In September this year the Government released a consultation paper on “reducing default speed limits outside of built-up areas.” At the moment, if there is no speed sign on a road, the default speed limit is 100 km/h. There has been a long-standing push to reduce this speed limit for safety reasons.
I am sceptical of the need for such a heavy-handed response because I think people can judge their own risks on these roads. And, if they are not sensible enough to do that, a lower “default” limit, which will remain unsigned, is unlikely to slow them down.
But fair enough. We should try to make our roads safer and despite my default position, I am open to consider arguments that we can make them safer.
What is clear in the Government’s paper, however, is that they are not just considering safety issues. The paper spends 4 pages discussing the benefits of lower speed limits to reduce carbon emissions.
As the paper says “consumption of petrol and diesel in petrol and diesel vehicles produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” and that “There is evidence to suggest that increased speed can increase fuel consumption and therefore increase CO2 emissions.” The paper concludes that the fact that people do pay a cost for the increased emissions associated with higher speeds as a “market failure”.
The Government says that it will estimate the cost of carbon emissions drawn from reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. Those prices range from $79 per tonne today and increasing to $179 per tonne by 2036. That tax rate would be more than 7 times the carbon tax applied by Julia Gillard a decade ago.
The paper says that “the total dollar value of the reduction in emissions is therefore the total tonnes of abated carbon per year multiplied by the social cost of carbon in that year.”
The question here is not whether or not a government should consider reducing the speed to save Australian lives. The question is should a government decide on the speed limit to reach a reduction in carbon emissions? I do not think we should reduce speed limits to meet net zero.
Keep in mind that the Government’s plans here only relate to roads in rural areas. Roads in urban areas typically have signs. So, another question is why would the Labor Government be imposing a carbon tax in deciding whether to reduce speed limits just in rural areas.
In rural areas, we often have to drive larger vehicles because of the risks of wildlife and poor roads. That means our fuel costs and emissions are higher. It is unfair though to impose restrictions on rural drivers that are not applied to those who drive in the city.
And while regional Australia is asked to shoulder the net zero burden, we are still expected to feed and power our nation. Our truck drivers are allocated a certain number of “driver hours” a day. A lower default speed limit means trucks cannot go as far in a day, meaning stock stays on trucks for longer and costs go up.
All of this seems to be an excuse to absolve the government from fixing the underlying unsafe nature of roads in regional and rural areas. A better way to keep people safe would be to invest properly in our roads, not resort to a lazy approach of simply imposing more speeding fines in the pursuit of net zero.
The whole net zero idea is ultimately about control because the only way
the government can get to net zero is by telling you what car you can drive, how fast you can drive, what food you can eat and how often you can fly. Under net zero you will effectively need a government permission slip to do anything.
And, the people telling you what do are the rich, self-entitled politicians, investors and bankers who stand to benefit from net zero policies. I think a better way would be to just let people have their freedom without the expansion of the net zero state.
