For those interested in the political machinations surrounding the passage of the CPRS, the coalition partyrooms have decided they want to defer consideration of the scheme until after Copenhagen – however, they will offer “bipartisan support” for the range of targets Australia will take to the Copenhagen summit. The Nationals won’t support it – ever. Nick Xenophon wants a delay until August or September. The Greens remain opposed to the bill in its current form.
From a political perspective, the CPRS, and the possibility of a double dissolution on an issue which the public wants action but rips the Coalition right down the middle, is likely to continue to make Malcolm Turnbull’s job near-impossible. This seems to be Rudd’s primary concern. Saving the planet? Worry about that later.
“From a political perspective, the CPRS, and the possibility of a double dissolution on an issue which the public wants action but rips the Coalition right down the middle, is likely to continue to make Malcolm Turnbull’s job near-impossible. This seems to be Rudd’s primary concern. Saving the planet? Worry about that later.”
Unfairly cynical Robert. You might have just as easily said, and I believe closer to the truth, that the coalition is all over the shop on CPRS thus making Rudd’s job “near-impossible”. Also that Turnbull and team generally do not even believe there is any issue to be addressed. I guess it is the fashion to bash Rudd for everything these days.
As has been discussed many times before, the CPRS is horribly flawed, most notably in terms of its grossly inadequate targets. The government was in a position to do the right thing – it had the public behind it – and it squibbed the opportunity.
The right thing to do would have had little political downside except having to stare down Mar’n. So why did the government wimp out?
Because, as you point out, their priority is to beat Turnbull into the ground and not so much good policy.
Labor can deride the Coalition for being climate skeptics and deniers but then what it does it say about Labor that this bunch of divided cavemen support their targets. The simple fact that the Coalition partyroom endorsed these targets should demonstrate how pitiful they are.
Can Turnbull just withdraw the whip and let his party vote as they will? If he can that solves the problem, since enough liberals will vote his way to pass the bill. Of course, the deep browns in the liberal party will be really, really angry but you know, tell someone who cares.
Moz has a point, if this is, as Rudd was willing to stress before the election, the greatest moral challenge facing our generation(s), why not allow a conscience vote on it?
Robert, I am not defending the “flawed” CPRS just your unjustified apportionment of all blame on Rudd for not giving a stuff about saving the planet. The other thing is that even if he had have come up with a plan made in heaven it would have been hacked to death by the usual suspects anyway
joe2, you’re right about the level of opposition to any plan the govt might put up, but the one they have put up is worse than useless: the target reductions are probably within the margin of error in measuring CO2, and they offered, up front, free permits to just about any rent-seeker who squealed loudly enough.
If Rudd were serious about this, he would have started from a much more radical position, and then perhaps negotiated the targets down.
Rudd seems to be primarily politically motivated by this. He knows that this is a divisive issue for the Coalition and that there’ll probably be damaging internal squabbles within the Coalition about this issue. He’s now got the major business and industry groups on side so he’ll use this as a stick to beat the other parties with. It’s such a shame that he’s more interested in the politics than he is in doing something substantial to reduce greenhouse emissions.
In other words – Rudd is using CPRS to wedge the opposition. Who was it that decried Howard for using imporant issues as a wedge? Just about everyone here. Plus ça change…
David Irving (no relation) I just find it extraordinary, when Moneybags chooses to play politics with anything that moves, that somehow people fall about in horror that Rudd might not use an issue where the opposition leader is very vulnerable to fight back.
To suggest that Rudd does not care at all about emissions and then gloss over Turnbulls part in actual denial is totally unbalanced.
Andrew@9 nobody will ever match the Howard capacity for “Wedge, Dog Whistle and Double Pike”.
And nobody will match the right’s ability to ignore it at the time.
joe2,
Can you let me know which issue it is that Howard used to wedge the ALP that you see is as important as this one? If you cannot think of one, how can you justify your statement?
.
adrian,
It seems the Left shares this ability.
The right didn’t ignore it when Howard pulled the Wedge, Dog Whistle and Double Pike tricks. They embraced it, and likewise love it when Moneybags does it.
They just don’t like it being done TO them.
How can Rudd not play politics with this? It’s not like the Greens or the Opposition aren’t being political.
Labor at least are putting forward a proposal that will, at the least, reduce emissions in Aus by 5% of 1990/2000 levels. Opposing the bill will result in exactly what?
We can all dream about an ideal ETS that will achieve a magical target but i suspect each of our dreams and ideal targets are different – actually achieving a middle point between all those dreams will inevitably involve politics.
I openly acknowledge that the ETS has aspects of its design that I think are flawed and the science clearly suggests that we should be aiming for higher targets but the reality is (despite the surveys suggesting public opinion to the contrary) that the (now amended) CPRS is probably the least worse compromise at the moment. If we can achieve even a 5% reduction by 2020, the 2050 target of 50 or 60% will be easily achieved.
Andrew@13, I have no intention of moving to a John Howard bash when the poor man is rarely in this country and unable to defend himself due to his continual attendance at various right wing think tank meetings. And do not ask me to name “just three”.
Yep, this is a really beautiful wedge – much better than Keating’s Republic was.
I agree Turnbull’s best hope is to make it a “conscience vote” so it goes through without offical Coalition endorsement. But even that has its downsides. There’s no doubt it would strengthen the position of the Howardistas in the party to the extent that it will gravely imperil his leadership. But if the Coalition blocks it and we go to a DD on their obstructionism then his leadership is dead anyway.
The last election wasn’t about climate change – it was about moving Howard on. Kev was promisng that climate change action would only cost $1 a day. The economy was zinging and Kev wouldn’t lie or underestimate anything as important. So people were happy to say they supported action to stop (human caused) climate change, but the evidence is that few are willing to put their hand in their pocket.
I would love to see a DD election fought on man made climate change. Finally the general public, rather than the politically engaged micro-minority including me, might pay attention to such issues as – the inability of the climate models to accurately forecast past behaviour let alone future behaviour of the climate, expose many of the climate change myths (global sea ice above average not melting away etc) the real costs of imposing taxes to attempt to do these things, the inability of the rest of the world to meet their Kyoto obligations let alone anything tougher, the very poor chance of getting a global agreement that will make a skerrick of difference to GHG emmissions, the possibility that the world maybe a better place if it warms up (there has to be some benefits from warming – it can’t be all bad) etc
Bring it on.
The Poll Bludger’s got your answers, Razor.
Labour’s Draft National Platform 2009:
Page 2: Implementing Labor’s agenda
Since the election the government has achieved a lot of Labor’s agenda, with major
reforms and new policies:
?? Scrapping WorkChoices, and building a fair and balanced industrial relations
system that promotes cooperative and productive workplaces.
?? Taking real action on climate change, ratifying Kyoto and setting out one of the
largest economic reforms seen in Australia, the Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme.
?? Beginning the Education Revolution, investing in computers in schools,
new trades training centres, and the largest modernisation of school
buildings — including libraries, halls and science labs — ever seen in Australia’s
history…
etc.
(full disclosure: I’ve attended a consultation meeting on the Platform document)
Liam – the July 2008 polling doesn’t bother me. I would expect that a well run campaign that articulates the uncertainties and costs would have a significant impact. Peoples economic outlook is very different today to what it was back then.
I expect you’re right that a campaign on climate change would shift *some* Liberal voters towards a climate denialist/skeptic position, Razor, but from p4 (Which party do you think would be best at handling each of these issues?) Labor had a 28% lead six months ago. That’d be a pretty spectacular turnaround—especially since the Coalition is yet to formulate a solid position.
(For comparison, the NSW Coalition expects to coast to victory in 2011 on a polling lead a fraction so large).
Razor, the poll results in that pdf ran through till May 2009…
WA Liberals weren’t supposed to win, missed NT by a bees dick and QLD wasn’t exactly a cake walk for the ALP.
There is only one poll that matters.
I disagree with the basic premise of this article.
I think, if you look at the chronology, that Rudd has been trying all along to come up with a package the Libs would support.
The initial targets were/are disappointing, but they were along the lines that the Liberals had indicated in the past they would accept.
Turnbull was relatively new as leader and was rabbitting on about wanting bipartisan approaches. That he was saying that and then not putting it into practice wasn’t apparent then, and he hadn’t started on announcing he was going to block something regardless tack either.
So in all likelihood, the government believed that what they were proposing would go through the Senate without any trouble.
When it became apparent that it wouldn’t the package was compromised again – again in light of the Coalition’s stated objections.
Still rejected.
All this indicates that Rudd is genuinely wanting action now, even with lower targets than desirable – a bird in the hand stuff.
He has tried to compromise with the Libs and has got nowhere.
He cannot get enough votes without them to get it through.
I’d like to know what he’s supposed to do.
The political reality is that, for real action, SOMETHING has to be passed by the Senate. That means a majority of Senate votes must be won.
I agree Rudd’s package isn’t anywhere near the best. It disappointed me.
But I haven’t seen anyone able to explain how he can get anything through the Senate.
If he was really just playing politics, he would accept the Greens target, be defeated but be able to blame the Liberals fairly and squarely.
Instead, he wants genuine action as quickly as possible and has gone the realpolitik route to try and get it.
OK, it hasn’t worked and we’re left with a wimpy target, but that doesn’t mean that was the intention.
The Greens got some gumption back which is good. I might consider rejoining. However Rudd should be condemned for this. I wouldn’t be so quick to use it as a ‘wedge’ because it might come back to bite. People talk about Howard, well that device bit him quite hard as I recall. Does Rudd really want that so early in his PM career?
Pick a strong target and dare the Libs to block it, and if they do call a double dissolution and pass the legislation with a joint sitting.
joe2 (and others), I couldn’t care less that Rudd is wedging the opposition on this. No, that’s actually not true: I applaud it, and they deserve it, after the endless years of the Howard Miracle.
The thing that really bothers me is that the government has been completely captured by the coal industry (and other large polluters), and has compromised the scheme to the point that it will be a complete waste of time (in every sense) if it gets up. That’s why I reckon Rudd’s not serious. Labour got my second preference (the highest they’ve been on my ballot paper since Hawke’s first term) because I thought he was taking it seriously, and now I feel betrayed.
“I think, if you look at the chronology, that Rudd has been trying all along to come up with a package the Libs would support.”
If he wanted a package that the Liberals would support, he probably would have met with them at some stage, right? And for that matter, if he wanted Greens support he probably would have met with them. But he didn’t meet with either.
He did meet with our biggest polluters, dozens of times, whilst formulating the policy. That to me says enough about his priorities. Was all about appeasing the carbon lobby and not about passing a strong ETS.
“The Nationals won’t support it – ever.”
Actually, if the CPRS included agriculture, in the form of credits for tree plantations and that biochar stuff, in other words if it gave cash to farmers for looking after their land, I daresay the Nationals would be all over it joyfully.
Otherwise, it’s not really Rudd’s fault if the Coalition lacks a coherent policy. If not the CPRS, then what? The Coalition doesn’t know. How is that Rudd’s fault?
Er, because we’re a coal-based economy, we’re the world’s largest coal exporter, and our political masters are beholden to the greenhouse mafia.
We’re a minerals economy people! Did you really expect we’d do something that hurts the resources sector in the midst of a serious global recession?
I think Rudd should propose targets that nobody in the Senate will support except the Greens. We won’t end up with anything of course but at least his present critics will feel good. All or nothing, that’s the way to get things done.
We can spend a decade proposing feel good targets that never get through, or if they do get you voted out along with the targets at the next available election.
Sometimes playing clever politics is the only way to reach your final goal.
So what Australian exports will remain competitively priced if the Copenhagen conference sets lower, or non-binding targets?
God forbid the conference falls over (into what I suspect it will), protectionism in a pretty dress.
I cant see a great national benefit in raising a tarrif against our own exports, when we arent quite sure what the conference in a couple of months time will lay out?
I agree with the thrust of Mehitabel’s comments at 25.
The problems with Robert Merkell’s response at 27 to “Pick a strong target and dare the Libs to block it, and if they do call a double dissolution and pass the legislation with a joint setting” are numerous, including:
1. There is no certainty that a double dissolution would result in the Government getting re-elected, let alone having the numbers in a joint sitting.
2. There is no no guarantee that the “strong target” selected by the Government would be supported by the Greens.
3. In relation to 2, any strong target accepted by the Greens would probably result in Labor losing coal-mining seats in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, given the campaign that would be waged by the minerals industry.
In relation to 3, Carbonsink at 31 is right in saying Australia is (largely) a coal-based economy. Coal enables Australia to have cheap electricity (but only because the environmental costs are not included – as is the case in most developed economies).
But those who think that taking immediate action (rather than gradual) to throw coal miners out of work would seem to have more in common with those nations that adopted a “Great Leap Forward” without any regard to the human costs involved.
Think back to how quickly the “green bans” of Jack Mundey lost the support of building workers when economic conditions deteriorated and workers could no longer be assured of employment.
“We’re a minerals economy people!”
This is a furphy, but a furphy the powerful carbon lobby wants to spread.
Our GDP is 75% services based.
During the boom, mining was less than 6%. This is down from 10% a hundred years ago.
Oz @ 35: Sorry, we do mining services, property services, and financial services as well, and we build houses for each other. I’m stuck after that.
Lets stop kidding ourselves. Australia is a quarry for Asia.
[Pick a strong target and dare the Libs to block it, and if they do call a double dissolution and pass the legislation with a joint sitting.]
So you criticise Rudd for playing politics but your recommended strategy is that he should play politics?
Picking a strong target that blind Freddy down the pub knows the Libs would block is not playing politics? Daring the Libs to pass it is not playing politics? A double dissolution is not playing politics??
Mehitabel: the end result of the alternative is (assuming Labor wins and the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate, the most likely outcome as I understand it):
1) A much better climate change policy is enacted in legislation.
2) Fielding is removed from the Senate, and the Greens have the Senate balance of power.
The fringe benefit would likely be a comprehensive repudiation of climate denialism and its effect on the conservatives – not something that Kevin Rudd would care about greatly, but good for Australia’s politics.
Robert -
a few assumptions there!!
As a poster pointed out above, there’s every chance that going for a bigger target would see Labor lose several seats in mining areas. They’re not certs – Labor in Victoria has lost a couple of mining seats over environmental issues in the past.
We’ve all played ‘guessing the election result looking at polls leading into it’ game on various sites before and it’s rare that the outcome is as expected.
So a DD is not a guarantee of a Labor/Greens majority in the cross sitting.
The next election is not a lay down misere for Labor either, though it’s certainly the most probable result.
A DD provides Fielding with the best prospect of being re elected, due to the low quota requirement.
So we’re trashing a DEFINITE CPRS (not ideal, few pieces of legislation ever are) for a POSSIBLE but not definite result.
What is wrong with the scenario of we go for what we can get now and up it if things turn out well in the future?
Robert @ 38, we are in furious agreement.
Anybody remember Latham’s Tasmanian Timber workers?
(1) Bring on a DD. The Libs are on the nose, and KRudd’s star isn’t shining in the eyes of those who are environmentally responsible.
(2) The inquiry into the CPRS revisions is open for submissions (about the changes, not the original) until 2009-06-04: details available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_2_09/index.htm
CarbonSink – don’t forget agriculture. We do Ok at that- in economic terms the agriculture sector’s output rose 10% in the Dec quarter 2008. In that quarter of all of them! It has since dropped dowm the 2-3 % in the March quarter 2009 but agribiz stocks ( not MIS ) are all performing well.
So we are the farm and quarry for Asia.
With a relatively non contentious budget out of the way – most disputes seems to be oversights, one has been corrected , the early election looms ever larger.
JohnL,
“taking immediate action (rather than gradual) to throw coal miners out of work”
that is not at all possible, John. It is going to take at least 30 years to phase out coal consumption from Australia’s electricity generation system. If coal use was discontinued today the entire country would grind to a halt within 2 days. You cannot even pump petrol to fill cars without electricity. To stop using coal there has to be something to replace it with. First Howard and now Rudd have done their best to make sure that that is not going to happen.
Australia’s coal miners have nothing to worry about. When their mines are eventually shut down, though I trouble believing that that will happen due to exports, their will be far better jobs available, clean above ground jobs with better pay, in the proportionally expanding renewables sector.
I think that Robert’s 38 is the more probable outcome if the community actively engages in DD political process. The next election will be an all out battle, I believe.
Mehitabel’s 39 is committee style compromised thinking which makes reasoned sense right up to the point where a tornado rips the roof off your house, your house burns to nothing and your neighbours are dead, or you have to walk away from 150 years of farm land ownership because there is just nothing left, or people start dying in the hundreds due to summer heat stress.
The full force of NATURE IS UNCOMPROMISING. No committee can change that. But a committee can, and will, guarantee that we get to feel natures hold for the rest of our future families lives.
The farmers has a few months in the sun with the AUD crashing and agricultural commodity prices holding up for a while. Now the dollar is up 25% in two months, and the mining boom has been resurrected, the farmers will suffer.
Besides, climate scepticism is rife in regional Australia, so that’s another influential group that’s dead set against the CPRS.
Agriculture is, I think, about 3.5% of GDP at the farm gate, but when it suffers we find that knock-on effects spread to close to 50% of the economy according to one opinion I heard. Last I heard 20% of our manufacturing (employs over a million people) is 20% food.
Combet knows that capitalists in mining and power generation will have the cue in the rack until the CPRS is settled. That’s the legitimate imperative.
The quickest way home may have been to split the Nats and the Libs, which has obvious political benefits, but those benefits are not necessarily (and I suapect not) the primary aim. But I may be over-generous.
Laura Tingle in the AFR yesterday thought the Coalition was in an awful muddle. One of the reasons Turnbull was preferred over Nelson was that he was stronger on climate change. But now they are in disarray and she reckons that if there wasn’t widespread concern about the CPRS Turnbull would be toast. Also, she say, the Coalition effectively have no climate change policy at present.
The leave it until after Copenhagen approach is not viable, because the capitalists can’t wait that long, or if the have to then it is distinctly not in the national interest.
The $7 billion investment in a coal mine at Alpha to export 40 million tonnes pa announced yesterday is an obvious and worrying exception.
“The fringe benefit would likely be a comprehensive repudiation of climate denialism and its effect on the conservatives – not something that Kevin Rudd would care about greatly, but good for Australia’s politics.”
I would not bet on it. The sadly typical negativity displayed in this comment and the “KRudd” routine, generally, may well lead to unintended consequences. As if the MSM and opposition are not already fully engaged in a free for all, ‘Rudd bash’ and ‘tree huggers hate fest’, without the need of help from some one eyed, one issue, left followers. Just remember who at least signed the Kyoto protocol, after years of complete disengagement in the process.
It certainly wasn’t anything to do with Turnbull, who has most to gain from this selective bickering. He will pour bucket loads of his own vast fortune, some of which he gained in tree clear felling operations in the Solomon Islands, into a campaign that may well prove a lot harder for Labor to win than many people imagine.
In short, if you think Kev does not give a stuff, just see what you get with Mal, the lumberjack banker, in charge.
Total pragmatism in seeking power, with principle called into service if it helps in that aim, is what I’d expect from Malcolm.
Desperately, the Libs need a second term on the opposition benches to re-learn that they don’t have a natural right to rule.
The Coalition, or even the Liberals, ripped down the middle by the CPRS? Not so much. A better characterisation would be Malcolm Turnbull, Greg Hunt and Mal Washer in a dinghy being dragged along behind by a supertanker of climate change denialism, captained by Nick Minchin, with First Officer Barnaby Joyce. Tony Abbott could surreptitiously cut the rope one night and no one would notice, or care about the dinghy slowly drifting away.
From the coal face – so to speak. I am informed today that an internal study by a large power utilty shows that the (declining) cost of providing PV energy from your rooftop and the price (rising) you will pay for network electricity will intersect in 2015, yes 2015.
This intersection will have huge consequences, the entire electricity supply network paradigm will be turned upside down.
I need to think really hard about this………………
Huggy.
‘Mehitabel’s 39 is committee style compromised thinking which makes reasoned sense right up to the point where a tornado rips the roof off your house, your house burns to nothing and your neighbours are dead, or you have to walk away from 150 years of farm land ownership because there is just nothing left, or people start dying in the hundreds due to summer heat stress.’
Mehitabel works in the area of climate change and has got climate change policies accepted and implemented by local, State and Federal governments.
Mehitabel has worked in the area of climate change for the last six or so years, interviewing farmers, businesspeople, tourist operators etc on the effects of climate change in their local area and its impacts on their lives, both presently and in the future. (Which includes farmers who have been forced off the land after 100 years…)
Mehitabel has personally experienced (in the last twelve years) two major flood events,three bushfires (two of which were within one kilometre of the house for three weeks without respite) and a drought which has seen the destruction of 30% of her livestock, all of her pasture and the death of over 30% of the mature trees she planted as saplings.
Don’t kid yourself, noone wants action on climate change quicker than I do.
Mehitabel,
BilB works in the field of engineering with processes and machinery that deliver reliable predictable results (as destinct from BilB himself). The cornerstone of accurate performance in process control is embodied in a calculation process called PID (proportional integral derivative). This calculation if applied to climate change action would be demanding a very different performance profile from all players in the environment action field.
“Don’t kid yourself, noone wants action on climate change quicker than I do”
I have absolutely no doubt that this is the case, but in a PID managed framework
this
“So we’re trashing a DEFINITE CPRS (not ideal, few pieces of legislation ever are) for a POSSIBLE but not definite result”
is machinery grinding to a halt with flashing red lights signalling a process falling outside of the control profile. A profile defined by every scientific study and report calling for rapid advance reaction preferring overshoot of performance rather than the massive delayed undershoot that
“partyrooms have decided they want to defer consideration”
is guaranteed to deliver.
I realise that your 39 comments, Mehitabel, are more a plea for action rather than what you believe to be really required, but Rudd’s CPRS is a compromised compromise of a watered down soft action plan and is virtually useless. Accepting this this politically compromised proposal believing that it may lead to a corrected environment would be akin to letting the Skaff brothers out on a good behaviour bond because they said that they would be good in future.
A march on parliament house is about where we are at…now.
carbonsink #45
A common mantra uttered across rural Australia is: If climate change doesn’t get us – climate change policy certainly will. Reading the thread above it is quite apparent that in the setting up a good policy to combat a problem, the need for a political “win” by both sides of politics becomes more important than solving any problem no matter how dire it may be.
The fan club in regional Australia for current CPRS has very few numbers especially with the release of this report from RIRDC that shows severe impacts for agriculture even when not included in CPRS.
“Combet knows that capitalists in mining and power generation will have the cue in the rack until the CPRS is settled….The $7 billion investment in a coal mine at Alpha to export 40 million tonnes pa announced yesterday is an obvious and worrying exception.”
That could be because the particular capitalists concerned are mainly (70%) Chinese capitalists …
So those jobs (that are used as mendacious justification for this disgusting exercise of realpolitik power = “considering the government’s election promise to create 100,000 jobs in the next three years. It could also add much-needed royalties and taxes to the state economy for essential services which benefit all Queenslanders,” Hinchliffe added. ) will be…457 visa Chinese? Clive calls it his “China First” project.
Shades of the ABC tissues scandal, where we saw the duty of care displayed when a “Chinese Government-owned company (is) acting as a labour hire firm.”, like what is happening in Clive’s latest Awfully Big Adventure ie
“none of the Chinese workers could speak English, read safety signs or follow emergency procedures. Many had to be trained to perform the most basic tasks. One Australian tradesman said he was stunned to see one of the guest workers make a non-compliant Chinese power tool fit a socket by stripping the cord and inserting naked wires straight into the plug.”
If that’s the level of care for personal safety these outfits tolerate/encourage, what standards can we expect to see adhered to in environmental care, present and future, in this China off-shore project?
still@downfall, unfortunately it could be both. It would take time, patience and interest to come to terms with. That is a large report you linked to. In my experience city people don’t much care where their food comes from. If we pursue a business as usual course or one that fails to come to terms with climate change, persistent, world-wide food shortages are going to be one of the hardest things to deal with.
A bloke called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the big cheese in German climate science, said at the Copenhagen conference early this year that by 2100 under BAU the planet could perhaps grow enough food for 1 billion people. There would be lot of ground for new techniques and genetic engineering to make up.
Danny I heard a fleeting reference to the Chinese outfit having the rights to building the rail line. For some time now they have been wanting to come and get our minerals themselves. Galilee could be a quantum change in more ways than one.