The announcement this week by the Federal Government of a fixed carbon price to be set next year, followed by an ETS has been met with the predictable ill-informed back-and-forth that we’ve come to expect from any major policy announcement, whether or not any actual information has been imparted. No doubt, the news has sparked ‘considered’ objection by various business and consumer groups, as well as the pockets of the media that enjoy reminding the bogan how tough it is doing. It has also prompted the PM to remind bogans that while there must be a price on carbon, there is no way in hell bogans’ freedom to burn fossil fuels for transport or recreation will be impeded by anything so unsavoury as a tax.
Part of the process of developing a systematic means of implementing a price on carbon and the eventual emissions trading market, which appears inevitable, despite the bogan’s howls of protestation, is casting a nationwide net for opinions on the shape it will take. While the official submissions process is not yet underway, we felt obligated to make our point clearly and early. In the interests of transparency, please find below an unedited copy of the submission made by the team at Boganomics. __________________________________________________________________________________
From: McSween, E. Chas; Jayfox, Michael; DeMilo, Intravenus
Sent: Thursday, 2 March 2011 5.45 PM
To: Committee, IC (REPS)
Cc: Bandt, Adam (MP); Ferguson, Martin (MP)
Subject: BPRS
To Whom It May Concern,
We have watched with interest the response to the announcement of the government’s intention to place a price on carbon, with a view to instituting an emissions trading scheme shortly thereafter. While details are scant at present, it is incumbent upon us to suggest that the government is going about this in the wrong manner. To the casual observer, it may appear that the problem is carbon. In an unprecedented development, the casual observer is dead wrong.
The problem is bogans.
Bogans, by virtue of their unsustainable attitudes to debt, petrol consumption, and McMansions, are the direct cause of over 120% of Australia’s carbon emissions. While western democratic governments are possessed of a grand tradition of civil liberties, no other country is forced to govern as many Australian bogans as Australia is. We are an exception, a special case. The bogan’s liberties must go. It is with heavy hearts that we propose a Bogan Pollution Reduction Scheme, or BPRS. This is underpinned by several key assumptions:
In order to reduce carbon output, we must reduce our per capita output of bogans
The current rate of bogan output is inflicting irreparable damage on the Australian economy, environment and society. A BPRS is an important mechanism that will allow the market to rectify this bogan imbalance by instituting an international trading system that seeks to restore equilibrium. Rather than involving the ASX as the exchange platform for the scheme, Jetstar will be enlisted to efficiently redistribute bogans to where the market dictates they should be.
If we are to remain at our present bogan output, other carbon-reduction initiatives will fail
Considering that this emissions scheme is unlikely to have a notable effect on how much this country pollutes, the question must be asked; is this worth it politically? Below are polling data from before and after the details of the initial ETS were announced (hat tip to Possum over at Crikey)
Clearly, while the bogan will happily tell people that it is concerned about the environment, the minute it is asked to pay any money or curb its lifestyle to actually contribute to a change in our national contribution to pollution, a hefty chunk decide that perhaps it isn’t worth it. Ergo, even if the longer-term plan is limit our carbon by placing a price on it, it will not work until we first lower the number of bogans preventing its implementation.
Placing a price on bogans will result in productivity gains for the economy
Naturally, at our present rate of bogan emissions, buying extra permits will be expensive for the Australian government, while we will be able to sell our existing bogans to other countries. Even if this price is low, Australia will benefit by having fewer bogans and more money, however little. The absence of bogans is certain to reduce the amount of time Australia’s workers spend uploading photos of their weekend’s clubbing on Facebook (an ongoing concern for the nation’s employers), hence expanding our productive capacity in preparation for the resources-fuelled growth of coming years. While there is a risk that reducing the number of bogans we have will lead to supply-induced wage-inflation in the mining sector, its present growth and vast profit margins indicate they are capable of absorbing the impact of this change.
Ultimately, the goal is to establish an international Bogan Trading Scheme (BTS), whereby nations who emit more bogans than their cap allowance may purchase permits to possess these bogans, at a price set by the market. In a similar manner to China’s meddling with its exchange rate, the RBA will be directed to allocate a large portion of its foreign currency reserves to creating an artificially high equilibrium price for bogan permits. The Australian government will be left with little choice but to seek export markets for the bogans that our nation can no longer afford to retain. Nations emitting very few bogans, such as Kenya, will be in a position to offer paltry prices to the Australian government to take bogans off Canberra’s hands. Should Australia manage to unburden itself of an ample slice of its bogan population, it will have many permits available to sell to other countries suffering a similar surplus. Like Indonesia or Thailand.
There are several potential means of complementing this scheme, also, which can decrease government expenditure and assist with the government’s pathological need to reach a budget surplus in 2012-13. For instance, the baby bonus is only to be paid to parents once it can be scientifically demonstrated that the child is not a bogan. Reducing the total number of bogans will allow us to stop such schemes, and let us re-introduce the indexation of the fuel excise, bringing billions back into the national coffers. In effect, the true question is, for how long can Australia afford NOT to implement a BPRS?