Today, at around lunchtime, the Cleaner Energy Future bills passed the Senate.
This is a very notable step for Australia, and although the policy is in many ways imperfect, something to be wholeheartedly welcomed.
It’s also a very significant political win for both Julia Gillard and the Labor Party and for The Greens, whose insistence that carbon needed to be priced this term was at the core of their negotiations with the ALP over support for the minor government.
In thinking about the meaning of this event, it’s worth separating out process, policy and politics. Of course, that’s a somewhat artificial separation, and the failure to address all three in a deft fashion has been probably the most important reason why the road to a carbon price has been such a rocky one.
It’s fashionable to dismiss the import of the committee process which led to the framing of the bill. But I’d like to suggest that an inclusive process, which sought to maximise the support for legislation from as many possible parties in the Parliament, forms a good model.
While releasing the parameters for the legislation prior to articulating its exact shape may have been unwise politically (at least in the short term), there is no doubt that it did lead to a more deliberative policy process. In particular, campaigning and communications efforts by non-parliamentary actors may prove helpful in broadening the package’s popular support, and the level of energy and policy activism around the issue must be welcome.
At a policy level, obviously it’s an imperfect compromise. But establishing the principle in legislation is a necessary step towards refining the model over time (remembering that the effects of climate change, as well as international action to mitigate it are both complex and stochastic). The symbolism of action from a nation such as Australia will also change the international game, and that’s obviously something which may bear much fruit.
The probability is also high that this reform will endure.
Finally, on the politics: much ink has been spilled, and will no doubt continue to be, over the implications for partisan politics. We need to think less about this, and more about what the ‘debate’ says about the power of unreason in public life, and sheer self-interest on the part of powerful actors. But I derive considerable hope from the fact that it’s been shown that amidst an unprecedented volume of noise, big things can still be done, and from the fact that it’s more than possible that reality may now prevail over irrationalism.
Elsewhere: Ben Eltham at New Matilda, Andrew Bartlett at The Drum and Bernard Keane at Crikey.
“I’d like to suggest that an inclusive process, which sought to maximise the support for legislation from as many possible parties in the Parliament, forms a good model.”
Hear hear.
Thanks, Andrew, and thanks also for the useful guide to the reform’s long legislative history, which I’ve linked to in the post.
You don’t understand, Andrew. An “inclusive process, which sought to maximise the support for legislation from as many possible parties in the Parliament” is the death of democracy and is the biggest betrayal since Adam and Eve plucked the apples from the Garden of Eden.
Of course, the Liberals could have signed up and had some input but Abbott was intent on wrecking it using the same tactic he employed to negotiate in the post-election period of uncertainty: wait and hope that enough blustering will cause the rural independents to side with the Coalition and then everything will go your way.
Now that international climate policy is going at least as bottom up as it is top down (there won’t be an agreed international mechanism for a while), this is really important. It gives Australia kudos as a broker for further negotiations. It’s an area where institutional learning will be transferred within Australia and overseas. Our accounting mechanisms are as good as anywhere and can provide the information needed for the market (because that’s what it is) to mature.
The opposition to climate policy is cultural and has been imported from the US. It is now here to stay and will be part of the political landscape for some time. However, every environment-climate change minister from both sides since the early 90s has become a staunch advocate for climate policy. It shows what happens when intelligent politicians, no matter what their background, become fully aware of the science and policy issues. Wavering has come from elsewhere in government. There are people who have stuck to their guns over this and it will come at personal cost. More power to them.
going to be at least as bottom up …
the editor is momentarily freezing – missed that one
I don’t agree with you Mark or Roger Jones (4) that this is an international ‘game changer’ or that it gives us ‘kudos.’
As Roger points out (so I do agree with him a bit) the international negoatiations are moving toward a ‘bottom-up’ system without binding emission targets, with Australia’s help despite Labor running on ‘ratify Kyoto’ in 2007. The sections in the CEF law that deal with international permits actually allow the Minister to approve international permits that are not a part of a multilateral agreement AND the law pretty concretely locks in a 5% reduction target. Neither of those things are even close to what the majority of countries are looking for (try targets of 40%+ and commitment to the UN system) so how does it change the international game or earn us any kudos?
Alex, I’d have thought the mere fact of Australia having taken any action in and of itself will be significant. That’s not to ignore the complexities, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that it’s a step full of symbolism. No doubt Roger and others who are more across the detail of the international negotiations will be able to comment further.
Alex, I appreciate that view very much, but …
I’m being optimistic and pragmatic. The best policy is the one that gets up (I know that’s trite). 1. I can’t work on this issue if I’m not optimistic (survival mechanism), and 2. Learning by doing policy development is an area we are researching (referring to Mark’s complex and stochastic). Regardless of whether policy is top down or bottom up, policy learning is critical to the process – now at least we can do it.
That doesn’t take away from the size of the task. I’m hoping that how to abate becomes clearer – the history of environmental legislation shows it’s almost always cheaper than projected, whereas civil projects are more expensive (that says more about the psychology of project costing than it does economics), and the 5% can be ratcheted down. 2050 outcomes are much more important than 2020 – the 5% in 2020 pales in comparison to 80% (or better) in 2050 (The modelling I’ve done is quite clear on this).
And Australia cannot be a bona fide negotiator involved in reconciling the views of the different groups without having a process in place. Otherwise they are like the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance, who started their ads “We care about climate change”, before demonstrating quite clearly they couldn’t give a flying f***
Greens feeding the press gallery after the legislation passes. Until the heavens open.
Any negativity like water off the ducks back there today.
@Mark – I see what you are saying in terms of it being ‘significant’ in that it doesn’t completely isolate the EU but my point was more that it doesn’t “change the game” like you first said in terms of creating a new direction or giving new spark to the negotiations… doing this is the bare minimum and we shouldn’t pretend it’s anything else.
@Roger I don’t disagree with the optimism… despite all the flaws I am in favour of the CEF and I do think it’s an achievement – I just don’t think we should oversell its actual significance. It’s a first step, an important first step and it will have some flow on effects but I don’t see them being huge internationally, although your point on the improvements on the technical level for carbon markets is probably a good one.
I wish someone in government – anyone! – would address the inane, short-sighted argument doing the rounds that the Carbon Tax will do nothing for climate change. They could talk about how it will stimulate and make more viable renewable energy industries perhaps?
I disagree Andrew. It was positively helpful that Abbott stayed at arm’s length from the MPCCC process. He could have trolled the whole process, delaying it for months and then cited the delays as evidence of the regime’s incompetence. It reminds me of Paul’s thread.
Had Rudd kept the LNP at this distance, announced what he was implementing after consulting the Greens and dared them to vote it down, we’d have had this done and dusted in late 2009.
Big and complex as it is the Clean Energy package is no more than the first small hesitant step towards an environmentally viable future. Somehow the government must be energized to push on. If we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding climate armageddon the scientists tell us the world has about five years to stabilize greenhouse emissions and after that no more than a further five years to put them in steep decline. They have not given this decade the nickname the ‘Critical Decade’ for nothing. The Carbon Tax-ETS is not thought capable of seriously promoting the growth of renewable energy or even of prompting a shift from coal as a source fuel to gas. This will not occur until the price is ratcheted up considerably. The auxiliary bills not yet in Parliament which concern the establishment of ARENA and the CEFC are what will promote that shift. It is vital that the government passes these bills through Parliament as quickly as possible. So much to do so little time………
I understand what you’re saying Fran. I doubt the other participants in the MPCCC process would have put up with trolling for very long at all – and in any case, pretty much Abbott’s sole mandate from his own Party Room is to take a crush, kill, destroy approach to this (and most other) issues. That is, he is the personification of a political troll, so there could never have been any prospect of him being involved. It would have been nice if a few of the Libs whose brain cells are still in working order had got involved, but I suppose that’s unrealistic as the crap they would have copped fro their own side would have made Labor’s treatment of Mal Colston (post-ratting) look like kindergarten.
Abbott will probably continue to do some damage to quick progress on this issue with his deranged ‘blood oath’ approach but landmarks like today could serve to start draining the potency of that, at least in regard to economic and investment impacts.
Having a ‘unity Cabinet’ approach to a process like the MPCCC is probably beyond the capacity of Australian politics at present anyway.
Where to begin? Pick off just a few of the lower hanging fruit I guess.
“The symbolism of action from a nation such as Australia will also change the international game.” As has already been pointed out, this is nonsense. It laughably overestimates Australia’s international influence. Other nation’s governments don’t give two hoots about Australian policy. They play hard ball in their own national interest, as they should, and as ours also should but is too naïve to, if indeed it even has clear idea of the global dimensions of the national interest.
I don’t think even the Australian government believes this legislation will make an iota of difference to the international negotiating process; it has merely been a piece of spin to drag out as part of the attempt to convince a domestic audience to take its medicine.
I will grant you though the “it’s a step full of symbolism”. But that’s about all it’s full of. This government is terrific at symbolism. Pity about policy practicality and effective implementation.
“The opposition to climate policy is cultural and has been imported from the US.” That’s about as sensible as saying “support for climate policy is cultural and has been imported from Europe”. There’s an element of truth in both statements, but no nuance and nothing which helps build a consensus policy. Frankly, it’s no more than an attempt to avoid accountability for the current polarised mess by blaming someone else.
“Every environment-climate change minister from both sides since the early 90s has become a staunch advocate for climate policy”. So what? Every Arts Minister has become a staunch advocate for subsidies for Australian film. It’s what happens to Ministers, from a combination of departmental capture and having to talk up one’s own portfolio area to advance one’s own political career. If this is intended as an argument for the merits of the particular policy we now have, it’s no argument at all.
“international climate policy is going to be as bottom up”. I think you mean “international climate policy is going to go tits up”.
Australia taking these measures will have a major international effect. It severely undercuts the US stance, they are now more or less alone; the fact of OECD nation outside the EU *will* be noted globally; the UK willl greatly enjoy not having to talk exclusvey to continental Europeans about these issues; and developing regional countries will no longer be able to use us as an excuse to do FA.
Once agaian, to assume otherwise is to state” as a nation, we are chopped liver”. Is that what you think? Why is it that our controbution to the WOT is allegedly ‘critical’, yet actions we take on AGW are “meaningless’?
Its piffle. And by the way – even forgetting the rest of the world – if we cut our own emission 80% by 2050, that close to a 1% GLOBAL cut in emissions. Because we really emit a shitload of GHGs for 22 m people.
Thats significant, in and of itself.
Anyway,surelyt even to a child the logic of collective action is obvious: we cant expect others to act if we arent prepared to. The secret logic of this “you first” cyncism is simpy to scotch any action at all. That crap wont fool many people for long. Its too self-evidently a con.
Every Health Minister has become a staunch advocate for reducing smoking. It’s what happens to Ministers, from a combination of departmental capture and having to talk up one’s own portfolio area to advance one’s own political career. If this is intended as an argument for the merits of the particular policy we now have, it’s no argument at all.
“I wish someone in government – anyone! – would … talk about how it will stimulate and make more viable renewable energy industries perhaps?”
Ms Gillard told reporters … where she visited a solar panel manufacturer, that investment opportunities in clean energy would come from putting a price on carbon from July 2012.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillard-seizes-on-climate-investors-report-20111020-1m9s9.html#ixzz1d7Kp0kKh
We can thank Tony for the carbon tax. If Tony had talked as though he thought climate action was important and argued for a credible direct action plan he may well have won the last election or at least convinced thinking voters that there was a better alternative to the carbon price.
As it was Tony effectively supported the government’s claim that the only alternatives were the carbon tax or no climate action.
@Lefty E – I admire your optimism but note that Japan, Russia and Canada have all rejected continuing under a legally binding regime and are wiggling out of their existing targets or pledges so Australia does not entirely turn the tide, especially as I said above we have been very equivocal about the legal form (i.e. a top-down approach) under Rudd/Gillard.
More importantly, developing countries can probably use a 5% target achieved with 50% offsets to very easily say we are doing sweet FA… and of course the premise that developing countries are using our lack of action as an ‘excuse’ is actually wrong – they’re currently pledging to do MORE than developed countries http://sei-international.org/news-and-media/2022
Mark, I would second what Andrew Bartlett said about the value of an inclusive approach, which involved expertise outside parliament. I think that releasing the broad framework was inevitable and necessary for the process. Trying to do it behind closed doors would almost inevitably have involved leaks and even greater opportunities for a feral Opposition to make stuff up.
alexincancun, I agree passing the legislation may not be a game changer, but imagine the negativity if the bills had gone down in the senate. As to the 5% target, I know it’s not enough, but our population is growing strongly. I forget the exact figures, but I think you’ll find it is comparable to what the EU is doing.
I agree with Roger about the importance of getting started and learning as we go. In this post I emphasised the importance of the institutional arrangements, which Garnaut sees as the most important feature, more important than the initial targets or price. I think the architecture of the scheme will be watched and studied with great interest internationally as we proceed.
Finally, Gillard should get a lot of credit for leading the process and seeing it through. When she travels internationally other leaders look at our brilliant (comparatively) economy, negligible debt and her record on policy areas like this one, the NBN, the mining tax etc and must wonder why the Australian people would seem to prefer a destructive goose like Abbott who doesn’t even understand how the IMF works.
Just a reminder from the previous post about what Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Malte Meinshausen said when they were here.
These guys are not just being nice to their hosts. They understand better than most what is required if we take note of the science, but also understand the pragmatics of the political process. Doug Evans @ 13 is right to remind us that we are in the critical decade. Perchance we’ll wake up in fright one of these days, but meanwhile we’ve taken the first step.
And what Ben Eltham said back then about the CEF package as “the defining accomplishment of Gillard’s political career”. I can be critical of her too, but not just now.
I’ve just plowed through six pages of comments on the Piers Akerman bloviation site.
Passing over the mountain of denialist drivel the following themes emerge:
a) references to an@l sex/r@pe either by the government of the populace or of the government by Brown/the Greens
b) assertions that the speech of those publicly campaigning against the carbon pricing measures is to be curtailed sometimes with violence. Some assert a fear of having people with “jackboots” kicking in their doors for “speaking out”.
c) the advent of a c*mmun|st d|ctatorship/trea$on by Gillard
One or two people attempted to speak rationally on the substance of policy and its rationale but these provoked a bloviation pile-on … and cries that the rational speakers were doing the bidding of their “socialist masters”
Akerman’s piece made my head hurt. The Carbon tax is the end of human civilization, apparently.
Putting aside what one might think of the substance of the policy itself, it seems to me that if one were a half-way rational right-of-centre person, one would still want to keep discussion focused on the policy itself. The terms within which Akerman speaks amounts to an invitation to post from the darkest and most unhinged corners of the human psyche, so it is not surprising that this has been overhelmingly how people have responded.
One might wonder why a regime that has the confidence to “kick in people’s doors with jackboots” and “silence all dissent” and that needed the money to finance “socialist schemes” would limit itself to $23 per tonne, give very substantial industry and household compensation and so forth. What would be the point?
Interestingly, only one response that I saw in the 247 or so comments even mentioned the compensation package and it was ignored by the remainder of the flying monkeys.
Six pages of Ackers comments? Fran, you must like it rough.
Brian,
“I emphasised the importance of the institutional arrangements.”
You are quite right. I would imagine that few people are aware that Australia is a world leader in energy market reform and is well placed to similarly lead in carbon regulation. We have excellent renewable resources and the best market structure to efficiently integrate renewable generation into reliable electricity supply .
We have a great opportunity to lead here, to the benefit of Australia and the planet.
Sam observed:
Pure Poison runs a “cut & paste”* awards thread and Blot and Ackers are goldmines. The trouble is that the standard of craziness is so high, that I’m really looking for that exceptionally out there contribution to trump the others. This is where competition really shines.
* strictly speaking, it should be copy & paste …
The carbon price legislation was passed. On the same day Joe Frazier died, today a whacking big asteroid is going to just miss Earth, and who knows what tomorrow will bring. Don’t tell me there isn’t a connection.
@19, Joe Frazier was a great boxer, who never took a backward step (quite literally for much of his fights) but he led with his head and ultimately he paid a heavy price for the pounding he took. Even when he won he looked like he’d lost.
Dare I say it – shades of Tony Abbott.
Well done, to the current government alliance of Labor, Greens and Independents.
The benefits of the ETS will be felt around the world for years to come. To look into the future and see the possibilities is not that hard. I believe a cogent argument can be made that we can make a difference to global emissions.
In Australia, we are comparatively wealthy, with an antiquated electricity grid and generation capacity. So we now as a nation will be importing on an industrial scale alternative generation systems such as solar thermal. This is likely to give scale to the producers in Spain and California and accelerate technological advancement and drive down the costs.
The current point of view within the opposition is to rescind the legislation and not compensate the holders of permits. This point has been underlined by telling business not to buy the permits. A task such as this becomes more untenable as the polls change. Consequently, the higher in the polls the government goes the more surety that the balance of power will remain even after a double dissolution election. In turn more businesses will be purchasing and trading permits therefore making the unwinding more difficult and expensive.
Kind regards all Russell
“@Lefty E – I admire your optimism but note that Japan, Russia and Canada have all rejected continuing under a legally binding regime and are wiggling out of their existing targets or pledges so Australia does not entirely turn the tide, especially as I said above we have been very equivocal about the legal form (i.e. a top-down approach) under Rudd/Gillard.”
Well, that goes largely to the mechanism thaty replaces Kyoto, Alex, and we all know what a shitfight thats been.
But as to cuts: Japan is going for 6% under 1990 by *next year* which is actually quite significant. And lets be frank: Russia and Canada were never really onboard. Its just that they…. still arent. I guess I reject the idea that those two are somehow ‘getting worse’: its business as usual rather than backsliding.
Either way, all that only makes AUs actions more critical, not less: what this international process really needed was a good news story from a developed economy. People who think ‘we dont matter’ on these issues ned to remember AUs role in a major international agreement on Antarctica.
Btw, I agree with you that developing nations are making the running here.
FYI, Christine Milne’s opinion piece on The Drum on the passing of the bills now begins the campaign for serious climate action
Fran: what planet are you on?
The Greens have almost brought down a Labor Government to get a carbon price package that is almost identical to the one they could have had under Rudd.
Whatever changes the Greens have made to the carbon package, they were not worth the damage done to a good, progressive government.
Thanks to Labor we now have a price on carbon, mining companies should soon start paying a fairer share of tax, we didn’t have mass unemployment when the GFC hit, pensioners are paid more, significant help has been given for poorer students to attend university……I could go on.
Given the hell that Labor Governments have to go through to get anything done in this country, progressives should be doing handstands.
After the Murdoch press, the biggest danger to progressive politics in Australia is the bloodymindedness of the Greens. The Greens should be hanging their heads in shame.
“…almost identical to the one they could have had under Rudd.”
You mean, aside from: the increase in the 2050 emissions reduction target from 60 to 80%, a three year fixed CO2 price instead of a market mechanism, the establishment of an independent Climate Change Authority to advise on pollution caps, requirement to meet at least 50% of scheme obligations with domestic permits, money to close down places like Hazlewood, and a MASSIVE Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest $10 bnin the commercialisation of renewable energy and enabling technologies, (NOT including nvest in carbon capture and storage)?
Yeah no difference at all. I cant imagine why the GRNs held out for this package. LOL!
Lefty E: you’re usually pretty sensible, but I can’t agree on this.
The carbon “tax” is scheduled to transform into a market mechanism. Whether the changes the Greens secured are an improvement is a matter of opinion, but I don’t think they were so significant as to be worth the political cost. And just as Abbott’s reptillian political brain took note of the way the Conservatives won a majority in Canada on the back of an anti-carbon tax scare campaign, you can be sure that right-wingers around the world have been paying attention to what has happened in Australia (just as right-wingers worldwide took note of Howard on Tampa).
The government has just announced that it will support the ASU’s submission for a pay increase for low-paid community sector workers. Along with the introduction of paid maternity leave, this is a big win for many female workers.
Yet again, Labor is proving itself worthy of the enthusiastic support of progressives.
Ginja …
We have been around this argument several times and as LeftyE has recapitulated much of the ground, I won’t add significantly. The broader point is that Rudd showed bad faith not because he was busy or careless but as a matter of policy. He positively wanted the Greens to reject the package, and crafted it with that end in mind. (OK, maybe his spin doctors did it and he simply did as he was told). The aim was to deny The Greens political credit. His crafting of the package ensured both that The Greens would reject it and that if it were to pass, that the Coaltion would have to support it. The whole policy of the ALP was designed to wedge the LNP with advantage to the ALP. Sadly, from Rudd’s hollow men, the LNP torpedoed the strategy by doing the obvious — blocking the package and relying on The Greens to do what the ALP had forced us to do.
It was no part of our problem to help dig Rudd out of a political dilemma of his own making that was prompted by a desire to wedge us and pay off the big end of town. being a ‘progressive’ government means not playing silly games with your most natural progressive allies and crafting reactionary policy in the process. bear in mind also that at this time Rudd was also playing to the Lindsay folks on asylum seekers. That, IMO, was no coincidence.
There was scarcely a day that went past in which I didn’t, along with many of my fellow Greens, shake my head in disbelief at how dreadfully the regime was behaving.
Yet it could have all been so different. Had Rudd decided to be consistently on the side of reason and social justice, we would have supported the regime all the way, and through a double dissolution, in the unlikely event that it came to that. Recall that during 2009 Rudd’s personal popularity was at historic highs. He didn’t need to pander or to try to run wedges against us or even the Liberals. He had them on toast.
Regrettably, your party harbours within its ranks a nest of vipers, for whom the game is more important than the policy object, and who hate each other quite as much as they hate their rivals outside of the ALP. Between them and the ignorant and bloody minded and timorous, it ill-behooves you to blame us for your troubles.
The election result, though perverse in some respects, has ironically, made for a more progressive regime than the one it replaced. Now the most reactionary elements of the party can’t have it all their own way. I call that a modestly good thing. Even today, reading between the lines of Mitch Hooke’s statements on the MRRT, one can see the cold and morbid fear that he has of the influence of our party — one that is out of all proportion to our actual size in the House. That too is a very good thing.
Frans right – the ALP played the whole CPRS game, from start to finish, to ensure the GRNs weren’t involved.
They miscalculated: Abbott rolled Turnbull – and it was game over.
Explain to me the bit where this is all the GRNs doing. Cos I still dont get it.
As a progressive, I support many thing the ALP govt has done. I also suport the GRNs in making certain ALP platforms more progressive when they’re really not much chop. That includes, logically, at times, not voting for them in parliament.
As a progressive, I find no contradiction between this two positions.
Lefty E, let’s also not forget this.
The intent of the post, folks, is not to rehash the politics that led up to it (which in any case, as usual, appears to be a repetition of long-entrenched positions) but to consider some of the broader questions raised *now that we have a carbon price*.
I’d be grateful if commenters could address themselves to those.
I do find it curious that my fellow comrades feel no responsibility at all for helping keep a progressive government in power. Or, to put it more starkly, from keeping the Coalition parties – which more and more resemble far-right parties – out of power.
The government is just about pass the tobacco plain packaging laws. A blow for big tobacco that will no doubt be emulated around the world. Remember: big tobacco invented the tactics that have been taken up with alacrity by the fossil-fuel lobby.
Just imagine all the other progressive policies that could have sailed through the House of Reps and the Senate had the Greens not assiduously tried to undermine the government before the election.
P.S.
What do Greens at LP think of the government supporting low-paid workers – mostly women – in the community sector in their campaign for a significant pay increase?
Was this:
a) an example of a Labor government sticking by progressive principles and doing the right thing, something the government should be applauded for;
b) of no consequence because true left-wingers are only ever concerned with acts of bastardry by the ALP;
c) somehow a betrayal by the ALP (not sure how, but I’ll find out eventually how the ALP sold these women down the river).
Nearly two years ago Greens senators voted against legislation much less than they liked after the Government – unable to pass legislation with Green votes only – negotiated only to the right on the CPRS. At the time the expectation of all was that post-election the Government would be able to find a majority negotiating only to the left.
As it happens the Government can get legislation through the Senate, post last June, solely with Greens support. No one expected that the Government would net to negotiate left and right in the lower house. So we all know that minority government experience hasn’t been experienced at a Federal level since 1943. But in that Parliament, after the Lang Labor rejoined, there was 46 apiece, with two independents voting as a bloc. In this Parliament there are five or six independents in at least four blocs. In a way this experience of minority government is unprecedented.
I agree that maximising inclusivity in the legislative process is desirable. I’m not convinced that the legislation is necessarily better than if the government needed only Bandt’s vote in the lower house. I believe those sentences are not contradictory.
In more peripheral thoughts, I’m worried that negative perceptions of this minority experience will cruel public attitudes towards parliamentary systems that more structurally encourage inclusivity in government, like NZ’s MMP. I’m less worried about the future of NZ’s MMP in the upcoming vote but then I’ve been wrong before :-/ Certainly a worry is that a rare MMP majority government could ignore a non-binding referendum.
Ginja, why on earth do you think the Greens wouldn’t support wage increases for poorly-paid women? I still don’t see what that has to do with us rejecting ill-conceived carbon price legislation.
“I do find it curious that my fellow comrades feel no responsibility at all for helping keep a progressive government in power. ”
Errr, the Greens are keeping the Gillard govt in power Ginja.
Bandt was the first to sign on – remember?
Yes, big things can still be done, but they are done in the unglamourous, work(man)like, nitty-gritty business of fine-tuned negotiations.
Big things are not achieved by ululating at the altar of the media circus, and playing dog-and-pony tricks for the cameras.
Around May 2009 I saw Gillard (then Education Minister) deliver a speech to graduates at Sydney Uni. I whispered to my boss at the time “there’s our first woman Prime Minister”….the only details I missed were I was assuming that would occur after Rudd and Turnbull…but, hey, details.
The point being, Gillard has got a butt-load of stuff done, and shown there is more in the pipeline (disability insurance, pay equality for community, child-care and special-needs workers).
Oh, yeah, and the carbon price thing.
From a minority government position.
Typically, being a woman, she’ll have to do about three times as much to be given half the recognition.
But it behoves us all to take stock here. Hawke and Keating delivered significant reforms…and then coasted. Howard and Costello delivered significant reforms…and then coasted. I wonder what Gillard will do…if she wins a majority in the Lower House??
Reality check.
The carbon tax is big enough to generate the funds required to:
1. Protect people at the bottom of the pile from being worse off as a result of the tax and climate action.
2. Provide funds for some R&D and direct action.
3. Demonstrate falseness of Abbott’s claims that the world as we know it will come to an end as soon as the carbon tax takes effect.
4. Avoid unproductive damage to industries such as the steel industry.
However, the tax level is too low to generate much climate action. There is a real danger that the government will go into the next election without being able to show any real reduction in emissions and/or contracts signed that will lead to significant reductions. If the government is going to avoid this danger it needs to get over the joy of finally getting the legislation through and get on with doing whatever is necessary to get the “complementary action” in place ASAP togive it climate action credibility by election time.
Let me just repeat Mark’s admonition above that the topic of this thread is not Greens v Labor stoushing.
Thanks!
Actually, no one will have to pay the carbon tax, for a mere six months after the Carbon Price comes into effect, the world will end and none of us will ever have to worry.
About anything.
Carbon price.
i’m not sure how SA went about building so many renewables to get to 20% so fast, especially since they did it without pollution fines/prices… so let’s just copy their plan on a national scale.
lots of wind turbines i think.
and when we’re done, NO privatisation.
John D,
I think the best thing for Labor’s chances in 2013 is for carbon pricing to fade into the background and become part of the furniture. Even if the carbon price had been set higher, it is unlikely that it would, pre-2013, drive long-term commitments, given the threat of repeal. In any case, the MRET is doing most of the heavy lifting at present. Let the new carbon institutions become established quietly, aware from the glare of politics and media.
Labor doesn’t need “climate action credibility” since, however little it has, the LNP has less. Nobody who has concerns about climate change is going to be voting for Abbott.
Taking my cue from Mark @41, it’s been interesting to note the succession of stories in the Opposition Organ in recent days beating up the “widening rift” between the Greens and the ALP over climate and energy policy. I’m not sure what has brought this on, and I’m not sure that I’d be happy about this line of “reportage” if I were a Coalition strategist. I’m of the view that it’s in the mutual electoral interests of the Greens and Labor to maintain a degree of public brand differentiation, and it’s been difficult to do this in the context of the politics of climate policy since the 2010 election and the formation of the Labor minority government. The passing of the carbon price legislation creates a space in which this differentiation can occur, and it’s ironic to see the Murdochracy mediocrities falling over themselves to help to make it happen.
I&U: I just have this touching idea that we need to start dramatically reducing our emissions. I would certainly applaud a lifting of the MRET targets and a modification of the MRET to make it emission based.
A few other things wouldn’t go astray either.
dear friends
things have been said up-thread about canadian & usa gov’t not legislating for carbon taxes, &c., so they don’t count as contributing. this is counterproductive & unnecessarily depressing in my opinion. this is the usa, after all, where the states famously are more powerful than the feds; and canada’s not that dissimilar. they are loose federations with strong-willed & constitutionally empowered constituent entities and people really need to consider more than the policies of ottawa & washington before concluding there’s no significant action on climate change coming out of north america. deniers pull this sort of line all the time & i don’t know why people/journalists let them to get away with it. when the feds in usa & canada drag their heels, the states & provinces don’t just sit around & twiddle their thumbs, lamenting their country’s doing nothing; they act themselves. the economies of new york & california are as big as australia & some countries in europe. quebec is 8 million people, ontario is 12 million, b.c. is 4.5 million; they are the bulk of the canadian economy. these states & provinces should be considered, by people of good will, separately from their recalcitrant feds, until the feds come onboard. for example, here are some initiatives that i’ve heard about that by-pass the feds altogether.
carbon tax in b.c.:-
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm
a high-brow weekly news journal (macleans) entertains the possibility that premier gordon campbell may have been returned to a third 4 year term *because of* introducing a carbon tax:-
http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/carbon-tax/
Carbon tax in quebec:-
http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/changements/plan_action/index-en.htm
quebec to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% *below* 1990 levels by 2020:-
http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Climate-Change-Law-Practice-Group/2009/12/01/Quebec-announces-its-GHG-reduction-target-20-percent-below-1990-levels-by-2020
http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Climate-Change-Law-Practice-Group/2009/12/01/Quebec-announces-its-GHG-reduction-target-20-percent-below-1990-levels-by-2020
ontario & quebec carbon cap & trade plan:-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/06/02/ont-que.html
western climate initiative is starting cap & trade next year
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/07/25/western-climate-initiative-unveils-draft-of-2012-cap-and-trade-program/
finalement, should canada copy australia’s carbon tax?, asks cbc, a couple of days ago:-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/07/should-canada-copy-australias-carbon-tax.html
(comments are closed but the poll is still open)
yours sincerely
alfred vension
Lefty E: my point is that there is very little celebration on the Left of what the government has done to move in a progressive direction. The fact is the Rudd-Gillard governments are a world away from the (mostly) neoliberal Hawke-Keating governments.
I’m simply saying that progressives do have permission to feel good about a Labor government when it does good things.
Ginja: I had a go at Gillard over Palestine recently (where her govt has been worse than previous ALP adminstrations) – but Ive also made a point of celebrating progressive moves like CO2 price, the disability agenda, mat leave and the apology under Rudd etc.
I agree theyre more socially progressive than Hawke/ Keating. I dnt mind saying so, and have – though you may be right than not all left of the ALP have done enough congratulating. That said, I very much doubt it would help any progressive cause in this country for the GRNs to become some sort of nodding dog for the ALP – like the Nats are to the Libs. In fact, Id say that point is just about indisputable.
Alfred – well said.