It appears history is repeating itself. Once again an Australian politician has committed political suicide by attempting to introduce an entirely new tax concept for a specific (and maybe even worthy) purpose. Surely we all agree that pollution is not a good thing?

Remember the GST? It was first suggested by Paul Keating, who was far too wily (and at that time, too vulnerable) a politician to try and implement it himself. He was content just to put the concept out there. John Hewson very obligingly picked up the ball and tripped over both feet trying to run with it; successfully managing to lose what many pundits considered an unloseable election.

The fact that Howard was able to make the GST a part of his platform during his second term a few years later simply demonstrates: a) It was no longer ‘an entirely new concept’; b) just how on the nose the memory of the Keating Government by that stage was; c) the fractured nature of the then Labor Party.

Hewson’s campaign was an act which I suggest is worthy of a new word in his honour.

Hewsonasia, nn: The politically suicidal act of attempting to introduce a new tax that no one (outside government) understands and no one (outside government) wants.

It appears Julia Gillard has just hewsonised herself.

Before it became a hip pocket thing, the majority of Aussies were prepared to follow the lead of the majority of climate scientists, and believe in Human Affected Climate Change (HACC). Many (like myself, and I would hope most scientists) might be a little sceptical of -with our current level of knowledge and understanding- anyone’s ability to make accurate predictions, but let’s face facts here.

World wide, we are currently using around 17 million tonnes of coal every single day.

About 84 million barrels of oil every single day

About 3,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas every single day.

Despite the fact that arguably the most ubiquitous material in our society today is plastic made from hydrocarbons, by far the greatest portion of these valuable, non renewable hydrocarbons is simply burnt, to produce heat and atmospheric pollution.

In the light of current knowledge that volcanoes, major fires and even the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere can produce measurable changes in local weather and temperature, how can burning all those fossil fuels possibly not have an affect on our planet’s biosphere?

One of the cutest arguments to bob up recently from so called ‘climate sceptics’ (denialists) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. I strongly suggest the advocates of this argument spend 3 minutes trying to breath the stuff. “But it helps plants grow!” They exclaim. In a world where we cut down one and a half acres of rainforest every second, this argument makes exactly as much sense as telling a farmer all he has to do to get a good crop is fertilise, even while he applies Roundup.

Bottom line: not only is pollution not a good thing, but burning valuable hydrocarbons is really stupid. Not only are these materials necessary to produce plastics and a host of other products, but the much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’, which has done so much to feed so many, is entirely reliant on hydrocarbon inputs.

To put it bluntly, we eat fossil fuels.

Surely anyone who spares a thought for their children and grandchildren should be concerned about these matters, even if they don’t buy into the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ argument.

Perhaps of even more concern should be the statistics on just how much of these valuable non renewable resources are left. According to good old Wikipedia,

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above (daily production through 2006)

Coal: 148 years

Oil: 43 years

Natural gas: 61 years

Equally stupid is the suggestion that the laissez faire marketplace, which is almost entirely reactive rather than proactive, could possibly counter this impending disaster.

The marketplace will simply react by increasing the prices of these products, until the food riots we are seeing now in just a few places around the planet, will be almost universal.

Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%.

How will you fair when your grocery bill more than doubles in the space of just 2 years? (And again, every 2 years after that.)

How much will your children be paying for food?

A tax on burning non renewable resources is as inevitable as death and, well, taxes. The only real question is how to best use that tax. Please note, I would like something a little more imaginative than taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other.

There are already viable alternatives to using non renewables. As I have suggested elsewhere, my favourite is wavepower, but for those terrestrially committed there are also thorium reactors, solar, wind, geothermal and maybe in the not too distant future, hydrogen fuel cells.

Domestically, some of these alternatives offer possibilities to individuals and families now. Unfortunately, only those with significant levels of disposable income can take advantage of these alternatives -and save money long term by doing so; eg. the cheapest hot water systems cost the most to run.

Installing solar panels will cut down on burning coal, and save you money, -if you have a spare $10k or so.

Converting your car to LPG will reduce pollution and save you money, -if you have a spare $3-$5k.

And so on.

Perhaps instead of hewsonising herself, Ms Gillard would have been better served offering Australians carrots instead of sticks, in the form of making all those desirable changes more affordable to the forgotten 50% of Australians who make less than $40k a year, so they can start saving money too.

You remember them, Ms Gillard?

They used to be called ‘Traditional Labor Voters.’

Here’s a simple one. Instead of ‘Cash for Clunkers’, how about ‘Cash for Conversions’? Currently LPG retails for roughly half the price of unleaded. Offer gas conversions for $0.00 up front and offer the opportunity to pay off the conversion cost by paying a 25 cent per litre levy on every purchase of LPG.

It would still be cheaper than using petrol; people could save money and reduce pollution.

And what about air ships? Lighter than air craft would be almost silent, not require long runways and use about a thousand times less fuel (or perhaps, no fuel at all). Yes they are much slower, but the trade off could be in being roomier and more luxurious; even including train style sleeping berths.

I would imagine starting up an airship manufacturing industry would not only offer large employment opportunities, but would possibly cost considerably less to start up than the NBN, and quite conceivably lead to export profits.

All it takes is imagination.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.