The perils of going Green
Lord Lawson is talking about events in the UK, but the same applies in Australia, not least because of the carbon dioxide tax we will be unnecessarily burdoned with in a few months.
It is sad that fashionable obsession can lead an intelligent man like Tim Yeo into such a farrago of factual error and economic illiteracy. The reason why there is no economic case for ‘going green’ is simple. It is that green energy is hugely more expensive than carbon-based energy, it always has been and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
That, and no other reason, is why the world relies on carbon-based energy – coal, oil and, increasingly, gas.
And that is why to ‘go green’ requires either a heavy tax on carbon-based energy, to make it less competitive, or a massive subsidy for wind power and other forms of green energy, to make them more competitive – and probably both. Either way, these represent a huge economic cost and a burden on the consumer that bears especially hard in an age of austerity, but which would be unjustifiable at any time.
Just what benefit will be achieved from raising Australia’s already high electricity costs via the CO2 tax? Least of all when the Gillard government claims people will be compensated?
Well if they’re going to be compensated, then what’s the point of the tax in the first place?
It’s just a money-go-round, a massive government-led collection of private wealth to be then redistributed as the government sees fit.
Hello? That’s Socialism, and Cory Bernadi is right to call Gillard out on that.
And socialism? If (too much of) your hard-earned work, as represented by money, is taken away from you and given to someone else who didn’t work, then where is the incentive to work?
Nobody works too hard, and then what happens to society?