Reply to Turnbull on the RSPT and climate

Malcolm Turnbull has published on his blog the full text of last Saturday's Deakin lecture speech on the politics of climate change, where he made the copiously reported comments about Kevin Rudd's "political cowardice" over climate change.

After my Twitter exchange disagreeing with Malcolm over his "support" for climate action coupled with his rejection of the resources tax, I left the following comment on his blog post. It will be interesting to see if it stays up, and if he responds. I'd also like to see this issue dealt with on next Monday night's Q&A, where Malcolm will be a panellist. Here's my comment:

I was there for your presentation, and I have to say you had the best jokes ("Kevin has always said such nice things about me"). However, you're wrong to support climate action - if only a weak version of it that doesn't reflect the science - and not support the resources tax. I am fully aware that the RSPT is not intended as a climate tax, but the fact is that, missing from this debate is a range of unacknowledged costs of the mining industry - from environmental and climate impacts, through to health impacts on local communities. You will never hear the mining industry acknowledge these costs, because they view them as external to their own narrow commercial self-interest. Sure we don't yet have an appropriate carbon price, but I'm willing to support the RSPT as a down-payment on the day when the true costs of the industry are accounted for and the wealthy mining barons are called on to pay up (I might have said "cough up", but that is done in the Hunter Valley and elsewhere). Of course, I also support the RSPT on the basis of Australians getting a fair share of profits in the meantime. Mining royalties have been declining as a percentage of mining profits, afterall.

 Comments welcome (you too, Malcolm).

Turnbull "supports" climate action, rejects resources tax

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.

Deakins focus on prosperity without growth

Last night I went to see Tim Jackson's outstanding Deakin lecture on his recent book, Prosperity without Growth. Just what Jackson is up against was bleakly but amusingly illustrated when I sought out his book a while back and had to ask a shop assistant. "Prosperity without growth?" she asked. Enough said.

For a man jet-lagged and awake since at least 5.00am, Jackson moved swiftly to the substance of his argument in a succinct 30 minutes followed by questions. The dilemma we face is that we either continue growing our economy, and thereby exhaust our finite planet, or we negotiate the perils of "de-growth", including the loss of jobs. With the relentless drive to ever greater efficiency, Jackson explained, more can be done by fewer people, and so the only way to keep people in jobs is to grow the economy. The trouble is, this process is resource and emissions intensive, and attempts to "de-couple" growth from its impact on the planet are unlikely to succeed.

It was worth going for this clarifying insight alone, and the idea that we can limit growth in some areas so that it can occur in others where it is truly needed. Jackson thinks we need to return our focus to human flourishing, and away from the psychology of envy that characterises our current consumption, which he says is not an inherent feature of human nature.

I will write further on the detail of Jackson's presentation, but there's no need to rely on brief blog posts, as the Wheeler Centre has already made the video available on its website, where you can leave comments. I've started the ball rolling by asking how Jackson might view the current debate over the resources tax, a key defence of which has been that it will in fact be good for the industry. With all its hidden costs, however, we should ask whether the growth of the mining industry is really good for us:

Great presentation, and fantastic work to have the video up so quickly. What I wanted to ask Tim was what he makes of the current resources tax debate. One of the key government defences is that it will ultimately be good for the industry and lead to expansion. Yet nowhere in the debate is there any accounting for the climate, environmental or human health cost of the mining industry, which will only worsen with any expansion - especially in the absence of an effective ETS or strong carbon tax. I support the resources tax, and would do so even more so if it served to put a brake on damaging and excessive mineral extraction. What says Tim?

Comments welcome