Will Joe Hockey end Age of Entitlement for fossil fuels?

As Australian industries queued up in early 2014 to announce their impending closure, adding tens of thousands to the ranks of the unemployed, Joe Hockey was steadfast. Forget about bailouts from government. “The age of entitlement is over and the age of personal responsibility has begun.”

As Mr Hockey said: “We need to help those people who are most vulnerable in our community. That is our duty and we will do that.”

The Federal Government spends over $10 billion per year on subsidies that encourage the production and use of fossil fuels. About $65 million per electorate or, if you want to make it really personal, $430 per taxpayer each year.

Market Forces and Environment Victoria have just updated figures based largely on the Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Statement. Check them out here. It shows that over the next four years, Australian taxpayers are set to spend over $40 billion on programs that encourage fossil fuel production and consumption.

We’ve identified priorities including the mining industry’s fuel tax discount, accelerated depreciation to the oil and gas industries and concessional rates of aviation gasoline that would restore $12.3 billlion to the public purse over the next three years and will be working as part of the “Paid to Pollute” alliance to get these subsidies removed. People wanting to be part of that effort can take the first step by signing the petition to Joe Hockey on the Paid to Pollute website or Market Forces’ page.

Last year brought some success for the alliance, as a $550 million per year exploration and prospecting subsidy was cancelled in the 2013 budget. However, the reduction in fossil fuel subsidy spending is set to be wiped out by the increasing costs of other programs unless more action is taken.

Perversely, the most likely candidate for fossil fuel subsidy reform would result from the removal of Clean Energy Future (aka great big scary tax you’ll barely notice). Linked to the carbon price is the “Energy Security Fund”, a multi-billion dollar program involving giving large sums of free carbon permits to Australia’s most polluting power stations.

Should the carbon price go, and take the coal “compensation” with it, that’s about $3 billion saved out to 2016/17 but of course, at the cost of tens of billions of dollars in revenue from the carbon price itself. The words “baby” and “bathwater” leap to mind.

Fossil fuel subsidies always looked more absurd with the presence of a carbon price. Taxing polluting fuels while paying for their use sounds like a multi-billion dollar policy conflict. And even if the carbon price is replaced by direct action, which appears to be about giving out money as incentives to reduce pollution, this contradiction holds.

If the environmental and economic reasons weren’t enough, it’s worth noting that cancelling subsidies like the mining industry’s fuel tax credits would go down a treat with the public. Polling has repeatedly shown public support for cancelling this subsidy, the most recent of which we commissioned and found that support was highest in Queensland, one of the biggest mining states.

An Age of Entitlement probably sounds pretty good for the fossil fuel industry. It had become important and thrived from the age of industrialisation. But now with cleaner, cheaper options available for energy and that pesky reality of carbon pollution hurtling the climate towards being barely fit for habitation, another rationale for its existence is needed. Entitlement sounds as good as anything else, and probably helps explain petulant and stubborn responses like this to the idea of removing mining subsidies, which The Australia Institute has assessed as also amounting to billions of dollars per year (note that some of these figures will overlap with our fossil fuel subsidies numbers).

So look. I’m not here to pass judgement on the merit of keeping our car manufacturers or SPC Ardmona open. We’re talking here about spending public money and we should always do that in the interests of what’s best for Australia. But if the age of entitlement has indeed ended and if the Treasurer is so determined to cut waste, surely it makes sense to start with removing unnecessary handouts to polluting and already wealthy industries and instead using that money to support Australian jobs and industries and services that build this country’s future.

Julien Vincent is the Lead Campaigner at Market Forces, a non-profit group that works with Australians to keep money out of fossil fuel projects.

 

Comments

4 responses to “Will Joe Hockey end Age of Entitlement for fossil fuels?”

  1. juxx0r Avatar
    juxx0r

    “including the mining industry’s fuel tax discount”. What they mean is the primary industry’s fuel tax discount of which mining, fishing and farming are a part of.

  2. Terry J Wall Avatar
    Terry J Wall

    Well said Julien
    We will be watching Mr Joe Hockey and Mr Tony Abbott. We will see if anyone speaks with the forked tongue.
    These subsidies are an obscenity: paying our money to bloody big business against the 97 percent scientific evidence saying that to continue to do so will send us all to hell in a hand cart. that is why mr abbott should be mr bloody lobobite!

  3. Michael Phillip Kivinen Avatar
    Michael Phillip Kivinen

    Climate Change is well known by true climate science facts, and by the geological evidence of facts of earth recorded history, Politian’s are not scientists and can be fooled such as the public can be as well by the United Nations that is well known to lie, corrupt, bribe, threaten, and most of all solves nothing, but its own agenda towards global control of nations by any means, to which murder, bribery, war, or economic sanctions are used to force nations to capitulate, (known as to the action to Conquer a nation) and this is when consent fails.

    It comes to this point’ Why does the US weather service in America need to buy ammunition?
    Does Climate Change need protection and security? and against who? the American public? Terrorist in the US against the climate advocates? Questions need to be asked after all we are being forced by our corrupt Australian Politian’s to capitulate to the United Nations lies on Climate Change and forced Globalisation by Hockey& Abbot incorporated to cries from Joe to double the Nations funding to the IMF of the UN and now to buying 12 billion fighter aircraft from the US to join them again in another war for our troops to die for not this nation but Globalisation of the United Nations. There is so much evidence now to bring down so many national governments its not funny, but’ insanity is now at the helm and the rats are ready to fight and spill the blood of their own people and its to the death, and they are prepared.
    The Labor party spent, so as the liberal party can cut. It’s the two headed coin of the two Australian political parties bowing, and kissing the feet of the United Nations yet again and being personally bribed by US corporations, and the UN.

    Australian’s problems of being a UN buddy is now nothing compared to what America Government is preparing for,

    Read this and be prepared to what is coming.

    Its information that we Australians the public never get to hear about and are kept from knowing about to what is going on in the world that will effect the whole the world.

    “Going postal” just took on a whole new meaning. Apparently, Postal Employees are no longer content to shoot each other and are therefore preparing to shoot the public.

    We know this because the USPS has joined the list of federal agencies that are stockpiling ammunition and firearms.

    For example, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point bullets. Do they fear that the retirees are about to grab their walkers and storm the SSA buildings?

    The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds. Do they fear farmers and ranchers—or an attack by cows and pigs?

    The Department of Homeland Security has requested 450 million rounds. That’s enough bullets to shoot every American about 1.5 times.

    The FBI has sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds. Why does a weather service need ammunition?

    To date, over two billion rounds of ammunition have been purchased or ordered by a variety of domestic federal agencies.

    If only one agency purchased ammunition, we might write it off as an aberration. But when seemingly inexplicable purchases are made by a significant number of agencies, we can assume we are witnessing evidence of a general governmental policy. It’s not just the FBI, DHS or even the USPS that wants to stockpile ammo—it’s the government, itself.

    As a result of this stockpiling, many wonder what government has planned for the American people. Confusion and conspiracy theories abound.

    • Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said:

    “We’re seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don’t understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but [purchasing all this ammunition] doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The amount of ammunition they’re buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they’ll use—they’ll never use it all.“

    Well, let’s hope Gottlieb is right. Let’s hope the government will never use all of those bullets within The United States of America.

    But Gottlieb can’t be right when he says that purchasing all this ammunition “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

    In fact, major purchases of ammunition by a wide variety of domestic governmental agencies costs money. The government is largely broke. It won’t spend more money if it doesn’t have to. It seems extremely unlikely that government would spend so much money on ammo without a compelling reason to do so.

    The government is generally distrusted and viewed with contempt. It’s on shaky political ground. The political implication of domestic governmental agencies stockpiling all that ammunition is that government is preparing for a major armed conflict within the USA. Thus, those purchases should cause a further loss of public confidence in government. “Confidence,” we are repeatedly told, is essential to not only maintaining law and order but even to sustaining the perceived value of the fiat dollar. It seems extremely unlikely that government would risk the political fallout of purchasing so much ammo without a compelling reason to do so.

    Purchasing all that ammunition may seem incomprehensible to most Americans. However, given the financial and political costs associated with stockpiling two billion rounds of ammo, it’s apparent that those purchases must “make a whole lot of sense” to somebody in a very high position of power.

    Gottlieb may be right to say that purchasing all of that ammunition doesn’t make sense under current, publicly-perceived economic and political conditions.

    But maybe government isn’t looking at current conditions. Maybe government is instead looking forward towards a moment when future conditions could become conducive to widespread social disorder and even public violence against government.

    To understand those possible future conditions, let’s consider reasons why government might stockpile two billion rounds of ammo. I can imagine three:

    1) To subsidize the ammunition industry;

    2) To reduce the supply of bullets so the public can’t buy them;

    3) To stock up on bullets to be used to attack or defend against the American people.

    Clearly, the anti-gun-rights Obama administration does not intend to subsidize the ammunition industry.

    Reducing the public’s supply of ammunition presupposes that the government expects widespread violence and wants the public disarmed.

    Stocking billions of bullets implies that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants to ensure that gov-co has enough ammo to deal with potentially millions of armed dissidents. I.e., gov-co doesn’t need billions of bullets to deal with a few “lone gunmen”. Gov-co needs billions of bullets to deal with, at least, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, potentially several million armed Americans who are sufficiently furious to fire at government.

    Billions of bullets implicitly anticipates a widespread public revolt.

    Whatever the exact explanation for stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition may be, it seems certain that the government views the probability of a widespread and violent confrontation with the American people as growing.

    OK—why might such confrontation take place?

    1) Because Congressmen are corrupt?

    2) Because Obama is black?

    3) Because taxes are too high?

    4) Because liberty is being lost? Or,

    5) Because the economy has collapsed, people are starving and therefore rioting against government?

    Answer?

    As Bill Clinton once observed, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    Americans don’t much care about corruption, the President’s race (or even place of birth), taxes or liberty. They care about their incomes, standard of living and the economy. If there’s going to be a violent confrontation between government and the people, that confrontation will be based on some sort of sudden and significant economic decline or even collapse.

    Government’s purchase of two billion bullets for the apparent purpose of shooting some of the people, indicates that government fears a near-term, economic decline that’s sufficiently sudden and deep to cause lots of people to shoot.

    Therefore, I don’t view government’s purchase of two billion bullets as a political anomaly or irrational act. I see it as a reliable economic indicator that tells us that government recognizes the growing probability of an economic collapse that’s sufficient to trigger chaos and widespread violence.

    • We can have a scholarly (or heated) debate on the economic significance of the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, and the price of gold. When our debate is over, we can go home, order a pizza and watch some TV.

    But it’s hard to engage in a scholarly debate on the economic significance of domestic government agencies buying two billion bullets. Two billion bullets tells us that it’s not time for pizza—it’s time to stockpile whatever you can afford that you think you’ll need if the economy tanks: food, water, guns, ammo, silver and gold.

    You needn’t believe me. But you should certainly consider the economic and political implications of multiple government agencies seeking to purchase over two billion rounds of ammo. Those purchases cause predictions of economic collapse to rise from the level of mere conspiracy theories to the level of a government-validated, growing probability.

  4. Michael Phillip Kivinen Avatar
    Michael Phillip Kivinen

    Oh one more thing I should say’ beware of being side tracked when something is being cooked up behind closed doors that will collapse everything and get what they really want.
    Its a military tactic’ don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, until its ready, enacted and its to late to counter. Its used in military actions to business to politics, and Politian’s are like military commanders, sacrifice the many for the few at the top, themselves, and their masters, towards their agenda, and the public are always considered as cannon fodder, or seen as sustainable losses as the public breed like rabbits, and are too many already and in the end are freely replaceable.
    So know where you stand as the public in the greater scheme of things.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.