The climate debate reveals how confused the philosophical underpinnings of political parties have become, writes Richard Denniss for The Australian Financial Review.
Public debate about the details of climate policy can be like seven-year-olds arguing over who would win a battle between Spiderman and The Incredible Hulk.
The debate is messy because of the combination of old economic concepts, new political slogans, and a complicated Senate. The outcome is a partisan sparring match so confused and conflicted that, dare I say it, Twitter and news headlines simply can’t capture the complexity of what is going on!
There are many ways to change consumer and industry behaviour, including taxes, subsidies, prohibition, campaigns and regulation. All political parties support these tools but disagree on which tool should be used for which problem. The question usually revolves around politics rather than philosophy.
Related documents
Between the Lines Newsletter
The biggest stories and the best analysis from the team at the Australia Institute, delivered to your inbox every fortnight.
You might also like
Here are 23 Times Carbon Offsets Were Found to be Dodgy
Carbon offsetting has received a lot of attention recently. As businesses and governments look to meet their climate targets, many are turning to carbon offsets. That is, they are paying someone else to reduce or avoid putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so they don’t have to.
The carbon con killing koalas
The NSW Labor Government took office promising to create a vast koala sanctuary on the state’s mid-north coast – the Great Koala National Park. Despite the threat of koala extinction in the state, more than a year later the Great Koala National Park is yet to be established.
Massive Gap Between Rhetoric and Actions on Emissions
Farmers know you can’t fatten a pig on market day and scientists know you can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 while expanding coal, oil and gas production.