We take a look at how the pundits reacted to Rudd’s ETS announcement:

In the press:

Renewable energy boom set to go up in smoke. Until yesterday the so-called “green revolution” was ready to roll, but the renewable energy industry doubts the Government’s white paper will allow it to get out of first gear. The fear is that since carbon permits are limited to $25 a tonne, and many are being given away, the emissions trading scheme will simply add a little lead to the saddlebags of heavy polluters without giving enough incentive for investors to switch to emissions-free technology. — Ben Cubby, Sydney Morning Herald

Good luck getting that through the Senate. Rudd has now ruined any credibility Labor retained with environmentalists, scientists and Greens voters, who must now surely be expected to turn viciously against the Rudd Government. Not only will he not be able to get this Bill through the Senate, but he may have said goodbye to plenty of Greens preferences in the next election. — Ben Eltham, New Matilda

Balancing the relative worth of human beings. The message at the heart of Rudd’s emissions trajectories is that Australians, who have built our riches by polluting, deserve to keep polluting more than anyone else on the planet for another 42 years. — Christine Milne, ABC News

A policy of slow strangulation. The government’s anti-carbon white paper is Kevin Rudd’s long, very long, national suicide note. It commits his government to a policy to destroy the economy, albeit by slow strangulation. But remorselessly, inevitably, nevertheless. To absolutely no purpose. — Terry McCrann, Herald Sun

Rudd’s great greenwash. What gives Australia a special licence to pursue population increase and population-driven economic growth policies, when we implicitly hope developing countries will not do the same? Are only wealthy countries like Australia allowed to grow their populations? Morally, the world must aim for sustainable populations and equal per capita emissions everywhere. — Tony Kevin, Eureka Street 

In the blogosphere:

An ETS will make Australians poorer. The bottom-line is that an ETS is complicated financial engineering that will increase prices and, even Professor Garnaut has explained, that by moving ahead of the rest of the world Australian business will be disadvantaged and Australian jobs will go offshore. — Jennifer Marohasy

Decidedly underwhelmed. Five percent by 2020 is not enough. Even the 15 percent proposed if a global climate change pact is reached is too little. And what’s worse is prime minister Kevin Rudd’s statements on the matter: ‘Broadly consistent with other developed countries’… That really should read, “no one else is doing enough to reduce emissions so we won’t either.” — TreeHugger

White flag. At this point, the only real hope is that the Obama Administration will take a strong line on the issue. If it does, then the US-EU combination will dragoon recalcitrants like Australia into a sustainable agreement whatever Rudd and Turnbull might say or do about it. — John Quiggin

Timid targets. Politicians are conveniently forgetting that the road to 2020 is merely a run-up to a far greater leap: that of achieving an 80% or even larger emissions cut from 1990 levels. The problem with a ‘slow start’ to tackling climate change is that industry and consumers are not properly prepared for this major shift in gear. With all probability, Rudd is securing the present stability of the Australian economy at the cost of radically imperiling its future after 2020. — Philosophy for Change

The politics of the Paper. Kevin Rudd has shown his true colours with the White Paper. We’re seeing a combination of the tawdry managerialism of the public policy wonk — split the difference and get the most ostensibly powerful actors onside — with Rudd’s own desire to rub the Liberals’ nose in their poor standing. As far as the politics goes, that’s about it. — Larvatus Prodeo

On the Crikey blogs:

Is this Kevin Rudd or John Howard? All those who voted for Kevin Rudd thinking he’d be better than John Howard on climate change were sold a lump of coal. — Tim Hollo, Rooted

Politicians making political decisions. The emissions reduction target of just 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 is appalling low. I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised when politicians make political decisions, but it is still very disappointing. — Andrew Bartlett

Rudd’s stunted vision. The 5% reduction target can be readily met from all sorts of carbon savings that will have sod all to do with the real problem, fossilised carbon. This travesty is possible because the populist campaign is scientifically illiterate, and much of the blame for this can truly be laid on the media, which is too lazy to inform itself about the realities. — Ben Sandilands, Plane Talking