So, what is the goal of legislative climate action?
Is it about trading emissions permits? Is it about technology policy? Surely it’s not about arguing over who can support polluters more! Is it even about reducing emissions, then?
While you can mount arguments for all of these, fundamentally, in my opinion, the goal is none of these.
Fundamentally, the goal must be to make sure we can pass on a safe climate to our children, and our children’s children. If our legislative action doesn’t play a key role in delivering that safe climate outcome, then it’s not really climate action.
With that in mind, the Greens have spent the last many months putting together a legislative package entitled the Safe Climate Bill which, taken together, would see Australia play its responsible role in delivering a safe climate.
I’m very conscious of not simply using Rooted as an outlet for spruiking the Greens and our initiatives, but given that the mainstream media gave our Safe Climate Bill, which we launched yesterday, diddly squat coverage, it needs every opportunity to get an airing through other media. We need to find some way of holding the Government to account for their climate failure, if the MSM won’t do it (and the Opposition clearly won’t). We need to show Australians that there is an alternative if they want serious, meaningful climate action.
You can read all about the bill at www.safeclimatebill.org.au or via the text links in the post, but in summary it is a collection of 12 linked bills based on the pillars of a safe climate target, renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport and protecting green carbon, supported by a real polluter pays emissions trading scheme.
The 12 bills are:
The Safe Climate (Emissions Trading Scheme) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Renewable Energy Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 [Renewable Energy Target]
The Safe Climate (Renewable Electricity Feed-in Tariff) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Renewable Energy Infrastructure) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Energy Efficiency Access and Savings Initiative) Bill 2009 [The EASI household energy efficiency scheme]
The Safe Climate (Energy Efficiency in Non-Residential Buildings) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Energy Efficiency Opportunities) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Energy Efficiency Target) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Sustainable Transport Infrastructure) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Fringe Benefits and Fuel Credit Restrictions) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Native Forest Carbon and Biodiversity Protection) Bill 2009
The Safe Climate (Green Carbon) Bill 2009
You can download them from our website.
The Safe Climate Bill is intended, in its parts and its whole, to be an exposure draft and we strongly invite public comment and discussion. We’ll be developing it further over time and plan to campaign strongly around it as a counter to the Rudd Government’s claim that its CPRS is a reasonable response to the climate crisis. [By the way, did everyone hear Prof Garnaut refer to it last night as "has been one of the worst examples of policy-making we have seen on major issues in Australia"? Yet somehow he still reckons it's worth supporting.]
As I’ve written here recently, climate campaigning has been damn hard recently because it has had to be so negative, that being the only responsible way to react to policy failure that is the CPRS. We very much hope that the Safe Climate Bill can give us all a boost with something positive to rally around!
Please read the detailed briefings, download the bills and give us your feedback!
8 Comments
Hi Tim, yet to read them, but thought I’d point out that the ‘Your can download them’ link is busted. Great post btw.
Thanks, Christian. Fixed the link.
I’m not always a big fan of the Greens, but this set of complimentary policies looks pretty decent (without having read details).
Tim one suggestion is that you give the EPA the power to enforce the originally stated power-station lifetimes. This means that once a coal station hits its 30 or 40 year lifetime the default option is that they stop operating (unless they are below average intensity?). There are several plants that are currently operating beyond their planned lifetime.
I would suggest that one of the explicit goals of any legislative action is that it should set up Australia to prosper in a post-carbon world. We need to start developing the ideas, technologies, business models, etc… now. Even though in many industries the transition will take 40 years. Or do we want to be importing not just manufactured goods, but also technology.
Certainly looks like quite a bit of work has gone into these amendments – I hope the govt actually reads them before deciding not to negotiate with The Greens.
EnergyPedant advocates the blanket closure of power stations at their nominal live’s ends. The illogical nature of this proposition is evident from many examples. I will mention one only: Liddell power Station in the Hunter Valley. Liddell was commissioned in the early 1970’s and is thus nominally 35 years old.
However, quite literally many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on programs to improve efficiency, availability and pollution reduction and control systems commencing at about the fifteenth year. Is the power station now considered to be 35 years old, or ten years old? If it meets economic and environmental benchmarks, why declare it dead while its heart is still strong?
In fact, this station has enjoyed record years of power production and safety achievements during the past couple of years, while avoiding the massive dollar cost and carbon footprint which are inherent in construction of any new power station.
By all means debate the need for improved environmental and economic performance, but please look beyond simple ageism, whether related to people or to infrastructure.
outstanding effort by The Greens.
“If it meets economic and environmental benchmarks”
John this is the key point. As long as a coal station meets modern environmental benchmarks then they can continue until economically unviable.
However if it turns out that they are nowhere near what would be expected of a new build they shouldn’t be kept running. This is more of an issue in Victoria where Hazelwood is a 1960s relic (built between ‘64 and ‘71) which was granted approval for another 25 years worth of coal. At Yallourn most of the money spent on “upgrades” was to divert the river and increase the mine size.
A great effort from The Greens. Sadly EngineeredReality’s comment is a harsh…reality (ironic?).
I feel it is a shame that The Greens no longer address the issue of population sustainability, however that point should not detract from the ambition & applicability of this bill.