Isra-Mart srl: Carbon tax a capitalist con

www.isra-mart.com

Assessing policies is always a complex question. Which of them are reforms which can take us forward, which is an acceptable compromise, which gives us part of what is needed, which are reactionary and will take us backwards?

Bob writes: “The carbon tax is by no means perfect, but the Greens among others have realised that purist grandstanding has achieved nothing over the past several years, and that compromise is necessary to set wheels in motion and to at least get serious political debate in the arena.”

The carbon tax is not something less than perfect. It is not a compromise. It is a con trick.

Polluting corporations are working with governments to avoid regulations that may compromise their profits and the economic system that created the environmental crisis in the first place.

To achieve this they argue that environmental problems are technical problems that can be “efficiently” dealt with through market-based “solutions”. The carbon tax is one of these market-based con tricks.

Referring to “purist grandstanding” is incorrect (and unfair). Policies and campaigns intended to keep the situation from worsening and possibly begin to deal with the problem are necessary.

We do not have to support social democratic government policies because they present something that is apparently possible. We have to fight for what is necessary. We cannot afford to go down the wrong path.

What wheels will the carbon tax set in motion? It will not bring about any significant reduction in carbon emissions. It will, according to the government, take us down the path to an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

But an ETS gives corporations the right to pollute, even though the exact amount of pollution may be limited by a government-imposed cap. The corporate sector will pass on the additional costs and go on polluting as before.

Emission trading schemes encourage trading in carbon credits, derivatives and other forms of financial speculation, to the detriment of society, the economy and the environment. They are the neo-liberal takeover of the environmental agenda.

Bob writes that: “The essential class basis of the current debate is that state intervention is immediately necessary to save the planet, and that this intervention is necessary on a global scale. We cannot allow capitalist anarchy to ruin the Earth’s climate.”

I agree.

However, state intervention in a capitalist society is rarely progressive or pro-working class, unless imposed by struggle. Just because the carbon tax involves some state intervention does not necessarily make it progressive or likely to contribute to slowing down or stopping global warming.

In fact, state intervention to introduce the carbon tax is a piece of market fundamentalism intended to divert attention away from the causes of the climate crisis, to protect the capitalist system and to protect profit levels.

We argue for a different form of state intervention that can and must be won by a united movement of working class and other social forces.

Bob write: “To dismiss the Labor government’s proposal is a cop out on this debate. We need to stand together, unify the working class and turn the present, badly handled, anti-progressive situation around.”

To reject the carbon tax would be a cop out if the CPA did not offer an alternative. But we do, and it is a clear, workable alternative that could unify the working class and its allies and turn the present situation around.

We put the case for regulation. (There is not enough space here to go into detail but the CPA will publish a pamphlet on these questions in the near future).

Regulation is not unusual or radical. DDT was banned because of its effects on humans and the environment. Asbestos is banned because it kills people. Building regulations are accepted, including new green building codes. CFCs and other ozone depleting substances were banned.

Regulation is effective if it is backed up by government will, well-funded and properly enforced.

The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 plan shows that a transition to 100 percent renewable energy in ten years in Australia is feasible using existing technologies.

If the Labor government can spend $45 billion on the national broadband network and $27 billion a year on the military, it can spend $37 billion a year to avert an environmental and human catastrophe.

It would cost $4 billion to build four solar power stations in NSW. The project would generate about 4,000 jobs in construction and about 2,000 in operation and maintenance.

Bob writes: “To align ourselves with Tony Abbott’s ‘Big Bad Tax’ line wins us no credit, does not even begin to stop global warming, and helps re-elect the ruling class toadies.”

Of course we would never align ourselves with Tony Abbott. But is an objective fact that the carbon tax will do nothing or almost nothing to cut carbon emissions. Experiences in Europe with carbon taxes demonstrate that this statement is correct.

Abbott calls it a big bad tax because he is speaking on behalf of corporations mad for profit who don’t give a damn about their impact on people and the environment.

The CPA acknowledges that the carbon tax won’t work, analyses why, and offers alternatives within the capitalist system that can work and could be implemented by a large, united movement.

Bob writes: “We must fight the class issue in alliance with progressives everywhere.”

I agree that we have to fight this issue.

Many progressive and left people think the global warming situation is so urgent and so dangerous that something, almost anything, should be done now. But we must not, because of the urgency of the climate crisis, because we feel that something must be done now, grasp at straws and build unity in action around bad policies.

The struggle to solve the environmental crisis is in essence a struggle to restrain and restrict capitalist corporations, to compel an end to environmentally damaging production processes. That is the united campaign we have to build.