|
March 11, 2009
The Rudd Government’s ETS legislation came out yesterday. It sticks close to the compromises of their White Paper and the Garnaut Report. This response ignored science and focused on politics---setting the emission reduction targets low in the hope of winning the support of the energy intensive trade exposed industries and the coal industry for the ETS.
Despite Treasury modelling on the low economic impact of reducing Australia’s emissions over the medium and long term, the Rudd Government rolled over from the pressure exerted by the Greenhouse mafia.
The obvious problems with the CPRS version of a cap-and-trade, as presented in this legislation, are:
(i) the proposed cap--- 5 or 15%--- for 2020 is too weak;
(ii) too many free permits are being handed to heavy polluters;
(iii) exclusion of voluntary emissions reductions beyond those represented by the national cap.
Will the Parliamentary debate and negotiations in the Senate focus on increasing the percentage reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2020 and removing the perverse subsidies to major greenhouse gas emitters? The Coalition has made its position clear--roll back the date and give the major greenhouse gas emitters 100% permits. They, in effect, become free riders.
So it depends on the Greens and the two independent Senators--Fielding and Xenophon---to help ensure that the legislation meets the target of 450 ppm CO2−e. As Treasury argued Australia’s aggregate economic costs of mitigation are small (although the costs to sectors and regions vary), whilst growth in emission-intensive sectors slows and growth in low- and negative-emission sectors accelerates.
|
I can't see the Greens passing it in its current form, but surely the ALP anticipated the Greens' response?
christine Milne said it's worse than nothing. Coal is pushing for free permits. We'll have international obligations set for us at Copenhagen. Wong isn't a good salesperson.
Is it possible Rudd was never serious about it in the first place?