SINCE Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister of Australia we have signed Kyoto and there has been a commitment to an Emissions Trading Scheme – what his government calls a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
It was to start next year, but according to a surprise announcement yesterday, the scheme has been delayed a year.
In announcing the delay the Prime Minister described it all as “hard” and “difficult” and “complex” policy made harder, more difficult and more complex as a consequence of the global financial crisis.
I am not sure the financial crisis makes this obviously complex financial intervention any more complex – but certainly less politically palatable.
When well known geologist and climate skeptic, Bob Carter, reported on his presentation to a parliamentary committee considering the proposed legislation just two weeks ago he wrote:
“The committee mostly needs help with fashioning politically feasible solutions to the incredible mess that they now find themselves in.”
Yesterday’s announcement that the scheme will now be delayed, and significantly changed with a fixed price period and an increasing in the target for emissions reduction to 25 percent by 2020, suggests the government is grappling with the issue of what Professor Carter described as fashioning feasible solutions.
According to Shane McLeod writing for ABC Online the changes are all about politics and appealing to key interest groups:
“Senior figures within the minor parties have been puzzling over the Government’s tactics – just a matter of days ago they said they had not had any serious approaches from the Government about negotiating the legislation’s passage through the Senate.
“Now they know why.
“The Prime Minister says the changes are needed to reflect economic reality. But they also seem an attempt to tailor solutions for a range of key interest groups.
“The big winner is industry: it gets the “soft” start: unlimited carbon permits will be sold in the first year of the scheme, at the bargain price of $10 per tonne.
“There’s more compensation for so-called Emissions-Intensive, Trade-Exposed industries (EITE). And, of course, it’s starting a year later than had been planned.
“For environmentalists, the magic number of 25 has been introduced as the potential “strong” finish: this is now the upper limit on the emissions cuts the Government is prepared to consider implementing by 2020 – if the rest of the world adopts a more dramatic cut to carbon emissions (to target an atmospheric carbon level of 450 parts per million).
“For everyday citizens there is a new Australian Carbon Trust. Its job will be to help people who want to make a contribution to reducing emissions.
“Under the existing cap-and-trade design, their efforts in saving energy would actually leave more space for big polluters to spend less on carbon permits.
“The idea of the trust is to allow them to contribute financially and have carbon permits permanently retired (which would, in theory, increase the price of the more scarce remaining permits).
“The one-year delay also gives the Government some leeway: it means its trading scheme can now reflect the outcome of this year’s Copenhagen talks in its final targets (rather than leaving the number uncertain until then) and gives it a bigger upper limit that it can impose (perhaps reflecting the fact that other major emitters – especially the US – are proposing big numbers).”
Matthew Franklin writing in The Australian quotes the response from key interest groups:
“The Greens rejected the Government’s new plan, saying it would give $2.2billion in assistance to big polluters.
“If you add a little bit of green to brown, you still get brown,” said Greens deputy leader Christine Milne.
“By delaying the start of the scheme and capping the carbon price at $10 a tonne for the next year, the Government has ensured that there will be essentially no climate action in Australia until July 2012 at the earliest.”
“The Southern Cross Climate Change Coalition, which includes unions, the Climate Institute and environment groups, said lifting the emissions reduction target to 25 per cent would boost international efforts for an agreement on reducing emissions worldwide.
“This internationally-credible target, coming after COAG (the Council of Australian Governments) cleared the way for renewable energy legislation and further steps on energy efficiency, means the CPRS should be supported so business can get on with investing in the clean energy and other low-carbon jobs that other competitor countries are investing in,” the coalition said.
“Business Council of Australia president Greig Gailey supported the revamped scheme.
“Given Australia’s current economic circumstances, the BCA welcomes and supports the Government’s responsible decision to delay the commencement of the CPRS by one year to July 1, 2011, to provide business with more time to prepare for the scheme and to alleviate some of the pressures confronting Australian business as a result of the global financial crisis,” he said. [end of quote from Mr Franklin’s article]
However the Rudd government chooses to dress-up or down this policy let’s not forget this financial intervention will not change global temperatures, it will have no impact on the claimed climate crisis. Furthermore it is hard, difficult and complex policy (to quote the Prime Minister) for purely symbolic purposes.
********************
Links and Notes
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-a-tortuous-political-problem/
http://www.listentous.org.au/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560604.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25430250-11949,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I believe that Mr Rudd has realised that Carbon (Dioxide) is not guilty. He feels he won the last election with the Carbon Pollution (Oxymoron) Reduction scheme as one of his main platforms so must pay lip[ service to it. I think that he was glad that both the Greens and the Coalition (Have you noticed the first four letters of COALition?) opposed it. He knows that it will increase household expenses, cause loss of jobs and send many industries offshore.
So what do you do? Defer it until after the next election.
Oh, and happy birthday Gillian from Macquarie Marshes.
What a CON , don’t forget if Aust closed down all its industry tomorrow we would not alter future climate in the slightest. The climate changes NATURALLY so get used to it and save those billions of dollars for health, education, housing, also adaptation to natural CC when the need arises.
Just commonsense really.
“The big winner is industry”. Uranium? Wind? Solar? Geothermal? etc
How can an international agreement to keep CO2 at 450ppm max have no impact on the claimed climate crisis?
Hang on a minute. A knowing little bird has told me that politics is at play here. If the Senate refuses to pass a watered down ETS this June, and again in Sept, the Govt can call an early election, with a double dissolution, before the end of the year. Could be some very bad economic news coming, and the Govt wanting to get control of, or at least a Hung senate, before its popularity tanks.
“if Aust closed down all its industry tomorrow we would not alter future climate in the slightest”
A ramification of Quirk’s research: Since most of the CO2 isn’t of human origin to begin with, even a dramatic and globally-enforced emissions cutback would bring about a very slight reduction in the trend, probably unnoticeable. Given the IQ record of climate scientists and politicians so far, however, it’s likely they’d fail to grasp what this puzzle was telling them and would therefore demand even deeper cutbacks. Sort of like Xerxes lashing the rebellious sea.
Typical Rudd. After pumping up the “moral” and “critical” need to cut emissions for electoral gain, he, to avoid electoral pain, defers the ETS for a year and slashes the carbon price by 75%. But buys off the Greens with a pie-in-the-sky increase for Australia’s reduction target 4 elections hence. Sadly, his pragmatism is directed towards his own perceived short term political advantage rather than the long-term well-being of Australians.
On the bright side, I think the ETS is a bad solution to a non-problem (or at best, one which Australia can not affect), so applaud any reduction in its impact, even for base motives.
You can think of it as running a pollution abatement deficit. Once the economy is booming again in a few years time we can introduce CAPS and increase carbon prices along with other taxes and make up for lost ground, thus bringing the climate and economy into perfect regulation again. (~ provided as a community service in case any of you Team RUDD/Gore people were having difficulties spinning this one).
“Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.” What effrontery. These goons are treating us like Soviet peasants with this sort of abuse of the language.
Bird
“These goons are treating us like Soviet peasants with this sort of abuse of the language.”
And what makes you think, that they are wrong? You have too high an opinion of people!
If you read this forum, and I know you do, the warmenists are bending over backwards lately in denying, that they ever said CO2 was the only and the main culprit causing CC. Now it seems to be only a minor player.
And yet they say nothing of the governments clear attempt at reducing CO2, and ONLY CO2.
They call it “carbon pollution” whatever that is?
Where is Professor Rolly Sussex when you need him for these language, & Geoff, remember victorian coal is “Brown”
Faustino, I sure hope you are right about kRudd’s motives, but I think the bloke is too poor at his science to know what to think. You’d have to give him a case of frostbite, in Canberra, on christmas day, for him to know it was getting cooler.
I think it’s more likely he hopes to get the new program through both houses, so he can go & play the great leader at Copenhagen, later this year.
Hope I’m wrong, or is that Wong.
The writing is on the wall I expect much more retraction. Copenhagen at the end of the year most likely will fail. To be a success China and India must get on board. China at the moment says they may consider limits if the Western world allocates 1.5 to 2% of their GDP. Along with this technology to solve the “problem” must be freely given. India says if it affects their industrial development any agreement is not acceptable.
We do not have technology to solve the “problem” and I think any government which proposed paying 2% of our GDP to China would automatically lose the next election. Particularly if it became known such a hardship would be pointless. Power generation with coal increases by a GW every 3.6 days. Kyoto has already failed it is a dead man walking Copenhagen will go nowhere.
Rudd’s faux concern about so called ‘dangerous climate change’ was never anything more than a political wedge.
That his useless, unnecessary and unwanted carbon tax implementation has been delayed is excellent news.
That he will use it as a trigger for a double dissolution is also excellent news.
His waffling indecision is becoming apparent even to the most rusted on believers – they still profess their adoration of Kev747 in public but behind closed doors they are wailing and gnashing their teeth in horror at the debt he’s accumulating at a rate that’s even faster than Whitless Whitlam on his most profligate days.
Now Victoria has gone down the gurgler like NSW with 7.5% unemployed and a budget deficit over $16 billion compounding Rudd’s $200 billion ‘borrowed’ from China and a deficit of over $60 billion Rudd is looking more and more like a one term squib.
Pity the federal opposition is as weak as piss too.
In the Australian Financial Review today, Greig Gailey, president of the Business Council of Australia has an op-ed piece supporting the revised Rudd scheme and makes the important point that, “If investors judge that the CPRS is going to be materially altred if and when government changes hands, they will probably defer or abandon their investment plans”.
So it would be quite unsatisfactory if the bill was rejected by the Opposition and passed with the help of the Greens and the Independents. Coalition support today does not necessarily mean that a change of government would never alter the plan, but Coalition opposition today almost guarantees that it would.
Alan Jury in the “Chanticleer” column makes another relevant point: “As for debate about an ETS versus a carbon tax [which Turnbull is promoting], that battle has already been lost. Europe is now into the second five-year phase of its ETS, Barack Obama has committed the United states to adopting one, and other countries such as Japan are also considering their own.”
Hasbeen says :”Geoff, remember victorian coal is “Brown”” Probably hasbeen said before.
DMHO says: “Kyoto has already failed it is a dead man walking – Copenhagen will go nowhere.”
In the strictest literal sense. Copenhagen WILL go nowhere. Well, there is continental drift, but TEMPORARILY Copenhagen will go nowhere, DMHO that is JMHO!
Interesting that the Ruddud’s “treasurer” Wayne Goose – sorry Swann – has said today that the budget will go into a LONG term Temporary deficit. Do you think that the temporary deficit will be temporary, like continental drift?
Luke, where are you?
None of this will really hit the majority of voters until the medicare scheduled fee only covers 25% of a visit to the doctor. Wake in fright folks. We know they will have no choice but to inflate their way out of it. Just make sure you don’t get sick.
Rudd and Wong would surely appreciate Sir Walter Scott’s words,
” Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.”
Where are Luke and all the other Natural CC skeptics , come deniers?
This ETS was of the utmost importance and couldn’t be postponed for a day according to Wong, Garrett etc.
The world was waiting for we Aussies to flex our incredibly powerful climate changing muscle derived from an incredible 1% of the co2 cause. What a joke.
But these fools are the true skeptics and deniers because according to them the planet’s climate didn’t change naturally for millions of years until industrial man threw a spanner in the works in the last 200 .
Bit of a pity about all the volcanoes, floods, droughts, ice ages, sea level falls and rises of hundreds of metres, all this didn’t happen naturally of course, must have been the fairies at the bottom of their gardens.
How can anybody be so stupid and DENY natural CC and the planet’s NATURAL history?
Rob Evans – Luke is lurking.
Not much to say – do I care if an ETS is not introduced.
Remember to be a bit sophistmuckated and not confound the climate science with possible policy responses. One is not the other.
A cynic might say that Rudd is finding the whole ETS business a bit harder than he thought. (or maybe he never really believed). So the current politics is quite clever – divide the opposition – tell the greens you’re doing your best but it’s Turnbull’s fault.
But drive the ETS scheme off the road into a tree (accidentally of course). Then claim you couldn’t do anything as the Senate grabbed the wheel at the last moment. Have a new election – don’t mention climate change and then claim economic circumstances have changed.
And of course thanks to the unchecked habits of the right wing greed is good types – the world economy is now up shit creek. Lordy me – some of us are even down to our last few million.
But the global atmosphere really doesn’t give a rats about all of these humans talking on the Intertubes and meeting in Senate committees.
How is the old STR, IOD, Walker and SAM seal going?
Funny though that the head of gas and petrol producer Shell Australia has called on the Opposition to support the Government’s revised emissions trading scheme.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/05/2561522.htm What’s he know that we don’t?
“How can anybody be so stupid and DENY natural CC and the planet’s NATURAL history?”
Well we don’t – this is just a typical recycled imbecilic argument introduced by denialist goons who wouldn’t know if their arse was on fire.
Speaking of fire – Be good actually for a volcano to erupt in Neville’s back yard – he could tell us how beautiful and natural it was – as he (with Bob Carter’s handy Plan B clasped in his hand) merrily adapted to being buried under lava.
And you know what – we wouldn’t even deny that it had happened.
“Funny though that the head of gas and petrol producer Shell Australia has called on the Opposition to support the Government’s revised emissions trading scheme.”
What is your point idiot? Did he come up with the evidence that the rest of you eugenicist filth have been searching for all this time?
Luke, you have an interesting reaction to the news. BTW, why take out your disappointment on the others? Just asking.
The point?
Well the point is that you’re an unelectable bottom feeding neo-fascist little waddler. Why did you get that embarrassing electoral result in Dobell. Could it be that you weren’t serious and that your policy (singular) was moronic. A taxeater who wastes the electorate’s electoral resources. Shame Shame Shame !
Hey how did you get off Ball’s Pyramid anyway?
On Shell – dunno – I was asking someone intelligent (which isn’t you).
CoRev – am I disappointed? Hardly. Obviously you’re a single filter moron as well.
Oil and gas producer Santos says an emissions trading scheme will help its future profitability because it will make gas more financially attractive.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/06/2562603.htm
All current debate regarding carbon emission is misdirected. The source of world overheating is overpopulation. With growing population Australia has no chance to decrease emission. The legislation needs to be changed in two aspects: (1) to curb immigration; (2) to discourage large number of children in a family.