as such.
If we really want to take the lead to reduce carbon emissions from coal fired power stations, get serious and legislate to end coal mining, and subsidise the building of nuclear plants around the world contracted to use our uranium, offer free roof top units to all households (wouldn’t that make the pink batts rort look like Kindergarten time), and pour any money we have left into fuel cell, wind, and geothermal power innovation.
Such an extreme reaction is as dumb as what is being proposed, but just as simple.
