Anna Rose has written a piece on the Rooted blog about the climate action summit that’s was held in Canberra over the weekend, leading up to a major protest on Tuesday outside Parliament House when MPs all gather for the first time this year.
There was one paragraph in her report that I found particularly interesting:
In the third session on campaign strategy the debates of the past day and a half start to crystallise into debates over wording. One of the big issues is of course around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – it’s just so bad that there is a broad consensus that as a grassroots movement, we should do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t pass. This is interesting. It is the same anti-CPRS position of the Coalition – although, of course, for different reasons. The big elephant in the room for me, then, is…what next? If we don’t get a CPRS, what can we expect in its place both from the Government and the Opposition? (my emphasis)
I’ve been aware of – and share- a lot of the concerns about the inadequacies of the federal government’s CPRS (or carbon emissions trading scheme). But I wasn’t aware that there was a widespread view that it was worse than continuing with having nothing in place. while people continue to debate from all sides about what else should be implemented.
As Anna says, if that strategy is successfully pursued, what would happen instead? Perhaps if President Obama follows through with strong measures to match his recent rhetoric, Australia might get pulled along in the wake – but that’s a reasonably large if.
Certainly everything possible needs to be done to get a stronger and more effective carbon pricing regime. But if that doesn’t succeed (and the chances at present look slim), it seems to me to be a big gamble to try to block a CPRS in the hope something better would soon be implemented instead.
With the economic meltdown unfolding and quite possibly still to get a lot worse, it is hard to know how the politics of a CPRS will play out in mainstream Australia. I think there’s a long way to go before people should be locking themselves into a specific strategy.
8 Comments
How do you rate chances of the Senate process getting the legislation into better shape, Andrew?
I think that sentence is a reference to the fact that the CPRS will a) Do othing to prevent climate change, b) Shred any chance Australia has of taking leadership and encouraging the hundreds of countries with emissions our size or less to take action, and c) Act as a vehicle for transferring money from singles and higher-income earners to polluting industries.
A and B is why it’s a cop-out. C is why it’s worse than nothing.
dk au – I don’t hold out a lot of hope for any significant improvements on what has been announced. However, as I noted, the politics of it has a way to go yet – the way the economic situation plays out could still have a big influence on the stance various parties take, as might any further strong evidence of environmental deterioration (e.g. more big icemelts or extreme weather events).
It should be noted that there isn’t any actual legislation yet, and when it does appear, no doubt it will be sent to a Senate Committee. That process can sometimes highlight flaws so obvious that it becomes very difficult for the majuor parties to ignore them.
Howver, this issue is so politicised that I fear the political ‘debate’ on it will be reduced to not much more than parties repeatedly shouting their competing slogans and talking points at each other in an effort to win the contest of getting their spin cemented in the public’s mind – regardless (or in spite) of the facts.
Oz – I’d seen a lot of criticism, but I hadn’t seen too many people categorically state that it is worse than nothing. I don’t feel I have enough detail yet to make an assessment of my own on that, but I am not disputing that this could be true.
But it would be a big step to take, given the uncertainty of what might then happen next.
Andrew, this is not necessarily a view of mine, but for a lot of environmentalists anything that doesn’t drastically cut emissions and thus prevent further climate change is worse than nothing as it allows dangerous climate change to occur, but removes the impetus for strong action by pretending that such as already been taken.
I don’t necessarily disagree Oz, but that is more a tactical judgement than a scientific one. If the CPRS (as it is currently detailed) will lead to at least some reduction in emissions compared to what it happening now, then the question of whether we and the environment will be better off in the medium or long term is dependent on guessing how the political and public debate will play.
A credible case can probably be made either way – in which case deciding on a specific approach this far away from the debates and votes in Parliament strikes me as being a bit premature.
Thanks very much Andrew for opening this one up. Its spawned some excellent discussion over at LP. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/02/16/opposing-the-cprs/
I was at the summit for a couple of days and was won around to the ‘line in the sand’ nature of the targets, even if they were perhaps more at the aspirational end of things.
The political thrust of blocking the CPRS is well expressed in this open letter from Ken Ward to the new Pres. Obama – http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/19/135710/112
His line is ‘The bold move is to do nothing…..By breaking free from awkward compromises and dismal tradeoffs and flexing unilateral powers of the Presidency, a dynamic, realistic, yet optimistic agenda can be set in motion that will draw our reluctant eyes to the danger, put dramatic examples of rapid change on display, and demonstrate bold and vigorous leadership. Then the time will be propitious to propose a new domestic and international agenda.’
He’s advocating a strategy of opening up the abyss that the science tells us is on the way and allow the space for a fundamental break from business as usual.
I understand the strategy Oskar – I just have a feeling it is a bit early to be locking in such a strategy (although it is worth noting that it is an approach being pushed by large chunks of the environmental movement, rather than the Green Party itself) (as far as I’ve seen anyway).
The poltiics of this is still potentially messy for the government, as the last few days have shown. It is a pity the Libs are having so many internal difficulties at the moment, as it is distracting attention from serious policy issues, including this one. If the Libs could shift their stance to a simple carbon tax that most of the business world supports, in opposition to a very messy CPRS with major exemptions and loopholes (without dissolving into internal brawls over it), there would a small but real chance of the government getting seriously squeezed from left and right. That might really change the dynamics on the issue.
However, it’s too early to tell how all this will play out in Parliament – we haven’t even seen the legislation yet, let alone the Senate inquiry which will undoubtedly follow. Taking a blanket stance this far out that the current CPRS is worse than nothing means take a punt on it not being turned into something worse. I think those sort of decisions are better made much closer to the finish line, at least on an issue as complex and fluid as this.
Thanks for your reply Andrew.
And if the politics were messy half way through last week, they look as if they just got even messier. It would appear that as you suggested, the govt IS beginning to be squeezed from both left and right.
I take your points about getting locked into a dangerous strategy too early, but I guess it depends a bit on who you are and what role you can play in influencing the govt. Community climate groups are pressure groups, they’re not the ones making the decisions about whether to amend, block or pass legislation. If they are expressing their disapproval of the scheme in such strong terms (it shouldn’t be passed in its current form) wouldn’t the effect of this be to strengthen the hand of those that are trying to get a strengthened version of the scheme in the parliament?
I’m thinking here of the Greens. It seems to me that Bob Brown’s been playing rather sensible and co-operative lately and Penny Wong, among other Labor bods, have been happy to publicly recognise him for it. Their line appears to be 40% by 2020 and a 2010 start. Rudd will be happy to have the start date agreed to (its one of the things the coalition is less likely to support) but the 40%, a real target imho, will be a big stretch that I can’t see Rudd making easily.
As for the independents, well, who would try guessing what they’d do?
I foresee some very public, very embarassing pickles for the coalition in this process. I reckon Turnbull, the ex-environment minister, sees the political value in strong targets and Hockey’s ‘very low’ comment about Labor’s 5% seems to support that. But he’ll be dragging the full Lib dry albatross along behind him to do it and they’re unlikely to go down quietly.
How would you suggest climate groups best engage with them?
One Trackback