I searched the online paper for "shadow" and "virtual" but came up blank. This is a pity. Shadow carbon prices are now mandatory in cost-benefit analyses is the US federal government, and no doubt elsewhere. (See for instance https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf ) There is a tricky technical problem here, since a shadow carbon price by itself has no impact, and what it does have is mediated by the policies and actions to which it contributes - taxation, investment, or regulation. But ignoring shadow prices is not sound.
Solutions need to be multitudinous in number to deal with our future. Unfortunately, Albanese has stronger compliance with neoliberal principles than Whitlam (or Curtin), which doesn't help. Indeed, although, it has been far better governance than the previous decade, BUT that is a pretty low bar to step over. And I am sorry, but what part of the poly crisis (the war in Ukraine, the energy depletion crisis, global inflation, and the climate warming crisis, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, land degradation, air, chemical, water and land pollution, overconsumption, food system degradation, and unsustainable agriculture, amongst others) is going to wait till Albanese is politically comfortable and feels that the right-wing media won't wedge him? Seriously, that excuse, "problems of this magnitude are difficult and take a while to turn around," has got to stop because not only is it not true, but we haven't got the luxury of time to give him. Maintaining two surpluses in the face of these crises (not forgetting including per capita recession the working class and unemployed — that is only expanding) is just bloody economically irresponsible. As long as we enable these sorts of excuse for his reluctance, (including that it takes time to unwind the damage of the Liberal Government — it’s been two years) he will take more time so as not to rock the cradle. <sigh>
I searched the online paper for "shadow" and "virtual" but came up blank. This is a pity. Shadow carbon prices are now mandatory in cost-benefit analyses is the US federal government, and no doubt elsewhere. (See for instance https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf ) There is a tricky technical problem here, since a shadow carbon price by itself has no impact, and what it does have is mediated by the policies and actions to which it contributes - taxation, investment, or regulation. But ignoring shadow prices is not sound.
Solutions need to be multitudinous in number to deal with our future. Unfortunately, Albanese has stronger compliance with neoliberal principles than Whitlam (or Curtin), which doesn't help. Indeed, although, it has been far better governance than the previous decade, BUT that is a pretty low bar to step over. And I am sorry, but what part of the poly crisis (the war in Ukraine, the energy depletion crisis, global inflation, and the climate warming crisis, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, land degradation, air, chemical, water and land pollution, overconsumption, food system degradation, and unsustainable agriculture, amongst others) is going to wait till Albanese is politically comfortable and feels that the right-wing media won't wedge him? Seriously, that excuse, "problems of this magnitude are difficult and take a while to turn around," has got to stop because not only is it not true, but we haven't got the luxury of time to give him. Maintaining two surpluses in the face of these crises (not forgetting including per capita recession the working class and unemployed — that is only expanding) is just bloody economically irresponsible. As long as we enable these sorts of excuse for his reluctance, (including that it takes time to unwind the damage of the Liberal Government — it’s been two years) he will take more time so as not to rock the cradle. <sigh>