MEDIA

Roger Montgomery and the carbon tax: good or bad?

Media Room, TV Appearances | Comments (59)

Roger Montgomery and the carbon tax: good or bad?

Roger Montgomery talks to Peter Switzer about Julia Gillard’s proposed carbon tax and shares his thoughts on its potential consequences for VIRGIN (ASX:VBA), ORIGIN (ASX:ORG), Qantas (ASX:QAN), Bluescope Steel (ASX:BSL), Orica (ASX:ORI ), Boral (ASX:BLD), Incitec (ASX:IPL), CSR (ASX:CSR), Santos (ASX:STO), OneSteel (ASX:OST), Woodside (ASX:WPL), Caltex (ASX:CTX), BHP (ASX:BHP), RIO (ASX: RIO), Newcrest (ASX:NCM). Watch the interview.

INVEST WITH MONTGOMERY

Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chairman of Montgomery Investment Management. Roger has over three decades of experience in funds management and related activities, including equities analysis, equity and derivatives strategy, trading and stockbroking. Prior to establishing Montgomery, Roger held positions at Ord Minnett Jardine Fleming, BT (Australia) Limited and Merrill Lynch.

This post was contributed by a representative of Montgomery Investment Management Pty Limited (AFSL No. 354564). The principal purpose of this post is to provide factual information and not provide financial product advice. Additionally, the information provided is not intended to provide any recommendation or opinion about any financial product. Any commentary and statements of opinion however may contain general advice only that is prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial circumstances or needs. Because of this, before acting on any of the information provided, you should always consider its appropriateness in light of your personal objectives, financial circumstances and needs and should consider seeking independent advice from a financial advisor if necessary before making any decisions. This post specifically excludes personal advice.

Why every investor should read Roger’s book VALUE.ABLE

NOW FOR JUST $49.95

find out more

SUBSCRIBERS RECEIVE 20% OFF WHEN THEY SIGN UP

You are reading an article about: Media Room, TV Appearances

59 Comments

  1. David Panaro
    :

    Hey just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few of the images aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same outcome.

  2. Alex
    :

    There is absolutely no way adding additional costs to business through increasing energy costs (ie a carbon tax) will be good for the sharemarket in general or specific businesses in particular.

    How anybody can think otherwise is beyond me.

    In fact I don’t think the sharemarket will turn around anytime soon, until energy becomes actually CHEAPER to produce relative to it’s current pricing.

    And that is going to take some serious fundamental science and research. Not this “psuedo” global warming science we have now.

    All the previous sharemarket booms have been riding developments in productivity. Industrial revolution, Railroads, the discovery of electricity, or the automobile, and then the internet. In each of these, energy costs and the per unit cost of labour have been driven DOWN. Not up!

    Unfortunately we may have to wait decades before mankind really comes up with a way to actually reliably reduce the cost of energy. And it won’t come from wind or solar or geothermal, or even uranium. Not with current technology anyway. It is going to take a quantum leap in technology and science to actually do this. And nobody can predict now, how and when this might happen.

    It certainly won’t come from governments or economists or “efficient” markets that is for sure. It will come from fundamental science. A genuine breakthrough. A genius like Thomas Edison or Rutherford. Since when does anybody in Canberra really understand fundamental science. Most of them left science well and truly by 9th grade. They all studied humanities for goodness sake. 99.9% of these people are lawyers. They aren’t scientists!

    Anybody who thinks otherwise and believes that actually making energy costs INCREASE by adding a carbon tax, will solve the situation is deluding themselves….

    Just my two bobs worth if anybody is interested anyway…

    • Ian de Gruchy
      :

      Hi Alex

      What you say is true if all you are talking about is energy use only. Though I declared myself an artist I still operate as a practice and charge GST on everything I produce and claim GST on the cost of that production. The service I provide is art.

      Just a couple of observations regarding my own practice and technological innovation. I’m a projection artist, both slide and digital projection. Recently I have converted a couple of my permanent projection works from slide projection to digital projection. What used to cost me an absolute fortune – I talking thousands of dollars in slide film, processing and slide mounts has now reduced to almost zero and as well, I don’t have to make a new set of slides every six months (slides fade). Also all my invites and invoices go out as pdfs – so I save on postage. In fact in almost every regard, the cost of my production has reduced dramatically over the past 10 years – and thus receive a much healthier margin as earnings. The cost of my energy consumption represents 1.3% of my cost base – which is a relatively miniscule expense.

      The car I operate now has a 1.4 ltr turbo engine – I now spend a lot less on petrol than three years ago – both though efficiency and less travel (I don’t have drop off and pick up films etc because I can do so much via email) and I can go on.

      It’s hard enough making money out of art so I really enjoy the extra income I receive though these advances.

      I appreciate that this doesn’t apply to every business – I’m just trying to illustrate that through technological advances and efficiencies, I have personally benefitted enormously. Less pollution, less time running around blah blah – I think you get the gist.

      Like I said – innovation and imagination is the key.
      cheers
      Ian

  3. Grant Duggan
    :

    Andrew and Ian,
    There is not much i can add to this topic that the pair of you have raised allready. Doing nothing will change nothing,is it the right option and will it make an impact, only time will tell.The changes to a vast majority of us will be minor. I work in an alluminium smelter drive a gas powered car, and recycle anything and everything possible. And believe we could all contribute individually and probably make a bigger difference then what the tax itself will. Just my ramble

  4. Ian de Gruchy
    :

    Hi Roger and fellow bloggers,

    This might be showing my age – but I have been aware of this debate for nearly 40 years since reading ‘The Whole Earth Catalogue’ in the 70’s. More recently after reading some of the reports coming out of the 4 degrees conference, the consequences of living in a warmer world seem frightening to me. If the world has experienced some strange weather recently – devastating floods, extreme heat waves (we have short memories) and bigger and more menacing storms, I don’t think I would want to be around in 40 years time which of course I won’t – but anyone under 40 years will. And it’s not just the warming but the acidification of the oceans and rising sea levels which will be of great concern – with crashing fish stocks and vanishing islands and coastlines. Now that seems like a high price to pay – by comparison 1% of GDP seems small. One might question some of the detail around the plan but the principle is right – we as a collective planet have to do something about it. There is never going to be a right time to move. There will always be self interested parties attacking whatever is proposed. I read somewhere that when sulphur dioxide emissions were causing acid rain, a tax was introduced to combat the problem. What was interesting about this was that the uptake of solutions to combat the problem was much more rapid that ever imagined. We don’t hear much about acid rain anymore. My feeling is innovation is the key and that won’t happen unless there is a financial incentive to do so.
    I’m an artist, I don’t have children and I didn’t vote for the greens but I still care about the planet and I think it has a bright future if we can just get over this and move towards a less polluted world.
    As an investor I feel the exchange rate and interest rates have a far greater impact, over which we seem to have no control – except maybe by buying A1 companies with a decent margin of safety that are doing innovative and creative things.
    My five cents worth.
    cheers
    Ian

  5. Susanne
    :

    I have strong views about the govt’s carbon pricing proposal, but I have no idea how they fit with Roger’s because I can’t see the interview: I live within 120 kms of 3 major cities but can’t get reliable broadband.

    Is there a transcript available?

    Susanne (Sternly resisting the urge to shout Bring On the NBN, because that would be off-topic)

    • Roger Montgomery
      :

      We all hope the NBN comes your way Susanne. Ridiculous that you don’t have reliable communication technology – I thought the governments of both persuasions really cared about “the bush”?

  6. Andrew
    :

    Rant Mode on:

    I think one thing everyone can probably agree on in regards to this issue is that neither party has a necessarily good policy to tackle this issue and the debate going on about it in most circles is starting to border on school yard taunting all based around partisan viewpoints and completley ignoring anything that does not agree with them. The media coverage has been just as bad and appear to be driven by partisan politics themselves and a lot of people seem to think only the ALP has a policy in regards to tackling the issue. Something has gone wrong here and i think it reflects the poor quality of those we elect regardless of party.

    I was thinking the other day, one problem with being elected to government is that all politicians are dishonest, but the government gets to prove it whilst the opposition gets to give the impression that they would have done everything they promised and the place would be better off.

    I expect in a few years time the carbon tax will be like the GST. No-one will notice it, very little will change in behaviour in regards to everyday people as compensation limits any impact to them, companys should be working to be the most efficient they can be anyway so its a sad thought that the govt needs to introduce a tax to make this happen. One positive is the increase investment in renewables which i think is long overdue. If the world put more effort into renewable energy R&D i reckon we would be close to having the solution now. Overall it will reach the targets as promised and not much else.

    Then you have direct action which arrouses my “if its too good to be true it probably is”. This sees the government pay companys to reduce emmisions, but won’t see any negative effect to the economy or taxpayers. Also, lots of trees will be planted (we can only assume they wouldn’t then be demolished ot make way for new developments)

    I don’t know whether climate change is real or not, i dont think anyone particularly does, i am leaning towards the risk management side so thinking we should try and do something. Just like the asylum seeker issue, nothing is really going to change unless the world acts together but i also don’t believe waiting around will help. My experience is that when a group of people sit around waiting for someone else to act nothing gets done. Carbon taxes and ETS i think are probably the better way to go as i believe they will start being enacted by various governments around the world just like gay marriage.

    In the short term i think it might provide enough negaticve sentiment to make some good value.able investing palys.

    • Alex
      :

      Andrew, with all due respect, if you think the GST didn’t have an effect of inflation, the cost of housing, the cost of labour, and the cost of producing goods, and we still aren’t noticing this right now, then you are sadly missing something.

      Haven’t you noticed just how costly it has become right now living in this country? Or to build a new house? All this is a direct result of the GST. If the next government actually recinded the GST and slashed this compounding 10% cost on business, what do you think would happen to productivity and the sharemarket. It would rocket skywood.

      We used to live in a low tax, highly efficient society. Now we are approaching a high cost European style economy. The GST was the first negative step towards this. Adding a carbon tax is just another….

  7. anthony A
    :

    Hi Roger,

    I agree with you whole hartedly with your carbon tax comments. It’s for the good of the labour party and its leader, not the good of the environment. I dont believe sending billions of dollars to Canberra and then re-distributing wealth with have any impact what so ever on changing the climate.

    Your book and blog has made me aware of when it comes to investing in a company, is should have a competitive advantage over its competitors. This is one thing Australia has and one of the reasons why we survived the GFC. Have I counted our chickens before they have hatched? With business and consumer confidence at its lowest, a construction industry strugling and the threat of Australia being a sovereign risk for the first time, this government is now removing the competitive advantage this great country of ours has enjoyed for so long.

    Regards
    Anthony

  8. Mark
    :

    If you believe a carbon tax is inevitable which i do then considering the generous concessions that the government is making both to industry and individuals I think in hindsight this will turn out to be a good decision.

    Delaying a carbon tax or similar such scheme will only result in more pain further down the track when the economy may well be in worse shape that it is now and of course without the generous concessions to industry and individuals.

  9. Andrew
    :

    The carbon tax issue is something i think which cements my strategy of picking companys with a sustainable competitive advantage.

    The introduction of this carbon tax could be a very profitable time for these companys as they will be less effected by the cost as they can simply raise prices without fear of a real drop in customers where a sa company that does not have this might suffer a real drop in customers by trying to raise prices so will instead need to possibly absorb the cost.

    Then you have the lowest cost companys that can still offer the lowest prices in the market for that product in a time where their competitors need to raise prices to cover the cost of the tax. Their competitors need to either again, absorb some of the tax to be competitive or risk losing customers.

    I don’t invest in industrys that would be more affected by this tax (more worried about the consumer confidence levels which i guess is partly linked to this but not exclusivley) anyway so i am not too concerned. Could offer some good opportunities in the short term. I think we should all have a think as to how it will affect companys we like and if it does, do they have a real sustainable competitive advantage to negate the impact.

  10. Ray H
    :

    Roger I have to disagree with your logic that because there are income tax offsets there is no incentive for consumers to change their behaviour. The tax offsets are relative to income, whereas the expense is relative to carbon intensity. This creates an effective price signal. Lets choose a simple hypothetical example – I get an extra $50 per fortnight in my take home pay due to the tax changes. Do I now maintain my electricity consumption and pay that $50 to the power company or do I make active behavioural changes to save some power and spend that $50 on a case of beer? Well dah… that’s a no-brainer. Behaviour changed.

      • pat
        :

        If I get an extra $50 I’ll go and spend it just the same as Kevin 07’s $900.If my electricity supplier hits me with a $50 charge because of my carbon use, then I will take action straight away, to see where I can lower it and then drink the beer’s.

      • Lloyd
        :

        Is beer less CO2 emissions intensive than the consumption it displaces? Tough to make and hard to cool with out power! And where does the power come from?

      • Matty
        :

        I don’t think we should be comparing different products when trying to think through what impact this has on the consumer. CO2 emissions are proportional to $ spent and obviously keeping the cash under your pillow will have a much lower environmental impact. (As long as it doesn’t give you a neck-ache and you then fly to LA for treatment).

        If we compare kWh at the power source then the carbon tax should bring some technologies to a much more competitive $/kWh price for our current baseload power production.

        That has to be the thinking (some may call it hope) behind these schemes. Hopefully this brings us closer to the point where renewable energy gets more popular>more mass production>lower unit price kWh costs

        For example if a hybrid car would originally pay itself off with fuel savings after 10 years and the owner would replace the car after 6 years then why bother. If the payoff period is now 3 years then you will see more and more people consider these products even if it may not be so stylish and look good with an ARB Roo bar, but at the end of the day for some commodity product car consumers it will all be about cost. The economics may be exaggerated above but that is how I see it and the thinking can be applied for other product choices.

        Short term it may kick my portfolio in the guts, but I am also of the opinion that something had to be done to change our behavior because behaviour will not change and was not changing without the pain in the wallet incentive. No-one will notice our slowly acidifying oceans until it’s bubbling like cola. And by that time it will be too late.

    • David Sinclair
      :

      The majority of the reductions in emissions will come when electricity producers replace all of their old coal-fired power stations (some of which have been kept running longer than they should have due to uncertainty about the future of a carbon price) and make decisions on whether to build new coal-fired plants, gas-fired, or other alternatives. Any behavioural changes by businesses and/or consumers that result in less electricity being used will be an added bonus, but they are never going to be the main source of emmisions reductions.

      David S.

  11. Thomas
    :

    Hi Roger,

    Thanks for putting in the most coherent response, without the political nonsense that you see on TV.

    I will be finishing with a politics/economics double degree soon and after 4 years I have found that my university is awash with people (student and academics) still pricing carbon in their models, and using dogmatic environmental opinion to override any classical theories against the flaws of carbon pricing/trading schemes.

    I still find the most of the Hayek approach to economics as the most value.able, which would oppose this type of intervention and help to explain the value investing ‘rationality’ behind one’s investment choices.

    All my investments have between 20% to 60% ROE and if I averaged my holdings, the Book Value will have 20% long term debt attached to it from mostly FMG.

    Happy investing during a very confusing time.

    Thomas

  12. pat
    :

    My comments are about BHP paying 60% premium to actual price for a listed company,listed on the Hong kong exchange I think.Their offer for the canadian potash company was about a 30% premium also.Are they going to waste away our money again.Buying back shares was good.Mining companies with alot of cash have to be watched carefully.

    • Simon Anthony
      :

      Spot on Pat. BHP is thinking longer term (>30 years) in its recent oil/gas/potash purchases in North America. In these kind of deals its commonplace to pay a 30% premium for a quality asset and not get stuck in a bidding war with another competor.

  13. sapporosteve
    :

    Roger,

    I will declare my hand immediately and state that I have been a former Chief of Staff for a Labor Minister at the state level. However……

    I am disappointed that you are venturing into political commentary. Many media voices want a comment regarding the latest happening and in this case, Switzer wants a comment on the carbon tax. No surprises there. But your response regarding the motivations are supposition and may not (and I emphasis may not – because I do not know for sure either) reflect the actual realities. In addition to that, the story regarding gelato is nice but I get the feeling that it’s for big city folks. Not all of your admirers (and I count myself as one of them) live next to a Gelato shop where they name products after the locals. I do remember when you placed a photo of you and Masterchef people on your blog and you needed to response that it as only a joke. You are skilled at determining the aspects of business but be careful when venturing into to politics. Your mentor Buffett is always very guarded when he discusses broader political and at 80 we can give the old man some leeway. If you are 40, some may not be so generous.

    Please dont be tempted to make a comment on the latest issue simply because your media friends want one. Your in business Roger, not politics.

    By the way – all the companies you mentioned were not investment grade anyway so what is the impact on the A1’s?

    You can print this comment if you want to, but I am not offended if you dont.

    regards
    Steve

    • Roger Montgomery
      :

      Thanks Steve,

      I trust you will grant me your grace for one comment does not qualify even as a commencement of a venture into politics. Fortunately in Australia we are however afforded the right to speak our minds. You may disagree with my stock selections and my view on the carbon tax – which i remain concerned might not change change the behaviuor of cunsumers or producers. I would like to see something, anything, so expensive, work. On a much more important matter, I will in future put conversations about gelato into context for the benefit of all value-investors, no matter where we live.

      • Mark Ab
        :

        Does that gag also apply to the debate on Bill Shorten’s FOFA Bill? If that is the case, then we might as well put a blah blah blah tax on internet blogging…

      • Nic Arena
        :

        Love the stories Roger and your ‘short’ insights into YOUR opinion about how the carbon tax will effect Australia and therefore Australian businesses. The banter that you have with Switzer is just as enjoyable to watch as your information about Businesses.

        Keep up the great work.
        Nic

      • Darren
        :

        Roger,
        I will declare my hand, I was a member of the ALP 20 years ago, but no more,
        I think it is sad what the ALP has become with promoting a policy in which the people who will be worst off will be the working people as there jobs are sent off shore and they will see their cost of living rise.
        It is all so a sad state of affairs that the modern ALP seems to have a problem with free speech.
        Cheers.

      • Roger Montgomery
        :

        Thanks Darren,

        I think what you point out is sad for Australia, sad for our prospects and sad for true democracy here. We need at least two parties that are equally adept, experienced, and qualified. One does wonder where the skills shortage really is…

      • Harold JANUS
        :

        Politics or not politics that is the question. But, we have been taught if it does not look right it most likely is not ok and should be observed.
        Harold

      • Lloyd
        :

        “Your in business Roger, not politics.” To which I would add…

        But you’d make a damn better job of it than the current inmates in charge of the asylum and their sycophantic advisers.

      • Lloyd
        :

        P.S. I am quite partial to Gelato and would happily taste test Montgomery Gold at the first opportunity. I also note that the segue for the said subject matter was Switzer’s question. Obviously he intended the question for “big city folks” as the majority of his viewers would be. So what? He was just playing to viewer demographics and there is no crime, or character aspersion in that. I don’t think we should be too precious over the subject!

      • Mark Fenech
        :

        Hi Roger,

        Congratulations for exercising your right to speak your mind. I fear in the current political environment certain groups feel the need to shut down various commentators and that is simply not the Australian way. It takes courage to put your name and brand on the line to form an opinion in the public domain which is profoundly more heroic than the likes of those purpoting ideas through online media without a name and without a face. Thank you for serving the very valued principle of accountability. We all need to welcome the likes of you and others canvassing ideas, taking them aside for assessment and ultimately forming our own views. I’m sure I speak for 99.99% of blog members when I say continue the great work and never feel the need to circumnavigate from what a democratic society fortunes us all with.

        Warm regards,
        Mark Fenech

      • Roger Montgomery
        :

        Mark,

        Your comments add to the discussion and represent a Value.able contribution. Not all will agree but in investing we are used to disagreement, how else would anyone sell us the shares we wish to acquire?

      • sapporosteve
        :

        It appears that hell has no fury like a blogger’s scorn!

        I count myself as a supporter of Roger’s – not a sycophant but a supporter. Roger may be able to confirm this, but I believe I was the only person on this blog to write a full review of Roger’s book explaining why it was valuable to both beginning and experienced investors. I just didn’t jump on here and say it’s a great book like many did without an explanation. To me, that is what a sycophant does – all support and no thought. I read Roger’s book critically and determined that it was extremely useful to both types of investors. I took the time to explain why so that others could hopefully benefit from reading it.

        Lest I be accused of bias, let me state that I have utilised Roger’s method to make money, bought 3 copies of Valu.able (for friends) and written the review and I am currently redrafting my review to submit to a US Value Investors site. So some may charge that I am positively bias towards Roger. I use Roger’s valuation method because it works, and I believe that everyone would benefit from adopting it. I do not support it simply because I know Roger personally (I dont) and so that means I just offer blanket support on his every thought.

        In regards to accountability, my opening statement is simply stating my status so that it is transparent and accountable. I tell you and this allows you to take that into consideration. If you want to say “he would say that wouldn’t he” then that is your prerogative.

        Some of you have charged that you or Roger could do a better job running the show than either of the political parties. From my experience, both the Liberal and now Labor governments have done a reasonable job over the past 20 years. It is all to easy to stand on the outside and throw stones without actually having ever “walked a mile in their shoes”. Spend some time in politics and you might just generate some empathy for them. As Roger put it in response to Ray H’s comment – “sometimes experience trumps theory”.

        Some of you seem to think I am interested in shutting down debate. I am not. As I have stated elsewhere on this blog, I am interested in hearing opposite opinions to my thoughts so as to get closer to the truth. But I think any opinion should be based on as many facts as possible. The carbon tax is not even in place yet, but all and sundry want to state that it is a disaster and will not change anything. In addition to that, some think that the tax will make people poorer. The same idle speculation was bandied about regarding the introduction of the GST.

        The fact is that what people and all politicians are putting forward is speculation and yes we each are allowed to speculate but it is speculation nonetheless. And I thought that speculation was not a principle that we aspired to as value investors.

        regards
        Steve

      • Roger Montgomery
        :

        Great points Steve. I am delighted you have stated and articulated your position so clearly and transparently. I would like to add that I have no interest in working in politics. I do have a view about the carbon tax and I am delighted to hear all views expressed freely without fear of any personal judgement. If you think it’s a good solution then feel free to say so. If you feel the opposite, you are equally free to say so. Keep your comments on the subject rather than directing them towards an individual all will be welcome. For what it is worth I think charging a few dollars for carbon will have the same impact on behavior as the petrol price rising from 70 cents to $1.40 a litre has had on car travel and petrol consumption.

      • Pat Fitzgerald
        :

        Hi Roger

        A small number of people convert to LPG because of the price of petrol. The carbon tax may have a similar small impact, time will tell.

      • Paul Kulen
        :

        A great example Roger, totally agree.

        Remember not long ago a simple legislation to phase out ‘leaded/super petrol’ forced the entire car industry to change direction to comply. Hence the rapid change in consumer behavior. This simple decision was the catalyst to the reduction of lead from our atmosphere without compromising price of fuel, performance of cars or sales.

        Under the current proposal I am also struggling to understand what will be the main driver for our industries to reduce its carbon emissions, especially if they can simply pass on all the proposed emission penalties as price increase to the users.

        PK

      • Ray H
        :

        I agree with the example of petrol prices and the impact on vehicle usage – a very thought provoking example of price signalling at work.

        Would we see the same proportion of small cars on the road if the petrol price was still 70c/l?

        Would we see the same investment and level of attainment producing highly efficient small diesel engines if the petrol price was still 70c/l?

        Would there be any interest in hybrid vehicles if the petrol price was still 70c/l?

        Would virtually all of the world’s major auto manufacturers be planning production of pure electric vehicle models in the next few years if the petrol price was still 70c/l?

      • Roger Montgomery
        :

        But its emissions legislation elsewhere in the world that is forcing the production of these vehicle. Little to do with local petrol prices. It is direct legislation to prevent an activity that changes behaviour not price signalling.

    • Jefferey
      :

      Aitken Partners is a Premium Level Melbourne-based law firm
      http://www.aitken.com.au/news-blog/news/income-tax-rates-post-carbon-tax

      Hi Roger and all.
      I hope people find the above interesting as it has the new Proposed Carbon tax rates going forward.
      Tax rates on taxable income between $18,201 and $80,000 are to increase as a result of tax changes following introduction of the Carbon Tax. and decrease for below.
      Im wondering what the political ramifications that re engineering the tax system has in a political parties strategy.

      Hope this isn’t to far off topic.

      I will declare that both major political parties are similar to a portfolio of shares like the
      ASX 200 you get some good and bad but at the end of the day you get a very average result.

    • John B
      :

      Steve,

      In a democracy we are all entitled to venture into politics. Politics is too important to be left to the politicians. When I read it I thought Roger’s comment was courageous as it was clear some would not welcome it.

    • Rob
      :

      Roger,
      As I commented recently on your facebook page, I enjoy your banter with Peter Switzer it shows a genuine rapport. There was some criticism by others here of Peter appearing patronising, but I see it more as a necessity for him to clarify your methods to new viewers.
      Likewise tell us all about the Gelato, the mountain bikes, delayed flights, graduate snapshots etc. This is all friendly good spirited stuff and let’s us know a little about you and your interests. I’m glad you’re not boring.
      As to the carbon tax, I welcome your views as I do those with a different view of it.
      Now before I go on I suppose for transparency I must declare mine. Not to do so would make me appear to be dodging the issue
      Firstly, as stated in an earlier blog, I think the “climate change” debate is the biggest furfie of all time. Uh, fellow bloggers, before you reach for your keyboards, the debate not “climate change”. As long as the world is tied up in this unwinnable (unwinnable by either side) debate, nothing will get done. We are a growing population (there are more people alive today than have gone before us) on a small planet, tell me why we need an excuse, any excuse, to look after it. This is a given we should look after our planet regardless.
      I recently saw Naomi Oreskes, author of Merchants of Doubt, on Big Ideas on our ABC. She basically talks about an organised movement who spreads doubt within the community to discredit anything from opponents of tobacco smoking, proponents of acid rain to proponents global warming. Naomi, I think you could add one more tool to their arsenal and that is distraction. Tie climate change believers up endless debate and watch real action disappear e.g. to the poor result in Copenhagen.
      What is being presented is a carbon tax that, down the track, will turn into an ETS. Personally, I don’t like the idea of an ETS. Anything that puts the future of the planet in the hands of the financial sector, in my opinion, is fraught with danger. If you wish to see the manipulation that can go on in Wall St have a read of this article by Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone magazine.
      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
      I just don’t think a tax on Australia’s 500 biggest polluters will achieve much at all. If it’s cheaper for them to shift overseas, they will. It won’t come out of their profits because they’re in business to make money so it will get passed on. This is the stick approach and like boiling frogs before we know it, we will be paying and not a thing will have been done for the environment.
      I prefer the carrot approach. We need to educate, everyone from toddlers up. We need to encourage investment in clean, renewable energy. I’m sure there are thousands of little things we could do such as making hybrid vehicles FBT free. Then mums would arrive at school in Priuses rather than Crewmen or gas guzzling 4WDs.
      Now rather than admonishing Roger for expressing an opinion, I’d rather hear what those on both sides have to say about the carbon tax and why.
      Cheers
      Rob

  14. Darren
    :

    G,day Roger,
    How does the BHP takeover of petrohawk affect it’s IV. They seem to be well in truly paying a full price. BHP seem to see a big future in shale gas in a low carbon world. They will have a battle on their hands with the green movement when it comes to fracking.

  15. Peter
    :

    Hi Roger,

    Enjoyed the show as always (one of these days they might give you your own show),

    Happy to see three of my four biggest companies are looking ok – BHP, Rio and NCM. Bit worried about Incitec though……

    Regards,

    Peter

Post your comments