Tag Archive for 'Emissions trading scheme'

Simple climate action plan anyone?

This guest post is by John Davidson. John is a semi-retired chemical engineer who has spent most of his life in the construction and mining industries. John has now set up his own blog.

Tony Abbot has opened up the emissions action debate by declaring that he is not going to support emission trading or carbon taxes. Instead he is favoring “direct action” to meet our 2020 emission targets. This post looks at how a simple action plan that largely depends on direct action might work.

Part of the problem with emissions trading is that it is a comprehensive scheme that, in its simplest form, sets out to put price pressure on all forms of greenhouse emissions. The first problem with comprehensive schemes is that they inevitably have to depend on clumsy, “one answer fits all” strategies such as “putting a price on carbon”, rationing etc. to drive the reduction of emissions. The problems with ETS, “one answer fits all” and putting a price on carbon have been discussed in more detail here.

Continue reading ‘Simple climate action plan anyone?’

Road to Nowhere II

You really have to feel a bit sorry for Malcolm Turnbull. Any chance he had of representing himself as leading a party enlightened on the policy response to climate change is gone completely, no matter what happens in tomorrow’s party room debate on the amendments negotiated between Ian Macfarlane and Penny Wong.

Tonight’s Lateline had the New South Wales National Senator, John Williams, orating about “global control” and declaiming “carbon is not a pollutant”. Then we saw Kevin Andrews, of all people, in effect refusing to rule out a leadership bid. Very hard to say which is more insane…

Earlier on LP: Previous post and discussion on the politics of the Liberals’ divisions over the CPRS.

Update: D-Day developments covered here.

Australian farmers to be exempt from CPRS

The Labor Government has conceded one of the non-negotiable points in discussions over the CPRS by exempting farming from the CPRS according to reports in the Murdoch press, The Age and elsewhere.

Penny Wong as the special guest on Insiders this morning said it showed that they were serious in wanting to get the CPRS passed, that they either had to negotiate with the Greens and the minor senators. Their judgement was that negotiating with the Coalition was their best chance. Given the attitude of Senator Fielding this is probably true.

But as Fran Kelly pointed out on Insiders, farming was only one hurdle; there will be others. And granting this concession will leave the Nationals unmoved. Apart from their climate change denialism, they see the CPRS as a gigantic tax and an unnecessary impost on Australian industry and commerce.

Continue reading ‘Australian farmers to be exempt from CPRS’

The Greens’ CPRS amendments

I haven’t had a chance to look at the amendments The Greens are putting forward to the emissions trading scheme bills. But Ben Eltham has, and his verdict has been published at New Matilda:

As the climate change debate rumbles on towards a possible denouement in Copenhagen, it’s comforting that at least one of Australia’s political parties is taking the issue seriously.

You can read the whole article here.

Andrew Murray sez Libs should consider carbon tax

I miss the Democrats. They often enunciated sensible public policy options.

Andrew Murray in the AFR on Monday reckoned the Libs are all over the shop on political and policy options in relation to climate change. If they are going to have the swing vote they really ought to sort out what policy they actually favour. He says they should think about a carbon tax.

He’s not saying there should be a carbon tax. He’s saying that no-one in the political arena has given any serious thought to the matter. And they should.

This is what he says about a carbon tax: Continue reading ‘Andrew Murray sez Libs should consider carbon tax’

Waxman-Markey and Senate passage

Rob recently discussed the passage of the Waxman-Markey emissions trading bill through the US House of Representatives, and there’s been much written about its impact both on global climate change negotiations and on the chances of the CPRS legislation in the Australian Senate. What hasn’t received too much coverage in our press is the fact that Steve Fielding’s antics and the Australian Senate’s vote are being used by the climate change denialist clique in the States to mount a campaign against the Waxman-Markey bill. It’s completely cynical, of course, and the Wall Street Journal – which has been leading the charge – has been falsely reporting that the Senate here voted to reject the bill, and to reject the bill because of a lack of acceptance of climate change science. Obviously, that wasn’t the case for The Greens, and probably some of the other Senators who voted against immediate consideration.

To put it mildly, though, it’s hardly helpful, and it’s illustrative of the despicable tactics which the globally interconnected forces of reaction are prepared to employ.

This issue isn’t directly canvassed by Nate Silver, but he has written a very interesting post at FiveThirtyEight.com on the chances of the Climate Change Bill receiving 60 votes in the US Senate (which it will need to survive a filibuster) – recommended reading.

Corporatism, Rudd style

Lots could be said about the politics of the CPRS backdown, and no doubt lots of people are saying lots. Good for The Greens? An issue for a double dissolution? Issue management a la KRudd? Greg Combet positioning himself as a fixer who can persuade the industry lobbyists Penny Wong couldn’t?

But what’s the real issue, here, politically?

Norman Abjorensen puts his finger on it:

The real losers, however, are the environment and the people. A less obvious, but equally important, loser in all of this is our increasingly enfeebled democracy – once again trashed by the corporate juggernaut. This just one more example of what the American political scientist, Carl Boggs, has called the corporate colonisation of society. A deal has been struck between self-interested business elites and a supposedly representative government that has effectively capitulated: the public – and the public interest – have simply been excluded from the equation.

We must start to ask the question: whose society is it? Theirs or ours? It was Aristotle who first promoted the idea that that people were designed by nature to live and be active in the polis. The polis, as society, existed only for the sake of “the good life.”

Where is it now?

Free insulation and emissions

On the policy merits of the stimulus package away from the nonsense coming out of Rudd and Turnbull, there have been some interesting points raised. John Quiggin was perhaps the first to note, and the Australia Institute has expanded on (hat tip Joshua Gans): the free home insulation won’t actually reduce Australia’s emission levels.

“The way the Emissions Trading Scheme is designed, every kilogram of emissions saved by a household frees up an extra permit for a big polluter,” he said.

“So while it’s true this scheme will help reduce households’ use of energy, it won’t reduce Australia’s emissions at all.

“What they do is take those permits freed up by what the individuals have done and sell those permits to the aluminium industry or the steel industry or anyone else who wants them.

Continue reading ‘Free insulation and emissions’

Barnaby’s choice: ETS ramifications edition

As another followup to recent posts on Barnaby Joyce’s egofest (driven by the Howardian egofest), Lawrence Springborg has weighed in – in the Barnaby corner:

Queensland’s Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the comments helped highlight the faults in Labor’s scheme.

“Nobody should be surprised with Barnaby’s colourful language and original language, you always get that from Barnaby and that’s fine,” he said.

“One thing he’s actually addressed…is the cost of this to Australian families, who are already struggling in very uncertain economic times.”

So it looks like The Borg and the LibNats are signing up for the denialist club. Or sort of. Springborg’s position is somewhat obscured in the death by a thousand rhetorical questions maneouvre. And what, I wonder, does this mean for the CPRS’ path through the Senate?

Malcolm Turnbull, who is yet to announce a position on emissions trading, played down the differences between the Coalition.

He said the Coalition would speak with “one voice” on emissions trading.

“We’re very committed to action on climate change that is economically responsible and environmentally effective,” he said.

“We work as a very close coalition and I’ve no doubt that we will be responding to this legislation with one voice.”

Continue reading ‘Barnaby’s choice: ETS ramifications edition’

Rudd one year on

Well, having opened a thread that perhaps proves that Ute Man is still out there but not actually supporting Emo Man, it behoves me, I guess, to have a bit of a say about the tenure of the Rudd government to date. To some degree all these sorts of anniversaries are somewhat artificial, as you can easily see in the United States with the fetish of the “first hundred days”. Governments will eventually be judged by the electorate in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say, and as almost all politicians intone (particularly those who are dissatisfied with their contemporary popularity), in the end they will be judged by history – whose verdict is perhaps as mythical as the Judgement of Paris, but never mind that. However, as I was suggesting, if politics and public discussion is cruelled by the vagaries and obsessions of an ever shorter media cycle, a year really is a long time in government, and it is worth taking stock.

It can also be interesting to compare first term governments at this stage of the electoral cycle, and here the obvious contrast – despite all the media beatups – is the absence of major scandal and ministerial resignations compared to both the Hawke and Howard governments. That doesn’t, of course, imply that all the Labor ministers are fabulous, but it is worth observing.

One of the things that’s interested me in the discussion that had already began quite a while before we reached the actual milestone is that in both comments on this blog and in conversations with some friends I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that simply avoiding hearing a daily litany of horrors from the Howard crew is Rudd’s greatest achievement. It might, and no doubt will, be objected that – “lefties would say that, wouldn’t they?” But I think there are a couple of points here. First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed, and that sentiment – along with the promise keeping – will be a contributor to Labor’s continuing lead in the polls. Secondly, I think The Howard Years has been interestingly timed to stimulate some comparison and to reinforce the whole sense of relief that we don’t have that turgid mob to kick around any more.

But, again, one thing that wore out the Coalition’s welcome with the electorate was the constant “rabbits out of the hat” and the whole bag of divisive tricks, along with the internal ructions and the cockiness of ministers. I agree that the Liberals are still playing at the same game in many ways. John Howard was elected in 1996 as a safe pair of hands and the Libs were “the party of order”, if you like. By the end of their fourth term, they looked like the risky and unsafe proposition and Kevin Rudd’s calm demeanour undoubtedly contributed much to Labor’s victory. WorkChoices was also probably the biggest single mistake the Coalition made, and the related apprehension that worse would follow and more leadership instability also condemned the Howard government to defeat.

But what of policy, and that shibboleth beloved of the punditariat, “the narrative”? Continue reading ‘Rudd one year on’

Can politicians walk and chew gum at the same time?

The obvious retort to John McCain’s faux suspension of his campaign last week was that Presidents should be able to deal with more than one issue at the same time. That’s obviously true, but it’s also a truism which disguises something – politicians think that the public want their focus predominantly on the crucial issue of the moment (and the media reinforces this with its “narrative” obsession).

It might not have escaped folks’ attention that Kevin Rudd minimised his focus on climate change at the UN in favour of the plan he and Gordon Brown cooked up for saving the world’s finances. Rudd himself mentioned that it would be difficult to concentrate world leaders’ attention on climate change. This rhetoric also provided him with some convenient cover for disguising the switch in focus for the justification of his trip as it came under opposition attack. But it does raise the broader question of which way Kevin Rudd will jump on climate change and emissions trading – perhaps more in terms of the international negotiations (which however can’t be separated from the domestic politics, with the whole question of the significance and timing of Australia’s ETS being crucial to the “argy bargy”).

The Lowy Institute Poll being released today might pose some dangers ahead. Continue reading ‘Can politicians walk and chew gum at the same time?’

Big L or small l leader?

There’s something of a paradox there, because, as I’ve been arguing, Malcolm Turnbull’s best chance at making an impact (beyond the born in a log cabin dingy flat narrative personal stuff) is to move towards the centre, and particularly given his obvious understanding of the issues, move the Coalition towards a responsible position on an ETS. John Hewson, interviewed in today’s Crikey, thinks he could do himself and us all a favour by putting some steel in Rudd’s very weak climate change spine:

What I would hope, I guess, is that Turnbull should take a harder line on climate change. The suggestion from Garnaut that we can start softly, softly, with 10 or 15 per cent for his target in 2020 is nonsense, against the sort of targets Australia has to meet by 2050. In those terms, I think Turnbull should be taking a harder line, pushing Rudd to do more, setting a high jump bar if you like, against which Rudd will be measured and they would have more significant consequences for business.

Business is great at sort of putting off adjustments, whether it was workplace safety or training or any of the other issues that have dominated the last 20 years. They’ve always shirked them. Business response to climate change has been “fine for everybody else, but not us” and really the adjustments have to be made, the big issues have to be addressed and you can’t play catch-up. The whole process is front-end loaded, so I think it will be an interesting debate, if Turnbull goes out there and argues a stronger case in that area and pushes Rudd to do more, but he may just sit back as Brendan Nelson was doing and say “we won’t lead the world” and so it will be an interesting debate.

John Quiggin doesn’t think Turnbull will depart from the current position, based on his ministerial performance and his failure to take any sort of consistent policy position as Shadow Treasurer. Continue reading ‘Big L or small l leader?’

Malcolm Turnbull finally ends the Howard years?

One theme that’s come up in commentary on several threads about the Liberal leadership here is that the political suicide of Brendan Nelson has the potential to put the Howard years to bed at last. One other sign of this is how underwhelming and plain boring many of the “revelations” in Yesterday Man’s Memoirs have been – who really cares now about the accumulated ressentiment of a decade and a bit of internal treachery under the Dear Leader? (Howard’s poisonous human legacy, of course, lingers, as last night’s Four Corners demonstrated). Peter Costello is now history, and if he hasn’t acknowledged that, then the man is a greater and more self-serving fool than even most of us suspect. His book launch – presumably televised still today – is a sideshow.

Malcolm Turnbull needs to give up on placating all those who still long for the departed Howard’s firm hand. The Liberal Party needs to eschew stunts and populism and restore its tattered economic credibility (which was actually junked by Howard and Costello themselves – that was obvious enough in last year’s election but now it’s plain as day). It also needs to move with the times and take a responsible position on an ETS and trim its sails to fit the socially liberal winds that have been blowing – unsniffed as they were by the Tony Abbotts and Nick Minchins of the world.

But Turnbull is completely capable of squibbing all this. He may mistake the need to placate the diehard Liberal Right and “defend the legacy” as necessary pragmatism. If he does, he might be safer at the despatch box, but he will be repeating the same mistakes that brought Nelson down. Though without the jam and baked beans.

Turnbull’s selection of a Shadow Cabinet will give us a big clue as to how he’s going to shape the Opposition. Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Climate Change Minister in particular. And make no mistake, he has to shape the Opposition, not try to keep all its factions happy. A very difficult balancing act indeed, because the structural faults in both the party and in its electoral position haven’t been magicked away.

Elsewhere: Some more analysis from Sam Clifford at Public Polity. Update: And more from Pavlov’s Cat.

Blogosphere roundup: More commentary from Possum, Politically homeless, Andrew Bartlett, Corporate Engagement, Musings of an inappropriate woman, Road to Surfdom and Woolly Days.

Another one for the blog roundup: what it feels like for a boi.

Wait, there’s more!: Joanne Jacobs, The Poll Bludger and John Quiggin.

Climate change and electoral politics

There’s lots more interesting stuff in this report at Australian Policy Online about two exit polls taken at the time of the 2007 federal election (and the AES), but this might be a relevant thing for Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and the ALP to remember in the context of the emissions trading scheme and international negotiations on climate change response:

Industrial relations and global warming were key issues for the Labor voters who took part in all three polls, with two of the polls revealing that global warming was the prime concern among voters who changed their vote between the 2004 and 2007 elections.

Emissions trading and rent seeking: round two

The Fin Review reported yesterday that a host of resource company execs are descending on Canberra on Friday for a pow wow with Martin Ferguson. Initially this meeting was being presented as a way of circumventing the BCA, who released a doom and gloom laden report last week basically threatening a capital strike. But it’s now clear that it’s nothing of the sort, as Marn’s department have also sent the BCA an invite. Industry sources expressed pleasure at Ferguson’s involvement, telling the Fin that they found him easier to deal with and more amenable to their views than Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. Hardly surprising…

Further reports today (as well as Stephen Mayne’s piece in Crikey) reinforce what was being said yesterday – that the polluters and the “skeptics” are making the running on the business response to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper. What looks like being the outcome is, in my view, a default back to the Howard position. Continue reading ‘Emissions trading and rent seeking: round two’