Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Coalition CPRS plan will cost $20 billion
|
The Coalition’s proposed CPRS amendments could cost nearly $1.6billion in the first full year of the scheme’s operation, and over $20billion between now and 2020. The cost of the additional compensation proposed for big polluters and the revenue lost from the Coalition’s proposal to exempt coal mining emissions pose probably the biggest obstacle to a deal between the Government and the Liberal Party over the CPRS. The calculations are based on emissions of Australia’s six biggest polluting trade-exposed industries, which will receive massive additional compensation from the Coalition’s proposal not merely to increase compensation for lower-tier polluters who would otherwise only receive 66% of their permits free, but to remove the tapering of compensation rates between now and the early 2020s, leaving compensation locked in at 90% until 80% of our trading partners commence carbon abatement initiatives. The Coalition has also proposed to further reduce the threshold level for compensation for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries from 1000 tonnes per $m revenue to 850 tonnes, allowing threshold industries who would not have received any compensation to obtain 94.5% of their permits for free. However, the decision to exempt fugitive coal emissions will be an even greater cost. According to Australian Conservation Foundation data prepared last week, exemption of emissions from the coal mining sector would cost up to $4.8b over the first five years of the full operation of the scheme from 2012-13. If accepted, the Coalition’s proposed amendments would mean in the first five years of the scheme, including the first year in which the price of permits would be capped at $10, additional funding of around $7.7b would be required from the CPRS itself or from the Budget.
There will also be significant additional costs from 2016, when compensation for the coal-fired electricity generation sector is scheduled to end. The Coalition propose to continue compensation for a further decade, removing a further $6b from the scheme over 10 years. The Coalition has stuck to its “base-line” proposal for the electricity sector, but offered to negotiate with the Government on other ways to reduce electricity costs for small businesses, who will not be compensated under the CPRS but expected to pass cost increases on to households. Lower and middle-income households will be compensated under the CPRS for price rises. A very conservative estimate for small business compensation suggests a relatively small cost of around $200m would assist in offsetting – but not completely eliminating — the expected price rises for small businesses. Last night Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Macfarlane indicated much of the cost increases or lost revenue under their proposals would be offset by reduced compensation to households, which would require less compensation because electricity and other prices rises would be lower, although Macfarlane appeared to indicate the Coalition was considering costs from a long-term perspective, funding the CPRS from the budget in its initial stages before moving to “surplus” later. The primary source of additional funding, however, is the $50 billion in free permits the Coalition claims remain unallocated by the Government under the CPRS. The Government has denied there is a substantial portion of unallocated permits in the scheme. While there is likely to be some wriggle room given the speculative nature of some of the assumptions underpinning permit allocation projections, a quantum of $50b appears unlikely. Another factor in the Government’s considerations is that the few supporters of the CPRS in the environmental movement will abandon it if it increases industry compensation. The appeal of passage of the CPRS, however, would more than offset criticism from those who have previously supported it, like the Australian Conservation Foundation. But the sheer cost of the Coalition’s demands will be the biggest problem as Penny Wong and Ian Macfarlane sit down to negotiate this afternoon. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
31 Comments
Gah! Don’t they get it at all? Compensate everyone for everything, let coal mines pollute as much as they want, spend more Government money.
My current preferred option is for Rudd to dig his heels in, Doubly-Dissolve the senate, pass the scheme in a joint sitting, then watch the Greens push for improvements down the track.
Evan, there’s precedent for this.
“The pudding is a magic one which, no matter how much you eat it, always reforms into a whole pudding again.”
I was hoping we’d got over it though.
a billion here a billion there.
Who really cares on both sides of government.
Both parties have shown a shocking disposition and a lack of responsibility with public monies.
If its not labor throwing money out the window in the form of stimulas packages or outdated broadband technology,
its the liberals with there 20 billion for big business.
the best we can hope is that in the next parliamentry sitting they all die from the cosmic bullshit that purvades the uppers and lower houses whenever they are in session.
protect the publics monies. If you want to tax carbon, tax it at the source. If you want to encourage green citizenship, stop handing big businsess concessions.
we badly need a third major party. and no the greens are not the answer.
Evan… not far enough.
My preference is for Rudd to get some balls, adopt goals much more in line with Europe (say, 25% below 1990 emission levels by 2020), stand up to the reactionary greedy bunch who think that their sh_t doesn’t stink and, after a double dissolution, be prepared to pass truly meaningful Bill.
There is a lot in common between the concepts of negotiating with the current Opposition and fiddling while Rome burns.
There is no reason why some industries such as farmers and coal miners should be excluded from the CPRS, none at all., and I am neither a vego nor a rabid greenie. It is simply irrational to leave about half of the emissions out of the equation.
So the opposition does believe in a carbon tax afterall…its just a tax on everyone to pay for this industry pork barrelling rather than on the coal industry itself.
I want to be a focus group.
23% of money in 1% of hands, 90% in 10% of hands, and industry needs compensation to stop destroying the world. It’s enough to give capitalism a bad name, but I don’t think it will.
I can’t even begin to count the wherefores, the BTWs, the general buggering around trying to satisfy the cro-magnons of the National Party and the ineffable vain-glorious pieces of back-drop which make up the bulk of the Liberal Party which produced the earth-shattering wisdom of rancorous s/hit, laughingly referred to as CPRS-for the Coalition. All I can say is congratulations one and all. You would, if Kevin Rudd stopped looking at himself for long enough in a mirror, have handed the government a lay-down misere for a DD with bells and whistles attached.
Some deluded soul suggested that Kevin Rudd should grow some balls. Dream on. As soon as a politician gets elected he spends the next three years dreaming of ways to get re-elected. And you don’t get re-elected by putting big polluting companies’ noses out of joint.
To every single politician of any political party in Oz (members of the Greens and Nick Xenophon excluded) I hope you all die the sort of death normally accessible only to the desperately poorest members of the lowest caste in Mumbai. Slowly.
Bernard Keane: Don’t you ever despair? Don’t you ever think to yourself, “Oh well Democracy is about being able to go to hell in your own hand-basket. Which is exactly where the country is thanks to it’s abysmal politicians and the people who continue to vote for them”.
Have you ever contemplated Nihilism?
Have you ever contemplated Football?
Have you ever contemplated Revolution?
EVAN BEAVER: I support what you say to the full extent of my being.
Yawn. This is just more of the same.
I’m now at the point where I’m trying to figure out if I should just embrace a carbon-intensive lifestyle and drive all I want, eat meat and dairy, buy 3 ply perfumed bleached toilet paper, wear baby seal fur, eat Maccas and KFC, and generally allow myself all the things I currently don’t. What’s the point in trying to reduce your impact on the planet when it’s all going to hell anyway?
But then a little ray of hope always pops up….what if….what if someone who can do something actually does something? Sigh…better go plant some more vegies and check out the bus timetable.
Nadia, to make it efficient, we ought to eat the baby seals too. Killing them for their skins only just isn’t on. :^)
We should fuel turbines by burning baby seals so we can cash in on goverment assistance, buy more seals, and set up an iconic industry which will employ thousands so long as the someone tennuous supply of baby seals holds out.
Can’t we just cut out the middle man? Im prepared to go and pay the coal companies out of my own pocket as long as we don’t have to hear Rudd and Wong and Turnbull pretending that they care about climate change. Its probably cheaper in the long run. Why we have to have this elaborate pretense just so large coal and resource companies can get a bit more of their snouts in the public trough is beyond me. Just ditch the legislation and I’ll give them fifty bucks each. It will be cheaper and more honest. And at least I get to look them in the eye and say thanks for screwing us all.
Hey Madeinaustralia, why aren’t the greens a valid third party? Seems to me they’ve been right on the money in all the major issues of the last decade. Iraq/Afghanistan War, asylum seekers, global warming, deforestation, over paid executives, food labelling, euthanasia, education, political donations, drug policy etc.
The greens althought not perfect, are a lot closer to representing my thoughts than any other party. What is your problem with them?
Stephen, good question.
Well, im not going to pretend they dont represent what is important for you. If those issues are sacrosanct for you then yes they are not just the third party, but the only party.
For me the problem is more ideological, I trace back through history at what has been the main driver of human progression…and
…to me human progression has been the progression of economics. Many of the things that are important to you in your list, are only important to others/general society(i wont say you) because they have the time/inclination and most importantly money to effectively ignore what has been the plight of survival. In plain language, we are rich so we focus on other things.
Why did Kevin Rudd win the last election?, Everyone in Aus was relatively well off. He seemingly had a mandate to change australia, for the greener/fairer…what changed… GFC, now he dosnt have the political or economic capital to put through an effective climate change legislation. and thats with a weak opposition.
If the greens make the basis of there policies economic progression…I will vote for them. They get that right, I dont care what they do with the environment/education(your above list).
For me its about how, and how much of my money a government uses. The rest is all audibles. If the country is doing well, we will drift onto other important issues such as climate change/poverty ect ect. Get that right, and you get your social welfare/lefty type issues in vogue.
..again thats just me.
Hi again Madeinaustralia, I understand your point. I’m middle aged, self employed, owe $250k and have a 5yo, so I’m concious of the need for some form of prosperity and the role it plays in social harmony, life expectancy etc.
I see a connection between most greens policies and economic prosperity. The current form of economics embraced by both majors is not the only one.
I think we’d be better off economically if the capital spent on the Iraq war had been used on something progressive and life enhancing, rather than distru=ctive violence. The economy would also benefit if the money squandered criminalising illicit drugs was spent elsewhere and drug use became a health issue not a legal one.
I don’t want to go through each issue, but you get my drift. Those issues also have human dimensions that are much more compelling, but the economic’s are convincing in themselves.
When it comes to climate change the Greens policy is also the best economically.
Powerful rich people are highly motivated to misrepresent and ridicule Green policies, hmmmm now why might that be?
MIA and Stephen, well done for some reasoned debate.
I think you’re both near what I consider the crux of the Greens appeal, and something that is often left unsaid, but should not be. The environment and keeping it working are at the forefront of Greens ideals. The idea that economic issues and prosperity and the environment are at loggerheads is simplistic at best, self defeating at worst. We all live in the environment, there is nothing out side of it. It supports everything we do; food, water and air at the forefront of this. The idea that we can ignore it in favour of economic development is to our peril. The Greens do the best job of lining these 2 competing ideals up. Classic triple bottom line accounting.
I think it does Greens supporters a disservice to suggest theirs are bourgeois ideals; the flippant illconsidered of the idle rich. Theirs is the most equitable and self sacrifising of the remaining party positions. Perhaps being the 3rd force gives them the freedom to pursue this properly. It’s going to be terrific when they sideline the Libs in the Senate after a DD election next year.
Oh how I hope that those stubborn ignorant Liberals hold out until a double dissolution ends their (and more importantly our) suffering.
RASTA, I heartily agree. Isn’t it just too stupid and painful for words? I watched Christine Milne and Greg Hunt on Lateline tonight, and just felt so depressed listening to Greg Hunt. I support the Greens. In fact, for several years now I’ve given them my No.1 vote. I’m disappointed in the ALP, and have been for many years. I believe that their (Greens)policies and commitment to this problem could work; would cut Co2’s and also not impact negatively on jobs. I commented on another site, that there were 130,000 manufacturing jobs lost under Howard, but I don’t remember these ‘born again worriers about jobs’ speaking out then.
EVAN and others above, I heartily agree with all you’ve said. In fact you’ve lightened my mood. I just hope there’s enough of us who feel this way to bring about change. I want a double dissolution, as I think it’s the only way we’ll get the opportunity to have a competent and committed Senate - more Greens I hope - and get rid of Stephen Fielding! Bring it on I say! Kevin Rudd has until August to precipitate a DD! Fingers crossed!
“Powerful rich people are highly motivated to misrepresent and ridicule Green policies, hmmmm now why might that be?”
Could be that it’s a useful stick to make the greens change their policies to something more useful. Compared to doing that, being a mere green party member has low influence.
Tell us more Meski, not just quip and run stuff please.
I’m suggesting that if I had influence over a media outlet[1], and was disenchanted by my return from Labour/Coalition[2], that I’d use this kind of influence to get the greens to do what I wanted. The greens are political enough to respond to this kind of influence. For instance, a newspaper article attacking them for not having a policy for “fill in blank” or for being a mono-issue party would cause a response, or for having a policy that only loons could feel comfortable with … well poking ridicule in an extremely public way can generate change here too.
[1] Newscorp, Fairfax, etc
Yep the media sure has leverage, and it’s used commonly to shore up entrenched and often unearned privilege, with scant regard to ideals of equity and justice.
I’m interested to hear what you think the greens “mono” issue is? And also what policy are you referring to that “only loons could feel comfortable with”?
I often hear that said but I’ve never heard it teased out.
MIA: Yes, historically it was economics which drove the engine of the state, or the progression of mankind-except where the dominance of the church perverted the course of history-Galileo and the concomitant swing away from the politics and science of southern Europe and the consequent dominance of northern Europe.
However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century we see something unparalleled in history. We know not only the sort of people who live in the nearest city, we know what sort of people inhabit the ends of the earth. We know the world’s ability to support more people is at best fragile, at worst self-eliminating. The world is inhabited either by slum dwellers, or, as in most of Africa people living in arid deserts, corrugated iron shacks and petrol drums.
Whereas we in the West have so much money we can actually have the time to consider what sort of a life-style is best for us. Many people in the industrialized west have trouble coming to terms with the poverty which co-exists with our own wealth. These people tend to be overly concerned with abstractions like religion and helping those people less fortunate-as if that was possible. (The population time-bomb has become the sorcerer’s apprentice of the twenty-first century).
Political parties-with one exception- in Australia have not progressed with the speed of technology, nor have they fully understood the degree with which people are less concerned with economics and more concerned with quality of life. The glaring, and latest signs of moribund political thinking of these relics from a past era is the complete inability to deal with the future and with the issues of Carbon Emissions.
The Labor Party, The Liberal Party and the National Parties are revealed as being the bar-room wheelers and dealers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These parties reveal themselves as being totally unable to form philosophies, or tangible actions for the future. The bulk of our parliamentarians of today are the tragedy of democracy. (Think Stephen Fielding)
There is, however, one Party called The Greens. The people in this party stand for ideals and ideas of the future. They are not on the take. They use logic where the other parties hand out money to-wait for it: the churches, that quaint anachronism of the Dark Ages and its hatred of logic.
The Greens are criticized for being too left wing and too idealistic, and, of course, for being too naïve.
If is it naïve and idealistic to think of better ways to run our country, to think for the common good, to care for the environment, then I, for one, think The Greens are the only game in town.
Reading their policies, perhaps mono isn’t quite the right word, but most of their policies are one sentence powerpoint style headings, with no indication of the ‘how’. The entire policy document is 69 pages, a bit on the short side. Ask yourself “what would this party do if we gave it a majority at the next election?” You may not like it, but you know the answer for Labour/Coalition.
Their page on the economy makes for interesting reading. What do you think?
h t t p : / / greens.org.au/node/770
Loons:
h t t p : / / greens.org.au/node/787
(that’s an opinion)
MESKI: My comment came from my better self- most people think internal dialogue is there with God on one side and them somewhere else, not I. My other self is appalled about their views on the economy.
However, I think there was a lot of truth in what I said. Not definitive truth, I’m not that vain. It’s just that the two major parties have become so much of a mirror image of each other it’s difficult to know where one begins and the other one ends.
The Nationals are the brontosauruses of the evolutionary political scale, socialism for the farmers. Yet look at their ability to screw the Liberals. It’s sickening. Anyway, working on the assumption it’s only a matter of time before Labor/Liberal form one party, I have to ask myself who will be next on the agenda? Morally it has to be The Greens. Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull chose the time and the wrong party for his bit of dalliance in politics. He could have done all right by joining The Greens.
Sorry Meski, I don’t get what the problem is. Those pronciples are clear to me and I’d vote for them. If you go to the Coalitions economic policy, does it spell out why it’s good economics for me ( and you to the tune of $20,000,000,000) to subsudise the super-rich coal industry to stop polluting the world?
I think the complex documents you seek are mazes that hide meaning.
I know what is lunacy.
I’ll out myself as a Greens member up front, and I’ve been one for my entire adult life. I grew up in Tasmania and I think the Tassie Greens are the ones to watch. The Tassie Greens are the most politically astute, well-rounded and promising of the state and federal Greens factions and I really like what they say and do, for the most part. But remember, they’ve actually been in the position of holding the balance of power before, and up until recently held the most Greens Senate seats for any state (with two or three at a time). Plus, they’ve been around almost 40 years.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Meski on the policy point. The Greens as a national party have very little in terms of an actual plan for when they get into power. Their policies are for the most part very ideological, basic and uncosted. Unlike the Tassie Greens, the NSW and ACT Greens are a rabble, and this has been painfully obvious in the most recent ACT election where the Greens got enough seats to be offered Ministry positions in the ACT Legislative Assembly. Did they take the offer and grasp the chance to be true leaders for change? No. They skulked off and preferred to stay on the cross-benches, “moulding and shaping” policy from the sidelines.
I was so disgusted (as I now live in the ACT) that I seriously considered resigning my membership. Their extreme-left stance on the reform of criminal law in the ACT in relation to the offence of murder, and their general silence about the roo cull, are pushing me closer and closer to that point. The NSW Greens are equally as useless, preferring to have a cry about lefty issues while staying quiet on the stuff that matters, the stuff that will have people voting for them, like interest rates, the transport system, housing prices, corruption in planning etc.
What stops me resigning? The Tassie Greens. Christine Milne and Bob Brown are pragmatic, logical and restrained. They bother to engage those who don’t agree with them calmly and they stick to the facts. They’ve influenced the Tassie Greens MPs in that state to adopt a similar approach, with great success. Now, if only they could kick start the rest of the party nation-wide and we might have something to go on. Get some candidates who wash, have a law or medical degree, don’t constantly address the media with shrill outrage on the issues where no-one is in any doubt where the Greens stand, consult outside the Socialist Alliance, and who ‘normal’ people (who are desperate to vote for them) can identify with.
Start behaving like a real alternative, not just ‘alternative’, and people will flock to you.
This debate is an interesting one…in theory…..
similar to how the vocal minority in the US feel about the Libertarian party. The big what if….
What if we had a viable alternative, what if what if…what if…
Well lets explore that “possibility” of the greens becoming a “real alternatice”…or for the hell of it, them forming government.
With no ministers coming through that have ample experience in ministerial portfolios, with no policies that seem viable in the next 10-15 years on a range of issues such as the economy, health, education…dare i say it the environment….with no real alternatives that dont put the average tax rate at 50%….
1 term government never to be seen again. the problem is they have all these ideas with no idea how to fund them. they look like they have it all together, but when you realise someone has to pay for it, and those someones are the ones electing you…well you get the drift.
the greens are a massive what if…im prepared to give them a shot though if they can be economically viable in government.
MAI - before getting anywhere near government the Greens would have to go through a substantial period as the main opposition party. With the greater resources, numbers and scrutiny this would provide the opportunity to sort out a more detailed stance, one that would be detailed and acceptable enough for them to go for government.