So there is much anger toward the Government over its White Paper. The Prime Minister’s address to the Press Club was considerably enlivened by three female protestors who rose from Table 19 and yelled at him when he announced the Government’s proposed target. Strangely, they headed for the exit, rather than making security come to them through chairs and tables of besuited guests. Bob Brown went over and gave one of them a benediction as she wrestled with security. Fair dinkum, Bob, if you thought she was doing the right thing perhaps you should have heckled the PM as well.
I suspect we’ll see more “direct action” from environmentalists henceforth. And it won’t be confined to heckling. Recently a man scaled some fences, ignored CCTV cameras and walked into the coal and oil-fired Kingsnorth power station in the UK, where he shut down a 500 MW turbine, then calmly walked out again, leaving a note reading “no new coal”.
The protestors might legitimately have waited until a later point in the PM’s speech to express their anger. The 5-15% targets announced by the Government aren’t that bad for starters, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, equate on a per capita basis to what Europe is doing. That might be why even the right-on types at The Guardian gave Rudd’s announcement mostly positive coverage.
It’s in the design of the scheme and the Government’s commitment to an international agreement that there is genuine cause for anger and disappointment. Australia has in effect declared itself a non-starter even if, somehow, the world agrees a plan to reduce emissions to 450ppm. We won’t join in any such deal for more than a decade.
In defending that position, Kevin Rudd offered what for me was the lowest point so far of his Prime Ministership. He said a 450ppm agreement would require a change in the Government’s 2050 target and accordingly he’d need a mandate.
There’s a cynical joke about how you can tell if a politician is lying — because he’s opened his mouth. If the word “mandate” is coming out of that mouth, the joke is quite true. Mandates are only ever invoked when convenient. No mandate was needed for the deposit guarantee, or blowing the surplus on stimulus packages, or many of the provisions of the Fair Work Bill. But now Rudd is hiding behind the need for a mandate to undertake deep emissions cuts in the event there’s an international agreement to do so — an agreement which would dramatically reduce the costs of making those cuts.
I’d have had a bit more respect for Rudd if he’d ditched the mandate talk and simply admitted that 25% was a cut too far politically.
The mandate is doubtless one of the reasons why on Sunday Penny Wong was bumped from yesterday’s gig. Clearly the Rudd brains trust sensed the political difficulties of having Wong, who was originally scheduled to speak, serve up such a disappointing package. Thus it was Rudd himself who stepped up to explain why the Government would refuse to agree to deep cuts even if everyone else did. Wong, whose Mogadon-level delivery style makes even Rudd sound like Barack Obama, was not senior enough to deliver such an explanation.
Further, there is not a single mention of “mandate” anywhere in the White Paper, a curious omission given its apparent centrality in the Government’s thinking, and one Wong might have had difficulty explaining.
The design of the scheme brings us to a more vexing issue. This scheme is so badly designed there’s a real question as to whether it is worth establishing. This is one issue on which greenhouse sceptics and ardent greenies can be in furious agreement: the Government’s ETS is profoundly flawed. Two groups previously excluded from free permits — the coal-fired power industry and industries between 1000-1500t per million dollars revenue, will now have access to them (the coal industry will get $3.9b worth of free permits over five years — not $3.9b in cash, as a lot of us thought yesterday). Throw in that a change to the formula to enable firms to use value added instead of revenue in determining eligibility will mean more firms will qualify for 90% free permits, and the scheme will commence with minimal incentive for our biggest polluters to cut back.
It starts off thus flawed and gets worse. Under the Green Paper, the proportion of free permits was capped at 30%, which at least constrained our most polluting industries to find more efficient and less carbon-intensive ways of operating if they wanted to expand. Under the White Paper, the supply of free permits simply increases as our heaviest polluters expand. As Martin Parkinson, head of the Climate Change department said yesterday, this has potentially serious consequences for scheme revenue. It also means that there’s a real danger that at some point in a few years’ time, more permits will be given away to heavy polluters than auctioned for use by those with low emissions.
Well done, Mr Rudd — you’ve invented a scheme that actually punishes low emitters and rewards heavy emitters.
If this is going to be the ETS, it’s time to ditch it. The benefits of a market-based approach have been surrendered to the whingeing of our biggest polluters. Our corporate sector and politicians aren’t up to implementing such a significant reform. We should switch to a carbon tax or, what the hell, simply pick technological winners and hope.
Damn! should have voted Green after all – oh well, nice honeymoon while it lasted. What makes it all the more galling is that the very business lobbyists that Rudd is trying to placate with this fatally compromised legislation are from the same mold that has recently brought us the world financial meltdown.
When is someone with power going to realise that COAL is DEAD and that any money spent in that direction is no more than hush money to a few lobbying companies with a financial interest in the past. The sooner we set about capturing a bit more of the 1.5 trillion megawatt hours of sun falling on our girted land each year (along with all the other renewable sources) the better. Renewable energy is not a threat – it is an OPPORTUNITY – technology, properly resourced and directed can solve the worlds energy problems – but, alas Cap’n Reasonable will fail to see it and we’ll muddle through for another term or two until we all tire and let the Greedies back in.
Of all the changes promised on indigenous, workplace and climate reform this was perhaps the benchmark for Rudd’s credibility to shine through. It hasn’t – which means we go back to lobbying for better outcomes from him and his government. As a nation we’re individually charged with setting MPs straight on how we see our future. If policies and people goals collide we need to know why. Short-term costly consultation as we regularly hit polling booths for ‘mandates’ on critical polices like climate change might stuff political agendas but if that’s how we achieve our mutual obligations so be it. Australia has had an era of gambling its future on the political manoeuvres of the Howard government. It can’t make the same mistake again.
“… or, what the hell, simply pick technological winners and hope.”
You’ve nailed it. This already is the policy – except the sole “winner” appears to be the oxymoronic clean coal. I think we may need more than hope to get out of this mess. I mean, if governments seriously promoted some other potential winners they might find we don’t need coal after all, and then what would our BHP Billiton and Rio shares be worth? By backing the coal industry we can pretend we have a clean energy future around the corner while continuing with business as usual. Remember Rudd probably won’t be PM when it all goes bad…
Whilst it is clear that the targets fall short of what is required by the science and survival, and the Government needs to respond to calls from Green advocates to review these, as it applies to the very powerful synthetic greenhouse gases the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme does contain real teeth that will be effective in beginning the long overdue task of getting serious about reducing these greenhouse emissions.
The Scheme will put in place powerful incentives to drive the imperative transition to natural refrigerants such as ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons, and more than ever industry requires the assistance of the Green Cooling Council to facilitate the rapid uptake of genuinely climate friendly refrigerant solutions. The White Paper acknowledges the persuasive force of the Green Cooling Council Green Paper submission and substantially delivers on the recommendations. Arguments put forward by fluorocarbon proponents that HFCs should not be covered by Scheme obligations are discussed and rejected.
In respect of synthetic greenhouse gases, in particular hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), the scheme will apply a strong price mechanism to encourage the use of genuinely climate friendly natural refrigerant solutions, and is an historic improvement in the regulation of very high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerant gases.
The ball has now been put very firmly in industry’s court to pursue the imperative transition to natural refrigerants.
Marilyn, how were ozone destroying chemicals such as CFC’s fazed out ? Not by the efforts individuals, but by the actions of governments globally. We no longer use leaded petrol because governments decreed it would be so. When it comes to greenhouse pollution by all means indivduals should do what they can. But any solution ultimately lies in a concerted, co-operative response by governments globally.