As leader of Australia’s largest carbon offset company, I believe it’s timely to make some pointed and public observations on climate policy options ahead of the federal election.
I say “pointed” because, quite frankly, the bizarre twists and turns of Australian climate policy-making mean it’s impossible for any company to commit to a business model, or for the public to believe anything tangible is planned.
Sir Humphrey Appleby – the infamous sitcom public servant – has clearly won. Decisions are just far too “courageous” and nothing is being done. Our nation is now in a climate policy vacuum. Worse: the electorate is being offered policy options that are content free.
The current situation is best described as ‘back to the future’, looking very much like the pre-1997 climate debate. After more than 14 years we have managed to find reverse gear.
A quick history lesson in federal climate policy: Nationwide, Greenhouse Gas Policy was significantly advanced in 1997 (a full 10 years after the Kyoto Protocol was developed) with the formation of the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).
Among other things, the AGO produced a series of discussion papers that developed the basic, but strong framework, of an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme.
That was in 1999!
Since then, a variety of trading schemes have been developed across the globe with the largest in operation being the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, commencing in 2005. New Zealand commenced a new phase of its ETS at the start of this month.
Incredible as it seems now, the first legislated carbon trading scheme in the world was developed by the Carr government in NSW and went live January 1, 2003. This scheme has since been operating in great harmony and with none of the economic shocks that the fear-mongers anticipated.
So in 2010, with a federal election looming, what’s on offer? A Carbon Trading Scheme? Economy-wide initiatives? Substantial reform of polluting industries?
No. A meeting. A ‘citizens’ assembly,’ some time next year, of 150 ‘ordinary’ Australians. It’s a committee approach that would do Sir Humphrey proud.
Appallingly, this is the key policy initiative in response to deferring action on capping emissions and pricing carbon until at least 2013 – that is, if we have international consensus by then.
The proposal is as ridiculous as it is embarrassing to Australia’s global position on the environment.
But critically – worryingly – greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. This is the key point. The longer we procrastinate, as a nation, the worse the problem gets and the more time we lose before we can implement meaningful action.
Both the major political parties have committed Australia to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels, by 2020. Without a price on carbon, this modest target is absolutely unachievable. The mandatory and voluntary emission schemes under operation in Australia provide strong guidance on what works now.
Carbon forestry, energy efficiency, improved power generator standards, combined cycle gas technology, renewable energy, improved agricultural practices – all offer here-and-now solutions. We must implement them at scale and with urgency. And to do this, a carbon price is fundamental.
Prospective technologies such as carbon capture and storage, low emissions coal combustion and geosequestration are important, but in reality they’re options for the future. They need further development before they can be considered viable in meeting Australia’s emission reduction targets.
I appreciate that my commercial stake in the carbon issue will cause some to dismiss my opinion with a “well he would say that wouldn’t he?” But I do not make statements like this lightly. I am just staggered that, in this most crucial issue, our politicians are acting more like Sir Humphrey than… Sir Humphrey.
We need action.
Australian voters have already shown that they want action on climate change: they did not like the recent major shift on the CPRS, nor did they like seeing New Zealand take the lead. This is one issue where Australians really want policy that moves us forward.
Can we see that during the next four weeks… please?
Published on Climate Spectator.
Comments are closed.