The agreement between Labor and the Greens (previous discussion here) contains the following paragraph:
That Australia must tackle climate change and that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a price on carbon. Therefore the Parties agree to form a well resourced Climate Change Committee which encompasses experts and representative ALP, Greens, independent and Coalition parliamentarians who are committed to tackling climate change and who acknowledge that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price. The Committee will be resourced like a Cabinet Committee. The Parties will, by the end of September 2010, finalise the structure, membership and work plan of the Committee.
While the Climate Change Committee, a cabinet committee, does allow Gillard to save face on the much-maligned Citizens Assembly proposal (I’ll return to that later), the more important aspect is that only those committed to tackling climate change need apply.
Gillard’s original proposal had two elements, a panel of experts as well as a citizens assembly. Neither precluded climate sceptics/deniers. I recall Graham Richardson on Q&A saying that it was important that the denialist position be considered, but rejected. You only need one or two determined and articulate contrarians in such a forum to derail proceedings.
We have one Australian scientist who has written a book Climate: the Counter Consensus where the blurb states:
Climate: the Counter Consensus goes on to examine, with thoroughness and impartial expertise, the so-called facts of global warming that are churned out and unquestioningly accepted, while the scientific and media establishments stifle or deride any legitimate expression of an opposing view. In doing so, the book typifies the mission of Independent Minds to replace political correctness and received wisdom with common sense and rational analysis.
How could you have reasonably denied him a seat at the table? On the committee now proposed he would be excluded by definition.
Abbott, on the other hand, has himself excluded the Liberal Party, which, when you consider how Abbott came to power would seem appropriate.
Mark pointed out that there was a clear intent:
to set up a well resourced committee to make proposals for Parliament to legislate a path to a carbon price, and to do so through garnering the broadest possible level of support in both Houses, including trying to de-attach some Liberals who accept climate change science and believe in the need for a carbon price from their denialist party leadership.
If Gillard wins out and is confirmed as PM the Liberal Party may have to detach itself from the present leader if it wants to deal itself back into the game.
In the next few days it is interesting to contemplate how the ALP-Greens agreement on climate change and Abbott’s response may affect the three undecided independents.
Oakeshott is known to favour an ETS, or at least a price on carbon. Windsor has declared that something needs to be done, but is quite open as to what that might be. Those two would have to favour the ALP rather than the party of denialists.
Katter is known to be a sceptic/denier and declined to attend on Wednesday when the other two consulted Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern. But he is keen on an ethanol industry for his cane farmers and has lots of sun to sell, although the project at Cloncurry seems as though it might be a dud.
Katter could go either way. There might be more activity if the ALP wins out, as the Greens will certainly push hard for action. Nevertheless he is likely to see a price on carbon as a huge negative. To my knowledge he doesn’t have any coal mining in his electorate.
To return to Gillard’s citizens assembly, she put it this way several times in the press conference:
“With the circumstances of the Parliament now, obviously, I have agreed with the Greens that we should have this multi-party inclusive process,” she said.
“I will pursue the idea of a citizens assembly in that process and we’ll work it through.
“One of the things that [the committee] will want to do is consider the question of generating community consensus.
“The citizens assembly, in my view, is a mechanism to do that. It’s not the only mechanism. Am I going to get hung up on mechanisms? No, I’m not. Am I hung up on the outcome? Yes, I am.”
But longer term, I think we are on our way (cross fingers). Climate Institute spokesman John Connor gave the committee a big tick and should there be an election sooner or later climate change will not be the negative for Labor it was this time.
And as Lefty E said:
And another thing: the ALPs own climate inaction faction is now in a pissweak position. Lower house agreements will now trump all sorts of internal ALP shenanigans.
The biggest gift the greens can bequeath this nation is the informing of whichever ignoramii get into government, as to the realities of an ecologically challenged planet.
Even if the latter have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the table.
I remember Richo on Q and A inviting the denialists to participate in the Citizens’ Assembly all too well, and I’m glad you brought it up. As you correctly surmise, they would quickly derail the proceedings, simply by shouting “Climategate!” (which never in fact existed).
The idea of a Citizens’ Assembly was I believe always designed to be a delaying tactic. I’m glad Bandt has suggested a Parliamentary Committee. If it is successful, it will obviate the need for a Citizens’ Assembly. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Committee can itself be easily sabotaged by stealth denialist-inactivists that Gillard may want to include. I’m sure, however, that Bandt will do his best to prevent this from happening.
Rather than have a parliamentary committee to work up a proposal, and on which some MPs are not welcome, the obvious question is why don;t Labor and the Greens just negotiate a deal among themselves and put it before the House and, if successful, then the Senate.
It may not be the “new paradigm” to reach a “deep and lasting consensus” and all that, the the end result will be legislation that will go to the parliament. This sounds like a classic Kevin Rudd approach of forming multiple committees and wearing everyone out on process.
Remember COAG working parties that would “would end the blame game” on Commonwealth/State relations, and State govts. ended up just sending their public servants instead of ministers?
I think Oakeshott and Windsor will want to deal themselves in on the committee which forces their support for an ALP government.
Nice move The Greens.
.
But as Turnball said of Minchin and Abbott:
“Minchin and Abbott always made it clear they thought climate change was bunkum. Even when he was advocating passing the ETS Abbott said he thought the science of climate change was complete crap, but we had to be electorally practical”.
Regardless of his belief that climate change is crap, Tony Abbott placed a $1 billion emissions reduction fund at the heart of the Coalition’s $3.2b climate change policy on Feb 2 of this year. Abbott’s opinion on climate change shifts like the wind.
He will yield to a Climate Change Committee. It’s in his interest to do so. His desire for power is too strong.
How about, like the Nike ad says, Just Do It, instead of trying to win over people who will never be won over?
Bob Carter will go to his grave thinking climate change is crap. The idea that people like him can or should be brought inside the tent is ludicrous.
Brian, regards Bob Carter and any membership on what essentially is a committee to facilitate policy-making: Oya, Nda, Ôda, Nde, K’amaj, C’am, N…taj, Tsaa, Haw, Hawaa, Maley, Nee, Geen, Gai, Atsá, Ci, Mah nguh, Indi, Ánkobi, Jo, Ne, Jok, Arangkwa, -iyanga, Yelem, Aydelem, Aye, Ie, Way, Cuwa, Ti, Nari, Na, Dah, Ma, Poyeda, Lay, Laa, La, Lela, Jo, Jo, Maiçá, Voch, Che, Nu, Daabí, Ma, La, Non, Nun, Iyat, Mam, Ba, Wín, Ahq áho, Aqa, Keawai, Janiwa, Janiw, Jani, Janixay, Janixä, Gatu, Yox, Gila, Sinalubiri, Ah ah, Nangwa, Enna, Ayi, Yagam, Yugam, Hais, Katai, Kutai, Yok, Ez, Daong, Ne, Nie, Awe, Na, Bobo, Gara, Ni, No, Saa, Te, Ao, Poi-e, Ne, Hm, Awíje, All-, Nann, Ket, Nope, Taah, Mu-, Teo, Taawe, Ne, Momo, Ngai, Mahou’hpu, Mahou’pabu, Gala, Bee, Be, Bee ya, E, Ee, É’e, Doo-yee, Kily, E, Kí’i, Ma…ta, Maan, Mhai, Nie’, No, Ô, Ahe’, Ándi, Ná, Ohò’m, Haan-haan, Haa-ha’, Dac, Ka’c, Ka’cu, Katcokma, Tla, V’-tla, Tla-hv, Hová’âháne, Iyayi, Iyaye, kkien and Mandarin], No, Halo, Wake, Íài, Iyayi, Ani, Pepe, Keyu, Ahanh, Chikimba, Iksho, Mach, Ma’, Ma’anic, Ma, Mach, Xá’ñí, Hañí, Ma, Ohom, K’amu, Ma, K’amu, Ohóm, Sewilx, Amo, Se, Anictu, Museil, Pwo, Chuk, Ohom, Nyi, Kai, Keka, Ko, Tocusé, La, Vê, Nani, Kai, Kamu, Kepu, Nag eus, Na, Nag usy, Non, Innò, Kue, Akwi, Akwe, Ekwe, Elekic, Eka, Mwâc, Namôya, Mola, Kus, Mónkos, Hekúst, Non, Ne, Sa, Su, Déta, Ne, Ai, Nej, Kaha’, ‘Andooh, ‘Awundooh, Yagu, Noon, Umaaw, Aliu, Hani, Wata, Guran, Yaga, Ohóm, A’ou, Nee, Neen, Yimba, Aa, Kha-, Gadu, Daá, No, Nope, Uh-uh, Nut, Naw, Nah, No way, Na, Nese, Ne, Me’-tea, A’na, Maal, Ei, Ep, Es, Eiba, Eih, Õih, Ein, Quéta, Aan, Aach, Aachin, Koa, Koko, Aaha, Nei, Nah, Ne, Xai, Sega, Ei, Eo, A’a, Non, Nee, Nò, Ala, Jikai, Wà, Xai, Diyl yola, Non, Nenni, Nona, Nani, Gamil, Nedda, ‘Aa, ‘Aaà, Nani, K’amu, Áo, Óhv, Ah-ra, Ara, Nein, Nö, Nie, Naa, Nee, Nei, Naa, Na, Maya, Nau, Ochi, De’ngje, Nã’ã, Ahaniri, Nahániri, NahiiN, Naa, Ma, Yaka, Biway, Gurrangung, Manari, , Aya, Mo, Me, Babu, A’a, ‘A’ole, Lo, , Desa, Nesats, Ji nahi, Nahin, Hye, Ji nahin, Naheen, Na, Tsis, Chúi muá, Hina, M hai, M si an-ne, Msi, Bo, M tioh, Mmsi, Uhun, Qa’é, Gae’, K’ae’, Aè, Atsa, Ib, Ngwüy, Ngome, Ngo, Ka-, Nem, Nei, Ntondo, No, Saan, Haan, Ne, Tidak, ndak, nggak, kagak, Jangan, Belum, Bukan, Aa, Maawaach, No, Non, Naaga, Naamik, Aagaa, Aakka, Naagga, Naaka, Naamik, Ní hea, No, Ne, No, Engga, Ma’, Omba, ‘A, Na, Ani, Ye’, Mach, Isha, Iie, Nne, Iya, Yanda, Ingeno, Mboten, Ora, Sanes, Nannîn, Kayon, Nau, Ak, A’ou, Ahani, Áni, Lawnga, Kuru, Ne, Moh, Mao, Mako, Uga, Anité, N’a'i, K’amaq, C’am, Beda, Illa, A a, Ali, Deeai, Jo, Áni, Ei, Mwe é, Ne-keh, Ma, Aricne, Ka’ya, Lawnga, Kètô, Kiép, #NAME?, Zhoq, Ohom, Ink’a, Ma, Ink’a', Chox, Taku, ||ka, Te, Ot te, Pa, No, Moh, Ingaaha, Ayee, Vê, Aca, Tiguo, Aa, Oya, Acha, Jok, Oya, Yo, Hapana, A-a, ?awa, Íniko, Ni, Bebe, Aga, Abu, Naa, Aniyo, Animnida, Ajo, Ajej, Moh, Non, Nomo, Wiya, Suli, |kúa, |kúi, Pûuhara, Na, Ne, Neu, No, Mala, Mats, Gooran, Aaye, Ahawe, Ahowe, |ka, |kwa, ka:, Man, Biduk, No, Áni, Mah hey, Ñi, Hiya, Shnee, Bo, Non, Nullus, Minime, Ne, Kapwa, Ku, Mata, Kuta, U mayay, Ta hashi, Ta chich, Mahchikwi, Alalan, Ku kesi, Ku nkesi, Ku ktakohchi, Ku ntakohchi, Okeksene, Ngga’, Té, No, Non, Ne, A’a, M’m, Äb, Ät, Äb, No, Nee, Nee, Ne, Qay, Gai, Inehi, Ngaaha, Nangwa, Kwaha, Ooyo, Xwí?, Kagute, Neen, Nee, Lawnga, Ne, Ikai, Dele, Tsia, An, an, Tidak, Bukan, Le, Mi, Min, Ai, Yimba, Waka, Aku, Bu shi zhe yang, Bu dui, Meiyou, Bu shi, Hani, Ham, Aat, Aita, Kao, Kare, Mü, Nahi, Uke, Ampi, Mampi, Ampu, Jaab, Mme, Nanga, Aepotá?a, A-a, Nole, Gâmu, Noo, Pa miyeur, Mv [+ subject], Maiv [+ subject], M´i mái, Moqwa, Ao, Indak, Hë’ë, Apia, Ewutû, Hama, Hella, Huma, Ken, ‘Ewyty’, ‘E’eh, Hela, Ewutu, Ka’p, Kiáp, Ka, Ña d+u, Koó, Tú’, Túu, Met, Ekshu, Q’ay, Nau, Hùe;’, Ha, Non, Ügüi, Bish, Karu, Gadu, Garu, Ayo, Ma’, Aras, Ajaš, Aš, Akana, Amo, Hiya, Edi, Ana:, Achicha, Minta, Iòk, Deò ei, Dooda, Ndaga’, Me waq, Hayi, Koma, Nono, Ya’ngo, Ahaa, Hoina, Chaina, Makhu, Ngarru, Jowandjan, Ùú, Warrayi, No, Nei, Næi, Deai, Áà, Àwâ, Ohò’m, Juat, , Ni, Gaawesa, Kai, Ana, Hon’-ka-zhi, On’ka-zhi, Nö, Næ, Noun, Mbu, |kwa, |kwi, Kwi, Vuo, Vuol, Vuel, Ya’a, K’ami, Mwi, Pame, Ning, Neng, Pia’a, Roba, Aní, Nãhã, Na, Nakhayr, Kotama, Konotiri, Ne, Iniani, Hari’a, Áni, Karu, M’khu, , Ámbe, Ástarhu, Ási, and Tok Pisin], No, Nomoa, Pia’a, Inte, Tesu, Tee, Wiya, Eeno, Nau, Nee, Ma, Ntaj, Ntax, Ta, Maa, Ma…ta, Nie, Si’ai, Siei, Kui, Da’, Caj, Não, Co, Non, Nani, Naheen, Nahi, Yaapw, Mmm, Yeehee, Pa, Manam, Mana, Manan, Ama, Ma-, Man…taj, Mana, Ina, Kare, Haeñum´, Nií, Niíkó, Niíkámí, Na, Na, Nu, Na, ‘Igka’i, ‘Igke’i, , Nyet, ?ewe, Taj, Ále, Ii, Ij, Ij, Tae, Täto to, Tahatna, Meré, Öhö, Leai, Kai, Ipo, Nõnö, Ná, Waà, No, Na, Nde, Ee, Naw, Nae, Na, Mo, Aowa, Ne, Saate, Nou, Non, Tjhe, Tjhee, Aikona, Nyaa, Õiõ, Ahha, Mecheye, Me sheki, Uh uh, Gè, Neh, Icáma, Aiwa, Kwete, Kai, Atsa, Nuddu, Nessunu, Baatili, Na, Ma, Natha, Qa, Ha, Nie, Ne, Do, Maya, Ayi, Ne, No, Tá, Nono, Heunteu, Sanes, Ulah, Na, Noe, , Nej, Ohom, Hindi po, Hindi, Aita, U’a, Wu’a, Ne, Nono, Kala-kala, Illai, Venda, Baety, Ké, Que, Quetasi, Tásirapé, Tasi, Tarapé, Akêa, Nay, Yuk, Boomi, Gom, Umbae, Bae, Kaddu, Ledu, Maitague, Lae, La, Mai, Maidai, Maichai, Maioua, Ma-ja, Yo, Marey, Meyin, La’, Lala’, Ay-[+verb root]-n, Tailpa, T’akwha, Klek, Tleix, Miyuc, Mi, Nogat, ‘Ikai, Hí-ekh, Nichuna, Gala, Te, To, Wik, Haic, Mbe’ae, Anhan, Ijji, Iddi, Mbaa, Naani, Naanikwaw, Naani-mia, Hayir, Yok, Chok, Daabí, Ju’uk, Ma’yuk, I’i, Mo’oj, Mu, Muc, Ma, Maan, Övöl, Ni, Ana, Nahin, NehiiN, Anin, Ta’, Kach, Ka-, Jyok, Yaq, Yuk, Yöq, No, Ei, Không, Th?a không, Awigi, Dili, Tifale, Ei, EB, Ep, Wihya, Mi, Neis, Aye, Wandi, Lawa, Walku, Wangaay, Wayil, Ès, A, Aitsa, Wayil, Ohòm, Na, Naddo, Nage, Nagoes, Nac ydw, Ya’a, El-eh-oh, Min, Mina, Wirraay, Kia, Ohom, Deedeet, K’amu, |na, K’au, K’auki, Anrê, Ñiá, Hayi, Nne, Ngava, ‘É’e, K’amu, Ohom, Nit, Neyn, Mita, Anhan, K’ami, K’amu, K’amu, Ohom, Yaka, Rara, Oti, Béè kó, Ma’, Maa, Yahq, Tan, Mi-tang-keh, No, Ganga, Que, Ka’á, Ko’, Akti, Bi, Bito, Cabi, Abi, Bi, Bibi, Bitw, Cabi, Bow, Ejxe, Watkáh, Ja’ne, N@7tti, Cha, Tsha, Haai ngeko, ‘Ella.
That’s no in 520 languages.
Surprise, surprise. The Coalition are intending to act as spoilers on this, arguing that its in breach of Parliamentary privilege to exclude MPs from a parliamentary committee on the basis of adherence or otherwise to a belief system. So says Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis to a very well briefed (and probably well dined) Glenn Milne.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3000298.htm
Rodger,
Yes, only his vote for an ALP government is important, it’s not like he has a single sane and rational thought in his head on any topic at all.
Yeah that’s consensus building.
Roger, in what language is N@7tti the word for no, and how is it pronounced?
silkworm, you say that the Parliamentary Committee was Bandt’s idea. I don’t say it wasn’t, but do you have any evidence for that?
I think there is value in having a standing committee with scientists involved so that they can take account of the latest.
A price on carbon doesn’t have to be an ETS, it could be a tax, as in Brian Toohey’s notion that you could start low and increase it every year.
If an ETS it won’t be the previous CPRS, because the Greens won’t wear it. It gives Labor a chance to walk away from the CPRS while saving face.
Roger, your meaning is clear.
On another matter, I’m a bit amazed the spaminator didn’t grab your comment. It really must think you’re OK now, touch wood!
Bush lawyering from self-appointed senior counsel, George Brandis …. yawn.
Yawn, yes – believe me, I had trouble getting through Milne’s piece – but if there is doubt about the constitutionality of the Parliamentary Committee is it is going to exclude some MPs on the basis of a fairly arbitrary test, then wouldn’t they be better to just sit down and start drafting legislation?
Powerpoint slides with pictures of penguins on them are all well and good, but the Parliamentary committee adds little value in its own right. The issues here have been rehearsed endlessly. The political problem is that Labor has people who vote for it who hate a carbon tax, and voters it wants to win back who want one. Plus now the cost of getting two of the rural independents onside (Katter’s gone on this).
Surely the way to manage a committee is through its terms of reference, not its membership.
For example, if the ToR is “to recommend the best way to reduce Australian carbon emissions”, then the issue of whether CO2 causes climate change is irrelevant and beyond its scope.
So put the Liberals on the committee. They will write a minority dissenting report which will be rightly ignored.
And, yes, the terms of reference should simply be about the means of implementing a carbon price.
What’s the problem?
According to Milne this is the problem:
The exclusive diktat being a restriction according to belief and therefore free speech and therefore parliamentary privilege.
Brandis is notorious for arguing anything that suits his political cause even if it contradicts something he said 5 minutes earlier.
I’m sure if this becomes a problem it can be adjusted by changing the terms of reference and/or the status of the no-parliamentary members.
Milne’s description of Gillard as “supine” is risible and shows his own colours.
Brian,
I’m posting from my service provider, not through the uni, so the spaminator accepts that (and the 520 noes, but that’s the last time I can try that stunt – bugger).
And GregM N@7tti was the way I grabbed it – there’s a real word somewhere there.
The idea of a committee of the willing is a good one. If it can’t be done through official means, it’s worth doing otherwise. Its remit should be larger than just a carbon price, though because of the breadth that policy needs to take. Perverse incentives in the tax system for one. Urban assault vehicle sales tax and novated car leases to name two.
However, the carbon price proviso from Brandis is silly. There is already a carbon price in the economy. Abbott should have been called on that but he hasn’t been. It’s a shadow price informed by the renewable energy scheme, voluntary and international markets.
Regardless of who gets in, it’s time to get into gear. If the federal government needs to be sidelined for a couple of years or more, so be it.
Definitions of “encompass”: – embrace: include in scope; include as part of something broader
I don’t read “encompass” as being exclusive. The committee shall include the “committeds” but not exclude the “uncommitteds”. That is my interpretation.
GregM @10
N@7tti was the way I found it but that language is Zoque from Mexico. Can’t find the correct spelling online, but the Zoque are related to the Mixe people.
I believe every two year-old knows all of these 520 words but they forget them as they age.
No, I just assumed.
Yes, preferably. This would be the key argument at the committee for having a tax rather that a cap. Of course, the parliamentarians would have to be advised by a scientific committee on this. But then they already have the recommendations of Garnaut, so their task should revolve around how to implement what Garnaut has advised.
Given that Rudd’s ratings dropped when he squibbed the ETS it would appear the Australian voters agree.
The agreement between the Greens and Labor is wrong when it says that
There are numerous ways that we can meet our 2020 targets and putting a price on carbon is only one of them. For example, investment in cleaner electricity could be driven by:
1. Put a price on carbon: Put a high enough price on carbon to drive the price of dirty electricity up to the point where investment in cleaner electricity becomes attractive.
2. Put a price on clean: Leave the price of dirty electricity unchanged and offering a high enough subsidy on cleaner electricity to make the investment attractive.
3. Lift the MRET target: (Essentially the same as 2. except that the subsidy effectively comes from a “levy” on dirty electricity.)
4. Set up contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity and insist that the use of cleaner electricity takes priority.
Other sources of emissions might have a different mix of alternatives but it is not unreasonable to say that it is unlikely for putting as price on carbon to be the only alternative.
It may not be unreasonable to set up a committee to look at what needs to be done to put a price on carbon but somewhere in the system there needs to be a comparison of the price impact and effectiveness of the various alternatives.
In terms of climate action the last term of parliament was wasted. The problem was that too much effort was put into CPRS and not enough effort into short term actions that would have driven down emissions while CPRS was being developed.
What we need now is a statement that starts with “By the end of 2012 we will have…” What we need here are tangible actions. Either action that is already reducing emissions or contracts signed for action that will have us on target at the end of 2012. Promises to introduce something in 2014 don’t count since there is no guarantee that the next government will take that action.
It is also worth noting that it takes time to set up and complete construction for things like generation plants. For this reason we need to have set up the contracts required to meet 2015 targets by the end of 2012.
My concern is that the proposed committee will become another tool for procrastination. We know that we have to replace a significant part of our coal fired power generation by the end of 2015 if we are serious. We know that we have to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars so why don’t we get on with this while looking at whether it really does make sense to put a price on carbon.
Silkworm @ 21, I think I read earlier today the the committee was Christine Milne’s idea, but it’s been a long day and I can’t remember where.
John D,
it’s not either/or (see comment 18). There is a price, there needs to be a price and it’s better if that price is explicit. The question is how much change price can drive. The bottom line is that no single policy will address the problem. So I don’t agree with 23.
I didn’t enter into the earlier debate you had with LO, but there were problems with where both of you were coming from. Your starting point was too engineering and LOs was too macroeconomic.
I agree with most of your comment at 24, though, with provisos. The benefit from acting now is not the emissions it will save (though that’s necessary) – it’s what we will learn on the way. Big plant and centralised systems are not critical in that time. Institutional and policy learning, stakeholders becoming familiar with the solutions are the potential big gains.
Roger: If you are numerate compare the rise in the average price of electricity for each of the examples @23. Then tell me why we have to put a price on carbon when this approach requires twice the price increase of the other options?
Part of the power of the climate skeptics is their ability to start scare campaigns about the cost of meeting the 2020 targets. It is easier to ease thses fears if the price increases are lower and we deal with a limited number of emission sources at one time.
This is the reason why I personally think that, if nothing else, the government should aim to set up the contracts required to replace almost all coal fired power with combined cycle gas turbine power. Gives an easy 60% reduction in power related emissions at a lower price than the renewable alternatives. It also makes it a lot easier to introduce renewables into the system without creating grid problems.
John D,
I understand why LO got so frustrated. If the government does what you say, it puts a shadow price on carbon (I don’t think there’s anything technically wrong with what you’re saying – it’s do-able – I’d just like you to get the economics of what you’re saying). Standing energy is part of the business but not all of it. Who buys out the existing plant while paying for the new CGC capacity? Or are you going to junk the existing capacity (magic wand) and only pay for the new?
I was arguing upthread that there is already a price on carbon, while Tony Abbott was arguing he wouldn’t have one. By endorsing the “overt price is scary” meme, you are doing the same thing. Research shows that if people are clear about what the cost does – they can accept it. It’s the fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign countered by poorly communicated policy that is the major problem. It’s cultural too, being restricted to English-speaking western nations.
The elasticity of price is key to this, because essentially what you’re arguing is that price is inelastic and less efficient than direct policy control of technological choice. Elasticity differs for various purposes. For some, your argument holds, for others, not. There’s no point putting up a set of fixed numbers for forward estimates of energy/tech prices because they will change (a few years ago cost benefit on water tanks said they weren’t worthwhile – now they are, thanks to a drought, changes in pricing and volume and market innovation). Big tech has a price risk and even if it is dictated by policy this doesn’t go away. Who takes on this risk in your universe?
Carbon price on petrol – very inelastic
Carbon price on brown coal – depends on the efficiency of the plant and whether the price is costed into how the plant is financed
Carbon price on biodiversity sequestration – surprisingly, this opens up market opportunities enormously for natural resource management
Price passed onto the household – depends on income. Price has already been passed onto households for smart meters and forward estimates of alternative energy (on farms up to three of these because one can’t combine household, irrigation and farm power easily – there is too little flexibility here). Most households could manage the increases by off-setting waste. Modest replacement schemes are surprisingly efficient in this regard. Limit plasmas, halogen lights. Yards are getting smaller, house size per person, larger. There structural issues here that can’t be easily managed by standing energy generation.
In conclusion, some of these are elastic, others not. An explicit price is good for those that are elastic.
The type of things you are advocating could be written into compensation schemes, where generators are compensated for their cheap fossil fuel generation being penalised, but only for substituting that capacity with a lower emission source. The ongoing risk, and finance continues to be borne by the operator.
A modest price on carbon and a bunch of other policy that gets rid of perverse incentives, offers compensation for low income consumers, assists substitution for generators, opens up offset and biosequestration, rewards efficiency measures is better than alternatives based solely on a price-driven mechanism or technology-driven solution as an either/or (which is where I started).
Your proposal isn’t necessarily cheaper than a price-driven solution if all you’ve done is to cost the new tech and not write off the old, or allow for finance or transaction costs. Who bears the risk? It is also limited and lacks the motivation for innovation and technological learning that would come with a widespread pricing mechanism. It is too technocratic.
Note – I haven’t said anything about tax or cap and trade. It doesn’t make a big difference in this context. The main point is that price is necessary but not sufficient. Top down substitution of tchnology for price is also not a reasonable substitute, but carefully targeted measures taken with a price mechanism to allow transition from old tech can certainly help. Both La Trobe Valley and Newcastle regions need planned industrial transition.
I might be numerate – who knows?
It seems to me that the only condition that realy matters for a climate change committee to succeed, is for the ‘extractive industries’, as John Keane refers to them, or their agents like Minchin or the right wing of the Labor party are specifically excluded, so that they have no opportunity to sabotage here as they have everywhere else.
Although that idea is undemocratic, I think the participants, whilst unwilling to name this elephant in the room, understand that it will be difficult enough to reach consensus on climate legislation, working just with those, who do believe the science and have no vested interests.
A measure of their wisdom will be whether the plan that emerges also takes care of the workers in fossil fuel industries, whose jobs must gradually be phased out.
There also will need to be a solution for the fossil fuel industries and their financiers that deals fairly with them, but without diminishing what must be done to reduce emissions – and at the speed that leading scientists are advocating to avoid irreversible climate tipping points.
If Garnaut’s ‘diabolical problem’ is handles thus, I think we might have a chance……/Chris
Re John D #27
60% reduction isn’t enough John. Why would we convert our power producing infrastructure 2 gas, when we could start to convert it right now 2 renewables? Isn’t investing now 2 save, the planet, all its inhabitants & money in the long run, the option that our grandkids r going 2 thank us 4?
Pushing 4 gas now is akin 2 a doctor advising a patient who has lung cancer 2 only smoke 60 % of the cigarette from now on. NB GAS EMITS CO2 & it’s co2 in our atmosphere which is the problem.
Also on compensating the high co2 emitters – isn’t 1 of the tenets of the free market system that if u fail 2 adjust 2 market conditions, u go out of business. One the 1st Science Show, 35 years ago, we were warned that we had 2 start 2 draw down our co2 emissions, or face the consequences. All our big emitters have chosen 2 ignore that warning.
I’d really love 2 know how much money has been spent by them since then planting doubts in people’s minds.
Meanwhile Pakistan is saturated and Russia tries to put itself out. The Carteret Islanders r looking 4 new homes.
No sorry folks, this is beyond politics.
We need courageous leadership & if that doesn’t come from our pollies, we, the people need 2 provide it – history shows such it has always been – except in Cuba’s “special period” 20 years ago. TICK, TICK, TICK………….
http://www.bze.org, http://www.100percent.org.au
Roger @28: Out in the real world people actually decide to invest in cleaner electricity on the basis of what they will receive for their cleaner electricity, not what producers of dirty electricity receive. Putting an artificial price on carbon is simply an indirect and clumsy way of putting a price on clean. It is clumsy because it pushes prices up that have nothing to do with the price of electricity with some of these price increases being unproductive in the sense that they are not large enough to drive change. (Think steelmaking for example.)
You say
The Reserve bank interest rate decisions can make an enormous difference to business’s competing on international markets yet there has never been a suggestion that business’s that are damaged by these decisions should be compensated. A similar comment can be made on the impact of most government decisions on business.
This idea that that big business should be compensated for government decisions is something rather new. It is worth noting that the smarter power companies are positioning themselves to take advantage of the changing attitudes towards emissions per kWh. I am not sure why we should be should be compensating business’s who stubbornly refuse to read the writing on the wall.
You also say:
Couldn’t agree more. Important to understand though that what counts is the price that individuals see, not some average citizen. This price may include the prospect of losing a job etc., not just the change in the price of electricity. People are more likely too to see the price increase and ignore promises of compensation.
Part of the problem with CPRS is that it was very hard for people to see the price they were going to pay. ETS/putting a price on carbon sounds simple but it gets very complex once you try and understand how it will effect individuals and the economy.
It is smarter to avoid the temptation of “answer to everything” policies and focus for the time being on a very limited number of emission sources for which the effect of doing something is relevantly easy to understand. Which brings us back to “do your sums please.”
teegee@30: What you say is true. However, the practical question is “is it more productive to argue for a low cost, 60% reduction now or hold out for something more ambitious? My take is that Australians support for climate action at the moment is soft – “we are in favour of climate action as long as it doesn’t cost too much.”
My inclination is to argue for the low cost 60% reduction now rather than do nothing while we debate whether we should be more ambitious. Keep in mind that the availability of enough gas fired capacity to provide power when the wind drops improves the case for renewables. My reading of the zero-gen stuff is that it will take a lot of conditioning before anything like this will be accepted – but it is important that there are people pushing the more ambitious approach.
teegee @30: One of the reasons I am keen about the gas transition is that there is no reason why we couldn’t complete the replacement of coal with gas by 2015 if we got on with it. In addition, there are none of the potential grid related problems that would add to the cost of a viable system.
The other attraction economics favour going gas sooner rather than later. It is an excuse to push hard to get it all done by 2015 instead of stuffing around and going the gradual intro9duction route. Just think, for an increase of 2 cents/kWh you could reduce our emissions by by about 30% by 2015.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I published on my blog at http:///www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati various correspondence to the governor-General that all this horse-trading between independents and p[arty leaders is unconstitutional as the governor-General alone can determine who shall be given commission to form a government and nothing to do with who is or isn’t in Parliament. Therefore all this horse-trading is to no avail.
.
I invite anyone to prove me wrong! And if you find that indeed I am right then ask yourself why is it that we get all this nonsense about what agreement is being made because none of it has any value. We must ensure to act within constitutional provisions!
@ Brian 25, the idea being Christine Milne’s is explained in Glenn Milne’s piece on why the committee is a dastardly attack on parliamentary free speech. From his article linked to upthread:
Brown then invited his Senate colleague, Christine Milne to elaborate on what turns out was her idea: “In Europe where multi-party government, multi-party politics is the order of the day, in Scandinavia in particular, Norway and Sweden, they have this process that we are adopting here. And that is to set up a parliamentary committee representing all the interests in the parliament committed to a certain idea and then enabling the appointment of experts to that committee. So the experts are not just to give evidence to the committee.”
“The experts are part of the deliberations of that committee and that way you create the space in a parliament for people to talk through their own perspectives, nuance those perspectives and try to come up with a parliamentary consensus which has the support of everyone around the idea. You will note in the agreement the proviso for membership of the committee is that the people going onto it are committed to a carbon price.”
I’m on leave at the mo so reading all this from afar, but when I saw the idea included I was pretty certain it would be Christine’s – not only because she’s Greens’ spokesperson on climate change & it’s her job to think of how to move this issue forward, but also because she arguably has the best knowledge of parliamentary systems of the Greens too (or at least one of the best).
To me it makes sense not least because the ALP, Greens, independents etc. who all do want to move to get a carbon price all now have to find a mechanism, be it a better designed ETS or a straight tax / levy they all agree on. That simply doesn’t exist at present, and involving experts at the table seems a very practical parliamentary ‘innovation’ (from an Aus parl. perspective) to keep it practically focussed and motivated to produce a real outcome.
Brian: When I recall the senate committee hearing on climate action that we both attended in Brisbane my recollection is that the hearing would have been better if the committee had included outsiders with the expertize to ask the hard technical, commercial and management questions. (This is not a reflection on the general ability of the Senators who were present.) So what Christine Milne is suggesting makes sense as long as the outsiders proposed are appropriate.
My concern is that what is going to happen will be a repeat of the mistakes made in the last parliament:
1. ETs was seen as the only answer worth considering. It would have made more sense to consider several alternatives at the same time.
2. There was no realistic assessment of the sort of things that needed to be done to meet the 2020 target. If this assessment had been made it would have been obvious that there would have needed to be something like a 40% reduction in power related emissions by 2020, not the 20% implied by the RET target.
3. Targets were required for the tangible action that had to be completed by the end of 2009. By tangible I mean actions like contracts signed for the construction of cleaner electricity generation or the installation of additional solar hot water heating etc. that would have started reducing emissions by the end of 2020. (I don’t mean setting up an ETS in this context.)
Hopefully the new government will concentrate initially on working out what has to be done by the end of 20112.