Australians still have the biggest houses in the world, and NSW has the biggest houses in Australia.
We are often asked about the carbon tax and its expected affects on what we build, and how we build. While there are some unknowns at the fine level of detail, it basically means that energy efficient and passively designed buildings will be nice little earners for their owners and operators.
Householders on anything but the highest incomes, who reduce their energy consumption (and thus the amount of C tax they pay) will be better off by hundreds of dollars per year, maybe more. Businesses which reduce their operational energy bills will be better off than their competitors, and if they are really smart, may reduce their overall costs compared to present. This is all because the rate of the tax, and its attendant household compensation, assumes national average figures for consumption. If you have a very energy hungry building, and do nothing about it or they way you use it, you will be slugged. And that is the point: it is intended to reduce wasteful consumption. Residential renters are in the weakest position to make such changes to their buildings, and that is why the compensation is bottom-heavy.
Here is a two-minute explanation for the kids and those in a real hurry.
That Youtube is of course very simplistic, and does not address any of the detail, nor does it discuss any of the shortcomings of the C tax – and there are plenty. But Envirotecture supports it on balance, having reviewed the best economic and scientific advice Australia and the world has to offer (no matter what some of our high profile pollies think of scientists and economists). We certainly don’t want to see a repeat of the debacle that sunk Rudd’s CPRS emissions trading scheme – it wasn’t perfect either, but by wanting something more perfect and scuttling it in the Senate, the Greens ironically set the whole process back by possibly a decade – time will tell.
The sources we have reviewed include the following, and we advise you to check them out yourself, don’t take our word for it (heaven forbid that we should act like your average shock-jock!). Note – we do not list (so-called Lord) Christopher Monckton amongst the scientists.
On the science that tells us what’s happening to the climate and why, we turn to the CSIRO, NASA, the climate scientists at the University of NSW and the University of Melbourne. There are many others of course, but you probably don’t have all year to read everything. Other links can be found in a previous blog, but suffice to say that the universal consensus here is that human activity through industrial emissions is causing climate change. The solution then is that we need to reduce emissions…
On the economics that tells us the best ways of tackling emissions reductions without stopping economic activity, we turn to think tanks of both political colours, academics, and non-partisan commercial economists (ie, economists without any vested interests in any kind of energy production). These include the Grattan Institute, Westpac, The Australia Institute (and its analyses of Gillard’s and Abbott’s proposals), The Economic Society of Australia (and its recent survey of members) to name a few. Other reasoned commentary can be found in the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald by writers such as Ross Gittins. News Ltd media are more inclined to be anti-Labor and anything Labor dreams up, rather than examining policies on their merits.
To those businesses who oppose the C tax, but acknowledge human-induced climate change and the need to reduce emissions, we say “ok, so tell us what your plan is.” The economic links (above) lead to fairly damming analysis of the Opposition’s proposed Direct Action plan, which follows the pattern of so many other ill-fated government schemes before it, like the free insulation scheme, green loans scheme, and even the inefficient solar panel rebates and bonuses. In a free market economy, the market mechanisms provide the best levers – we just have to create the framework for them – once made, the market pulls the levers according to what gives the ‘least cost’ result.
Our support of the current Gilard Government proposal is contingent upon its transition to a proper market-based emissions trading scheme as soon as possible. Rudd had a clear mandate in 2007 to implement that, and his failure to do so has harmed our future prospects. Of course, we must always remember that markets make wonderful servants, but poor masters: our governments must establish the boundaries.
The one downside of democracy is that governments can so easily be scared off doing truly great things. We all have a voice though…
[Note this long term disclaimer: the whole currently prevalent paradigm of endless growth economies is on a short use-by date. In a finite world, this makes no sense. In the medium to long term we must find other ways of harnessing mankind’s innate creativity and entrepreneurship to make life comfortable and still reward effort. That is a long and complex discussion – so for now, in this very short term argument about a carbon tax, we have put it to one side.]
The well-known and much loved champion of sustainable design in Australia has retired from the day-to-day at the company he founded in 1996, but he continues to offer wise counsel and unbridled optimism to the Envirotecture team. Dick continues to advocate for a better future in many voluntary capacities.
