$50 a month

 

Legal Eagle has a post on her participation in an SBS Insight program concerning Climate Change which is to be aired this coming Tuesday night.  I take it that participants were screened or selected with some intent for a “balanced” though not necessarily representative group to represent competing concerns.  LE was there as a climate change skeptic on the left.  Well, a little bit on the left, anyway, as she herself recognizes.  (I can’t help thinking that LE’s perspective on her position to the left is slightly skewed by the company she keeps – an observation which is not intended to disparage that company at all, but simply to characterize it.) 

In particular I think it is fair to say she was there because she had two concerns:

1.What about the poor? Or: (to put almost the same question a different way) what about inequality? and

2.What if climate change science is wrong?

Her ultimate conclusion is:

It’s natural that people should wish to question climate change science when it has a large impact on them, but somehow climate change science has become politicised. Generally, as Pearson notes, those on the right are sceptical, while those on the left are “believers”. (As I said above, I am a rare exception to that rule, although I met others on the Insight program – it’s nice to know I’m not alone!)

When an issue gets politicised like that I get very worried. I must confess that I don’t really understand why the Left has decided that it will swallow climate change policy whole (which is distinguishable from the question of science). I know that one of the ideas of climate change policy is the idea that we should consume less and be a less capitalist society (which clearly fits into many leftist ideas). But surely another concern of left-wing people should be the perpetuation of the class system and the deepening of the divide between rich and poor. To me, it seems that anyone who is left-wing or progressive should also be concerned about potential effects of some suggested climate change policies on less privileged members of society, and that they should be concerned about the possibility of an elitist society if we institute the suggestions of commentators such as Clive Hamilton or George Monbiot. If we implement any policy, I believe we have to be really careful that it doesn’t create a more unequal society.

It doesn’t seem to me that this last sentence depends upon climate skepticism at all.  Even if you believe in climate change and the necessity for whatever action is being proposed, you can be worried about the poor.

Incidentally, that reference to “the possibility of an elitist society if we institute the suggestions of commentators such as Clive Hamilton or George Monbiot” is a bit of a shibboleth.  Disparagement of “elites” is these days mainly the territory of the post-Howardite or otherwise populist right.  I have my own suspicions of how it has been stirred up by those with vested interests in carbon consumption in what, judging by most of their other conduct, has always struck me as a very partial solicitude for the interests of the poor, whom they are otherwise so often ready to leave to the mercies of the market and the chances of protection by some “trickle down effect.”

The poor, as has been famously remarked, are ever with us.

[Do I need a special semi-irony notification to go with that?]

But LE is not talking about the very poor or at least the very poor who qualify for state assistance, because at least for purposes of argument, she admits that they can be protected by an adjustment of their assistance.  That must be so, subject to the inevitable way that some people fall between the cracks of such programs for one reason or another.

That is what I saw on the Insight program: ordinary people who would struggle mightily if energy prices were raised by $50 a month. And they were scared. On the one hand, you have this disastrous prediction of what will occur as a result of climate change. On the other hand, you have the certain prospect of having to pay more for fuel which will necessarily have a massive impact on your life. As one woman said, “If we do things about this, it will have a huge impact on the economy and our whole country, so I think it’s really important to know whether it’s really necessary or not.”

She says, taking a cue from Noel Pearson, one of her favourite commentators (though not one of mine):

For a person who is economically secure, an extra $50 a month for fuel and added costs of various commodities isn’t going to be a tremendous burden. It might hurt a little, but it isn’t going to break the bank. Thus, it’s understandable that most people who are middle-class and educated want to take action on climate change — for them, the risk of possible environmental catastrophe is far greater than the risk of paying a bit more for every day items. However, for a person who is less economically secure, an extra $50 a month for fuel and added costs of commodities is going to be a tremendous burden. I’m not talking people on the poverty line here (who would probably be covered by government rebates). I’m talking about working people who are not really well off, but who are not poor enough to be helped by the government. I’m also thinking of people whose business is going to be badly affected by any change in the structure of our economy. For them it’s a balance between immediate incontrovertible financial pain versus speculative future pain. This is why it’s a “wedge” issue for parties like the Labor Party in Australia. They just can’t please everyone.

LE is talking about the people who are too well off to receive state assistance which will provide such offsets to an additional expense for energy which she takes to be $50 a month.  Inevitably, if only because they are just above the cut-off line, there will be people who are sensitive to such an additional expense.

In my opinion, we are talking about the relatively poor rather than the absolutely poor in this case.  It could be couples with 1-2 kids with two below-average incomes amounting to about $70-$80K -between them (I’m guessing at the figures here, but you could easily get to that figure with, say, the father earning $40K and the mother working school hours and working $30K) and paying off a mortgage.  Even they would be relatively well-off compared to those who were renting, and within that group their relative poverty would depend on how much of their homes they already own or, from a cash-flow point of view, how long ago they took out their mortgages (the older the mortgage, the smaller it will generally be because the house will have been cheaper).

The hip pocket nerve is a funny thing.  It’s very subjective.  What seems expensive very much depends on how much you want to spend money on it.  Even then, people have varying capacities for both frugality and tight budgeting (which is not necessarily the same thing, because in particular it relates to the fixed expenses which you are prepared to incur).  Obviously to anyone who reads this blog, as an avid attendee of concerts and operas which cost about $100 a pop (often more; rarely very much less), I am not a frugal person.  On the other hand, I have so far baulked at the fixed expense of a mortgage because (a) I am feckless – I am not even as the hare to the tortoise, but rather as the grasshopper to the ant; (b) I am insufficiently sure of my future income to make the commitment and (c) in my early years as a solicitor I was at the pointy end of enforcing securities against farmers and small business people who were destined to lose their farm or home as a result of either changed economic conditions (including the recession we had to have and the decline of the small family farm) or simply the failure of their own venture for reasons particular to that venture.  I later worked on the other side for borrowers to save what they had by whatever ingenious defence could be devised (the best defences were reserved to farmers under the Farm Debt Mediation Act).  Either way, it made me risk-averse.

So for me, it is difficult to empathise with concern at an additional daily expense of just under $1.70 or so a day for energy bills for a household.  Even when poor (including when I was putting myself through law school at the same time as Noel Pearson when he was able to come to Sydney to attend – in his final years  he was already executive director of the Cape York Land Council), I have not been able to or prepared to cut my cloth so fine as that.  To put it bluntly, so far as the relatively poor who own their own homes or are paying them off are concerned, I think they could find that money to meet the long-term risks posed by climate change, even if the science turns out to be wrong (and the present scientific consensus is overwhelmingly that it is not: that is clear to me from any of the genuinely scientifically educated people I know). 

If the question is really a question of protecting the poor, there are a lot more social adjustments from the left which could be taken to correct the situation (and, as I have hinted, treatment of home ownership versus renting in Australia is probably the biggest single one) before $50 a month ought to be a critical obstacle.  That these adjustments don’t gain much political traction in Australia is because the relatively poor have bought the hope that they may be relatively rich, as they already are compared to the absolutely poor.  They have been sold flattened tax rates; they embrace the favourable taxation treatment of their principal dwelling place; etc etc.

We are talking about democracy, here.  Whatever exactly that is and however mass opinion is vulnerable to manipulation by elites of their own kind in the mass media, that means people are entitled to take their own interests as they see them into account and form their own views. But I certainly don’t feel bad about urging the relatively poor of Australia to accept a policy to deal with climate change that would lead to increased energy costs of this magnitude.

4 Responses to “$50 a month”

  1. Legal Eagle Says:

    Thank you for taking the post in the spirit it was meant. Yes, I think you’re right – they were looking for sane climate sceptics, so I was there to provide balance, as were many of the people sitting around me. The front row were 10 on the scale of whether they doubted climate change, I was in the second row as a 5 (hedging my bets).

    You don’t like Noel? Ah well, as I say, I rather like him. The problem is that it isn’t just about raising electricity bills (although I took the figure from Noel’s piece for convenience sakes). It would raise the price of everything else as well because transport costs would go up. I can imagine that if some of the policies suggested by the likes of Monbiot were implemented, various everyday conveniences (car travel, air travel etc) would become only for the very rich. And I really don’t like a class-stratified society like that – I want egalitarian access to mod-cons insofar as it’s possible. Yes, there will always be those who are very poor, but I believe we should try and keep the pyramid as flat as possible, and allow fluid movement within it.

  2. marcellous Says:

    I wouldn’t put it so high as to say I don’t like Noel P, though I can’t say I think much of some his digs in the opinion piece to which you refer. Sent off to boarding school then to the University of Sydney, he’s a big man in his own community almost as much as Al Gore is in his. For his own reasons, including, I suspect, pragmatic and realist ones during the Howard years, he’s chosen to run with the right on many issues.

  3. Legal Eagle Says:

    I suspect the reason I like Pearson is that I am a pragmatist and a centrist…on some things, I’ll go to the right if that suits my purposes more. That’s why I usually say I’m my “very own wing”, although in Facebook political surveys, I usually come out as generally left wing and as libertarian.

    The important thing is, you don’t say that I shouldn’t express my point of view, and I believe that you should certainly have a right to express yours. Furthermore, I can entirely understand why you have the point of view you do. That, to my mind, is what my post was about: the process of decision making, which should include voices from all perspectives. What I really hate is dogmatism and an unwillingness to consider someone else’s point of view.

  4. wanderer Says:

    I’m afraid I can’t, with respect, accept LE’s concern’s about widening of class difference, assuming LE is talking about Australia (excluding the indigenous populations, and I do not mean that as a pejorative, but rather as beyond the definition). Class boundaries here, if they exist at all, are blurred and readily traversable I think, unless LE means that climate catastrophe will operate in the reverse, which is entirely possible.

    And I agree with M I don’t think the $50 is essentially the issue, and what’s more, surely the point of the exercise is to increase costs to reduce consumption, which burden will, yes, fall more onto the less affluent, but that doesn’t mean they will not be able to deal with it (reducing consumption) as well as get compensation, in return for a vote. The cost to us now (compared to the never mentioned cost to us later) is politicking at its worst, or best.

    The word missing I think is ‘fear’. Sticking with sweeping statements, it seems to me that the right of politics isn’t defined by anything much other than an inability to embrace uncertainty, and a leaning to self interest at the expense of the collective. They fear the future, they fear for themselves. Climate change is very threatening, they don’t trust anyone, including themselves, to manage it, and they seek refuge in the skeptics (climate, not legal, well maybe). They vote for Howard, they vote for the past. And they hoard.

    And vice versa. One of the more startling things Julia Gillard said in her press conference on the day of the deposition of Rudd was something like ‘ We should never be afraid of the future’. I loved her for that. That alone makes me confident she meant/means well when she talks of consensus in the climate debate. Pragmatism is another matter.

    Our species is wired for survival and it will deal with climate change when it has to. Sadly, it is likely that selfishness and ignorance (either genuine or the denial from fear – the information is complex and does need third party interpretation for most) will mean it will take some catastrophe, or crescendo of minor events, to get the message through. And a collapse in population numbers may well be just part of survival.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: