|
July 12, 2008
Brendon Nelson says that his position on climate change is that the Coalition is unified in strongly in support of an ETS. However, he argues the case by undermining his stated position. Consider this:
Of course, it is prudent to reduce our carbon footprint, but we should do so in a way that is practical and responsible, not economically ruinous and socially destructive. Because of Australia’s natural abundance of fossil fuels, our prosperity is threatened if the Rudd Government hastily embarks on a misguided approach to climate change. It is the job of a responsible Opposition to help the Government move in the right direction....The Rudd Government’s approach to an ETS has all the hallmarks of a giant revenue grab and centralist redistribution. In contrast, we believe Australian motorists should be protected with no new net taxes on petrol....
There are lots of boo words in that paragraph: "economically ruinous and socially destructive"; a "giant revenue grab"; centralist redistribution". There is not one positive. Still the Coalition fully supports an emissions trading scheme says Nelson. Well his op-ed doesn't read like that at all.
The Coalition 's position hasn't really changed. It fully supports the coal industry and the big energy users antagonism to an emissions trading scheme and their desire to be free riders. That is how the boo words in that paragraph reads. And, then we have this, which strengthens this interpretation:
Design implementation in such circumstances (the developing world's reluctance to do much to sign up to targets ) is critical. We would need to start with a low carbon price and a near flat trajectory. Unless the nations responsible for the biggest emissions commit to effective plans to reduce them, Australian unilateral action would inflict collateral damage on the wider economy in lower growth and higher prices up and down the energy chain. It would lead to the export of our energy-intensive jobs to those nations that do not take action to reduce carbon emissions, thus worsening the emissions problem. And it would reduce the competitiveness of Australia industry and lead to lower living standards.
It's all negatives. It could have been written by the Greenhouse mafia. Still the Coalition fully supports an emission trading scheme. Though not Garnaut's cap and trade model. Which one then? Well there are lots of them to choose from. Such as? Nelson doesn't say.
|
Such as the one the Republicans end up supporting in the USA of course.