The Direct Action Green paper has been released. Lets take it apart, paragraph by paragraph. It deserves it. Only not all at once. Lets start with the Forward, to get the flavour of ministerial justifications and contortions.
Here is the Green Caper itself.
To avoid my decoding of the details of minister-speak, go to The Conversation. “Three major loop holes in Direct Action Climate Plan”.
http://theconversation.com/three-major-loopholes-in-the-direct-action-climate-plan-21838
The Government’s Plan for a Cleaner Environment will reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by creating positive incentives to adopt better technologies and practices to reduce emissions. It will provide a lasting and stable policy framework for investment, underpinned by strong partnerships with businesses and the community.
The issue is "how much cleaner? How much greenhouse gas emissions reduction? Who makes them? As “Lasting and stable” as the the last governments policies? Strong partnerships is code for taxpayer money giveaways makes friends?
Rather than a punitive carbon tax, the Australian Government will employ its Direct Action Plan to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions. At the heart of that plan is the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Punitive to whom? Lets just forget that big carbon dioxide emitters paid and we got tax rebates.
The Emissions Reduction Fund is a classic market mechanism. It is a reverse auction to buy back the lowest-cost abatement. This is, for example, the same approach used for buying back water.
Polluters bid with proposed emission reductions and get money. Is that more classic than a tax on a bad?
At a global level, the world has two major approaches to emissions reductions. The first is a carbon tax, or an emissions trading scheme (ETS). There has been considerable uncertainty and policy instability within many of these schemes around the world.
At a national or state level these schemes can be very successful. British Columbia in Canada has a long running, even popular carbon tax. All money is redistributed to public good.
In addition, as the Productivity Commission has noted: no country currently imposes an economy wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy - wide ETS.
Hence Direct Action. That cuts down the scope for carbon emissions reductions. No stopping climate change now.
A significant distinction can be drawn between the Australian carbon tax/ETS and other models, because of the unique breadth, depth and impact of the Australian carbon tax. The previous Government ’s carbon tax, whether in its fixed or floating form, essentially relies on driving up the cost of electricity and gas as its primary mechanism.
A carbon tax made renewable electricity generation even more competitive to coal burning. This threatened to push coal burning out of the market altogether, and sends a strong signal for investments in renewable energy. Costs of electricity from coal burning are rising yearly anyway, because of rising oil price. This will be made worse by soon to be oil price shocks, and depletion of a non-renewable resource.
The alternative global model is purchasing abatement. Instead of a heavy punitive tax, a buy - back model focuses on activities that reduce emissions. This is the basis of the largest and arguably the most effective system in the world, the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism, which to date has generated approximately 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions reductions.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/pub_cdm_eb_annualreport_2013.pdf
The CDM has been running for 13 years, leveraged estimated 315 US$b of capital, with abount 1.4 billion tonnes of emission reductions. Doing the simple math, thats about 255 US$ per tonne of emission reduction. Of course there has been development benefits. Its a clean development mechanism, that is getting clean energy development. It is not a global emissions reduction scheme. It is not directly comparable at all. CDM enabled investors to earn credits to offset their CO2 emissions, and this depends on a carbon price.
It is this model, supported by a carbon buy - back or Emissions Reduction Fund, which the Government proposes for Australia. The Emissions Reduction Fund will be designed to provide a powerful and direct incentive for businesses across the Australian economy to work with the Government to reduce their emissions.
What about coal burning power stations and exported coal and gas emissions then?
As set out in the Direct Action Plan, the Emissions Reduction Fund will extend from 1 July 2014 to 2020 and will include initial allocations of $300 million, $500 million and $750 million over the forward estimates.
Confusing finance goobledygook doesn’t belong in a Foreward. Especially if it gives no idea of total cost. Unlikely to last beyond 1 term of government.
The Emissions Reduction Fund will provide a pool of capital to purchase the lowest cost abatement through a reverse auction, and this will be a far more effective means of reducing Australia’s emissions than the carbon tax.
Comparisons figures please. Average cost per tonne of CO2 abated, and total abatement. If you don’t know, then comparative effectiveness is an unproven assertion. If the Minister was honest, it might read , "this will be a far more obfuscated means of giving subsidies to the fossil fuel industry".
The Government ’s preferred design is presented in this Emissions Reduction Fund Green Paper, and reflects feedback from the community and business. Appendix A of this paper provides the full list of the Government’s preferred positions.
We want to recognise low - cost, effective abatement opportunities.
We want to ignore the harder political targets, such as the rich miners who might pay us a bit more from their takings.
The lowest - cost abatement projects might be projects to clean up waste coal mine gas, clean up power stations or to capture landfill gas. Projects may be for improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings, replanting marginal lands, improving soil productivity or reforestation.
The government will approve exports of more coal and gas, for greater profits and higher CO2 emissions, and lay waste to more native forests by clear felling trees, and creating more ruined land from coal mines and gas fracking.
I would like to extend my thanks to the organisations, businesses and individuals who have taken the time so far to contribute their expertise and ideas on the design of the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Who are these writers of Australian government policy? Today's Australian Industry Greenhouse Climate Network?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Industry_Greenhouse_Network
I look forward to working with businesses and the community to further refine the design of the Emissions Reduction Fund for the release of the White Paper in early 2014. Our goal is to conserve our natural environment while ensuring strong economic growth.
A big lie, even if it is legal to state it as a goal. And I thought the goal was to reduce total carbon emissions. Reduction in carbon intensity is defeated by economic growth. Now I can have a goal of losing weight and staying healthy while ensuring a strong growth in my sugar intake.
Strong economic growth in our full world, destroys our natural environment. It powers the Vicious Circle Principle, because of population growth (Craig Clifford, “Too smart for our own good”). It contradicts basic physical and ecological principles. If the minister was honest, it should read “Our goal is to give a big FU to nature, in order to ensure strong economic growth”. Even this last statement would be wrong, because economic growth destroys nature faster in a full world, and thus ensures irreversible economic decline. For example, the established decline of ocean fisheries, and depletion of finite oil reserved. Climate change will strongly ensure that Australia will be uninhabitable by civilization as we know it, a lot sooner.
Add Comment
This policy contains information about your privacy. By posting, you are declaring that you understand this policy:
This policy is subject to change at any time and without notice.
These terms and conditions contain rules about posting comments. By submitting a comment, you are declaring that you agree with these rules:
Failure to comply with these rules may result in being banned from submitting further comments.
These terms and conditions are subject to change at any time and without notice.
Comments