ETS by Alan BarronNews Weekly
to cost billions (letter)
, May 2, 2009
So the Australian Industry Group (AIG) estimates that if a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) is introduced, it would cost $8 billion in business outlays the first year of its operation (Weekend Australian
, April 18-19).
And it's not only compliance costs this nation has to worry about. If Australia does not meet its Kyoto targets, hefty fines will be imposed on the nation by a non-elected UN body set up to enforce the Kyoto protocol. I'm all for taxation with representation, but not at all in favour of taxation without representation.
Japan, Spain and Italy face fines of $33 billion (that's billions, not millions) for failing to reach their Kyoto carbon targets.
Spain will pass 40 per cent of the cost for the extra emissions on to businesses. The rest will come from taxes. In Italy, taxpayers will foot 75 per cent of the bill for extra permits. Japanese taxpayers will pay for two-thirds of that nation's excess carbon dioxide emissions.
However, wouldn't it be better if this money were spent on solving real problems facing humanity, such as providing adequate housing, supplying fresh water and tackling terrible diseases like malaria? If this were done, these scourges would be greatly reduced.
It seems ludicrous to spend so much money on a nebulous threat such as "global warming" which may be real or imagined. The jury is still out on whether carbon emissions caused by human activity are really the main driver behind climate change.
My prediction is that, within 20 years, science will conclusively show that human activity is inconsequential to climate change. Many people will end up with egg on their faces.
But, unfortunately, in the interim, many people will have died and suffered unnecessarily as urgently needed funding was diverted into an environmental jihad to try and achieve the unachievable.Alan Barron,