Yesterday, on the same day long time anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Garrett was given the job of Shadow Environment and Climage Change Minister, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, announced the establishment of a joint government businesss Prime Ministerial Task Group on emissions trading.
He said, “As a world community we need to find new practical global solutions to climate change that include all major economies and emitters and that take account of national goals for economic prosperity, energy security and environmental sustainability.
Australia is blessed with abundant coal, gas and uranium reserves and significant renewable assets. In assessing Australia’s further contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions these advantages must be preserved.
While there is no one single solution to the global climate change challenge we need to maintain the prosperity that our abundant fossil fuels have given us while at the same time exploring options for global climate change solutions and accelerating the development and deployment of low emissions and clean coal technologies.”
Today, the Prime Minister made comment that:
“In all of our policies we seek a sense of balance.
In health, we strongly fund, through the Government, the Medicare system and that is balanced by private incentives for health insurance. In education, we support both government and independent schools. In social security, we achieve a sense of balance by avoiding, on the one hand the harshness of the American approach and also the over indulgent, nanny-state approach, of many European countries.
It’s crucial that in the important area of climate change we achieve the same sense of balance. We must play our part in responding to the challenge of growing greenhouse gas emissions, but we must do it in a way that does not damage the industries such as the coal industry and uranium, which have given us a competitive advantage.
The Task Group I announced yesterday brings together industry and government people to give us the way forward in relation to a global emissions trading system that will respond to the greenhouse gas challenge, but in a way that does not hurt Australia’s competitive position. In this way, once again, we in Australia can achieve that sense of balance which is so important in many areas of public policy.”
What might the Task Group actually recommend?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I think the taskforce will recommend that:
1. Australia doesn’t implement emissions trading until everyone else does
2. If we do implement emissions trading, then export industries (read as aluminium and coal) should get some concessions so that they are not harmed.
3. If we are going to implement emissions trading, we should take as long as is possible to implement – ie say, yes we are going to do it, there will be a trial period until 2018, at which point we will do it properly.
I have more respect than i have had in the last ten years for John Howard for his current rhetoric on climate change.
Not because he is now ‘on board’, so to speak. But because he is at last providing an *honest* justification for his approach.
Instead of spinning all of this nonsense about developing countries, doubting the science, our economy going to hell, not putting all our eggs in one basket etc,
he now is more explicit in saying that fossil fuels are our natural advantage, and the reason we are being slow and tentative is so that we don’t harm these particular industries – ie we are explicitly acting so as to protect coal. We are not being secretive about this, we are not doing it because we are evil, we are doing it because it makes sense.
He should have just said that at the start, but instead he bought into the environmentalist narrative that coal companies are evil and he would look bad to overtly back them.
I disagree that the coal industry deserves special protection relative to any other industry, but i can see the logic in the argument, and hopefully environmentalists will too. With the more straightforward and honest rhetoric and engagement, maybe John Howard’s stance will help to encourage environmentalists to more diligently look at the pros/cons to particular approaches to AGW, and develop more elaborate arguments than simply ‘the coal industry is bad and bribes the corrupt govt’.
I wrote above what i think the taskforce will recommend, here is what i think they should recommend:
1. Australia should implement emissions trading regardless of whether the USA and China etc do. It is going to happen, and the sooner we do it, the sooner we give Australia industry the practice that it needs to survive and thrive in a market where carbon is priced. If we delay, our industries may be competitively disadvantaged as late entrants to the carbon market.
2. We should offer some form of concession to industries (if any) that may be significantly adversely affected. It should be understood that any concessions will be temporary and will be tapered out over time.
3. We should implement emissions trading quickly, but at a slow enough speed that industry is able to adjust as required, but, more importantly, so that any hiccups experienced in the European market can be learnt from and avoided. Maybe a 3-4 year timetable.
What might the Task Group actually recommend? Not a lot; is my wise crack answer first up, but then I don’t expect our pollies to fix anything much by themselves.
Steve, don’t be taken in, he’s playing politics and you’re nibbling at the bait. Every pollie, on his side or against, says he’s a “great politician” and that’s hardly something you want written on your gravestone is it?
He knows a lot about framing issues. When framing issues you work slowly and progressively to modify your message step by step as you shape the debate and respond to the public mood and international climate. If he’s now admitting openly he wants to prop up the coal industry it’s partly cos the foundations of earlier arguments have been chipped away; partly cos that same message about the inescapability of coal has doing the rounds in other nation’s politics so it’s now more acceptable for him to follow suit; and partly cos cleaner coal is the new policy position and on the business-backed AP agenda. He’s certainly not leading, just lagging and being the corporations’ hand puppet as usual.
For the voters he’s playing to self-interests and age-old job concerns – the oldest & best card to play – while actually doing little. He seeks to close the policy gap between the Libs the greens & the Libs & laborites and the unions whilst simultaneously addressing the concern of the man on the street who thinks he’ll lose his job or his 2nd Holden or can’t meet the payments on the plasma screen for the bedroom if we do anything about GW. Listen to the ‘we’ll all be rooned’ fanatics here to see how that early framing has taken hold. He’s just adding more layers in the framing strategy while doing SFA. A win-win-win-do nothing talkfest.
Why is the Australian economy so fragile that it will dive if we can’t keep our energy prices cheaper than the others? It will remain fragile if we don’t make it more resilient – divide our eggs between baskets. What are we doing to minimise our reliance on volatile commodities? How can we expect to keep wages high when we don’t add value to our own natural bounty?
A good policy recommendation would be to start with an even playing field. Consider all the direct and indirect subsidies, R&D, govt agencies & brokering, admin support and the costs of externalities etc that have and do go into the structure of the current energy sector. They should also consider the likely stream of benefits from addressing GHGs because so far the govt has based its decisions on costs only and ignored the potential returns or increase in economic resilience. Future forecast and ask if, on the current path, Australia will be caught with its pants down yet again. Good economic and business management invests an amount in developing future technologies and products, some of which will be winners, some mediocre & some losers (lessons and a necessary sunk cost). But what are we in Aust? Baaaaaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaa baaaaaaaaaaa.
Anyhow, thanks to our federal system Howard has limited say and the states are taking action regardless just as they’re doing in the US where there’s huge investment to reduce GHGs despite Bush’s confused & dogmatic thinkspeak
Yeah, I know Pinxi. 🙂 don’t let me saying that I have ‘more respect’ imply that I have a lot of respect.
Given that the Task Group is looking at a “global” carbon trading scheme, I doubt if anything it comes up with will be of any relevance other than to establish Mr Howard’s green(ish) credentials for the next election.
To answer what might the Task Group actually recommend, 1st let’s ask WHO is in Honest Howard’s taskforce:
“Peter Coates, Executive Committee Member, Xstrata, one of the big three Australian coal producers along with BHP and Rio Tinto.
Tony Concannon, Managing Director, International Power, owner of Australia’s oldest and dirtiest power station, Hazelwood, in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.
Russell Higgins, Non-Executive Director Australian Pipeline Trust and recipient of numerous bureaucratic and board gigs from the Howard Government.
Margaret Jackson, Chairman, Qantas, Australia’s biggest transport polluter.
Chris Lynch, Executive Director, BHP Billiton, one of the big three Australian coal producers.
John Marlay, CEO, Alumina Limited, Australia’s biggest energy consumer and recipient of billions of dollars in subsidised power from Victoria taxpayers over the years.
John Stewart, Managing Director, National Australia Bank, chief banker to Australia’s mining establishment.
When asked about getting some environmental input on Insiders yesterday, the PM could only point to the secretary of his environment department, David Borthwick, being one of four bureaucrats making up the numbers among the seven business types.
But Borthwick is no green and he runs a department that has shown great scepticism about climate change. Indeed, Borthwick was previously coordinator of industry and resources development policy in the PM’s department and this followed a long career in the Federal Treasury that dates back to 1973.
It is notable that John Howard has also deliberately rejected the involvement of any CEO who signed up to the Australian Conservation Foundation’s business roundtable on climate change earlier this year.
This included the CEOs of IAG, BP Australia, Westpac, Swiss Re, Visy Industries and Origin Energy.”
Quote taken from, yep, Crikey.
Garrett will have to face the issue of jobs and the unions, the ALP lost seats in tas over resource mismanagement.
Garrett is only a token gesture, Krudd will have his work cut out for him trying to placate the unions and the factions and being “progressive” (read increased govt intervention and taxes) whilst strengthening the economy.
Hey pixxie, there are 12 on the task force not 6.
So who would you put on, a couple of opera singers? – these guys are industry heavyweights not builders labourers.
Where did you get 6 from rog?
Your crikey quote, you dont include all do you.
rog here are the bits I omitted from the article:
“The contrast couldn’t be starker. On the day when Labor put Peter Garrett in charge of climate change and the environment, John Howard announced a taskforce to establish an emissions trading system which is stacked with Australia’s biggest and dirtiest polluters.
Having a couple of polluters on there would have made sense, but try these seven names for size:”
…
“The Business Council of Australia has been deeply split on the question of climate change and the fault lines are clearer than ever – the skeptics are on board with John Howard and those who take the challenge seriously have signed up with the ACF.
All of this makes climate change an even hotter issue at the forthcoming election and the door is wide open for Peter Garrett to perform on the biggest stage of his life.”
They refer to 7 industry names & 4 bureaucrats. What’s yr point rog?
Business Council of Australia?
‘..Emissions trading task force not stacked: ACCI
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has defended the make-up of the task force set up to advise the Prime Minister on a possible global carbon emissions trading system.
Twelve people from industry and government have been appointed to the task force.
Green groups say representatives from the alternative energy sector should have been included.
But ACCI chairman Peter Hendy has welcomed the task force membership.
“Some people will say the Government’s stacked it with people he [John Howard] knows he can get the answer from,” he said.
“That’s not the way I see it.
“I think this is very unusual, … what he seems to have done, he’s picked the real heavyweight policy advisers in this country.”
National Farmers Federation doesn’t like the make up of the carbon trading taskforce:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1809769.htm
beds are burning, dead man is walking
I laughed too – but we’ll see who laughs last though?
And I didn’t know you were on Youtube too Rog ?
Margaret Jackson from Qantas !!!. She can’t be bothered paying any of her “Green Team “expecting them to do work for nothing. The aircraft recycle absolutely nothing. What a farce !