Today The Age published my letter responding to Malcolm Turnbull's remarks on emissions trading at Saturday's Deakin lecture on the politics of climate change. My response referred to Clive Hamilton's excellent opinion piece on the Resources Super Profits Tax and the newspaper's strong editorial on Australia's quest for oil in deep water in the context of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. As usual, here's the letter as published, followed by the version I submitted:
CLIVE Hamilton (Comment, 14/6) rightly identifies the mining industry as the self-interested common enemy of the resources tax and the emissions trading scheme.
Unfortunately, Malcolm Turnbull (''Calls to get ETS back on agenda'', The Age, 14/6) fails to acknowledge the common element of climate in these two vital initiatives.
I was at Saturday's Deakin lecture on the politics of climate change, where Turnbull spoke. Skirting his own party's climate denialist position, Turnbull attacked the ''political cowardice'' of the Prime Minister in failing to go to a double-dissolution election over the ETS, while decrying a resources tax he said nobody could understand.
In a later Twitter exchange with me, he claimed: ''rspt has nothing to do with climate - its [sic] just a big new tax to raise additional revenues.''
While the Rudd government is indeed guilty of cowardice for not taking science-based action on climate, or even proposing it, the resources tax would be a small down payment to address the damage wrought by the mining industry.
Mining can have a direct and catastrophic effect on the physical environment, as well as contributing strongly to carbon emissions and global warming. How Turnbull can ''support'' climate action but reject the resources tax is beyond me.
Now the very similar version submitted:
Clive Hamilton (Comment & Debate, 14/6) rightly identifies the mining industry as the self-interested common enemy of both the resources tax and the emissions trading scheme.
Unfortunately, Malcolm Turnbull (News, 14/6) fails to acknowledge the common element of climate in these two vital initiatives as he calls to get a flawed ETS back on the agenda.
I was at Saturday's Deakin lecture on the politics of climate change where he made the comments reported in your newspaper. Skirting the climate denialist position of his own party, Turnbull attacked the “political cowardice” of the prime minister in failing to go to a double-dissolution election over the ETS, while decrying a resources tax he said nobody could understand.
In a later Twitter exchange with me, he claimed: “rspt has nothing to do with climate – its (sic) just a big new tax to raise additional revenues”.
While the Rudd government is indeed guilty of cowardice for not taking science-based action on climate, or even proposing it, the resources tax would be a small down-payment to address the damage wrought by the mining industry.
As shown by your excellent editorial on Australia’s continuing quest for for oil in the face of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, mining can have a direct and catastrophic effect on the physical environment, as well as contributing strongly to carbon emissions and global warming.
How Turnbull can “support” climate action but reject the resources tax is beyond me.
Comments welcome.
I sent my letter to Malcolm hoping he might have some kind of response, but no luck as yet. Perhaps a quibble about the oil example used in the unedited version re the petroleum resource rent tax? That would miss the point, of course, given that the issue is the unaccounted environmental and climate costs of mineral extraction - whether coal, oil, gas or other carbon-intensive exploitation. What we need is a consistent approach to make these costs explicit across the board. The RSPT, as I've said, is just a down-payment.
ReplyDelete