The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has today attacked Australian economists for refusing to support his subsidies-for-polluters policy that will cost the average Australian household $720 a year.

Mr Abbott thinks Australian economists aren’t up to scratch for thinking his subsidies-for-polluters policy is inefficient, wasteful and fiscally irresponsible. Economists know that a scheme paying polluters and costing Australian households $720 per year, without offering any support for families, is bad policy.

That is why Mr Abbott has been unable to convince a single credible economist to support the Coalition’s scheme over a carbon price.

Today, when asked about the fact that most economists agree a carbon price is the best way to tackle climate change, Mr Abbott had this to say:

“So look, it may well be, as you say Michael, that most Australian economists think that a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go. Maybe that’s a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument.”

Mr Abbott should read more broadly – it isn’t just Australian economists who think a carbon price is the right policy to tackle climate change. Does Mr Abbott also think the IMF is ignorant when it states:

“Broad based taxes on greenhouse gas emissions are the most natural policy instrument as they exploit all possible behavioural responses for reducing emissions throughout the economy.” (official IMF website)

What does he think of the OECD, given its view that:  

“Putting a price on carbon is essential to drive the technological and behavioural innovation necessary to limit climate change. Market-based instruments, such as cap-and-trade emission trading schemes, are crucial to price carbon emissions and keep the costs of climate action low.” (official OECD website)

What does Mr Abbott think of the Nobel prize winning economist, Dr Paul Krugman, who has said:

“Once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost.” (New York Times, 7/5/10)

But given he is on the record as saying economics is “boring”, his election commitments contained an $11 billion black hole and he didn’t even mention the economy in his Budget reply speech, perhaps people should ignore Mr Abbott’s pronouncements on economics.