How weird. The government decided to ask the House of Representatives Economic Committee – which of course is controlled by the government – to look into the CPRS. For what purpose, it wasn’t at all clear. But, just as suddenly, they’ve changed their minds, purportedly because Wayne Swan thinks the committee’s terms of reference had become “politicized and distorted”. Politics? In Parliament? Who would have thought?
Meanwhile, the belting that the CPRS is copping continues – one of the more interesting being the open letter signed by a variety of academic economists including the blogosphere’s John Quiggin. The key criticisms are the same as have been made here by various people at various levels of priorities: the exceptionally weak targets, the over-generous compensation to polluters, and the fact that voluntary actions like installing solar panels, or policy measures like the free insulation just displace emissions rather than reducing them. Bernard Keane reports in today’s Crikey email that the government is only now starting to meet with some of the environmental NGOs – namely the Climate Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation, two of the tamer environmental groups, perhaps trying to gain some support for its plan.
It’s hard to imagine that the government is going to start again with a fundamentally different system like a carbon tax. We’re far too far down the road for that. In any case, as was pointed out on Quiggin’s thread on the open letter, the comparisons being made are between an emissions trading system that’s been through the sausage factory, and a theoretical carbon tax before the rent-seekers get to it. Any carbon tax that actually gets closer to implementation would inevitably be compromised to keep Big Carbon happy as well, and it’s the scale of the compromises that are the biggest problem with the CPRS as currently conceived. I can’t imagine the government abandoning the process either, economic crisis or not. The government invested far too much of its credibility on delivering a carbon-cutting process beginning in 2010 that it surely can’t back out now. So what the hell are they playing at when they announce an inquiry on the topic and then canceling it again?
Well it is very clear and simple. Having an enquiry was part or a rolling programme of delay. Howard did the same so this was seen as a safe political manoeuvre. The terms of the enquiry were indeed highly politicised and distorted. Highly politicised and distorted by the government itself because that was the purpose of the tactic. Almost certainly the review would have softened the targets even further “in light of the Global Economic Crisis”.
So why the change of mind?
The Obama administration has launched a very practical “rolling up the sleeves and getting on with the job” policy set which makes sense and is very do-able. “Let’s use the technologies as they are developed so far and implement them now”. Gosh, what a simple idea. So simple in fact that this will make the Australian Labour Party in government appear to be incompetent by comparison, which, when it come to Global Warming Action, they are. With 2 years left in government, Rudd can hardly run the risk of becoming an environmental laughing stock. Maybe we are to see a change in thinking in the coming months.
Frankly, I am not holding my breath, and laughing at Rudd in the future because it is 55 degrees C outside will give me no comfort.
In sausage-making terms, having a carbon tax with linked offsetting income tax cuts would give any opposition a painless and effective way to drum up popular support. This is not true of a trading scheme, which can’t be explained in a 10 second Today Tonight animation.
I think it is becoming obvious to even to the market zealots that the CPRS scheme is a crock of shite.
The only approach that will work is to go in boots and all and force the CO2 polluters to change.
What would bring about a change in attitude by the Captains of Industry ?
Well a year Guantanamo bay might help.
Failing that; an independent technical due diligence on each and every business that reveals all the sources of CO2 emissions for that entity. This process will estimate the remediation costs and benefits and get down to fixing it. Payment by results. No market bullshit. Just fucking do it.
Huggy.
Well it’s hard to imagine this government doing that. Kevvie’s a bit of a control freak and carbon tax relies on self-organization principles. Also, considering both the malversationary cockylorica that passes for the Opposition in this country we might never have it on the table.
.
But I think it’s the best idea.
.
Why? First – look at this immediate bureaucratic farnarkling that results of such an over-adminstered system.
.
Second – consider the large holes thru which to squirm out. Air France’s assertions that their flights over the Pacific can’t be calculated in terms of France’s Kyoto obligations comes to mind.
.
Third – trading carbon credits and the like makes me skeptical that developed states will attempt to retard the industrial progress of developing states by paying them money to pay their financial bill for ‘em. I understand that the modernization of such places as China, India and Brazil will greatly add to our ecological impact but these place’re not likely to comply with a system that’s set against ‘em any way.
.
Crucial to the solution is technological innovation. And that’s more like to come from advanced capitalist systems. The incentive to be innovative will be impeded somewhat if the carbon bill is paid by their governments to other places.
.
Still the cap n’ trade system might get Brazil to hang on to the Amazon a bit longer so it might be a good thing – short term. Ultimately I think it’s better if there’s a simple easy-to-police system that puts a value on carbon making it more expensive for everyone to use it.
.
The need to deploy a system of taxation globally has interesting implications for the nationalist/internationalist scenario. Add to that the issues brought up by the Iraq War and the international financial pestiferations and methinks various economic nationalists may soon be missing the halcyon days of the Bretton Wood Institutions.
Whoops that’s developed states will attempt to retard the industrial progress of developing states by paying them money to pay their environmnental bill for ‘em
.
Doesn’t make sense the other way. Sorry.
I reckon Bernard Keane’s analysis in Crikey was pretty spot on.
It looks like the Government has decided it might have made a strategic mistake by opting for a conservative ETS, buying off the big emitters with subsidies and exemptions, aiming to negotiate with the Coalition and sidelining the Greens and Xenofielding.
It now looks like the big emitters are taking everything they can get and still bagging the scheme, the Coalition ain’t gonna negotiate and the Government is hemorraging its credibility on the issue.
Faced with the inevitability of negotiating with the Greens and independents, it seems the Govt is now looking for a way of changing direction. The Committee inquiry is one way of doing it, but as soon as Malcolm Turnbull started talking about carbon taxes, the Government panicked that the inquiry might give ammo to the Opposition. So they canned it.
That’s my take on it.
I think there is a little bit of what Tim said, but other things as well. Swan announced the inquiry because he wanted something that would compare various types of carbon trading schemes (cap and trade, baseline and credit, hybrid) and a carbon tax (something that wasn’t done in detail in either the PMTG, the Garnaut Review, or the green and white papers) and come out and say that the government’s scheme was superior. However, I think they have now realised that announcing another inquiry into carbon trading will just muddy the waters (the coalition would release a dissenting opinion, the greens would say that the CPRS needs to be tightened) and increase uncertainty even more. So they have canned it so that they can proceed with what they originally planned. Labor will not negotiate significantly tighter targets with the Greens. IMHO, they will put the basic plan of the white paper into legislation, and if the coalition and greens vote it down, they will have it on the shelf for a double dissolution later in the year.
[(the coalition would release a dissenting opinion, the greens would say that the CPRS needs to be tightened)]
The Greens are not in the House of Representatives.
Sorry, thought that it was a Senate Committee….
“Failing that; an independent technical due diligence on each and every business that reveals all the sources of CO2 emissions for that entity.”
huggybunny,
The enormity of such a task is overwhelming. I’ve been privy to the process of watching one small polluter assessed (done for their own reasons) and to scale such a process up for all CO2 polluters is a pipedream. It’s the equivalent of the Michael Rimmer joke:
“We guarantee our pre-general-election poll will be 100% accurate.”
“How can you guarantee 100% accuracy?”
“We’ll ask everyone.”
LO@9, there will almost certainly be a Senate Committee also. However, it will not be controlled by the ALP as the House of Reps Committee was. For what it is worth, Christian Kerr was speculating (surely not, a journalist, speculating?) a couple of weeks ago that the House Committee was designed to report, favourably, before the inevitable Senate Committee and thus pre-empt any negative findings.
I think Tim@6 has the reasons for the inquiry being canned spot on, however.
Gary@10
Sure it’s a big task that’s the whole point. It’s too big to be left to be obscured by some bullshit market. If you think the direct approach is overwhelming than what are you saying about the market or tax regime? Like herding cats?
My experience has been that companies can implement new technologies and production methods if there is enough support and pressure from the top and from the outside world.
It might cost billions to assemble the teams of internal and external experts and there will be a lot of angst and argument. If the program is structured in such a way that the apparatchicks, time servers and lawyers are sidelined it will succeed.
Huggy
Brandis just said on Lateline tonight that the Opposition will oppose the CPRS because they think it has too much impact on Trade Exposed Emitting Industries, so the goverment will have to get the Greens, Xenophon and Fielding to all support it.
Looks like their strategy of devising a weak and ineffective ETS that industry is happy with and the Liberal’s cannot oppose has backfired.
So now we have a totally lame CPRS which will not reduce emissions, the Opposition saying we need a weaker one, and the worst polluting industries getting special treatment to keep spewing out greenhouse gases.
That’s politics. As I have said before, politics as usual is not capable of tackling climate change.
Brandis obviously had a line of information about Wong and Garrett rolling Swan and Ferguson to the very strange House of Reps inquiry killed just after it was announced. Labor is at sea, and very lucky that the ghost of Costello reappeared this week.
Now realised? Then they really are dills. I realised this as soon as I heard of the inquiry into whether the CPRS would be the most effective measure for reducing carbon emissions. After 6 months of blather and PR from Wong saying it was.
Poor old Garnaut did address this. Before he was chewed up and spat out by Labor when they did their deal with big business. Garnaut said a compromised ETS would be inferior to a carbon tax. And Rudd Labor compromised the CPRS in exactly the way he said not to – free permits and exemptions for fuel.
The problem with the CPRS is that there is no “R” in it. It won’t reduce emissions, as a quick look at the crapulous 5% taret reveals. Back to the drawing board dudes.
Perhaps it should be called a CPRBBSS? Carbon Pollution Reduction Below Baseline Levels Scheme…..
Seriously though, I agree with you Peter, I was flabergasted when they announced the inquiry as well….
I think the earlier point stands though – a badly designed ETS may be worse than a well desigined carbon tax, but what about a low carbon tax with excessive breaks for emissions intensive firms?
I keep hearing that Graham Blundell line from the Hollowmen. ‘ If anyone stops one briquette from getting to Beijing! ‘
LO,
In a carbon tax environment everything is taxed. Then those who are deserving of special consideration are refunded. This way the full flow is properly accounted.
You have to remember the only purpose of this entire exercise is to raise the revenue to build an alternative energy structure as quickly as possible. The cost of that is not that great so the carbon tax will not be very large. The government has just signed off a 42 billion dollar freebe handout, which by my guess is about one third of the total cost of building a CSP solar system (60 gig base load power)for all of Australia. There is not a lot of global (national) thinking going on there in Canberra, there is no broad strategy. Just a bunch of greedies worrying about their own little interests. The Mugabe Syndrome lives on.
“The government decided to ask the House of Representatives Economic Committee – which of course is controlled by the government – to look into the CPRS. For what purpose, it wasn’t at all clear”
Quiet word is that Xenophon came back from a trip to the States with a mind full of carbon tax or some other alternative scheme, and the parliamentary committee was pre-emptive to force him to hear all the evidence. Perhaps something happened in the last week that Labor are no longer concerned about Xenophon’s support?
FWIW here is a list of different approaches to pricing carbon, arranged in order of decreasing quality (according to what I think is better or worse):
1. A well designed ETS with good coverage and a price floor, where the price floor is at the level that a tax should be set at, and the emissions cap is environmentally appropriate.
2. A well designed ETS with good coverage, where the emissions cap is environmentally appropriate.
3. A well designed carbon tax with good coverage, with a high price for carbon.
4. A low carbon tax with excessive breaks for emissions intensive firms.
5. A poorly designed ETS with a weak target and excessive breaks for emissions intensive firms (like the CPRS).
6. No carbon price at all.
“a weak and ineffective ETS that industry is happy with”
But industry is not happy. They are demanding more and more concessions. The government has been conned. They thought that if they conceded a lot in the White Paper, and given industry everything they asked for, then industry would line up and support them.
But of course industry is not supporting anything. Like terrorists, the more you concede to them, the more they perceive you (correctly) as weak, and the more they raise their demands.
Wong has been shown up as naive and inept.
Co2 emissions reduction is not just about energy production. Consider cement – about 1 tonne of CO2 for every tonne of cement. You don’t get much cement for a tonne.
Steel has about the same – 1 tonne of CO2 fore every tonne of steel: The link below is for a 1999 paper from the DOE. Note that CO2 emissions reduction was already a driver 10 years ago.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/842481-89NRhn/native/842481.PDF
The comparisons between various countries are instructive. (Note that the paper avoids direct tabular comparison between the US and developing countries).
Extract: “This analysis has also shown that a number of key developing countries are equally or more energy efficient than the U.S.industry. In the steel industry, we found that Brazil is more efficient than the U.S. while Mexico has achieved a comparable level of energy efficiency. For cement production, we found that Mexico and Brazil are more efficient than the U.S., while
India appears to have become more efficient in recent years. China is the least efficient country in our analysis. The data for India and China, however, must be interpreted with care, and a further analysis of these countries is needed.” Exactly.
Taken together, steel and cement probably account for 10% of CO2 emissions (that’s a guess really as there is considerable debate about the exact numbers: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/36966
(See the dissenting post)
In the Global Huggy Bunny dictatorship we will start with the Steel and cement producers, these are actually low hanging fruit because most (all) of the technologies for CO2 reduction already exist at a commercialised level, the fat dumb and happy subsidised producers need a good reaming to bring them up to scratch.
Then we will send the huggytroopers into the car industry, and force them to make series hybrid cars that use the power network and ammonia as a fuel(NH4) in a free piston engine for extra range.
The power industry? First we will jail all the nuclear reactor builders and their touts (extra long sentences for the touts). Then we will introduce methane drainage and geo-thermal generation into the networks, improve the efficiency of the network with smart stuff and even encourage PV. The ultimate will be the Huggy domestic level electrical storage system that will reduce the system losses by about 10%, massively improve the network reliability and massively reduce distribution costs. Oh and did I mention forcing all the farmers to digest their pig and cow shit in methane generators then feed the power generated into the grid-just as they now do in Germany. It’s actually really easy to make power generation CO2 neutral
The really sad thing about the CO2 emissions and Greenhouse Gas emissions thing is that people have been writing about it, giving talks about it (even YT) for over 10 years and all the politicians, academics and opinion leaders run about wringing their hands, crying “it’s hard”. (Maybe they wish it was – makes a change from always limp).
What do they offer as a solution? A fucking “market”. Get fucking real you fuckers.
You are coming at it from the wrong end, fix the problems at source, introduce the new technolgies and processes, then you can stuff around with your markets and your taxes and whatever it is that allow you to be seen to do something without actually working on the content.
Huggy
Peter Wood,
What is missing (or unclear) from your logic is motive. There appears to be an overiding assumption that the purpose of ETS/CT/Etc is to provide a deterent (punishment) for the use of historic fuels. The fundamental flaw in this approach is that without an alternative to historic fuels people have no choice other than to continue as they are, so they will pay the higher price and adapt. This will only bring about marginal reductions in consumption and CO2 release. This approach assumes that with the higher price for carbon, alternatives will spring up spontaneously, immediately. I would like to see anyone demonstrate that such an outcome is even vaguely possible.
BilB,
There are many alternatives to highly emissions intensive activities, but these alternatives are not cost competitive when industries get to damage the atmosphere for free. Alternatives include wind, geothermal, better designed buildings, bicycles, public transport, solar thermal technologies, aluminium recycling, possibly CCS, and even gas would have significantly less emissions that the coal that we burn.
Technology based policy alone will barely change emissions. That was the approach of the previous government.
I do not agree with the punitive approach, Peter. After all, we have all benefitted in the West from low cost energy. Fining people into change is not an even slightly smart approach. Community driven reinvestment is by far the lowest cost and most direct method of effecting the transition to renewable energy. Once redirected the markets will drive the process of reorganising peoples participation in the new energy order. You have to remember that starting today 7 billion people have to change their energy consuming devices to be compatible with the energy regime. That does not happen overnight, and that is the market’s roll in the energy transition.
The line “industries get to damage the atmosphere for free” has been very convenient for all of us up till now, so beating these same industries over the head while they continue to supply the essential materials to affect the transition to a short solar energy cycle is not a very intelligent approach. The simple carbon tax, which every one pays, set at the alternative energy restructuring investment rate approach defeats the “fine them until they change their ways” approach by every measure. Especially when you examine the intentions applied to the collections of the fines.
Tim at 6
Interesting, I hope you are right, that there is still a chance the ALP might opt for an effective scheme rather than continue to appease the polluters.
I don’t think Wong is naive and inept as someone else wrote, in fact I’m pretty sure she is the opposite. I’m would surmise she got [soundly] rolled in the numbers game in Cabinet.
Huggy at 20
Interesting, please keep chucking such info in this general direction, i’ts appreciated. As is your somewhat intemperate but justifiable language. Tut tut!
I have said this before but I will say it again: There will be no real action on CO2 emissions until the sea comes washing up Wall Street.
Then the Imperial Masters of the universe are going to totally wet their pants and go for the heroic engineering approach. Build mirrors in space, inject sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, fertilise the sea with iron chelates build giant CO2 extraction machines that turn sodium hydroxide into sodium carbonate and so on.
Remember – fellow suckers- that they are already building the secure enclaves for the rich and powerful, buying off the gullible academics with the promise of pretty little nuclear reactors for their gated communities. Said enclaves to be guarded by trailer park trash fresh from the killing fields of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the nuclear wasteland of Iran.
Meanwhile the seas will turn into algal soup, the forests will die and burn and our children will be reduced to a bitter struggle for survival.
Huggy
Obviously Herr Huggy has never heard of Thorium power.
HuggyBunny,
If and when pot gets legalised, can you hook me up?
Huggy, I enjoyed your rant @ 21 and 26. The sea washing up Wall Street might be closer than we think. One good storm surge would do it. But if the seas turn into algal soup the denizens in their gated communities might find themselves short of oxygen to breathe.
Here we go:
It seems that they are going to prepare for 41 to 55 inches, just in case.
That’s about 1.4 metres tops. Should help:
Here is an item from ABC news on printable solar cells: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/19/2496458.htm?section=australia
Note the cynical content in the comments regarding investment in technology. Not a single person believes or expects that such technology will receive production backing within Australia.
In a carbon tax scenario the receipts from the tax are collected entirely for the purpose of rolling out such technologies. The CSIRO suggest a possible 10% efficiency for the technology. If that were possible I have just paced out my factory to conclude that half the roof area would produce around 10 Kw under optimal circumstances. More than enough to run my entire business. And when you think about the amount of warehouse roofing in all of our cities, then it is obvious that this is potentially a very big deal.
Coming back to Emissions Trading Schemes, I really think that this government has completely lost the plot of what the intention is. They’ve buried themselves in a pile of social fairness bullshit, and forgotten the saving the environment bit.
I’m disgusted!
Labor Outsider – Swan announced the inquiry because he wanted something that would compare various types of carbon trading schemes (cap and trade, baseline and credit, hybrid) and a carbon tax
.
.
It’s peculiar that the government decides on a policy and then launches and inquiry into the options yes? I think maybe they just forgot for a minute that their modus operandi is to conduct a big fat jabberfest before deciding where to eat breakfast every day. Maybe they all cam back from schmoozing their pals in the Democrats and parroted cap n’ trade, cap n’ trade without realizing that American politics is pretty much an extension of the corporate boardroom and…
.
Oh wait.
.
It’s a schmozzle. And instead of actually honestly and openly debating a range of options on what these complete dickheads don’t yet realize is one of the major issues of human history. So we don’t consider other ideas that might be valid because the Opposition might score a point. Jeez.
Peter @27.
Thorium, if you mean the implementation of Accelerator Driven System (ADS) that use Thorium as the fuel, most of the Huggy Global dictatorship’s objections to Nuclear power tend to fade away.
1. The ADS system cannot get away; switch off the accelerator and the reaction stops.
2. The ADS system cannot be used to make Pu and thus is basically useless for nuclear weapons production.
3. The ADS system generates less waste, less nasty unstable isotopes and vastly shorter “safe to handle” times than uranium by-products – 500 years vs 10,000 years
4. Thorium is plentiful and cheap and very safe to handle before you put it into the reactor. If you went cycling* this morning you probably sat your bum on a seat that had thorium in the frame beneath the soft cushion
India and Australia have about 25% of the known reserves of thorium BTW.
Australia also has some boffins working on ADS systems; what’s the bet that the content free fuckwits in charge of things sell the technology off the the yanks?
*Declaration: I went cycling this morning, it’s an informal cycling club with only one rule: No Lycra. Any-one found wearing Lycra will be immediately thrown into the river or the sea (whichever is closer). If we can ever catch one of the Lycra clad smartarses who zoom past us on the cycle path, yelling at us for riding on the wrong side or slow, we will totally beat him to a pulp. But I digress.
Huggy
HB – So if this Thorium is so good why don’t we hear more about it?
Adrien @ 34 “HB – So if this Thorium is so good why don’t we hear more about it?”
Wonks like me know about it but the touts and pimps for uranium have the floor. Governments of the Howard stripe want reactors that they can use to make bombs. In fact bomb making is the major driver for uranium nukes. Thus they can protect us from the teeming millions that hang above our heads.
In the hallowed halls of this very site the uranium lobby was recently spruiking the benefits of uranium reactors. Would they know about Thorium? No, they are just sad little propaganda propagators.
Did I mention Thorium in rebuttal? No,It was clearly a waste of time, besides there are other non-nuclear non intermittent solutions, gave them a run.
Huggy
Huggy, long before you started commenting on this site thorium was known and talked about.
BilB – great link, great story: and yes the failure to develop, or even hold onto our solar expertise is not only depressing, but just plain f*cking inexplicable – until you accept that both major parties are straight up coal hos, shakin booty on a pole, and whispering “me love you long time” to the big carbon pimps in the front row.
Such is environment policy-making in this banjo-pluckin, backward climate shithole called Straya.
On Insiders this morning someone reckoned that Swan ordered the inquiry because certain economists were recommending a carbon tax and he wanted to put the thing to bed.
Sounds credible, except that the timing didn’t allow a report before the legislation was brought forward.
Brian;”Huggy, long before you started commenting on this site thorium was known and talked about”. So – it should have been. The most recent stuff on nuclear was some love affair with U and Pu fired “mini reactors”. They arrive on the back of a truck apparently. You then plonk one in your gated community and every-one is happy; forever.
That’s so sad and pathetic; hence my provocative remarks.
Huggy
They government is so diorganise the CPRS inquiry is still on the House of Reps website, even though they have “shut it down”[link]
This is really weird. The terms of reference were:
1. The Committee will inquire into the choice of emissions trading as the central policy to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution, taking into account the need to:
a. reduce carbon pollution at the lowest economic cost;
b. put in place long-term incentives for investment in clean energy and low-emission technology; and
c. contribute to a global solution to climate change.
Now it is “full coal steam ahead” with the fatally flawed Carbon Pollution Reallocation Scheme.
And they never did consult with the public about whether emissions trading was the best option. Turnbull frame the ETS when he was Environment Minister then Rudd, Wong & co just trundled down the greenpaper, whitepaper, treasury modelling path.
I actually think the inquiry was really needed – especially as the current CRPS won’t reduce emissions in the near of foreseable future – and it is conflict with Garnaut’s key recommendations.
With respect to the terms of reference, the CPRS:
a. Will not reduce carbon pollution at the lowest economic cost;
b. Will do nothing to put in place long-term incentives for investment in clean energy and low-emission technology
c. Will not contribute to a global solution to climate change, as it won’t reduce emissions.
Peterc – please present some arguments in support of your a, b, and c.
Mitchel, check out http://tai.org.au for papers detailing the many failures of the CPRS.
Such as https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=fixing_the_floor_in_the_ets.pdf
a) In short, the cap is also a floor, which prevents emissions savings. The 5% target equates to a net increase in emissins. Household emission savings are reallocated to the worst polluters, which is perverse.
b). The CPRS is market trading scheme which attempts to price and put a cap on GHG emissions. The carbon price will be too low to allow zero emission energy sources such and wind and soloar to compete with subsided fossil fuel sources. The CPRS has not specific incentives for investment in clean energy. The MRET is supposed to do this, but has not yet been legislated (ask Peter Garrett why not). A gross feed in tariff would do it best – which is presumably why Governments and Industry are joined at the hip in opposing this (except for the ACT).
c). No emission reductions equals no contribution to a global solution. Weak 5% (max 15%) target means Australia is still very much a laggard in upcoming international negotiations such as Copenhagen (25% to 40 reduction target range).
Electing John Rudd (Kevin Howard) has resulted in no substantive action on climate change.
Peterc, I think that what this saga has shown is the superficial way policy development was conducted in this area prior to the election and the unwillingness of the Rudd office to contemplate change or take on board what Garnaut came up with.
Agreed Brian. It also highlights Labor’s dishonesty. During the election it was all “Garnaut is the man”, “Garnaut will provide the proper economic analysis to inform proper targets” etc etc.
Then after they won, as Garret said to Steve Price, they changed lots of things. Especially after they crawled into bed with the coal industry with an ex CFMEU staffer and lawyer (Wong) in charge of climate change.