OECD: Australia Needs $76 Carbon Price To Meet Emissions Target

25 Sep

Holy Man Jam, Boulder, CO  Aug. 1970

From The Australian:

MYSTERIOUSLY, once the election was over, an OECD report with a Treasury official’s input emerged indicating the carbon tax would need to be 10 times the EU rate and twice the $38-per-tonne level posited by Treasury to allow Australia to meet its 5 per cent carbon reduction goal…

The OECD report indicates that unless the developing world also implemented a carbon tax, Australia would see considerable de-industrialisation, moderated only by a retreat into an illegal protectionist regime. And the competitive pressures would further intensify if, as appears likely, Japan, the US and other OECD countries also reject a carbon tax.

This is contrary to the official Treasury line that we need a price on carbon now, that the longer we wait the more painful the transition and that the costs will be trivial. Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson would have known of the report’s findings months ago.

And there we have it.

Treasury knew full well what the true ramifications of our political leaders’ commitment to “emissions reduction” would be. They just weren’t willing to tell us.

Unless the rest of the developing world (China, India, etc) follows our the 2010 Green-Labor alliance’s lead in implementing a carbon tax — which they aren’t — then in trying to meet the 5% emissions reduction target, Australia faces “considerable de-industrialisation”.

The devastating effects of which could only be moderated by … wait for it … protectionist policies.

Which are “illegal”; a reneging on “free trade” agreements, designed by international bankers and multinational monoliths, and happily signed up to by our former leaders, on both “sides”.

Protecting the interests of your own nation’s people is a really terrible and evil thing … according to the “free trade” globalists.

Being “open for business”, and willing to further expose your nation’s people to the predations of that 0.01% who wish to own (thus, rule) the whole world through debt … that is what makes you a “leader” worthy of international acclaim.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “OECD: Australia Needs $76 Carbon Price To Meet Emissions Target”

  1. Craig September 25, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    Australia is already de-industrialised, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and quotas on manufactures initiated by the Whitlam government in 1973 and progressed to completion by Hawke-Keating (along with the floating of the dollar) and Howard-Costello. This has been the greatest policy disaster in Australia’s economic history, despite being cheered on by nearly all of the academic boofheads in the economics faculties, the dozy Canberra bureaucrats too incompetent to frame an effective industrial policy and the free trade spivs in the Murdoch press. The loss of domestic manufacturing accounts for our chronic balance of payments crisis (not a single surplus since 1974!) and our foreign debt. Australia needs to find about fifty billion a year to buy the things we used to make for ourselves. This is why we need “foreign investment” and why we need to sell off anything of value that we have left to foreigners. Australian manufacturing is now down to 8.5% of GDP. In 1957 it was 29.7% (the USA was 27%, the UK 32%).

  2. Craig September 25, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    Oh, and another thing. Which other countries have manufacturing GDP shares between 8 and 9%? Here’s a list (from the World Bank); Australia, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Jamaica, Lebanon, Norway, Samoa, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda and Zambia. The only other “rich” country in the list is Norway, and they’re as silly as we are in thinking that the exploitation of sub-soil resources is the way to enduring prosperity. Norway does have a sovereign wealth fund, of course, but I seem to remember that Nauru used to have one of those.

  3. Ross Johnson September 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU See Senator Anne Bressington on Agenda 21.This concept of a New World Order begun in 1968 and Agenda 21 was instigated in 1992.

    They have tried to label Anne Bressington a nutter and conspiracy theorist, but the evidence is there and all political parties have signed off on our enslavement, justified by the noble cause of saving the planet. This is treason.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: