Comments on: A good, but not great – nor green – day http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/16/a-good-but-not-great-nor-green-day/ now with extra source Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:13:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Peter Wood http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/16/a-good-but-not-great-nor-green-day/#comment-13911 Peter Wood Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-13911 The Garnaut Review suggests spending 20% of auction revenue on RD&D while the Green Paper suggests no investment on RD&D except for CCS as a form of assistance to the coal industry. Every dollar spent on assistance to polluting industries is a dollar not spent on RD&D, assistance to low income households, addressing market failures or reducing emissions in sectors not covered by the scheme.<br /><br />You say "Proposals to benchmark performance of trade exposed industries that are given free permits are welcomed but the benchmark needs to be against world’s best practice, not against the Australian industry average."<br /><br />Does the Climate Institute support free permits?<br /><br />How can this be a good day when the government is issuing a green paper whose policies are far worse than the main alternative, the Garnaut Review, and is engaging in bad policy through inappropriate industry handouts? The Garnaut Review suggests spending 20% of auction revenue on RD&D while the Green Paper suggests no investment on RD&D except for CCS as a form of assistance to the coal industry. Every dollar spent on assistance to polluting industries is a dollar not spent on RD&D, assistance to low income households, addressing market failures or reducing emissions in sectors not covered by the scheme.

You say “Proposals to benchmark performance of trade exposed industries that are given free permits are welcomed but the benchmark needs to be against world’s best practice, not against the Australian industry average.”

Does the Climate Institute support free permits?

How can this be a good day when the government is issuing a green paper whose policies are far worse than the main alternative, the Garnaut Review, and is engaging in bad policy through inappropriate industry handouts?

]]>