Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 1 October 2008

Allan Wetherill has his admirers while James Cryer's article on the recent CEO Forum get the readers writing. Why not join in the debate and have your say.

Re: It pays to ask for help, says TAFE NSW
I had Allan as a teacher when i was an apprentice; even back then I had a great respect for him and the way he used to relate to his students. Back in those days we use to smoke in the corridors in between classes.

It's great to see that the passion is still there
Steve Pettaras

Alan Wetherill's efforts should be praised, instead they are stymied by NSW Government. When we employed an apprentice, conditions were that payroll tax etc was exempt. The rules changed after the indenture. We now pay payroll tax and worker's compensation premiums on apprentice wages, but may be able to claim back next year. In our experience with government claim backs, it will be cumbersome, time-consuming and discouraged.

Apprenticeship centres are limited in their assistance, usually only for tasks for which they receive remuneration. Our state government is walking away from training and responsibilities thus leaving others to cover for them. The last survey I completed for DET was whether skilled migration schemes would alleviate our employment problems.
 
Lynne Morrow
Morprint Pty Ltd

Re: Carbon FootPrint: myth or minefield? James Cryer on CEO industry forum
It was good to see James Cryer's discussion of the carbon footprint issue in your pages.
 
I agree with much of what he said, especially that commercial organisms like us respond largely to financial stimuli, so that is the way governments must seek to modify our behaviour.
 
However I must take issue with a couple of his comments:
 
1) It is definitely not debatable whether the world is actually getting warmer! While there is some question how fast it is happening, or whether it has happened before, or whether human activity is wholly to blame, it would be hard to find a reputable Australian or European scientist that denies it is occurring. In fact, many believe we have already passed the point where any amount of reduction in carbon emissions will be able to stop it let alone reverse it.
 
2) The problem with taxing inputs instead of outputs is that the cost of low-carbon inputs such as energy-efficient plant and non-carbon electricity sources is higher than our current inefficient plant and carbon-based energy. So taxing input costs would drive industry away from desirable practices instead of towards them.
 
Like most people, I don't understand the details of the proposed carbon trading scheme, but I understand the principal - to make carbon-intensive processes so expensive that more ecologically-friendly alternatives are cheaper and therefore more commercially attractive! If we are fortunate enough to get bipartisan support for the scheme to speed its path through Parliament, it will have the effect of granting James his wish of a de facto tax on inputs.
 
There is no denying that the transition to a low-carbon or no-carbon economy is going to be unpleasant but the alternative is, frankly, too horrific to contemplate.
 
Peter Lawrance
Estimator
Hyde Park Press

James posed some very interesting insights and observations from the presentations.  First, my congratulations to Printing Industries NSW for continuing to present their members with such forward thinking topics in such a professional manner.  I'd also like to publicly thank Jon Jutsen from Energetics for his insightful presentation which complimented mine.  

Now to some of James' observations.  First, I detect a level of disbelief that the planet is getting warmer. James says "it is debatable". However, in my opinion there is no way a reasonable person could look at the graph below and conclude it is not warming, although certainly the cause can be debated. I am not suggesting that warming cannot be reversed or stopped, but just that it is plainly happening.

The IPCC statement that it is "unequivocal" that the planet is warming was agreed to by more than 110 Governments after some significant thought ... Can you imagine the due diligence and debate they must have gone through to answer this question: "Imagine if they (we) got this fundamental point wrong!" 

Even more interesting is James' observation that taxing inputs is a good idea rather than outputs. This is simply not a viable case for most environmental protection - and for good reason. For example, I can take (say) diesel fuel, burn it and create particulate particles that cause disease. But I can do the same and fit pollution reducing technology to capture these particulates and remove the risk they cause. Should the diesel be taxed or should the particulate production be discouraged by tax? I go for the latter.

Same applies with carbon. You can make electricity from coal. This can either release carbon dioxide pollution or not depending on the technology (although Carbon Capture and Storage is in its infancy it has been proved). So should you pay a tax or penalty regardless of the outcome? I think not.

Thirdly, efficiency is the reason for an Energy Trading Scheme  (ETS) rather than a tax. Taxes are a cost that cannot be deferred. An ETS is a cost that is less expensive for those industries that can easily and cheaply reduce their carbon emissions, and they have the benefit of selling this cheap abatement to those who cannot do it as cheaply. Both entities benefit. The price of carbon is actually like a tax but trading allows you to avoid this cost for the cheaper alternative somebody else can provide.

I certainly agree about bureaucracy though. I prefer a simple start to an ETS similar to the NSW GGAS scheme which is a carbon trading scheme that has run for years now (the world's oldest). Many do not even know they have it operating in NSW. It simply includes the stationary energy producers, and demand side abatement is recognised as generating credits. Simple and effective. If this scheme was adopted nationally most of the general public would probably not even notice. A simple, easy start to a system that could then be fine-tuned and expanded to cover the necessary sectors as required.

A stimulating collection of thoughts James ... and plenty of room for further discussion. Wish we had more time for debate – but industry has to move on with what it does best ... making things, selling them, and earning a profit. Well done NSW Printing Industries, keep the information coming!

Tony Wilkins
Manager, Environment and Climate Change
News Limited