I have described the Rudd Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme as a rabid dog. It will infect us all with a nasty bite. If Labor persists with its illogical and highly political demand that the ETS must be passed by the Senate this week, then The Nationals will be first in line to say no.
Labor’s scheme is probably the most radical economic change ever proposed for Australia. Unfortunately, it is more about new taxes and symbolism than enacting real change to benefit the environment. The Rudd ETS will cost hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs if it is introduced as planned, but do nothing to cool the planet.
Why close industries where we are most competitive and cleaner than the rest of the world, when the globe is yet to consider how people can work together to achieve our environmental objectives? Mr Rudd and his team have decided to act locally, but not think globally — to our eternal disadvantage.
Australia produces just 1.4% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and that share is going down. We cannot repair the world’s climate by ourselves. Government spin implying that its ETS will save the Barrier Reef, flood the Murray and stop bushfires is simply dishonest.
The Prime Minister has never been able to explain why a 100 million tonne decrease in Australia’s emissions will counter a 10 billion tonne increase in China’s emissions.
For example, aluminium smelted in China will emit 60% more greenhouse gas than the same product smelted in Australia. Food production in Australia will emit less CO2 than food from Asia. Making cars in Australia will do less damage to the environment than making cars in most other countries. The coal industry has estimated that 66,480 jobs will go in their industry by 2030.
The best that anyone can say about Labor’s proposed emissions scheme is that it should be passed so there is certainty. This view is being mouthed by a few rapacious traders, some barely affected sectoral figures and multinational companies who want to make an early decision to simply move their investment overseas if Australia introduces an ETS and others do not.
The Nationals in Coalition are committed to a comprehensive response to climate change issues in partnership with the world’s major emitters. We are prepared to provide leadership and to do our part, but we are also determined to ensure that we do not prejudice the competitiveness of Australia’s trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries.
While it is true that Australia only produces a bit over 1% of total world emission of Carbon, we should remember that our coal actually helps China emit some of its tally. “Naughty” China (and other importers of our coal), uses considerable amounts of Australian coal to do its dirty burning. So Australia’s contribution to world emissions is actually higher than often quoted. We just don’t want to own up to it.
Nevertheless, I do agree we need to dump the current legislation. We should wait till after Copenhagen. The world is about to make important decisions. A poor and inadequate response by Australia will not help the rest of the world chose the hard path it needs to tread. It will show how one of the most prosperous nations in the world is keen to do almost nothing in the big fight that is about to be faced.
Exactly how is a minor partner in a coalition in opposition planning on providing leadership to the rest of the world? More to the point, given that Warren seems to be saying that we shouldn’t bother trying to reduce carbon emissions because we hardly produce any (how about per capita Waz?), how is that “doing our part”?
And let’s not even start about the rubbery figures the coal industry et al have come up with to point out the number of potential (not actual) job losses they may (or may not) suffer.
Dump the current ETS, get a real target at Copenhagen and bring in a scheme that will actually make incentives for low carbon use. Invest in developing cleaner technologies (a long term strategy that won’t happen with the current protectionism of high polluting industries that the government have been sucked into and which the Nats wholeheartedly support!). Look for a real solution. But don’t insult our intelligence by suggesting that the National party have that solution or will ever support climate change mitigation efforts when half your members don’t even believe climate change is real!
Mr Truss article is hardly worth spending time tapping out a comment, its full of inconsistencies. I notice he didn’t mention the record of the previous Coalition Govt and 12 years of being climate sceptics, doing nothing. They did zilch, now they act like they have been done wrong because the Govt has at least made a move. Not an earth shattering leap, but at least it is progress.
Mr Truss easy to jump up and down now you are in Opposition. Pity your party and in particular that clown Sen Joyce didn’t act with more responsibility in the Senate. It is appreciated you are a member of a Coalition that is a complete shambles, leaderless and some members are under investigation by the Federal Police. Hardly a great scenario for unity, perhaps you as a more senior member of the Opposition can talk some sense into your party room, if it is not too late.
Truss,was after Vaile, the apposite generational change for the Nats. Backwards to the old certaintie, however wrong. Sorta like the old Mortein ad,except that he’s on a ‘bad’ thing and determined to stick to it. Sorta like a shearer’s blanket on Moinday morning…
Jim,
Australia doesn’t export much coal to China at all; indeed China is still a net exporter of coal itself.
We should not think of our coal exports as contributing to carbon emissions elsewhere. We should rather be thinking of the carbon emissions involved in producing and transporting our *imports*. In this sense Australian consumption may well drive more carbon emissions in China than here in Australia.
Likewise a large portion of Australian emissions go towards producing goods for export. Aluminium smelters are of course the worst offenders, but livestock and the other resource industries are also significant emitters. These export industries underpin our material prosperity.
We have huge energy resources in our country, not just coal and gas but also hot rocks, huge sunny and windy open spaces, and fast-growing forests. Our best possible investment for improving the toll our economy takes on the climate — at the same time as reducing input costs to our emissions-intensive wealth-generating industries — is to pursue efficiency improvements and lower-emissions technologies in those industries first and foremost.
Rudd and Wong have given us an ETS which does exactly the opposite. Instead of giving the financial incentive to improve energy efficiency to the places where a concentrated technical effort could have a huge environmental and (beneficial) financial impact, they will penalise mass-market energy consumers (where efficiency improvements, though possible, are diffuse and difficult to measure) and give away billions to status-quo defenders and rent-seekers in the industries that have most to gain from change.