climate change

15 Dec 2008

Good Luck Getting That Through The Senate

By Ben Eltham

Climate change protestors in Europe

The design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a dog, writes Ben Eltham. It ignores much of what the Europeans learned with their trading scheme — especially the obvious lesson of not giving away pollution permits for free

This is the first day of the end of the climate of Australia as we know it.

Sorry, I hate to be apocalyptic and all that, but it's hard to be optimistic about the future of our country when our Government — which claims to be taking climate change seriously — has just committed to letting it run its course.

Let's get straight down to brass tacks. A 5 per cent target means disastrous levels of global warming. It's as simple as that. Forget all the guff about per capita reductions. The atmosphere doesn't "care" how many of us there are, just how much carbon is spewed into it. What does matter is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm). The Rudd-Wong target announced today, if adopted by the rest of the world, means a CO2 concentration above 550ppm. As I wrote earlier this year, that means goodbye, Murray Darling. So long, Barrier Reef. Sayonara to snow. Hello to a new southern Australian dust-bowl.

Let's recall the science, because Kevin Rudd apparently can't be bothered. At 384ppm CO2 and rising fast, we're already in trouble. James Hansen and many other climatologists think the tipping point is probably 350ppm or even 325ppm. So signing up for a target this low is a little bit like steering the Titanic straight for the iceberg, but with the engines running at three-quarter speed.

Even if we accept the argument that this target is "achievable", "politically feasible", "balanced" and all the other weasel words that have been thrown around — it remains true that the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a dog. It ignores much of what the Europeans learned with their emissions trading scheme — especially the obvious lesson of not giving away pollution permits for free.

Professor Ross Garnaut made a similar point, and also advised that the Government should aim for an atmospheric CO2 target of 450ppm. This White Paper gives away a quarter of all permits for free to the big polluters, and the design of the scheme means they actually get more free permits over time! It's one of the worst cases of public policy in Australia, ever.

The accepted wisdom is that Kevin Rudd is playing smart politics by wedging the Greens and not getting big business offside. This is wrong too. 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. That's not particularly smart ballot box politics, whatever the principle at stake.

And the principle at stake is nothing less than the survival of the planet as we know it. As I wrote last week, nothing else Kevin Rudd does matters if he gets climate change wrong. Well, he just did get climate change policy wrong. Very wrong. This is a disastrous day for the future of Australia.

Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

Schmidty 15/12/08 5:39PM

here here Ben, lets hope the senate can do its job.

Dr David Horton 15/12/08 6:38PM

Good call Ben. In my view if Bob Brown is as smart as I know he is he would immediately announce that the Greens will no longer vote with the Labor Party in the Senate on ANY legislation. This would almost immediately force an election. If Turnbull is as smart as I think he might be he would immediately announce that the Liberal Party would implement a 25% cut by 2020, and furthermore use the political capital generated by that stance to win friends and influence others around the globe. With the flow of Green preferences on that stance he could stare down the denialists in his own party and win the election in a canter, leaving Mr Rudd as a failed, and very brief, Labor leader. Let’s see who blinks.

Rockjaw 16/12/08 12:32AM

Scary stuff Ben, and a great article. Now, perhaps somebody could investigate what it is exactly that motivated Rudd to make this dumb call.

Jonah Bones 16/12/08 10:56AM

will be interesting to see how long the labour party tolerates Rudd ?

luke_ 16/12/08 2:10PM

If the Libs were smart they would reject the ETS saying the targets were too low. They should just set a new level slightly above the 5% (say 7%) and make Labor change their plan. It would really make ALP look like enviro-luddites and give the Greens room to preference the Libs at the next election.

It would also help rehabilitate the Liberal brand in the eyes of the moderate voters, who are generally pro-environment. There’s nothing in the Liberal platform that says they have to be anti-environment (hey, you can still hate foreigners and care for trees). Besides, in the 50s and 60s the Liberals were probably more environmentally friendly that the ALP at the time, so it wouldn’t even require an ideological contortion for them.

luke_ 16/12/08 2:15PM

The ETS is a dumb idea anyway, I’ve said all along it just duplicates the existing taxation system and instead we should just tax carbon.

arel 16/12/08 2:40PM

The ETS and associated "climate change" initiatives are political proposals. The test of any political proposal should be "is it good policy?" Chiefly, is it workable and will people buy it? Specifically, in Rudd’s case, will Labor voters buy it? (They might, if it doesn’t cost them their job and their children future employment.) That’s not to say we should forget about acting - globally - to minimise atmospheric pollution. But Eltham and other apostles of doom have tied their nightmares to computer models that predicate (NOT predict) future possible climate change effects on inputs provided by guestimate. "Saving" the Murray-Darling system, a sensible objective, may be possible through rational water use (tell John Brumby that), but the global climate system is the final arbiter of climatic conditions. Nothing Bob Brown can ever say will alter that, or the fact that human agency is a mimimal player in localised climatology. Let’s get real. Let’s pursue emissions reductions because that’s a good thing to do (without beggaring ourselves in the process). Let’s NOT fool ourselves that we can play god, as flawed science and gabbling greenies want us to do.

pen sieve 16/12/08 3:30PM

Hopefully this will produce a 3-way power split at the fedral level a lot sooner than voters might otherwise have gone for. The Greens are really growing strongly in both size and effectiveness, but until they have a presence at federal level that consistently forces Labor and Liberal into the hypocritical position of siding wih one another, the potential for voters’ voices to be heard on this matter is limited - severely.

The party that should be most soundly punished at the next election over this whole debacle is the Nationals. Even with agriculture so far effectively excluded from carbon sanctions, the Nationals have done less than nothing for their supposed core electorate. Farming is already one of the first Australian industries to face climate-related doom, much like country life more broadly.

The fact that the Nationals are aggravating rather than challenging this situation is insane. Barnaby Joyce has a remotely decent head on his shoulders. It’s a shame that like the majority of his political allies, he has it wedged firmly up his own arse, inhaling farts in pursuit of political inspiration..

rowena 16/12/08 3:31PM

So what will happen now is either the Greens will preference the Coalition, and/or Malcolm will become a greenie. Don’t think so.

pen sieve 16/12/08 3:40PM

or maybe the COALition will start a lame-ass game of politi-jitsu by coming out in favour of a 6% target. *twee*