Climate politics vs climate action
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Friday 19th December 2008, 4:02pm
by TimHollo in
This was published today at ABC Unleashed
The release on Monday of the Rudd Government's climate change white paper is a clear demonstration that this Government is intent on playing politics with climate change without actually doing anything about it.
The useless emissions reduction target and self-defeating design of the scheme tells only half the story. The Government pre-empted the announcement by throwing half a billion dollars at expanding coal infrastructure in the Hunter Valley, and followed it up with a badly-designed incentive scheme for renewable energy that will ensure it does not grow beyond a marginal player to challenge the dominance of the coal sector.
Today's Age newspaper's editorial put it clearly:
"Each time the Government announces a major policy initiative on energy and climate policy, it has managed to convey the impression that a politically convenient compromise has been preferred to policy that might actually encourage fundamental changes in energy use."
What we need now is transformative policy to turn Australia from a highly polluting resource-based economy into a carbon neutral society based around our natural assets of sun, wind, wave and clever, innovative, forward-thinking people. Instead, Monday's white paper delivered a policy structure that pretends to encourage change while doing everything it can to protect the status quo.
It does this in two fundamental ways - by setting an extremely weak target and by shielding as many relevant groups as possible from the impact of the scheme through free permits, tax cuts and cash handouts.
The 5% target emissions reduction target Prime Minister Rudd announced is completely globally irresponsible. Instead of setting a precedent of a country willing to put its best foot forward and play its responsible role on the world stage, it takes us back to the bad old days of special pleadings from every country which can only lead to inadequate action. To add insult to injury, Australia will go into the global negotiations with a fixed position - no target stronger than 15% - which is contrary to the spirit of the process.
If other countries follow Rudd's lead, Australia's 5% target is consistent only with a plan to see greenhouse gases go beyond 550 parts per million in the atmosphere (some say 650 ppm), a recipe for runaway climate change and global catastrophe. If we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway heating, Australia would need to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, on our way to building a zero emissions economy.
Importantly, a 40% target would not see Australia taking a lead. It is equivalent only to us playing a reasonable and equitable role in the global emissions reduction effort.
Beyond the target level, the scheme's design is fundamentally flawed. The whole point of emissions trading is to drive emissions reductions and behavioural change by shifting investment signals from polluters to clean options. The price signal caused by polluters having to buy permits provides the stick, while the sale of permits delivers large amounts of cash which the Government can use as a carrot - spending it on helping people reduce both emissions and the costs they face through investing in energy efficiency, public transport, switching to renewable energy, stopping logging, etc.
This scheme, on the other hand, gives the biggest polluters almost all of their permits free, neutering the price signal to them, and then uses the drastically reduced cash flow to neutralise the price signal for everybody else by delivering tax cuts and increased welfare payments.
Only a tiny proportion of the revenue raised by the scheme will be used to reduce people's carbon liability by reducing their carbon emissions.
50% of all revenue raised will go to shielding polluters from the scheme's impact through free permits and, what's worse, this is projected to rise over time! 47% will go to shielding householders from the impact through the short-sighted mechanism of cash handouts instead of the long-sighted approach of energy efficiency to reduce costs and pollution. A measly 3% of the scheme's revenue will actually go towards helping anyone reduce emissions and driving the new renewable energy and energy efficiency revolution.
This was a tremendous lost opportunity. By investing the billions of dollars raised through putting a price on polluters into emissions-reducing options, we could have had twice the bang for our buck, building a sustainable future through a "Green New Deal". We could have rolled out energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings and factories across the country. We could have paid to roll out intelligent networks and to take the electricity grid out to the new renewable energy hotspots that should be the focus of our new, zero emissions energy infrastructure. We could have done this while still leaving money to increase welfare payments to meet the cost-of-living increases that will come with both climate change and action to prevent it.
There are plenty more flaws with this scheme, not least the short-sighted decision to completely shield the transport sector from any impact and to actively prevent 'additional' activities - the scheme's emissions cap will also act as a floor, meaning that any actions people take voluntarily to reduce their emissions will make it easier for big polluters to meet the target, rather than 'adding' its impact on top.
The Rudd Government has failed this critical test of leadership. It has betrayed all those who voted last year for a Government that would take climate change seriously. The Greens, however, have not forgotten and will not give up. We will do everything we can in the Senate and on the streets to ensure that this scheme is "greened up".
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
No winners in a race to be last
I'm one of those voters who is very disappointed, even a bit frightened by the knowledge that the Rudd Gov't doesn't take climate change seriously. When Rudd told the UN that greater efforts to develop CCS were needed I knew that he wasn't serious on this issue - it could only be interpreted as code for 'we will continue to mine, sell and use coal without restriction'. Does Rudd think (like too many Aussies) that this is for others to fix? That the emissions policy of the world's No.1 coal exporter is of no consequence? That the "prosperity" of ever greater world reliance on Aussie coal is, bizarrely, somehow a prerequisite for reducing global emissions?
Whilst incentives abound for miners and for car manufacturers, where's the deals that get Ausra solar thermal built here? Or a Nanosolar factory? How long before Sliver cells get sold offshore? Actually that last might prove a good thing; if it's development was being done elsewhere in the world - say Spain or Germany - it might see it's potential realised. I don't see real support for such development from Rudd & Co. No support for Vanadium Redox batteries - gone offshore years ago, no support for Crystalline Silicon on Glass - gone offshore, no support for utility scale storage - no major thermal storage pilot plants, let alone real capacity, no support for Compressed air storage. No requirement for electricity providers to make coal plants that can turn on and off in response to demand, that could allow them to become backup for intermittent renewables in a transitional role until grid and storage capable of giving us 100% renewables are in place.
Ruddism looks a lot like Howardism with a badly applied coat of greenwash.
No Winners in a race to be last
Ken, some of the points you make are very valid, but the Feds are walking a tight rope at the moment, trying not to fall from the frying pan into the fire, between, emission controls, economic stability, and growing employment problems.
The Australian economy, and therefore the economic welfare of the Australian people needs to be very high on the list of priorities of the Feds, and unfortunately, at this time spending on low employment research will lose out (not stop, but just slow a little). Obviously in a few years when the current economic dust settles then the Feds will have the cash to boost research.
If the technologies you speak about were here today and could be built under infrastructure projects that employ many people, or would bring in foreign currency today, I am sure the Feds would charge will all guns blazing, however, I suspect that neither would apply.
An alternative to assist with emmission control, would have been the Feds to look for suitable areas to build dams for hydro electricity (eg. another Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme), this would have helped maintain employment levels via infrastructure projects, and reduced the requirement for us to burn coal for peak power loads. Unfortunately most Australian Governments have a bee in their bonnets, and do not want to build dams any more, so in the case of Victoria, are building a huge power consuming Desal Plant (for fresh water), that will ensure we will need coal fired power generators for many years to come.
Anyway, I would suggest that no matter how important emission reduction is, most Governments will need to concentrate on economic issues, and work toward reductions in a way that does not dramtically impact the current economic situation. The US is probably a good example of this, where the President Elect planned to spend billions on reducing emissions, but now has to spend billions supporting the Automtive companies to avoid around 3 million additions to the unemployment queues.
Don't get me wrong, emission controls are important, and will be actively worked on, but progress may be just a little slower due to the world economic issues.
No winners in a race to be last
Bickering from the sidelines is about as effective as an angry soccer mum.
Get with the program if you want to make a difference. Arm yourself with facts then go to http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ click on “exposure draft legislation” and fire at them.
Be on the solution side of the pre decision- making process. Not the disgruntled aftermath.
If the only thing the government is hearing on the decision making field are high priced players sponsored by big companies then the score will go their way. The people have a voice too. Say your thing in the correct forum. Participate in the decision-making process by staying on the ball being played. Sideline heckling after the game is too little too late.
Current issues on the scoreboard in the field of climate change policy are available for your unemotional informed contributions at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/consultation/index.html#...
Download the consultation paper, read it, then make your submission. Submissions close by 13/2/2009.
Who can blame the government if they build policies based on what they’re hearing prior to policy finalisation?
If your to busy to make a major contribution and just want to spend a couple minutes mentioning your preference try copy and pasting this to your submission, “please implement option 1 with regards to the options outlined in the Discussion Paper on the “Treatment of electricity-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the expanded national Renewable Energy Target scheme.”
The following is similar to the submission I shall submit and is available for anyone to copy and paste in whole or in part until 13/2/2008.
With regards to the options outlined in the Discussion Paper on the “Treatment of electricity-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the expanded national Renewable Energy Target scheme” my preferred options are outlined below.
Option 1 no assistance to RATE industries is the best solution. This would be consistent with their treatment under the MRET scheme, cause no extra work for governments or funding from public money, and impose little or no extra financial strain on individuals or un-assisted companies.
Option 2 is extremely un-worthy of consideration.
Option 3 is best if assistance without modification is required.
Option 4 is not beneficial to the greater electorate.
Compromises that may have to be considered are:
1. Assistance only for the quantity of goods that are traded to countries actively engaged in a carbon pollution reduction scheme that comply with targets outlined by the Kyoto Protocol and/or future agreements Australia has or intends to sign (should they be more stringent).
2. No assistance for the percentage of goods traded directly or indirectly to non-compliant countries.
3. Goods birthed in a country of non-compliance should be penalised in a financial way to make similar goods from compliant countries the best value. Or where no competition for these goods exists, a substantial financial carbon tariff to finance reduction measures on their behalf.
4. Policing of products birth to consumption CO2 use will need a system of tracking and reprimand.
5. Government imposed assumptions based on trading history of the industry or company could simplify criteria for assistance.
6. All energy contracts for assisted companies should be made public in line with normal standards of accountability for the expenditure of public funds.
Rater than give incentives to industries to continue polluting via assistance, all incentives to stop using coal and create alternative energy sources should be explored.
Methods that may be employed if anything other than option 1 no assistance to RATE, TEEI and EITE industries:
1. A body should be created to monitor and bestow approvals for projects that will unquestioningly deliver green energy within a tight timeframe both here and over seas. Perhaps an added tax break on funds for research on approved promising technologies with longer expectations to commercialization.
2. Green generators should be given RECs now for 50% of their anticipated energy deliveries up to and including 2030 (extra years). This will help with incentives, initial capital raisings and expedite new installation completion. Tri annual reviews could bestow up to another 50% for the preceding period provided production targets are met, and penalize for running behind schedule.
3. EITE, RATE and TEEI industries should be made to directly invest portion of their profits in approved green generation plants either locally or overseas. This provides equity to the developing renewable energy sector and a share in the profits for participants.
4. Carbon Scrubbers that remove exiting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or smoke stacks should be made viable with funding for research and development and disposal coming from TEEI and EITE industries. Again profits from products and systems developed go to participants. Bonus RECs could be supplied for unit’s sold/used depending on their effectiveness.
5. "Banking and borrowing will make a cap-and-trade system work more efficiently” [ 1 ]. For example, save some of this year's allowance for use next year or borrow/use some of next year's allowances now and not have them available next year, thereby creating a necessity to buy RECS or earn them by investing in solutions.
6. The market should not be flooded with RECSs from assisted companies as this lowers the price and curtails the investment incentives in green generators. Instead an inbuilt undersupply should drive demand and investment.
7. Companies gaining RECs from investing in renewable energy generation should never be allowed a disproportionate number of RECS relative to their share holding.
8. All financial incentives should be focused away from coal, since sequestration research for this industry is and has been in the past heavily financed from public funds. Coal, already profitable industry would appear to be using the prospect of sequestration as a delaying tactic for capital expenditure on available technologies. However products already developed with proven abilities should be encouraged to be immediately implemented on pain of penalty. Products like Calera Corporation ‘s “nature-mimicking process that converts CO2, such as from a coal power plant, into cement. By thus removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the process of making a product that usually produces a lot of CO2 using other methods” [ 2 ]. Also the GreenShift CO2 Bioreactor might be apropriate.
9. Assistance if provided at all for TEEI, EITE and RATE industries should have a Base Amount. The Base Amount is the amount of assistance/subsidy government is willing to give an industry. The base amount should then be varied downward for all-of-government assistance; subsidies, infrastructure and tax-breaks already provided that industry or business.
10. Stiff penalties should be included in legislation naming and fining directors and managers directly.
Penalties could include:
1. Action taken against EITE or TEEI industries for impairment of profits or health of other businesses (hospitality closures from destruction of coral reefs).
2. Action taken against EITE or TEEI industries for complaining and threatening to leave Australia such as a ban on their products in Protocol compliant countries.
3. A Penalty guide for non-compliance should be written into any legislation of between $1,000,000 and $100,000,000 or 6% to 12% of the companies gross profit whichever is greater indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
4. Mandatory insurance premiums applied retrospectively for class action lawsuits aimed at compensation for loss of health, income or property arising from climate change.
5. A quadrupling of annual RECs required to be handed over to the government for a period of time greater than 10 years.
6. Confiscation of non-compliant products, and reimbursement for their destruction.
Other conciderations that could be considered are as follows:
Global agreement.
No global agreement has been signed much less ratified in the past. The prospect of such an agreement should not be considered in assessments nor should it be an excuse to delay implementation of pollution remedies.
Coal.
There are many areas in which the coal industry seriously inhibits our ability to meet our international greenhouse gas emissions obligations. The industry heavily pollutes by removing the coal initially, transporting it, and ultimately it’s use. Basically every time it is moved it increases the ambient CO2. Covered excavation with exhaust and particle scrubbers should be mandatory. Coatings applied to prevent dispersal of particles during transportation and possibly assist in downstream capture.
Cessation of public money to the industry, as historically it is used to fund research and infrastructure. This after initial construction often ultimately results in loss of jobs in the long term.
Major polluters.
The worst polluters including the aluminium, pulp and paper, chemicals and coal industries should not receive any benefits at all, and should instead be made to finance the cost of the clean up. This or face prosecution retribution for loss of income to other industries (holiday/hospitality), loss of health to societies and class action similar to the tobacco industry. Government should be held accountable financially too for promoting polluters to the detriment of the nation and global humanity.
Aluminium.
Aluminium production without assistance would probably be abandoned in Australia. The question is do we need the industry at all. Since aluminum is a stand out polluter throughout the world it needs consideration on a global level.
Some of the cost benefits of ceasing aluminum production are:
1. The global price will go up from scarcity and further reduce pollution as alternative rigid substances fill needs.
2. Australian taxpayers need not fund or subsidize infrastructure requirements of industry.
3. Australian taxpayers need not subsidize electricity consumption of the industry.
4. Other businesses and individuals do not have to sacrifice as much time effort and money to reach carbon targets.
5. Australian taxpayers need not fund superfluous usage of aluminum such as the cladding of high-rise office blocks in Soul Korea.
6. Australian government will no longer need to provide an exclusive tax agreement for industry participants.
7. Australian government will no longer need to watch as much of the tax for profits from Australian product are paid not in Australia but over seas.
8. Increases Australia’s standing in the international community by demonstrating the assertiveness to make decisions based not on skilled and aggressive lobbying, but on getting the best possible outcomes while minimizing the impact to voters.
9. Australia’s Bauxite mines can remain untapped reserves ready for fast development as new improved sustainable energy sources are brought on line such as Geothermal and the ITER fusion reactor.
The temporary loss of a few hundred jobs as workers find other employment is regrettable. Lessening the burden on all other businesses and individuals by the amount that aluminum smelters pollute, 10-15%. Of course many of the government assistances currently provided the industry could be redirected to more suitable endeavors.
European experience with other greenhouse gasses.
Regards,
Dave
____________________________________
[ 1 ] Stauffer, Nancy MIT Energy Initiative “Carbon emissions trading in Europe: Lessons to be learned” undated. 25.1.2009
[ 2 ] PESWiki.com, Pure Energy Systems Wiki “Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies” undated. 25.1.2009 .
Rotten ALP.
Blind Freddy knows that Labor is no better than the Liberal Party when it comes to Green politics. Thats why I only Vote Greens. If people really thought Rudd was going to be a climate saviour they were off with the fairies.
Rudd is as bad as Howard the Greens really need to start digging in their heels a bit with this bloke.
Grant, I expect there will
Grant, I expect there will always be other, more important priorities. Always. A prolonged period of high unemployment should not mean that efforts to shift from high GHG to low GHG technologies should be deferred - there is such a short window of opportunity to get a handle on climate change that failure to make full use of it will have world changing consequences, more severe the longer things go on without such an effort.
To my mind jobs building solar thermal or PV or thermal storage are better long term jobs than building cars and are just as good in the shorter term. Technologies like Ausra's (described as agricultural, not high tech and includes sufficient thermal storage to produce power for 24hrs from a day's sunshine, though not storage for multiple days) do exist today and could be built under infrastructure projects that employ many people, using Australian resources. It's close to price parity with coal already and would be cheaper than coal with it's hyped, but nonexistent carbon capture technologies. And meanwhile PV is getting close to price parity with coal power and can reasonably be expected to be cheaper than coal soon. Sure, it needs storage to supplant rather than supplement coal power, but coal needs carbon capture to be a clean long term energy source. I think the former is more readily achievable than the latter - and do so without harm to our economy.
I think reliance on hydro storage in Australia is like farmers relying on rain - not many places it will be reliable, and there are other legitimate concerns over diverting and storing water. If we can't successfully store energy by other means we probably won't ever have sufficient storage. Yet the technologies to store energy, such as thermal and compressed air, are relatively simple and likely to benefit cost-and-efficiency-wise from large scale but with coal burning 24/7 the need isn't there and if it isn't there it becomes an excuse for not shutting down coal power plants.
The build up and fanfare
The build up and fanfare that preceeded this CTS release all but demanded a jubilant Rudd on the steps of parliament fist punching the air and declaring...."Ah....have....a....scheme!!"
Yeah sure Kev, your a politician, of course you have a scheme, and now that we've read it, we know for sure that you're a politician. No a visionary leader here.
People all around the globe are showing a hunger for a cleaner way of living. Recycling, solar power, electric cars. But our political leaders are ignoring that mood for change, and insist that they are protecting us from the very changes that all but a very few desire. What is going on?
sustainable economic stimulus projects
I refer to the article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24899204-169...
Titled: IMF says Rudd's stimulus package needs doubling.
The IMF's advise is that budget spending should be "timely, large, lasting, diversified contingent, collective and sustainable"
Are the Greens in a position to put forwards a number of massive projects to Rudd, that will soak up some of the cash being thrown around, which would be popular and yet suit the agendas of most of the vested interests that matter, including that of this planet?
I'm sure this has already been suggested, but why isn't this being pushed on your website or in the press?
Most definitely
Absolutely, Eddie. We are putting forward ideas both publicly and privately. Our big focus at the moment is a broad-scale roll-out of energy efficiency. There is quite a lot on the website about our views of what a real "Green New Dea;" would look like. The main tag I use for it is "green economics", which you can find collated here: http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/138/all
Australia’s “biofuel” hypocrisy
The Australian newspaper recently reported that Australia is importing palm oil biodiesel from SE Asia.
Imported biofuel a risk to wildlife: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24967830-11949,00.html
Ministers pass buck on biodiesel imports: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24973116-5013871,00.html
How ironic that Australia seeks to reduce its own fossil fuel carbon emissions by using a “biofuel” made with palm oil. This so-called “biofuel” is produced at the cost of the destruction of tropical rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia, destruction which contributes to the 20% of global emissions caused by deforestation.
Tropical rainforests are vital for our global environment’s well-being. This is not just about emissions, we must also cherish these rainforests as valuable ecosystems and bastions of biodiversity. We must all contribute to the preservation and management of tropical rainforests for the global good.
Tackling the problem of global deforestation is going to be on top of the agenda of the crucial UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen later this year, only 10 months away.
The Rudd government won easy kudos by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in Bali after the election, but such gestures are empty if Australia fails to do its bit to protect our global environment. While Australia might like to tout its $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative as a saviour of the world’s rainforests, we are going to look foolish and hypocritical if we are shown to be one of the villains causing tropical rainforest destruction.
If the Rudd government wants to effectively prove its environmental credentials, it should take immediate action to cease the importation of palm oil biodiesel, and substantially increase funding for our International Forest Carbon Initiative.
Post new comment