This Budget is rooted. It puts and end to the pretense that the Rudd Government is serious about tackling environmental issues. It is a Budget dominated by short-term thinking and an almost complete abandonment of climate change as an issue of national importance.
With the recent backlflip on the CPRS, many were expecting some new, serious initiatives to fill the void. Instead, funding to environmental programmes has been cut, fossil fuel subsidies remain untouched, and the only sweetener is a new $652 Million renewable energy fund- another piecemeal and inadequate response. One suspects that it was only included so that Mr Swann could say the words “renewable energy” repeatedly in his budget speech.
As if to disguise their failure, the Budget announcement was followed with rapid fire announcements that had the word “solar” in them – to try to create illusion of climate action. However, these announcements were all just about existing programmes, including the shortlist for projects under the Solar Flagships Programme.
It is clear that Rudd and Swann just don’t get it. One-off injections of funding in to renewable energy projects or R&D are useful, but the transition of renewable energy from a small market player to the ubiquitous source of energy that it needs to become is going to require long term incentives and mechanisms to drive investment. A well designed feed-in-tarrif would do the job, as would well designed tax credits, combined of course with a carbon tax or properly designed ETS.
The Budget includes a measure to help encourage superfunds to invest in infrastructure, through the introduction of a new discount on bond interest income. Why not do something similiar to encourage investment in renewable energy? Compulsory Super in Australia has created one of the biggest savings pools in the world – which is supposed to be invested for the long term benefit of members (ie the Australian public). Why not help to unleash this investment potential to drive the clean energy economy?
The Budget shows that Rudd and Swan are still more interested in soundbites than in seriously responding to climate change. Very disappointing stuff.
15 Comments
In their response to one of Costello’s budgets, the ACF pointed out that for each dollar spent ON the environment their was about $10 spent AGAINST the environment.
Labor never even suggested that any of this would change during their election campaign. For example, was there any mention on ending the subsidy for company cars?
It was business as usual in their first and second budgets. Is it any surprise that their third budget is much the same?
Even during the last election campaign it was obvious that not much would change. Look behind the spin to promised short term actions and the inaction was clear to see.
Unfortunately even the environmental groups still work on the assumption that the way to get change is to lobby Labor to do a slightly better job. If this strategy was successful it would lead to things becoming only slightly better. But clearly this strategy has failed because things are even worse than expected.
Despite this, I feel certain that no major environmental group will actively lobby against both Liberal and Labor at the next election.
So the vast majority will still vote for the Libour party as usual, and nothing much will change.
“an almost complete abandonement of climate change as an issue of national importance” Good, finally KRudd is waking up from his coma!
Apparently due to the new resource tax all mines in Australia will close. Surely the Green movement can’t be entirely unhappy about that.
$650M for renewable project pork-barrelling. It’s a lot more than zero, although given how expensive renewable projects are it doesn’t go far (about 200 MW worth of wind).
Just remember we have an election coming within 6 months and they need to keep some cash and some ideas and some promises in reserve so they can campaign on them.
Folks, just remember who killed the CPRS … the backflip everyone wants to talk about all the time was the result of the Coalition and minor parties.
If they’d shown common sense we wouldn’t be having any of these discussions — lots more would be happening and green industry funding would be on its way.
Blaming the govt for being miserly is like saying “I stubbed my toe but you made it bleed!”
John Hepburn said “This budget is rooted.”
The budget is nothing to do with the CPRS, and, if anything, the failure of the CPRS made it even more important that the budget be good for the environment.
And as pointed out in my first post, for every dollar spent FOR the environment, maybe $10 is spent against it. So in fact Labor are being incredibly generous to all those who benefit from the subsidies given to things that are bad for the environment. But imagine the shock if the budget had ended all those subsidies!
Of course The Greens and the Coalition did not support the CPRS for different reasons. The CPRS was more about locking in protection for polluters than reducing carbon emissions, so from a Greens perspective we are better off without it.
What EnergyPendent is saying does not make much sense. In fact I’m not sure whether or not he is serious.
But, just in case he is, it should be pointed out that those who support the tax are of the opinion that it will not stop mining. And I think you would have great difficulty finding anyone in the “green movement” who thinks that ALL mining should be stopped.
How much do we subsidise miners for diesel fuel?
Fuel tax credits is $5.1b in the budget.
Taking out transport & agriculture you would expect mining would get at least $2b in diesel subsidies.
The mining industry shouldn’t be receiving diesel subsidies.
Of course super profits tax won’t cause mining to stop in this country. The minerals are here and miners can only mine where the minerals are.
Thanks ER – to quote the author: “very disappointing stuff”.
“Folks, just remember who killed the CPRS … the backflip everyone wants to talk about all the time was the result of the Coalition and minor parties.”
This is a good point. The Greens Party and the Liberal/National parties must face up to responsibility for blocking action on climate change.
The Greens Party in particular must face up to the fact that they handed climate deniers a massive symbolic victory on a platter, while dealing a massive defeat to the pro-action climate movement.
It is possibly the stupidest piece of opportunistic politics ever played by a minor political party, and has made real action on climate change almost impossible for the next few years as we waste time arguing with deniers whether it even exists.
If the Greens Party had shown some maturity, we would now be debating how we can increase and hasten action on climate change, rather than complaining about half a billion dollars being not enough for renewable energy.
The Greens Party and their supporters need to face up to their betrayal on climate change action.
No, Alex, if the CPRS had been passed, the coal companies would be celebrating and preparing to open a pile of new mines and power stations while the bulk of Australians would be labouring under the misapprehension that the government was doing something about climate change. About the worst outcome possible.
The victory for deniers is Kevin Rudd’s victory. His decision to campaign with strong rhetoric on climate action and then present a policy which blind freddy could see would do bugger all had a massive impact on the national debate, making Australians think climate change was not such a big issue after all.
One of Australia’s foremost analysts of public opinion, Hugh Mackay, has come to this conclusion: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rudds-mistake-on-ets-was-not-challenging-our-behaviour-20100506-ugpv.html
Get real! The biggest victory for the climate deniers was that just as Abbott made climate denialism political feasible in Australia, the Greens handed him the defeat of the CPRS. While the CPRS wasn’t great, its passage would have meant that we’d now be talking about how best to make it better, rather than trying to debate whether climate change even exists.
Tim, it seems like you are quite happy for things to get much worse while you sit around complaining that no solutions being offered are perfect.
Also, it looks like my comments on your post have been held up in moderation. What’s going on with that?
Alexander – the CPRS was correctly labelled the “Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme”. Giving $10 billion dollars to foreign coal companies only cements this filthy fuel. Look at the Grattan Institute report that destroys any credibility the CPRS had left.
Meanwhile, the diesel fuel subsidy must be pulled from miners: Households paying big miners $190 a year to pollute – “It’s time the Government made good on its commitment at the Pittsburgh G20 meeting last year when Australia joined other world leaders and agreed to begin phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.”.
$650M wouldn’t even build you a fossil-fueled power station. What does Rudd and Co think is going to get built with that piddly amount of funding?
Oh, right…
@kuke – Let me tell you what is “continuing polluting regardless” – no legislation that puts a cap and price on carbon pollution. That’s continuing polluting. The Greens Party voted with the climate denier Liberals for _no_action_ on climate change.
The CPRS certainly could have been better, and the concessions made for Turnbull made it almost as bad as doing nothing. But if the CPRS had passed through the Senate, we would now be debating how to make it better, and what additional measures (RETs, etc) could further reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, rather than debating whether climate change even exists.
The simple reality is that the Greens Party handed the climate deniers a massive symbolic victory – which has compounded the one they gained through the lack of progress as Copenhagen.
If you would prefer _nothing_ to _something_ then you are not serious about climate change.
Mr White #14
I don’t think so. The CPRS as it stood was going to be a massive dose of inertia geared towards maintaining business as usual. In that sense the CPRS was negative something, i.e. worse than nothing. Australia is really squandering the opportunity for some serious first mover advantage on this stuff.