A new meme is being pushed by people close to Labor to help force through the CPRS. Just as the failure of the Republic referendum knocked that issue off the agenda for a decade or more, the story goes, so if the CPRS fails in the Senate will we have lost our chance to do introduce an ETS for ten years.
While this might be a superficially attractive comparison, it is as far from reality as Minister Wong’s statements about economic transformation are from the reality of the scheme her Government has designed.
Certainly, there are some similarities between the republic and climate change. In both cases, we see a strong public desire for radical change that is not reflected in the Government. In both cases we see a serious lack of bipartisanship. In both cases, we see a Government whose heart is not in it put forward a minimalist option that disappoints and disempowers the people.
But there is one fundamental difference which makes a mockery of the whole attempt to draw a parallel. Urgency.
There is only one reason why the Republic was on the agenda in the 1990s, after a century-long campaign – because Paul Keating and a few other determined individuals put it there. While there is and was broad public support for a move to a republic, the fact that we did not make the change last decade and may not in the next decade is a great pity, but it is no tragedy. John Howard’s undermining of the referendum took the wind out of the sails of the republic push in a way that is deeply unfortunate, but nothing disastrous will happen if the push does not increase again rapidly. No-one will die for lack of an Australian republic.
Climate change, on the other hand, is on the agenda because it is a scientifically demonstrated threat which is increasingly impossible to ignore or sideline. If we do not act fast, we invite social, economic and environmental catastrophe on a scale most of us find hard to imagine.
If the current proposal falls over, as it should unless significantly improved, we have no choice but to try again in the very near future. Public pressure will only grow stronger as the threat becomes ever clearer and as the globe begins to act.
The strongest parallel between the republic and the climate is that in both cases the Australian people are being presented with a dodgy, ‘take it or leave it’ option that they are unwilling to accept. In neither case should they be forced to accept it because it is the only option at the moment. In both cases, accepting the minimalist approach effectively shuts off the option of making the radical change that is necessary.
Let’s reject the minimalist approach in this case, as we did with the Republic, and tell the Government to come back with a better option. This one is unacceptable.
5 Comments
Some time ago I was almost convinced that a carbon tax might be better than the proposed CPRS but now it is pretty clear that there is no great difference. In fact, the CPRS seems to allow easier individual action than a carbon tax regime. Eg, by personally buying $100 worth of carbon permits (which is allowed) and sitting on them until they expire, then I have effectively stopped industry from being allowed to pollute 4 tonnes worth of CO2. There seems no way of being so effective under a carbon tax system. Furthermore, under the CPRS I can buy as many permits as I can afford so can easily (well for under $1000) contribute negatively to Australia’s nett pollution for the year.
Obviously some people are not happy that Australia is currently saying that its limiting itself to a 15% reduction for 2020 at most. But hey, when we have to actually set the target for 2020, which is in 2015, I am sure the government of the day will have a pretty clear mandate to go much further.
But, if we have stuffed around for a couple of years, thinking about a carbon tax instead, or arguing with some idiot who still owns a coal power station, then we won’t be ready with any scheme for 2020.
So, Tim, I am not with you on this post. I think that we could easily see Liberals with climate deniers back in government in the next couple of years and the talk will quickly turn away from action and on to making money and spending it on mitigation efforts such as sea walls and more airconditioners.
I am convinced that a carbon tax is a better alternative than an ETS. The main reason for this is the ability to rort an ETS. Dr good may be able to remove 4 tonnes of carbon from polluting the atmosphere but is he sure. How does he know that the books are not being cooked? If carbon pollution is taxed to an extent that electricity produced from it is dearer than that produced from renewable sources, market forces will stop 100 % of the pollution. When this is compared to 4 tonnes, the 4 tonnes is insignificant.
I cant see a difference between the climate change deniers (libs) and the climate change pretenders (LAB). I feel that on this issue the greens must maintain a high moral ground and not be sucked in to supporting an already corrupted ETS.
Sooner rather than later the storms, droughts and floods will combine with rising seas and pestilence to put both greed based major parties to rest. These calamities will be self evident and as they manifest so too will climate denialism dissolve. The world as a whole will then race the clock to undo the travesties currently being committed.
Twobob
The government audit authorities who do the checking of how much pollution has been caused by an industry would be much the same under an ETS as under a Carbon Tax system. If you don’t believe they are checking correctly under one it is hard to see how we can trust them under the other system.
As usual, I’m with Dr Good on this issue. The ‘simplicity’ argument for a tax does not stack up. If you are going to put a price on carbon whether it is a tax or via a permit system you have to measure it.
The problem with a tax and the reason why even the conservative Right wing actually like it, despite their fundamental opposition to taxes, is that they know that:
a) it can be stopped or undermined very easily by a new government; and
b) business are already very good at avoiding/minimising tax.
An ETS scheme by contrast, with its stand-alone regulator and the significant economic infrastructure which it creates, will have the very great benefit of:
a) actually being good for some businesses (e.g. low emission business); and
b) being lucrative for others (e.g renewable energy businesses).
In that scenario, a government who tries to undermine or stop the price on carbon will have to deal with the significant negative impacts on many businesses who have become reliant on the carbon price continuing. Western governments, no matter their political; persuasion, may, at times, listen to environmentalists, they may, at times, listen to the people but they always listen to business.
In summary, an ETS is a wedge issue for business and a tax is not. So, for anyone interested in true reform of the emission pollution system, think of these words – divide and conquer.
BTW, where is the Rooted post on the outrageous claims of Ian Plimer and his Heaven + Earth book?
As an addendum to the above, the climate sceptics are also trying to divide and conquer. The monarchists realised the effectiveness of this approach for the republic and, for this reason, anyone hoping to lower our emissions should be very wary of trashing the ETS.
If the ETS is abandoned or postponed it will be a victory for the emission intensive industries as it will set back carbon pricing for at least 2-5 years. It will be seen as proof positive that it is too hard to put a price on carbon in carbon-intensive economies.
No-one should underestimate how hard that even a 5% reduction in Australia’s contribution to global emissions will be for this economy, but with this ETS that number (at least) is locked in.