Tim Warner, Prodos, and Dr Alan Moran (a real goddam economist)
After spending so much time on the brain-numbing Greg Lindsay/John Humphreys Carbon Tax, how refreshing to study a real economist!
With some of my own comments and highlighting of points included, here is Dr Alan Moran, Director of the Deregulation Unit, Institute of Public Affairs – speaking and getting grilled at a Senate Hearing on the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.
Must-read Bonus: Senator Doug Cameron (Australian Labor Party) dresses in a Panda suit and gets shot out of a cannon.
I’m providing these transcripts after coming across a number of misrepresentations of the content I inserted into these videos.
Unless otherwise indicated, indented quotes are of segments inserted into the original video by me.Their exact placement in this transcript isn’t quite accurate since some of the inserted segments rolled out over time while the presentation was going on.
Unless otherwise indicated, the non-indented text is of John Humphreys (Mannkal Scholar/Research Fellow, with the Economics Programme at the CIS) speaking.
While starry-eyed supporters of Greg Lindsay and the Centre for Independent Studies proclaim undying loyalty and admiration for the man who proudly: “… has NEVER personally taken any position at all on global warming,” Australian Senator Steve Fielding (Family First Party, Victoria, Australia) has decided it’s his responsibility to now TAKE a position – by first informing himself carefully and rigorously about the “real debate”.
No, not the one about whether it’s better to wreck our living standards with an Emissions Trading System (ETS) – OR – a Carbon Tax.
The other.The REAL “real debate”.
So far I don’t think there’s been a real debate about the science
It seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme. The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?
… Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.
… Fielding, an engineer, is now insisting he be shown the proof that the world is even still warming, and the (Australian) Government must at last justify its plan’s most basic assumption.
Its “most basic assumption”? But that’s the one Greg Lindsay and John Humphreys use as their “starting assumption” – cunningly opposing an Emission Trading Scheme for Australia … by proposing a Carbon Tax for Australia. Isn’t it?
Below, 2 videos of John Humphreys, Mannkal Scholar and Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) promoting a Carbon Tax for Australia.
Greg Lindsay, CIS founder, although not seen in these videos excerpts, is present at this Climate Change Policy roundtable discussion.
The ostensive purpose of the meeting is to argue why a Carbon Tax is better than an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme).
Achieving CO2 reduction is treated as a “starting assumption”.
The “No Tax – No ETS” position is not discussed.
At odds with Greg Lindsay‘s professed understanding and support of Hayek – and presumably Hayek’s extensive writings on Capital Structure – a “revenue neutral” Carbon Tax is proposed and even lauded as a “no regrets” approach.
This is combined with an “extrapolate the past – accelerate the future” narrative, composed of technological “optimism” mixed together with an interventionist re-definition and usurping of the concept of “the price mechanism” by John Humphreys. The effect is surreal.
The complete, un-edited video of this CIS roundtable can be viewed HERE.
Text comments by me inserted throughout both the following two videos:
… He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.
… For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
… And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
… And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
… And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over ….
[photopress:anna_blainey_and_her_dad_geoffrey_blainey.jpg,full,pp_image] Dr Anna Blainey about to marry Timothy Warner.
Pictured entering the Church with her Dad, Professor Geoffrey Blainey.
Australian Historian, Dr Anna Blainey, wrote to me the other day:
It’s interesting – the global warming advocates have always claimed that the only people who have any reason to object to global warming reduction measures are those who make profits from fossil fuels, “big oil” etc.
The idea is that anyone else would welcome a carbon tax (or emissions trading or whatever) with open arms.
The fact that you can’t punish “big oil” or “big coal” without hurting their employees and consumers – and the employees of their consumers! – is never mentioned!
When the general public feels the pinch of high energy and transportation costs, and the protests come from the working people and not just the energy tycoons, the greens are going to have drop the pretence that they’re the big daring champions of the underdog fighting big bad big business.
That’s when things will really start to unravel.
The places where fossil fuel taxes (or emissions trading) might have a less drastic impact [on working people] are those which have a cheap alternative energy already in place eg, France and Sweden who have most of their energy already coming from nuclear power.