ETS has support but not for stated reasons

When Kevin Rudd scrapped the carbon tax he said it was to help with the cost of living. While our panel supports the move, they don't buy the reasons that were given.

Actually, only one group supports the move strongly, but they support it so overwhelmingly that it overpowers all the other groups.

ETS Change

Take ALP voters out of the equation and the balance would be against it. Interesting things to note are that almost a third of Liberal voters are neutral on the proposal and that non-Greens minor party voters are split three ways.

The policy had a negative effect on voting intention

More Likely

This really reflects the fact that while ALP voters are support the policy change in large numbers it is not a strong motivator. Greens and Liberal voting intentions are similar to their approval of the proposal. The weak correlation between support for the policy and an increased intention to vote Labor also appears in the minor party vote. Those who oppose the policy are less likely to vote Labor, while those who support the policy aren't affected one way or the other.

Which brings us to the problem for Labor. The reason for the change was to decrease the cost of living, but most of our respondents don't believe it will have that effect, including ALP voters.

Lower Living Costs

 So how to untangle this?

The Leximancer map below gives some clues.

ETS Support Why Thumb

 

Those opposed concentrate on issues such as that it is just a name change, but that it is still a tax. There is also a strong belief that money is being channelled away from Australia and Australians. There is suspicion of it because it is tied to the European market.

Others are skeptical because they are either skeptical of global warming (a term opponents use almost exclusively) or because they think it is just an election ploy.

The strongest argument used by supporters, who are Greens and Labor voters is that a market mechanism is the best way to deal with the issue, not an over-used argument on the left. Restating the case that climate change needs to be dealt with was another strong argument in favour of the change in policy.

Many of those polled, while supporting the change didn't think it would decrease the cost of living.

ETS Cost of Living Thumb

 

Some of these took the position that if the ETS was going to work, then it has to increase prices. Others thought the impact would be minimal, one way or the other. Yet others thought that the move should reduce prices, but that the reduction wouldn't be passed through by the power companies.

Verbatims

Kevin Rudd has announced that he will abolish the "carbon tax" by implementing the emissions trading scheme a year earlier. How strongly do you support or oppose this change in policy?

ETS_Change: neither_support_nor_oppose
Minor_Major: lp
Final_Pref: coalition
COLUMN: ets_change_why
I agree that it is good to reduce cost of business on actual business - but the govt should have unwound the overcompensation as well, instead of doing half baked "savings" solutions such as abolishing FBT concessions on car use, without consulation to that industry. The irony is that Holden said that the carbontax was killing the industry a few weeks ago, but the real killer for them was the unwinding of the carbon tax!

ETS_Change: strongly_support
Minor_Major: alp
Final_Pref: alp
COLUMN: ets_change_why
I strongly support the early move to an ETS, mostly for pragmatic reasons given the failure of other countries to adopt a strong price on carbon and partly to mitigate the oppportunistic populist stupidity of the Opposition in wanting to dismantle it. I would have preferred to put a surcharge on the ETS to help pay for research and other measures that will help reduce carbon emissions.

ETS_Change: strongly_oppose
Minor_Major: lp
Final_Pref: coalition
COLUMN: ets_change_why
I am at a complete loss to understand why Australia is involving itself, at great cost to industry and the nation, in a scheme precipitated for political purposes on the basis of a now widely discredited IPCC report on "global warming", err, sorry "climate change".

ETS_Change: strongly_oppose
Minor_Major: lp
Final_Pref: coalition
COLUMN: ets_change_why
I strongly appose a trading vehicle with commissions & capable of wide fluxulation being used as a basis of what remains a guilt tax by government on everyone to make energy dearer for the stated purpose of cutting energy use & extracting a new tax. Even if the benefit was clear & agreed its variability is dangerous for business & family budget planning.

Thinking about this change in policy, do you expect it to lower living costs?

Lower_Living_Costs: unsure
Minor_Major: alp
Final_Pref: alp
COLUMN: lower_living_costs_why
The opposition has carried out a very strong vocal denunciation of the whole of the idea of any form of "tax" on carbon and their constant voice in how the cost of living is going up,that is has and now we are stuck with these high costs they come down only as the detriment of the manufacturer. Notwithstanding that we are now told that carbon emissions have lowered in this country and it is quite clear that the government will not achieve their target in tax because of this,Abbott still continues with his scare campaign.

Lower_Living_Costs: unsure
Minor_Major: alp
Final_Pref: alp
COLUMN: lower_living_costs_why
While Rudd has pitched the the change in policy as a means to lower power prices and the cost of living I an not convinced that that will be the outcome. However, a higher carbon future would be far more disastrous on keeping living costs down.

Lower_Living_Costs: unsure
Minor_Major: alp
Final_Pref: alp
COLUMN: lower_living_costs_why
The introduction of a carbon tax has had negligable effect on the cost of living. I don't see any change to this with a shift to n emissions trading scheme one year ahead of time.

Lower_Living_Costs: no
Minor_Major: lp
Final_Pref: coalition
COLUMN: lower_living_costs_why
Going to an emissions trading scheme may or may not reduce cost of living in some short term period into the future but is far more likely to increase costs and reduce Australia's international competitiveness over a very short period of time and forever.

Lower_Living_Costs: no
Minor_Major: lp
Final_Pref: coalition
COLUMN: lower_living_costs_why
The whole point of a carbon tax/ETS is to increase the cost of living to encourage people either to switch to non-carbon polluting forms of energy, or to reduce their energy usage. This bit seems to have been missed by everyone...

 

Share this article on your favourite social bookmarking sites:
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Google! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Twitter!
 

Comments   

 
+1 #1 RE: ETS has support but not for stated reasonsGerardB 2013-08-13 19:17
Kevin Rudd has not scrapped the carbon tax, it will continue and there will be no cost pressure relief within the life of this government. If elected, which is unlikely, Labor will bring forward the carbon market scheme where polluters will be forced to purchase carbon credits. The current Euro rate is $6 per tonne versus the current $25 per tonne courtesy of he carbon tax.
It will still cost us money. Currently, the Australian Treasury via today's PEPO statement forecasts that the market based carbon cost will increase to $18 in 3 years time. Because it is compulsory, it is still a tax!http://www. whatthepeoplewa nt.net/componen ts/com_jcomment s/images/smiles /cry.gif
 
 
+9 #2 ETS has supportB Andrew 2013-08-14 12:25
It is complete rubbish to describe the current carbon price as a tax, as a tax is charged without any direct return to the payer, It is an ETS with a fixed price start as recommended by Garnaut. Some firms are compelled to buy emissions permits which are described as personal property in the legislation. The proposal to move to a floating price is flawed but it rtemains a market where commodities (environmental bads) are traded,2s9q8 not a tax.
 
 
-1 #3 RE: ETS has support but not for stated reasonsLorikeet 2013-08-14 15:44
The Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme are just 2 of the mechanisms of worldwide wealth redistribution being pushed by either the Coalition or Labor/Greens. Another is the ongoing "loan" of billions of dollars each year to failed economies of the EEU.
 
 
-4 #4 RE: ETS has support but not for stated reasonsJohnP 2013-08-14 15:59
Unless there are many B Andrew commentators giving the same Labor Message in many varied media I would suspect this is a Labor employee doing an allocated job. Permissable but trolling spin!
 
 
+2 #5 RE: ETS has support but not for stated reasonsPaul Parker 2013-08-14 23:35
So 33% of those polled as opposed to the carbon tax, with 66% not concerned about it.

20% may want higher prices which seem unlikely, at least until European carbon prices rise, which seems a long way off.


Tony Abbott's 33% keep chanting about doing away with carbon tax, in hope others concentrate on their illusion.

Do they also seek reinstatement of Ptolemaic view, demanding we all acknowledge their view universe circles the earth ?
 
 
0 #6 RE: ETS has support but not for stated reasonsPaul 2013-08-15 16:32
Many years ago carbon schemes were proposed as a vehicle to transfer wealth from 1st world to 3rd to get them to cut pollution. Since that time rhetoric has been out of control and trust destroyed. Yes, environment is being damaged BUT the main driver of population dynamics is untouched. Yes, a society based on belief individuals maximising personal benefit stands little chance of correcting the issues (re-read Tragedy of the Commons which argues for government intervention). No, current political process in Australia is not even approaching what is needed.