Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Nick Xenophon: why I won’t vote for the ETS
|
The federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the worst type of political compromise. It will not achieve the carbon pollution reduction targets needed to seriously address Australia’s contribution to climate change, and yet it will create unprecedented and unnecessary government interference in the economy. The government’s environmental targets are pitifully low because the proposed scheme is so economically disruptive. It’s like the government has decided to shoo flies with a baseball bat, but it means they can’t shoo too many flies in case they knock somebody out. What’s needed is a better designed scheme which will have less impact on the economy, allowing for better environmental outcomes. A proper CPRS should be designed to encourage the economy away from “dirty energy” towards “clean energy”. To do this, any sensible model must make clean energy more attractive that dirty energy. But what the government’s scheme does is tax all emitters, dirty and clean, with the dirty industries taxed more. The threshold of taxation begins at zero so everyone is taxed and everything gets more expensive. The government will collect billions of dollars and then to mitigate the price increases caused by its scheme it will give some of the money it has collected back to emitters and consumers. We are meant to trust this government and future governments to do this fairly, avoiding favouritism or political patronage. But this process will make many industries reliant on government largesse year in and year out, which is subject to change at any time depending on the political environment. This will not create an environment where industries feel secure to spend the billions needed to adopt green technologies. I favour a design that sets the threshold between clean and dirty industries. Modelling has been prepared for me on this by economists at Frontier Economics who have also conducted modelling for the New South Wales Labor government on the Federal Government’s CPRS. Under the alternative design, dirty energy becomes more expensive and clean energy becomes cheaper, giving the right incentives to transform Australia to a low carbon economy. And best of all you don’t have the federal government collecting billions of dollars it then has to re-distribute. The alternative scheme eliminates this wasteful churn of cash through the economy. For me, the problem began with the government’s Green Paper on the CPRS. In it, the Federal Government’s proposed scheme had been modelled, but there was scant modelling of alternatives. The government was acting a bit like a used car salesman who will only let you test drive one model. If we are going to reach a political consensus on this issue it is vital that alternative schemes are thoroughly modelled and debated. The issue of man-made global warming is real and urgent. We must act now but we shouldn’t rush to adopt a poorly designed scheme that will damage the economy and not adequately help the environment. |
|
|
11 Comments
Hooray, thanks Nick. At least one of the Independent Senators has some clue that the climate is changing.
Agreed. It was really heartening to read this.
this is a good, constructive article.
2 other points:
Clean sources of energy have other benefits - they tend to be renewable - an so aren’t dependent on limited oil/gas supplies.
As they are clean/low emission in output there is less impact on the environment - so pollution mitigation costs are lower .
So this approach makes sense for a number of reasons.
Well put, Senator.
I hope your next meeting with Senator Wong and/or Greg Combet is conducted intelligently, along these lines. Good Luck.
Now, can you please get ex-Senator Stott-Despoja onto your team too?
Agree too with John Reid. A lot of the birks opposed to action forget that there are many other positives with going renewable. Renewables rarely pollute rivers or require huge tracts of land to be clear felled and have holes dug in them. The other one the neo-cons in particular should take notice of and rarely do is the energy security side of the story. It’s very hard for another country to stop the sun shining or the wind blowing in your country, and we’re a long way off going to war to keep the tide changing back and forth.
We’ve already wasted at least 12 years thanks to Howard/Bush & Co. . They know what needs to be done; we now know that the Mining Industry is lying in their media releases and taking a different tack with their shareholders; we also know, that they aren’t the only ones. Quite frankly, I just want them to get on with it, or admit, that they have no intention of supporting any scheme. My grand kids don’t have time for politicians or wealthy mining magnates and others to stuff up their planet.
We all know that a complete change is going to cost. As a pensioner, I don’t mind contributing my share, I do mind that the Mining Industry that have been gettting subsidies and hand outs for years still have so much power. Another thing, why are we exporting so much natural gas overseas, when it is better for the environment to use this while we wait for renewables like solar? The knowledge is there, we just need to start implementing it in the best way, for the planet and the economy. There’s no point saving jobs if the planet is stuffed! To all the pollies, and those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo - Get out of the way, pull your heads in, and stop bellyaching - this is too important for prima donnas to whine and whinge. It’s boring!
Oh yes, to those who want to wait for China & India to come ‘on board’? We’ve contributed to the problem by exporting our coal to their countries. We export more Co2 gases! The West caused most of today’s problems, not China & India! There’s a lot of us who know what’s been going on - we’re not stupid! Stop treating us like morons! Go and tell your mates in the Opposition Nick, and then get together and work it out - soon!
If a fraction of the largesse shovelled onto the already bursting coffers of the dead but still moving (and polluting) dirty industries were apportioned to renewables, the result would be self perpetuating & propogating. The hi-tek widgergadgets might follow but, while waiting, the low tek take up would be overwhelming - viz Garrett recently shutting down PhV for being TOO SUCCESSFUL.
Anyone recall the last time success was deemed to be a recent to cease?
Meanwhile the single, simplest reform would be the enforcement of feed back tarrifs.
Then everyone, when not consuming, can be a producer. SIMPLE.
The way the current ETS is structured is like the Republic referendum - even those who wanted a republic did not want what was on offer.
As he promised/assured/threatened, Krudd = Rodent Lite. Too easy.
Ahh here we go again. It takes longer to do thing quickly, it costs more to do them cheaply and it’s more democratic to do them in secret. With apologies to “Yes Minister.”
AR, while I generally agree with the thrust of your comment, I must take umbrage with your push for feed in tariffs and the your disgust with the closing of the solar rebate.
First the rebate; I thought it was a pretty inefficient delivery mechanism. The rebate made no consideration of one’s geography, and everyone got the same rebate regardless of their lattitude. So the Govt were essentially paying the same amount for solar in Tassie as they were for the same installation at Inniminka. I’m sure you can see that $/kWh that’s a bad way to spend public funds.
Further, I also think that feed in tariffs for solar in general are a pretty blunt instrument. All generating tech, including renewables, benefit from economies of scale. Subsidising solar on individual houses requires an inverter on every house (which are much more efficient when bigger), maintenance on every house, etc. I for one would much rather see the Govt spend the same money on BIG solar projects, rather than lots of little ones.
However, one benefit of FITs is that it get’s houses thinking more about their energy use. This is a hard benefit to measure, but not worth discounting all together.
A better mechanism still for delivering all of this is a solid ETS. Which we will not be getting under the current scheme. If the cost of pollution was included, properly included in our goods and services, solar would be more competitive, houses would make better energy choices, big renewables projects would be cost effective. I’m glad Xenephon is voting against it, and I hope the Libs do to. With some luck it’ll go Double Dissolution, Labor will wedge the shit out of the Libs and put up a decent target. But I will not be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Another alternative is that the EU will guilt us into doing better, and we’ll get eaten into submission. They did it over GM crops, and may do so again.
EvanB - point well made, I fully agree, but the solar rebate was the only one on offer.
“A better mechanism still for delivering all of this is a solid ETS. Which we will not be getting under the current scheme. If the cost of pollution was included, properly included in our goods and services, solar would be more competitive, houses would make better energy choices, big renewables projects would be cost effective.”
And we are going to be offered this at approx. half past never.
Evan. You are right. It would be good if the Government put money into big solar projects that delivered. But they haven’t and they won’t. They have been captured by the carbon lobby and are going down the blind alley of CCS. Their renewable policy is a sop. Read The Economist March 2009. All they do is talk.
The HRL “CCS ready” gassification plant for which Howard pledged $100 million and the Victorian government $40 million should have been commenced at least two years ago and should be in commissioning now. It hasn’t yet started! It’s just like the FutureGen fiasco in the US.
Another example is the solar thermal plant at Mildura. That project, of 200 MW capacity has been talked about since 2001. They could have built the thing in that time. But no, just nine years of talk and now they are banging on about some other solar technology up there.
Because governments just talk, it’s up to concerned citizens to act. PV arrays on domestic houses might not be as “economic” as large scale projects, but at least it’s something. Why hasn’t every new house in Australia mandated to have solar hot water. Why because people don’t like the look of them on their roofs and governments are too gutless to stand up for something that works.
If we wait for govenments and the big end of town to do anything we will all be cooked.