Home > Anarchy, Austrian School, Environment > What’s w(r)ong with an ETS

What’s w(r)ong with an ETS

What’s w(r)ong with an ETS is the following:

(1) Carbon accounting is a primitive “science” that has no verifiable basis in peer-reviewed science.

(2) This means that bureaucrats have unprecedented arbitrary power to influence economic activity by tweaking carbon accounting rules.  For example, currently there is no way to “encourage” innovative new clean technologies through the ETS because there is no “accounting” for the carbon “savings” from innovation.  So innovation is penalised and simple “back to the Stone Age” approaches are favoured.

(3) The exemptions and credits give back with one hand what they are supposed to penalise with the other.  What is the point of a scheme that gives back in credits and exemptions what it’s supposed to tax?  The point is greater centralisation and control of the economy, and to allow more chips to be used on the gambling tables of Satan’s Casino.

(4) No one has ever explained why the best, most efficient, most “market-based” solution is not a simple increase in real interest rates (say, an incremental increase in interest rates worldwide to 10%).  This would (a) reward savers (b) encourage capital accumulation for new green technologies (c) discourage excessive and unnecessary consumption (d) definitely, unquestionably, with 100% certainty reduce carbon emissions by reducing consumption (which has yet to occur in Europe, which has already tried a failed emissions trading scheme which did nothing to reduce emissions) (e) is truly market based in the sense that no new bureaucracy is required to police it, unlike the ETS which will require thousands of parasitic bureaucrats to manage.

(4) I hate to raise this but, yes, the whole global warming thing is a joke on a number of levels. 

First, no one has definitively proven human activity is THE cause of global warming.  I personally believe we contribute but (a) have no idea what the proportionate contribution is (and have no idea how anyone could know) and (b) do not understand the complex mechanisms underlying climate change.  NO ONE KNOWS.  At least I admit my ignorance.  Socialists never admit their ignorance in any area.  Especially JQ.

Second, the whole University of East Anglia controversy suggests foul play in science, really putting whole “science” on climate change in grave doubt.  Anyone who is honest and has read some of the emails coming out of this controversy cannot but be shocked by the political and cynical nature of the whole exercise.  To think “academics” engage in these childish games is shocking in itself.  To think they are doing it over something as important as climate science is even more shocking.

(5) There are so many more pressing. immediate PROVABLE environmental disasters that desperately need fixing, why are we focusing on the production of an invisible gas that is absorbed to an UNQUANTIFIABLE degree by mosses, oceans, trees, grasses, and hundreds of other organisms.  To attempt to “account” for these dynamics is the height of bureaucratic folly.

Why not focus on dry land salinity?  Or cleaning up toxic land fill sites that threaten our underwater aquifers?  Or focusing on recycling toxic material from e-waste? Or cleaning up the oil spill off the NW WA Coast?  Or stopping deforestation?  Or stopping low-density residential housing development in uneconomic, outlying areas of the cities, which encroaches on arable land and puts huge burdens on infrastructure?

Do you know the environment costs of low-density housing compared to high density housing in the cities (such as New York)?  New York has one of the lowest environmental footprints in America PER PERSON, because of the high density of the city.  It’s hugely more efficient than L.A. for example, which has chosen a low-density route to economic and environmental catastrophe. 

What is Australia choosing?  The LOW-DENSITY path to DISASTER.  Our houses are now the largest IN THE WORLD!  Do you know the environmental costs of this extravagance?  Do you care?  If you don’t, why do you support an ETS?

Instead of an ETS, why not simply set up a research unit into clean technologies, run along the lines of the CSIRO, which is govt-funded and can allow commericalisation of new discoveries in the area and green technologies?  Even if we spent $500 million on this new research unit it would be far cheaper than implementing an ETS.

The reason these arguments are ignored is simple.  This is obviously not about the environment, about climate change, about our children.  It’s about THEIR children.  It’s about entrenching THEIR power.  It’s about enriching THEIR banker-backers.  It’s about THEIR back-pocket and THEIR power games. 

That’s the reason any politician does anything.  That’s why they are put there.

If you don’t play the game, you don’t get to be in the game.  So the only ones who remain know the rules and play by them.  And screw us for everything they can.  That’s what politicians DO.  That’s why they are there. 

It’s not rocket science.  It’s Murray Rothbard.

One final “radical” suggestion:  If we raised interest rates and returned to God’s money (gold) I guarantee there would be greatly reduced carbon emissions, greatly increased savings, greatly reduced consumption and a much more efficient market.  I guarantee it.

And for those who accuse me of being a climate change denier and someone who treats the environment with disdain, I wrote of my very grave concerns over our continued callous, mindless destruction of the environment over at the Ozrisk.net website.  To quote my views directly from that blog:

Of course, the ultimate end-game in Australia is clear to me: Massive, unsolvable, environmental problems causing some communities to have to re-locate due to poisoning of the water table, drought, climate change, poisonous landfill (the amount of toxic e-waste is SHOCKING and govts are doing NOTHING about that, but JQ is screaming about imposing a carbon tax – talk about stuffed up priorities!) and poisoning of the sea in some specific areas (as well as erosion and other problems along the coastal fringes).

We’ll be lucky to be able to feed ourselves in 50 years.

So the end-game is clear – sudden environmental catastrophes resulting in population movement, disruption and social chaos. Especially when oil prices spike.

I’ve already seen the start of it, with some outlying suburbs in Melbourne being “condemned” because of flammable fumes and poisoning of landfill sites. Covered up by the media (of course). Property prices then collapse and ghost towns are the result. Property prices spike elsewhere – until another catastrophe occurs (e.g. Byron Bay beaches – erosion, Byron Bay sewage…under enormous stress now because of population issues – that will eventually destroy the town and people will then have to move again, to where?).

But how long this process of irreversible environmental destruction will take (50 or 100 years?), I don’t know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: