Crikey Says

Mar 30, 2012

Murray doesn’t think carbon’s a problem, so why tax it?

The government's carbon pricing plan is far from perfect policy, but it's hard to take the criticism of Murray seriously given that he doesn't think there's any correlation between warming and carbon dioxide.

Everyone's in a lather about outgoing chair of the Future Fund David Murray's comments on the carbon tax on Radio National this morning. Specifically, the  tax is "the worst piece of economic reform" he has every seen in his life.  And that "the consequence of introducing that tax at that level in Australia today is very, very bad for this economy, particularly in terms of international competitiveness". But are these sentiments at all surprising coming from a man who said this to The Australian Financial Review over lunch last year:
"'[Carbon dioxide] has got nothing to do with pollution ... carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is colourless and odourless. It is not a pollutant … It is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases. There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide ...' "Asked what should be done about climate change, he replied: 'Take measures to stop the effects of it.' Asked about glaciers, Murray rejects any suggestion of glacial melt. 'They’re not. The amount of ice in the world is slightly increasing. It is not decreasing. It is just staggering, staggering.'"
Channel Ten's Paul Bongiorno tweeted this morning: "David Murray is on the record rejecting anthropogenic global warming. That makes his rejection of the CT logical but ill informed." The government's carbon pricing plan is far from perfect policy, as we've outlined in our own pages. But it's hard to take the criticism of Murray seriously given he doesn't consider there is any correlation between warming and carbon dioxide. A price on carbon is inherently flawed if you don't believe it's a pollutant based on the, ahem, fact that it's "colourless and odourless". The Future Fund board members have come under fire recently for sounding off about the government's chair appointment process. But what about the appropriateness of the then-chair professing these kinds of sentiments? As Bernard Keane pointed out last year: "Fairfax revealed via FOI documents ... that the Fund’s Board of Guardians had not discussed climate change since 2007. But as a long-term investor with over $50 billion in assets under management, the Future Fund is even more exposed to the issues raised by climate change impacts, future carbon prices and the growth of renewables than most investors." The Future Fund is one of the world’s larger sovereign wealth funds and is a highly influential investor. The question was, and still is, whether Murray's climate stance had a direct impact on the long-term returns of the Future Fund. All eyes on incoming chairman David Gonski to see if he'll continue the legacy of apparent recalcitrance in an area that already commands well-established practices by most global investment funds.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

31 thoughts on “Murray doesn’t think carbon’s a problem, so why tax it?

  1. klewso

    When did he see the GFC coming?

    [Then there’s “Intelligent Design” – a dogma opposed to primate change?]


    Money changer becomes scientist and full-time tosser.

  3. David

    I want some of what Murray is on, wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  4. Arty

    Just another uppty bank-johnie in a small country town.

  5. New Cassandra

    Heretic – he must be burned to save us all !

  6. shanghai

    Whether or not he is correct in his view matters not and the jury is still out – some significant questions still to be answered re the relationship between CO2 and climate change.
    The fact is that any moves made here in Australia equates to a flea trying to drive an elephant – given the CO2 output from the rest of the world.
    The carbon credit model implemented here is really just another trading mechanism to make money.
    If we were really serious about the problem we would have invested in alternative energy technologies years ago. We haven’t and we probably won’t.

  7. Steve777

    For some reason Mr Murray believes that the 30% increase in a major greenhouse gas to date and greater increases in future will have no adverse impacts on humanity. We shouldn’t burn him, but given that he has has no apparent expertise in climate science or any science, his opinions on whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening shouldn’t be given to much weight.

  8. rummel

    Quick some more money must be payed to the climate “green” gods or we shall or burn alive. Now how much will Gillards Tax change the temp of the world again. Oh thats right zip…. zilch…. zero and not one .0000000000000 EVER. But the Climate Gods will be happy with our sacrifices. The Greens and lime Labor will be warm and fuzzy with climate action and we can all happily vote Bob Brown for president of the one world government he wants to subject us all to.

  9. JamesH

    Shanghai – what “significant questions” would those be? There are no fundamental doubts left.

    And get your analogies right: Australia emits about 1.32% of world carbon emissions (which doesn’t include all the coal we export). An average elephant weighs about 6000 kg. 1.32% of that is about 80 kg. Your analogy should be “a full-grown man trying to drive an elephant”.

  10. heysoos

    It’s a job application – Liberal style!

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details