10%? 5%? 15%? 25 or 40%? Off 1990 or 2000? Groundhog Day? Is the Government going to wimp it? And where is Poznan anyway?
I’m willing at this point to be heretical and declare that the emissions target doesn’t matter a great deal. As long as the price of carbon will continually rise under an Australian emissions trading scheme, and as long as Australia indicates its willingness to make deep cuts in emissions in the context of an international agreement, a soft start doesn’t matter a great deal, nor does a weak 2020 target.
Targets can be adjusted upward. In fact, the Government’s “gateway” approach to targeting in the Green Paper allows for upward revisions of the emissions cap within a limited band. Over a longer period, the target itself can be lowered, moving us onto a more rapid path of reductions. Given how unlikely it is that Copenhagen will yield a decent international agreement, we can always hope that a future agreement is struck, and lift our target to match it.
And yes, delaying action means it costs more to reduce emissions later, but given the likely economic circumstances of 2010, that trade-off might be an acceptable one for now.
What does matter is the design of the scheme, and this is where it looks as if the Government will seriously undermine the effectiveness of an emissions trading scheme, particularly in compensating heavy polluters with free permits. Speculation has centred on a third tier of compensation for firms just under the Government’s arbitrary compensation threshold of 1,500t per million dollars revenue. This would drive the ETS even further toward an almost notional activity, with polluters collecting pieces of paper and no one but low-emission firms and their customers paying for carbon permits.
With such a scheme, it doesn’t matter what the target is, there’ll be no incentive for polluters to change their behaviour or invest in more efficient or lower-intensity equipment. The whole exercise will be a waste of time.
The process of “refining” the Green Paper ETS model has been one conducted by the Government in close consultation with polluters, who have been given ample opportunity to state their claims — frequently backed up by half-baked “modelling” from economists-for-hire. The flight of industry to non-ETS jurisdictions has been repeatedly threatened, despite the lack of evidence that ETS-related costs will be high enough to overcome all other commercial factors in such a decision. Environmental groups and businesses in favour of strong action to address climate change have had limited opportunity to directly respond on the Government’s proposal and push for a more efficient and effective scheme.
The result seems likely to be a weak, ineffective ETS that minimises any inconvenience to our biggest polluters. One the Government can show voters to demonstrate its commitment to addressing climate change, despite its lack of impact.
All the debate about the target is a sideshow. The target doesn’t matter a great deal, provided we’re willing to play a strong role in an international agreement. The design of the scheme is the real issue, and the key to whether it will achieve anything, regardless of what target we set for ourselves. Barring a surprise next Monday, it looks like we’ll get a scheme that’s barely worth the carbon used to produce it.
Yes – this Govt that was going to change not only Australia but indeed the world, is yet again going to wimp out of any hard decisions. It’s quite pathetic.
The only ” decisive” things they are doing is giving away the farm, as they hand out money to anyone who cries – even the Indonesians today – billions here and billions there, with no regard for how much remains in the bin, or where they are going to look for more when the bin is empty.
If human activity is in fact the cause of climate change, Kevin Peter and Pennie should be “decisive” in their formulation of policy RIGHT NOW, and set some realistic and meaningful targets – 25-50% of a 2008 base by 2020. Let’s get serious and do our bit for the world, just like Kevin07 said he would.
If not, and maybe that is what they have secretly opined, then these sorts of minmal targets are fine to try to reduce the levels of pollution that shouldn’t be happening anyway, climate change or not!!
Thank you Steve.
This article would’ve been much improved if I’d stuck to one word for a more stringent target, rather than shifting between “up” and “down” every sentence.
Dear Bernard,
normally I agree with much of what you say. In this instance I am afraid that you are very much off the mark. The international community has been muddling through for years on the climate negatiations, and, as you know, has been slowed to down to a glacial pace – mostly by the interventions of large polluting industries like coal and oil. We’ve seen two decades of misinformation, prevarication and obfuscation.
We don’t have much time left to deal with the climate crisis, if any. Not setting hard targets will not only be percieved as a failure, but will in fact be a practical failure of momentous proportions.
I agree that we need a strong ETS, and this is lookly unlikey. But we dont have time left for soft starts, lowering targets at a later date, or to slowly ratchet up the pressure on big polluters. We can’t put off the hard work, even in light of a financial crisis. And if we don’t jump in the negotiations – neither will the US, Russia, the Eu etc etc…I fear that your article will give comfort to an Australian government that is not feeling enough heat in Poznan.
Apart from this, and your position on nuclear, keep it up.
best
Steve Campbell
Head of Campaigns
Greenpeace Australia, Pacific.
The big recent solar conference was crying out for the Govt green light, and as documented on the 7.30 Report Monday night. It’s quite clear we can reach stronger targets, in fact embarrassingly easy to. But the politics seems to be full of sabotage. It’s as if we really are desperate as a federal govt to maximise coal exports and squash the renewables transition as long as possible.
I agree with Steve Campbell this is madness.
Paul Kelly in The Australian pushes the same ol’ same ol’ running convoluted sophistry. Monica Oliphant as President of the International Solar Energy Society (UN affiliated, huge number of member countries) daught in law of Sir Mark Oliphant spiked Kelly’s ilk with gusto at the above conference. She noted that when people complain that Oz is only a bit over 1%, that only 15 countries are above us in emissions and 193 countries making up 30% total global emissions are just like us less than or equal to 1.22% of total emissions.
If Australia squibs it 193 countries below us in the rankings have their excuse totalling 30% global account. That’s big. She was quite a speaker I do say. Of course she is right. Did anyone look as lame as Peter Garrett on 7.30? Sad or what.