Arabella Street. Lovely.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:52:12 -0400

A response to "A carbon price makes good economic sense for all Australians"

Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:01:57 -0400

When I recently discovered that fellow-Republican David Donovan had written an article titled “A carbon price makes good economic sense for all Australians”, I was genuinely excited. Here was an organised and cogent thinker, about to make a case for the carbon tax (as I had dared him to do several times via social media) on purely economic grounds. PURELY ECONOMIC grounds. And in the first paragraph, it seemed that David was about to deliver. Here are his words: “…even if you are sceptical about global warming, introducing a price on carbon is a good idea that will have positive economic benefits for every Australian…”.

Here is the full original article: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/business/climate-change-is-real-and-a-carbon-price-makes-real-economic-sense/

This is important stuff, because the previous arguments rolled out by supporters of the ETS and the carbon tax have lost their two previous arguments;

a/ the rest of the world is about to commit to the same measures (no, they didn’t)

b/ a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 50 years will lower global temperatures within the next 500 years (No it won’t)

So the ETS and carbon tax won’t cure the disease, but we should take the medicine anyway. On PURELY economic grounds.

OK, let’s see how David gets on:

David writes: “…even if you don’t agree, putting a price on carbon makes good economic sense…”

So he begins with: “… I believe that global warming is real… I believe putting a price on carbon is an appropriate and necessary response…”

FAIL. Economic argument missing.

David writes: “…it will provide a competitive advantage and open up cheaper funding and new sources of investment capital for Australian businesses. That’s what I think, now let me explain why.”

Promising, but the next line begins: “Firstly, anthropogenic climate change is real…”

FAIL. Economic argument missing.

David writes: THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT FOR PRICING CARBON

Is supported by the sophomoric: “Denying climate change is much like denying that tobacco smoking causes cancer. The science is overwhelming…”

FAIL. Economic argument missing.

David writes: “…there is a strong economic imperative in the Government’s new policy on climate change.

In the next line he admits: “… the only argument for not acting on climate change is if you believe that the world will one day, soon, decide that climate change is in fact not real and that action – including all that which has already been taken by so many countries around the world – is unnecessary … That’s just not going to happen. There is international agreement – even by major emitters such as the USA and China — that climate change is real”.

FAIL. Economic argument missing.

And now David moves on to more elaborate, but equally unconvincing, linkages.

David writes: “We can either begin to implement a scheme now, and restructure our economy in advance of the inevitable global agreement, or we can wait until we are forced to act by global pressures and sacrifice any advantage we will receive by the early transitioning of our economy to its inevitable green future.

Hey! There’s an economic argument. Sort of. Just not a very good one. “The inevitable global agreement” is very Copenhagen, very speculative and demonstrably wrong. Right now, India, China and the US are firmly on record as favouring gentle economic adaptation over radical de-carbonisation. Without a clear and present climate emergency, there is absolutely no imperative for radical change. Another ‘economic’ argument is revealed as just another more elaborate climate claim.

But he’s not done with this pseudo-economic argument yet.

David writes: “…By implementing a carbon tax on the worst 1,000 polluters in Australia, innovation and carbon mitigation will be given an economic imperative.

Far better to encourage such investment now than to have the imperative placed upon us by external agents, as is likely to happen if we do not act very soon.”

Yes, or maybe it won’t. David uses the word “likely” as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy fuelled by his own hope: It’s likely to happen because I say it should.

And here are some tremendous argument acrobatics:

David writes: “…”Coal is, however, one of the most carbon polluting forms of energy, so that only by putting a price on carbon will mining and energy companies be encouraged to invest in the research and development necessary to turn it into a “green” source of energy, such as through the carbon storage and capture processes that could potentially make coal a relatively low emissions product.”

And follows up with: “…”the writing is on the wall for the industry and there is no question that demand for coal will fall in the future” and “What sort of shock will our economy endure if we wait until the transition to our inevitable carbon neutral future becomes a global necessity?”

That, for the benefit of newcomers, is the rarely attempted ‘contradiction followed by a triple speculation’. Genius.

David has one last, serious stab at the economic argument.

He writes: “Australia should seek to develop a value-adding first world, rather than a “quarry”, economy” but then utterly fails to argue why a carbon tax or ETS would help Australia make that (desirable) transition, unless you count the irrefutable but off logic that if we destroy one part of the economy it must make the other bits look more successful. Classy.

And finally, he presents the Rapists’ Imperative. It is probably the most insulting argument to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and a faint democratic impulse. The argument goes like this: All this fear and anxiety you feel while we hold this tax up to your head is your fault. Simply lie down and agree with us to tax you.

No thanks. If you need more certainly, call for an election.

Remember, the proposition of David’s essay is not whether climate change is real, it’s whether a carbon tax makes “good economic sense” DESPITE climate change.

Just for the record, I am personally a sceptic in the truest sense of the word. I am sceptical of the motives of government when facts are distorted and the science is consistently misrepresented. I sense a political, not an economic or scientific, imperative at work. I am worried that the cost of de-carbonisation is not being compared to the costs of adaptation. And I am horrified that the potential of these radical political policies for worsening hunger and poverty globally do not even seem to figure in the imagination of the left.

There is a childish but dangerous naivety to the idea that a passionate argument for the authenticity of climate change directly equals a cogent and well-evidenced economic argument.

Fortunately, David has gone a long way to prove that the economic argument for the carbon tax grinds to a halt without the engine of a climate emergency.

Thank you David. That was my point exactly.

Restoring MEDIA BUYING POWER to the agency media buyer!

Sun, 10 Oct 2010 02:53:56 -0400

Restoring MEDIA BUYING POWER to the agency media buyer!

Steve Pongrass and JT after a very pleasant lunch in Tribeca.

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:20:54 -0400

Steve Pongrass and JT after a very pleasant lunch in Tribeca.

Dave Kowalski and JT in the Stanford Alumni complex after taking...

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:19:26 -0400

Dave Kowalski and JT in the Stanford Alumni complex after taking a limo-fuelled ride around Palo Alto.

Brandscreen and Rubicon link

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:54:24 -0400

Brandscreen and Rubicon link:

Brandscreen DSP has agreed to work with Rubicon Project as Permission Control 2.0 is released.

Photo

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:36:35 -0400

My Q&A Interview in AdExchanger

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:35:54 -0400

AdExchanger.com: What problem is Brandscreen solving?

JT: The problem we solve is the reduction of transactional friction. Generally speaking, the industry suffers from over-complexity, with online display sales systems built on top of offline technologies. There’s poor visibility for buyers, and declining yields for sellers. Brandscreen’s starting point is that everything we do is about ‘Automating the Transaction’. We use the line ‘a Reuters screen for media industry’ to make it clear that we are an end-to-end solution. We transmit the insertion orders and clear funds for both sides of the transaction.

Do you consider yourselves a demand-side platform? What does your competitive set look like?

Full Interview:

http://www.adexchanger.com/platforms/brandscreen-dsp-ssp-trading/

Hi, my name is Julian Tol and this is my private blog. I live...

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:15:30 -0400

Hi, my name is Julian Tol and this is my private blog. I live most of the time in Sydney, and some of the time in New York, working to start and grow Brandscreen.

Tol.ly

Arabella Street. Lovely.

A response to "A carbon price makes good economic sense for all Australians"

Restoring MEDIA BUYING POWER to the agency media buyer!

Steve Pongrass and JT after a very pleasant lunch in Tribeca.

Dave Kowalski and JT in the Stanford Alumni complex after taking...

Brandscreen and Rubicon link

Photo

My Q&A Interview in AdExchanger

Hi, my name is Julian Tol and this is my private blog. I live...