Only three weeks after the official close of submissions (many businesses asked for an extension) it looks like we might see a White Paper as soon as the 3rd of October. This suggests the government has a clear idea of the short-medium term trajectories they want to pursue. If the volume of shrill, anti-innovative blackmail sentiment is anything to go by, my guess is that we’ll see yet another ETS that doesn’t do a lot of, well, Carbon Pollution Reducing.
Elsewhere: Peter Browne writes at APO:
A
new[previously reported by Mark] analysis of the attitudes of people who swung to Labor at last year’s election suggests that acting to reduce climate change can be a vote winner – in fact, according to the data, it might be the vote winner. In two quite different surveys [including one where "young people were under-represented in [the] sample”], the single most important issue nominated by vote-changers was global warming. In both cases, it rated ahead of the other issue generally regarded as a vote-changer, industrial relations.
dk.au, what’s the source for the 3 Oct date? This indicates it’s already 99.9% written. I would have thought that even if this was the case they’d delay it for the sake of perception.
Geez, seems a tad hasty dunnit?
3 weeks ago might have been the deadline for business, but my Lady Friend (Vic DSE Sustainable Projects Officer) didn’t make her submission until last Tuesday.
I think the relevant consultation (ie what business wants) takes place via press release and behind the scenes lobbying!
Official close was last Wednesday the 10th. Annoying, my submission doesn’t appear on the list, which I have just inquired about. Still, I read Peter Wood/Judith Ajani’s submission, as well as glancing at a few wacky ones.
Having been on the wrong side of a submission process, the gate is never really shut until you truly ahve to write it all up. Normally this is weeks, but in this case I suspect it’d be more like days. And yeah, the meetings with the Minister kinda obviate the need for a submission.
don’t forget Cabinet certifying the process, Kim!
Mine’s not on their either, Wilful, despite getting it in with plenty of time.
Lends a fair bit of credence to the idea that they’re not overly worried about actually *reading* the things.
Backroom deals and media melodrama probably carry more weight.
Still, what’s the source for the October 3 date? According to the OO article in your post, Treasury modeling (which is already late) isn’t due to start until October 6. I wouldn’t expect a White Paper until after that’s done…
Their website only goes up to submission 0200, I’m sure that there are much more than 200 submissions. From what I have been told, the Department of Climate Change, being a new department, is in a perpetual state of chaos. So I am not surprised that most submissions are not up yet. Not all of my submissions are up there yet either.
I’d be very surprised if it was ready that quickly.
I put my submission in mid-afternoon on the deadline, Wednesday 10 September. I also inquired about its non-appearance on the website and was told there were so many submissions it would take some two weeks to get them all up. I later got an email confirmation that I could expect my submission to be online by Friday 26 September.
Should the White Paper appear anywhere near 3 October, it will show utter contempt for the consultation process. I note in this regard that many people would likely have delayed their submissions to include consideration of Garnaut’s targets, which were released on Friday 5 September.
I can imagine Turnbull’s response if the White Paper appeared near 3 October.
Darren, I notice you live in Northcote. I hope you can do something about that absolutely awful local federal MP that you have. I was thinking today how good it would be if every house in that electorate was letterboxed with a leaflet that described all of the terrible things he is doing to climate change policy in cabinet debates, and calling people to ring his office….
Yes, we have a ripper federal MP down here, Peter, and I think I might take you up on the idea to challenge him on climate change.
Readers of this blog might be interested in the failure of the Rudd Government to table in Parliament documents related to climate change. Greens Senator, Christine Milne, has issued a news release on this, identifying the Wilkins Review and a document on a softened approach to the ETS apparently circulated by Martin Ferguson’s office.
If you have further thoughts on this, Peter, please leave them here, or contact me via email.
Darren, I’ll email you what stuff I can find on what Martin has been up to. I’m thinking that what would also be good would be to register a domain name and set up a “Martin Ferguson watch” website. I’ve registered a domain name and moved a wordpress blog to it before, its pretty easy. Then the website can also on some leaflets that are distributed in his electorate etc.
This stuff is important because it is clear to me that the main reason that Garnaut’s targets 2020 targets were weak is that a stronger target would be “too politically difficult”. Time to take the fight to the enemy!
This could be very fun!
Great, Peter. I’ve already set the ball rolling by issuing an open challenge to Martin Ferguson to publicly answer for his stance on climate change – in particular regarding the Government’s failure to table in Parliament the Wilkins Review on climate policy and Ferguson’s industry proposal for a softened ETS. I’ve had a few minor exchanges with Ferguson over the years, and it will be interesting to see if he responds. Look forward to your email, and any contributions from LP readers.
It’s such a pity about Martin Ferguson. His father Jack Ferguson, former Deputy Premier of NSW, was a true hero of the Labor party and the labour movement.
An interesting point, Spiros. I wonder how much Ferguson’s position stems from the misplaced fear that transition to a low-carbon economy is going to mean job losses. To that I’d answer that we have no choice regarding the transition, job opportunities will emerge from it, and that, if there is any compensation to be paid to disadvantaged industries, it should be to the workers, not industry owners.
The latter are certainly prepared to carry on emitting and concentrating profits in relatively few hands, while at the same time asking us all to share the climate impacts. To the extent that Ferguson has concerns about workers, I can agree with him – not on his failure to face reality, but on action to minimise the impact on them as we move to save our climate.
They added a bunch more submissions to the CPRS Green Paper website this morning.
Great open letter, Darren.
I should clarify that we’re likely to see the key aspects of the White Paper put to cabinet in early October. Though I’m told the form and substance appear to be largely settled.
If DTF/Garnaut modelling wasn’t ready for the recent targets/trajectories Garnaut release.
What makes you think the feds would be in any position to release the white paper, THE macroeconomic reform process without knowledge and analysis of the modelling?
Plus Oct 3 is COAG… so most bureacrats will be busy running around with a whole bunch of other stuff to do.
Also, seems K.Rudd has been busy pushing CCS anyway.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/australia-funds-carbon-capture-institute-20080919-4jj2.html
Thanks dk.au. It will be interesting to see if there is any response from my local federal MP. Even if the White Paper isn’t exactly settled, if the position it will largely reflect has been, then that is equally alarming, and would show contempt for the consultation. All this, at the same time as the Wilkins Review is suppressed and Ferguson appears to be running his own closed discussions with industry, paints a disturbing picture re Australia’s likely position in the lead-up to international climate talks.
By the way, readers of The Hot Topic by Sir David King and Gabrielle Walker will know that any talk of Australia going out on a limb with any sort of decent reductions is just nonsense. Refer, in particular, to their chapter, ‘Industrialised Nations’, which profiles and positions each country in terms of their historic contribution to emissions, per capita and total 2004 emissions, and the role they have played in Kyoto, and might play going forward. We wouldn’t be leading either with an ETS (multiple existing examples), or even a cut of 40% by 2020 (Germany).
The absurdity in this debate re Garnaut and ETS targets is that, if the McKinsey analysis ( http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Australian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduction.pdf ) has any value, then the first 30% of emission reductions come for free or better. meanwhile, the Nous Wedges report ( http://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/summit/Resources/Wedges%20Report.pdf ) shows how Victoria can get to 60% reductions without any magic happening at all.
I don’t doubt that they’ll spend some time on all of that, but if they’ve largely settled on the 2020 trajectory it’s all secondary.
I’d bet my bottom dollar the white paper was well into production before the release of the green paper.
Those who would like to read about the response today from Martin Ferguson’s office regarding the softened ETS proposal to industry and the Government’s suppression of the Wilkins Review on climate policy can do so at my blog, Northcote Independent. The post looks at Ferguson’s response in the context of the apparent firming of the line to be taken by the white paper, as reported in this post (to which I have, of course, linked).