Carbon price tug-of-war
Under the carbon price the government will collect more than $7 billion in revenue by encouraging Australians to reduce their emissions, yet at the same it will pay almost twice as much in subsidies to encourage the use of fossil fuels.
If subsidies are greater than penalties, how effective are current policies as tools for changing behaviour? Is it really a case of “polluter pays” or more like “pay the polluter”?
The Australia Institute made a submission on the Draft Report of the Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northern Territory (the Inquiry). The submission focuses on Chapter 13 Economic Impacts of the Draft Report and the report by ACIL Allen The economic impacts of a potential shale gas development in the Northern Territory (the ACIL report), commissioned by the Inquiry. A separate Australia Institute submission addresses the Draft Report’s treatment of methane emissions.
Just as many politicians choose to ignore the evidence of criminologists when designing crime prevention policy, the majority of Australian politicians choose to ignore economic evidence in the design of Australian energy policy. That's OK. There's no mention of role of evidence in the Australian Constitution and there's no obligation on parliamentarians to base policy on anything other than the way they feel.
[This article was first published by the Australian Financial Review - here]
The Australia Institute made a written submission on the latest proposal to re-start the Invincible Coal Mine. As with the earlier proposals, we oppose this project as, in our view, the economic benefits to the NSW community are unlikely to outweigh the environmental risks that it presents.