Comments on: Like a parrot on ritalin: Turnbull’s weird return to Jonestown

By: Altakoi

Altakoi — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:28:11 +0000

I agree Tom, a tax is far simpler. Alan Jones is a strange man, but I do think that controlling the supply of permits in some relation to real money is going to be difficult. We print money at the drop of a hat - what makes anyone think governments will be less inclined to permit-inflation? And when we get to permit offsets, then the rubbery accounting really will start. Offsets would be like a chequing account which is never audited - sure you have a huge forrest in PNG, nice photos, please have x million permits in exchange. We have systems for controlling the flow of money, we should use them to control the flow of carbon directly and no through an unnecessary intermediate currency.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:42:05 +0000

If only they would bring on a tax.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:50:57 +0000

Funny thing about this argument regarding the CPRS being a tax is that really, the CPRS is supposed to bring the cost of producing things to it’s “true” cost. At the moment, with no CPRS, the costs of producing energy do not include the associated costs of environment degredation that affect everyone. So in effect, the suppliers get a discount (and we the consumers also get a discount). It’s like a chemical company poluting a river with it’s waste. The chemical costs (and hence the prices) should include the environmental effects caused by this business practice.
The CPRS is supposed to factor in the costs to the environment in the production process by putting a price on these environmental effects.
Tis stuff isn’t recent. It’s all based on the work of the guy who came up with the concept of “externalities” in economics in 1960; Ronald Coase. He won the Nobel prize for Economics in 1991.