Kerr is a contrarian, even with himself
In a gloriously hypocritical about-face, the Business Roundtable announced today that a carbon tax would be better for business and the environment. In today’s Orwellian press release; Saving the Planet Must Not Cost the Earth, Kerr paints the Australians as having spent considerably more time than we have in evaluating their version of the ETS and that they have come to all the same conclusions he has. I’m sure they’ve worked real hard since the election, Roger. Of all the issues that Kerr believes our select committee should consider,
One is whether a modest carbon tax would be superior to an ETS, at least initially. Such a tax, which would allow other taxes to be reduced, is favoured by most leading economists, largely on the grounds that it provides greater certainty for business decisions, is transparent, and less open to abuse.
That sounds an awful like the Green Party’s original policy for a price on carbon. What’s changed, Roger? Leading economists then and now say that a carbon tax is a legitimate economic mechanism. However, the Business Roundtable fought long and hard against a carbon tax, and when the current coalition partners managed to quash Labour’s planned carbon tax at the 2005 election, Kerr said:
The government’s decision to scrap the proposed carbon tax marks another (and more positive) phase in a sorry saga of policy making on climate change.
You have got to wonder how someone with so many internal conflicts can live with themselves. Sorry Roger, your flip-flop on carbon policy marks you out for the opportunist that you are.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
In a way, he is right.. Labour should have used a tax, but gees… at least he doesn’t deny climate change… that would be far worse.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Hang on. Hasn’t the Green Party effectively flip-flopped as well on the idea of a carbon tax? I seem to remember the Green Party being enthusiastic about the ETS despite their former strongly-voiced preference for a carbon tax. Suddenly since then the Green Party has gone fairly quiet on a carbon tax. Does that make the Green Party opportunistic too? Or just sensibly pragmatic?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 28th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Good grief Frog, that is not in any way a ‘flip-flop’. Kerr never said it was desirable to have a tax, just preferable to the ETS in that it would give more certainty to business.
Plus you have conveniently ignored the words ‘at least initially’ and ‘which would allow other taxes to be reduced’. Those provisos aren’t exactly the words of someone who’s suddenly become a supporter of the 2005 carbon tax plan.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Bryce: Not really, the Greens have been pretty consistent as I remember it on saying that without significant shrinkage of emission caps and quick entry of key emitters into the scheme, an ETS is pretty useless.
The scrapping of the emissions tax, instead of applying it universally, was about the worst failure of environmental policy the Government has made thus far.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
# enemyofthestate Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
> Plus you have conveniently ignored the words ‘at least initially’ and ‘which would allow other taxes to be reduced’. Those provisos aren’t exactly the words of someone who’s suddenly become a supporter of the 2005 carbon tax plan.
the Green Party always supported the carbon tax with the proviso that other taxes be reduced at the same time. However, Roger Kerr may have a different idea of what those tax cuts should look like.
I prefer the certainty of a carbon tax, but I thought Roger Kerr would prefer the cap and trade scheme, as it makes the NZ price of carbon the same as the world price.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Agreed. The Greens’ tax policy is hardly conducive to business growth, therein lies the problem. Nothing for businesses whatsoever - hence why Kerr’s proviso of tax cuts in return for a carbon tax would indeed require such compensatory steps as income and company tax rate reductions.
Hence it most certainly not a ‘flip-flop’, and the disingenuous Frog knows this full well.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Sorry, enemy, but Kerr was vociferous in his opposition to a carbon tax when it was mooted a few years ago. Now that we have an ETS, he’s changed his mind (go look at his speeches/columns archived at the Roundtable web site). You clearly have a short memory.
Nothing wrong with changing your mind in the face of new evidence, of course. But I’d have a higher opinion of Kerr’s probity in this matter if his organisation wasn’t so keen to fly in people like Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I predicted in 2005 that the people behind the “Axe Carbon Tax” campaign would eventually be begging the government to introduce a carbon tax - once they’d had a good look at the alternative. Alas, they didn’t realise their blunder quickly enough to stop work on the ETS going ahead.
It would be politically impossible now to revert to a carbon tax (even though it really is a better idea), because its natural champions are the very people who professed not to want it three years ago.
Oh well. At least we’ll have a price on carbon. That’s the main thing.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The Greens’ policy is most certainly friendly to business growth, as it is intended as tax-neutral overall. What it is unfriendly to is pollution and lack of responsibility for external costs.