Why pass now and improve later won't work with the CPRS
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 24th November 2009, 2:37pm
by ChristineMilne in
It's very telling that, when the ACF and Union Climate Connectors came to Canberra last week, a number of the grassroots campaigners they brought with them were shocked to discover that they were being asked to campaign for the CPRS, not against it. They thought they had been brought to Canberra to campaign for real climate action, not for the Rudd Government's pretence of action.
A handful of environmentalists, nevertheless, along with a not inconsiderable number of Labor Party supporters, still argue that the CPRS is a step in the right direction. I often wonder what these people will think when, if the bill passes this week, there is a flurry of new investment in coal infrastructure in WA, Queensland, Victoria and NSW.
The government frames climate change as a blunt choice between action and inaction, but even they acknowledge as they negotiate with the Opposition that there is a point when action becomes so weak that it is useless. The Greens, of course, believe that point has been passed long ago and that the CPRS is beyond useless - it is worse than useless.
If the CPRS were merely weak, the Greens might have been in a position to support it. But we recognise that, when faced with a serious and complex problem, it is the choice of the right action that is vital, not the decision to act. Prescribing and locking in the wrong treatment to a seriously ill patient can hasten death rather than prevent it.
The Greens oppose the CPRS as it stands not because it is too weak but because it will actually point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak. This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure.
There has been plenty of discussion around the fact that the 4-24% cuts (on 1990 levels) in the CPRS are actually undermining meaningful global action. There can be no global deal while rich countries like Australia refuse to play our fair role. But, while this is critical, it is not the most shocking way in which the CPRS takes Australia backwards.
The CPRS will unleash billions of dollars in investment if and when it passes. The Government wants you to believe that that investment will be delivering emissions reductions now and into the future, and a well-designed emissions trading scheme, with a science-based emissions trajectory and undiluted price signal, would indeed do that. But the CPRS will unleash short-sighted and ill-advised investment that will be very hard to turn around once the government is forced to do what it takes.
The Western Australian Government is talking about recommissioning two old coal-fired power stations that had been decommissioned. The Victorian Government is talking about refurbishing its existing brown coal plants. The Queensland and NSW Governments are planning new coal plants. Not only will the CPRS not stop that investment, but it will actively encourage it. With its weak targets and price signal and the structure of the compensation - cash payments dependent on ongoing or increased generation - the CPRS could deliver coal a bonanza.
How can that be a step in the right direction?
What's more, according to legal advice I released yesterday, if the CPRS passes and these multi-billion dollar investments are made, any future government would be liable to pay compensation to investors if they change the law to lift the targets and put polluters out of business.
This puts paid to the always flimsy argument from the Climate Institute and others that we should pass this bill now, regardless of how weak it is, and improve it down the track. That approach was always dishonest - equivalent to Peter Garrett's "short, jocular conversation" prior to the last election when he said everything would change after Rudd was elected.
But it is also clearly out of step with reality. Peter Garrett was wrong in 2007, and his friends are wrong now. Nothing has changed because neither the government nor opposition want change.
If it is too hard to pass a scheme that works now, what on Earth makes anyone think it will get easier later? Once the political heat is off, it will get harder, not easier to drive real change. If we allow Rudd to get away with his spin-over-substance approach to climate change now, it will be that much harder to get a meaningful, science-based approach in the little time we have remaining.
This would be a horrendously expensive mistake to make, and it will be the community, not the polluters, who pay.
This piece from Senator Milne was first run on Crikey's daily email, November 24, 2009.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
A brown day
As Crikey says:
"This has been the worst policy process in Australian history, and it is likely to climax with the Labor and Liberal parties agreeing to hand over still vaster sums to rent-seekers, opportunists and blackmailers."
A mandate for climate catastrophe?
Didn't Rudd claim a mandate to act on climate following his election victory in 2007? Just how has that changed into a mandate for climate catastrophe by stealth? Did we ever vote to pay the polluters' ransom to stop them killing us with their profit-seeking, heat-seeking carbon emissions?
Rudd's spin has rendered climate science invisible as a benchmark, and instead has placed in the foreground of public perception comparison with an unintelligible and climate-ignorant Coalition. But the difference between them is converging as the world converges with multiple and irreversible tipping points.
Recently, in his address to the Lowy Institute, Rudd decared that 'It’s time to remove any polite veneer from this debate'. Yet his speech made not one mention of increased risk of more frequent and severe bushfires from climate change.
This as the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission remains silent on climate change. This as days of catastrophic fire danger begin before summer and fires burn in New South Wales. We don't agree to burn, Mr Rudd. And we certainly don't agree to pay the big polluters for the privilege of climate safety.
Power Companies gaining points for installing light globes
Am I a mushroom or have I missed any discussion by the media of the ease with which Power Providers are gaining their points towards retaining their licenses to pollute? These companies are contacting householders by phone, offering free lights globes and shower heads. Having made an appointment the visit concluded, a document with very small print is produced for signature. And it's "thank you and have a nice day!" What am I signing for? A look through the magnifying glass reveals that the power saved by these devices will then be credited to the Company's EEC! This action has been conducted quite legally by a company commissioned by one of the plethora of "utilities providers" who since privatisation have had licenses to print money. So roll on world destruction, there's endless company shareholders reaping the benefits while the world burns. Why don't we have Governments powerful enough to regain control of Public Utilities to ensure that they are run efficiently and in the best possible interests of the people who elect them.
Business in politics
I get the feeling that the government is holding up an uneconomical private business venture rather than adapt to a changing world. Sounds like bad investment to me. Especially as seen as there's so much potential in other areas of energy production. And what happened to free market forces? When did it become that business can get handouts because they're not profitable? That's why the SEC was privatised...so it was no longer on the governments shoulders just like the Met. Prime Minister Rudd must stop trying to be someone he's not and get negotiating with the Australian Greens fast otherwise the public are going to get done!
Rudd is the same as Howard
Rudd is no different to howard this proves to me more than ever we need a Greens government in Australia or at least the balance of power in both houses. The major parties never change and have been hoodwinked by the big end of town and the polluters. Pathetic!
yes but
It’s all very nice to be able to point out the hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of integrity which underpins the government’s climate change action policy; it doesn’t actually achieve anything however.
Here’s a couple of the most likely and very depressing outcomes resulting from the current political climate
Scenario 1: As per the historically standard Liberal in early opposition behaviours, Turnbull is trashed by his own party; The ALP CPRS is defeated. There is no CPRS. Any bipartisan support for an improved CPRS which will include an effective reduction target schedule is now so unlikely as to be only conceivable in another dimension. Why? It should be obvious that it’s the ultra hard line conservative, anti green, climate sceptics that have initiated the Liberal party division and are baying for Turnbulls toppling. If they succeed the candidates for next in line will view any positive climate change action proposals as politically high risk and head the other way to ensure party support.
This skirmish will be witnessed by the Copenhagen negotiators as proof positive that the conservative, save the world economy first and its industrial status quo element has the balance.
Because, and I must reiterate, Australia has a disproportionate influence at these negotiations.
Scenario 2: Turnbull retains his precarious perch, the current CPRS is implemented. The Copenhagen negotiation scene is similar but not quite as disastrous as for scenario1.
The scheme stays more or less in place, with business as usual until near 2020; when the world realises the catastrophic consequences, political power brokers can no longer avoid the truth and big business creates its own economic crash spiral or segregates itself totally from the mass of humanity, any regularity control and the consequences of its actions in a panic attempt to deal with the radical responses necessary to survive and catch up to natural events. There’s a major war, a really major war, which is another usual and natural response from an aggressive species under threat.
Scenario 3: By some miracle the CPRS is implemented with flexible and exponentially rampable increased targets. Copenhagen's negotiators acknowledge the urgency of the matter and the feedback ensures that targets become ever more ambitious over the ongoing life of such scheme’s. Big business's protests over the risks of instability and lack of business confidence for the future are fobbed or just simply ignored and the economy reflects the increased activity required to make the changes necessary to deal with the issues.
Then as per historical standard the pendulum swings the other way and the ultra right conservative ethos gains overt power and proceeds to dismantle all the good work.
The accumulative effects of ramped up effort to reach the targets imposed and the increased activities required to dismantle the process and start building gigantic nuclear power stations all over the planet, in orbit, on the moon and in any of the other dimensions reachable by general electric & co cause an environmental implosion and humans resort to genetic manipulation to become cockroaches with credit card carapaces.
Unless there’s a bloody great wakeup call at every level, including the grass roots, we are just not going to force the politicians and CEO's to change their real opinions. (As opposed to their public ones).
A whole generation and their extended families need to start protesting, with their money and their lifestyles as well as their voices.
Are you going to be the one to ask the building manager to open the windows and turn off the air con?
GOOD LUCK
A tad annoyed!
There is none, and I doubt that there has ever been a positive environmental outcome expected from the CPRS. It is boarder line incomprehensible and as such is a very bad blueprint for any sort of framework to reduce emissions and transition to a low CO2e economy. However, it makes for a rolled gold corporate welfare package!
Like the Federal government’s refugee policy it is an exercise in spin and political opportunism of the highest order. Unfortunately there is no hoodwinking going on but there is a bucket load of collusion. This is a finely executed plan constructed by political, mining and industry lobby groups feeding the government what amounts to be formulated policy guaranteeing that Australia stays firmly planted in the nineteenth century. There is no other way to look at this other than as a very successful method of compensation mining of a public ore body.
Many of these companies have now found another trough to feed from. With the GFC we had the moral hazard based around the too big to fail concept; and now the next stage of the extraction of public wealth to the private sphere, is the CPRS. At a time when the Federal Government is happy to quarantine the welfare of citizens of the country it is handing out the future wealth to the lowest of the low.
We and our children deserve better than this from our elected representatives.
Its a Start - Lets See What Happens
The commentators above appear to be missing a few points.
Before negotiating wih any other parties, the Government undertook extensive analysis of what the vast majority of the Australian electorate was prepared to accept. They conducted polling and also noted polling by the media. It was obvious that (apart from a for a few inner suburban electorates) the Australian voter would only accept a reduction scheme if their living standards were not dramatically reduced, and any cost increases subsidised by the Government (quoted as around $1000 / household per year).
From the Business Community, the Government was told, they would only accept a scheme if they were heavily subsidised for "x" years to see how any scheme would impact them.
In addition to the above, the State Governments were becoming very nervous that they could receive fallout from any unaccepted Federal scheme. For example, the Victorian Government has been in the media over the past week stressing that the coal fired generators will keep running in the interim, so there will be no shortage of electricity for the public (major bleackouts), or desal plant.
The Government obviously had 2 choices.
1. Listen to the vast majority of the electors, and the business lobby, or
2. Charge ahead with a scheme that was not accepted, and watch if collapse within a year or so, and rip up any agreement from Copenhagen, or get sacked at the following election to a party who would rip up the agreement.
I am still at a loss of how Australia is going to reduce our emissions by more than a small token amount, as, according to a number of economists in the media, we all still will be using our fridges, freezers, washing machines, aircons, heaters, TVs x 2+, lighting (house, street, security, traffic etc), computers, not to mention our cars, trucks etc. etc. etc.
In addition, the Government has advised that we will be increasing the Australian population over the next 2 decades by 30%, so we will need to build 10's of thousands of new houses, hundreds of new suburbs / estates, and increase the number of the above electrical requirements by 10's of millions, not to mention the millions of additional new cars on our roads.
I suppose this brings up an interesting item that was in the media, and that is, if we do not meet our reduction target, we will be up for billions in penalties. Not sure where the money would come from, but I guess the following:
a. The Australian public would not tolerate a direct tax to pay for any penalty (Government would be dismissed)
b. The Government could not reduce general expenditure to pay for any penalty
c. The Government would probably have to borrow the billions from overseas, with our children / grand children having to pay later.
In summary, I believe that the Government is implementing the start of a system that both the majority of the electorate and business will grudgingly accept, and which can be enhanced over time, as it is proven not to dramatically diminish living standards. The alternative would have been political suicide, with a subsequent Government probably dismantling much of what was implemented, and then ripping up any Copenhagen agreement, on fear of being dismissed as well.
Thank you Grant
This is the most sensible blog on the whole site.
Your comments are opinion not fact
Uh huh. Didn't you know Grant? Apparently the economy can be manipulated by simply lowering or raising interest rates. Well, this is the excuse from the government for raising interest rates. So by this standard the argument that adapting to climate change will reduce the standard of living is irrelevant. This is besides the claim from the Australian Greens that the standard of living won't be reduced in their proposal for tackling climate change.
You are simply making claims and assumptions that can't be backed up with evidence. You certainly don't speak for me. We are already seeing the ETS being rejected by the opposition rather than "grudgingly accepted". So your comments are opinion not fact. And a highly dubious one as I have shown.
CPRS
Unfortunately you have 2 choice and be careful about which one you choose.
1. for CPRS a compromise with all it's failings and now empassioned defence by the oppposition leader as although dirty, it may give a foot in the door for further gains in th future remeber changes happen but from little things big things grow.
2. be sidelined as a party of ideals one that doesn't buckle as as seen in this debate, rendered inadequate and useless as a nay sayer.
Don't forget to not be in the debate and to not allow it to pass you are keeping very dangerous company. History has shown time and time again bad friends get you into trouble. Where giving a little and helping will allow you concessions in the future.
I thnk you only have one choice...... and I am not a constant writer but a motivated outside observer who talks to a lot of people.
your choice stand or fall, you will be judged at the next election.
Post new comment