I was a bit disappointed about the title of this important item from Patrick Bond. The title, that the South African carbon tax is pathetic so far, suggests that the problem is that we need a higher carbon tax. However, if one examines Bond's article "South Africa's Carbon-Tax Debate Disappoints", which is referred to in his post, it points out that the carbon tax is a neo- liberal method, and it casts some doubt on it.
And indeed, there is a major difference between taxing the polluters, and the carbon tax. The carbon tax is not a tax on energy company profits, and only indirectly will it affect these profits. The carbon tax will in the main be passed on to consumers, and the campaign for the carbon tax will result in the slogan "tax the polluters" being identified in the popular mind with "tax the working majority". This will be a major catastrophe for serious environmentalism, and it will be brought to us courtesy of establishment or corporate "environmentalism". This will be another indication that we need to have a working-class trend in environmentalism if there is to be any chance at real progress. Generally speaking, we can expect that neo-liberal "solutions" to environmental problems are not going to be any more effective than neo- liberal solutions to water supply, improving education, etc. One might as well believe in Obama's and Bush's "Race to Bust Teachers Unions" and "No Public School Left Open", as the carbon tax. In his article, Patrick Bond says, at one point: >Sadly though, we have not raised climate consciousness to the point that >even a rudimentary conversation has begun on either command-and-control >regulatory reductions or neoliberal `get the prices right´ strategies to >internalize pollution externalities. We still have no clue as to how quickly >carbon taxes would be passed to consumers, and whether price elasticities >generate genuine behavioural change - or simply more class apartheid. This is an important passage by Bond. It identifies the carbon tax and true price strategies as neo-liberalism. And that's a crucial issue. The carbon tax is, in essence, similar to carbon trading, they are both neo-liberal "get the prices right" strategies. And neo-liberalism just isn't going to work for the environment. Moreover, we already have some experience with the carbon tax in British Columbia and elsewhere. Bond contrasts this to "command-and-control regulatory reductions". And he goes on to say: > "Worst of all, the state regulatory option appears off the table. " He goes on to make useful suggestions about changes which could be made immediately in South African policy that would help the environment and also help the masses. This is important, and I only wish it were developed further. A serioius environmental program will sooner-or-late require extensive overall environmental planning. This must go beyond the type of regulation from the past. It will have to be more comprehensive; it will have to involve general economic planning; it will need to be open to pressure and oversight from the working masses; and it will need to take account of preserving mass livelihood directly, and not simply as a neo-liberal trickle-down from the growth of a green sector. However, Bond also casts doubt in the article on the present carbon tax on the grounds of the low-level of the current tax: > Would a carbon tax help slow climate change? It depends on how high it must >be in order to generate conservation incentives. As HSBC bank economists >argued in a report released on March 8, the recent Brent crude oil price >rise to 96 euros/barrel had the equivalent disincentive to emit CO2 as would >a carbon price of 153 euros/tonne (ten times higher than most current >proposals). The European Union´s Emissions Trading Scheme now sells carbon >at just 8 euros/tonne. As HSBC put it, "Even pricing carbon at its total >estimated damage costs of 64 euros/tonne has equivalent economic impacts to >an oil price rise of only $24/bbl." This indicates how great an increase in the carbon tax would be needed to imagine that it would have an important effect. It's useful to note that. But it leaves out the issue of what effect such an increase in the carbon tax would have on the economy and the masses. NB: The point isn't to try to find a method of environmental protection that doesn't require major changes in the economy. There has to be major changes in the economy, and we are approaching a time when crisis will bring major changes. The point is to envision and champion changes that are favorable, rather than those that create a different-style bourgeois hell. The point is to foster those class forces that will stand up for such changes. The Australian naturalist and environmentalist Timothy Flannery, who wrote "The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth", was afraid of environmental and economic planning. He shuddered in in his book before the prospect of what he called "the carbon dictatorship", and desperately sought alternatives. But neo-liberal market and "true price" measures are no alternative. The only alternative to a "carbon dictatorship" is planning and regulation influenced by the working masses. The "true price" strategies not only are going to fail to protect the environment, they are going to isolate environmentalism from the masses of the population. -- Joseph Green > > South Africa's Carbon-Tax Debate Disappoints > <http://triplecrisis.com/south-africas-carbon-tax-debate-disappoints/> > > /Patrick Bond/ <http://triplecrisis.com/author/patrick-bond/> > > http://triplecrisis.com/south-africas-carbon-tax-debate-disappoints/#more-5498 > > To be sure, it's a difficult period for imposing new environmental > taxes, given ongoing financial sector power over public policy. With the > entry of European Union airlines into the region's fast-collapsing > Emissions Trading Scheme > <http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=163164>, a group > of non-European countries led by the Chinese is revolting > <http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=725292&vId=> against > paying higher air fares to and from Europe. > > There are bad and good arguments about carbon taxation here. According > to a /China Daily /report/, /"Europe's compulsory charges are set to > have great impact on China's aviation industry, and more profound > influences may be found in the export sector. China therefore strongly > opposes the EU's unilateral action, viewing the EU's move as violating > the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention and related > regulations of the International Air Transport Association." > > The North's opportunities for creeping carbon taxes will rise or fall in > this battle, since finding agreement on the UN's 'common but > differentiated responsibility' (a good argument against imposing the tax > on poorer countries) will be near impossible. > > Would a carbon tax help slow climate change? It depends on how high it > must be in order to generate conservation incentives. As HSBC bank > economists argued in a report released on March 8, the recent Brent > crude oil price rise to 96 euros/barrel had the equivalent disincentive > to emit CO2 as would a carbon price of 153 euros/tonne (ten times higher > than most current proposals). The European Union's Emissions Trading > Scheme now sells carbon at just 8 euros/tonne. As HSBC put it, "Even > pricing carbon at its total estimated damage costs of 64 euros/tonne has > equivalent economic impacts to an oil price rise of only $24/bbl." > > South Africa, an in-between country that hosted the UN's climate summit > (COP17) last December, should reasonably be expected to also hold a > rigorous, far-ranging debate on transitioning to a low-carbon economy > through strategic state investments and by imposing taxes on egregious > polluters. East of Johannesburg, for instance, Sasol's > coal/gas-to-liquid petroleum refinery at Secunda is still the world's > worst CO2 emissions site, while the Eskom parastatal electricity > supplier is building the world's third and fourth largest coal-fired > power plants at Medupi and Kusile, north and west of Joburg, also > despoiling the region's fragile water supplies. > > Sadly though, we have not raised climate consciousness to the point that > even a rudimentary conversation has begun on either command-and-control > regulatory reductions or neoliberal 'get the prices right' strategies to > internalize pollution externalities. We still have no clue as to how > quickly carbon taxes would be passed to consumers, and whether price > elasticities generate genuine behavioural change -- or simply more class > apartheid. > > Worst of all, the state regulatory option appears off the table. Last > month, President Jacob Zuma's State of the Nation address > <http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/80007> and Finance > Minister Pravin Gordhan's Budget Speech > <http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/29/market-climate-failure/> set the > tone for renewed pro-corporate, high-carbon underdevelopment, announcing > more than $100 billion worth of new infrastructure for minerals export, > smelting and port expansion. Fracking shale-gas extraction also appears > imminent, with Shell proposing to drill SA's most water-sensitive area, > the Karoo. > > Evidently, SA civil society's watchdogging of the triple-crisis nexus of > finance, development and environment is not working. Moreover, last > week, Parliament gave constituents a lesson > <http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20120229-national-planning-commission-all-issues-relating-pursuance-low-carbon?utm_source=Drupal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Free%20Alerts> > > on how /not/ to discuss low-carbon development. Environment Committee > chairperson Johnny de Lange is best known for two interventions in > parliament, namely physically fighting an opposition party member and > then admitting his ministry was losing SA's infamous fight against crime > <http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/wind-knocked-out-of-the-fight-against-crime-1.412602?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot>. > > He proved unresilient when facing up to the world's greatest challenge, > throwing another blind punch at the environment and, according to > Parliamentary Monitoring Group minutes, ignoring carbon taxation > entirely: "De Lange commented that a large part of the population were > poor and struggled to survive every day, and the last thing they would > want to think about would be the future." > > In reality, grassroots movements -- such as the South Durban Community > Environmental Alliance (disclosure: I'm a member) -- make regular > appeals to bring down Eskom's extreme electricity prices as an urgent > matter of daily life, for they have soared 150 percent since 2008 to pay > for Medupi and Kusile (not to mention another $45 billion we expect to > be billed for nuclear power plant construction in the coming 15 years). > The way to do so is to /halt new coal-fired powerplant construction/ and > simultaneously, so as to avoid demand pressure, /cut off the supply of > the world's cheapest electricity > <http://eepublishers.co.za/article/eskom-bhp-billiton-and-the-secret-electricity-pricing-deals.html>/ > > to BHP Billiton and Anglo American Corporation. The former guzzles more > than 10 percent of SA electricity, providing just 1500 jobs in its main > aluminum smelters. > > Any such attack on these mega-corporations requires much more social and > labour pressure, as well as a Just Transition alternative such as that > recently developed by the 'Million Climate Jobs > <http://www.climatejobs.org.za/documents/campaign-booklet/180-climatejobsbooklet2011.html>' > > campaign. It's still very early in the process, and we can expect > interminable delays from a Treasury reluctant to harm mining houses > which are already lobbying vigorously against a tax > <http://www.miningweekly.com/article/mining-heavy-sa-industry-group-issues-carbon-tax-warning-2012-01-23>. > > In its most detailed document > <http://www.treasury.gov.za/public%20comments/Discussion%20Paper%20Carbon%20Taxes%2081210.pdf>, > > Pretoria's neoliberal Treasury officials claim, "a tax of $10/t CO2e, > increasing to around $25/t CO2e would be both feasible and appropriate > to achieve the desired behaviourial changes and emissions reduction > targets." Those emissions-cut ambitions (34 percent by 2020 from a very > high 2009 'Growth Without Constraints' scenario) are rather low, given > our vast historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions: third > highest per capita rate amongst the 20 major emitters. > > If we want a genuine transformation of coal-addicted SA capitalism and > for Climate Justice to prevail, it looks like we should put much more > pressure on the state to rethink its absurd investment plans, to cut > power to smelters while ensuring metal workers have jobs in renewables, > and to roll out more Free Basic Electricity (beyond current token > supplies of 50 kWh/household/month to 'indigent' families). > > The only good news from South Africa is that with the world's carbon > markets in crisis, virtually no one is talking about emissions trading > <http://www.storyofcapandtrade.org/>, unlike misguided politicians and > policy wonks in Sacramento and Beijing. > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
