Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Carbon price may take the heat off “, 7/06/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/carbon-price-may-take-the-heat-off/story-e6frg9p6-1226070476597
While it is true that "the Labor-Greens carbon tax model does not allow business to buy international permits for up to the next five years", it is because no hard thinking has been done on how to linking a carbon tax with an international ETS, partly as a result of no international ETS available yet.
It is possible to have a carbon tax model in Australia and use the tax revenue to buy international carbon emission reductions. In this scenario, the nation as a whole is a buyer of emission permits, as opposed to individual companies to do it to allow them to emit above their domestic quotas that would be the case under a domestic ETS.
As long as the combined reduction in emissions under a domestic carbon tax and the purchased emissions reduction meets whatever targets set as the country's requirement, the country would have fulfilled its reduction obligation.
So, carbon tax models and international ETS can coexist with no difficulty.
It is interesting that for so long few people have focused on this most efficient system to achieve emissions reduction. A carbon tax is arguably more efficient means than ETS in administration.
It is time for domestic ETS proponents to discontinue their myth on ETS and recognise the more efficient carbon tax approach.
PS: of course, no matter it is the traditional ETS and my proposed system of carbon tax and ETS, they will all involve international transfer of payments for emissions entitlements. It would mean high emissions countries will need to pay for low emissions countries for above their average emissions. This can be politically difficult for any individual country at present without a well functioning international market.
Showing posts with label ETS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ETS. Show all posts
2011-06-07
2011-05-17
Greg Combet is disappointing too
Comments on Joe Kelly “The Greens say the carbon tax will need to be far above $40 a tonne, while the Government says it will be 'well south'”, 17/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057359647
Greg Combet is becoming less and less competent in his role as the climate change minister which has the key role in setting the policy for the proposed carbon tax, although his job is inherently and undoubtedly very difficult.
All the time he has been saying that the carbon price has not been set, yet now he is also saying that the tax will be well south of $40 per ton.
Does he know or not know the likely tax?
If what he is now saying is correct, then he has been misled the public all the time.
If he has been right all the time in terms of the tax, then he is kidding himself now.
Such a display of politics by a minister is unhelpful to the debate on climate change and the carbon tax and very disappointing.
The public had high hopes for Combet to advance or at least to resolve the issue of ETS or a carbon tax. He appeared to be more flexible than his predecessor, Senator Wong, in terms of dealing with other parties in the failed negotiations for the Rudd/Wong ETS.
But it seems those have been misplaced.
Greg Combet is becoming less and less competent in his role as the climate change minister which has the key role in setting the policy for the proposed carbon tax, although his job is inherently and undoubtedly very difficult.
All the time he has been saying that the carbon price has not been set, yet now he is also saying that the tax will be well south of $40 per ton.
Does he know or not know the likely tax?
If what he is now saying is correct, then he has been misled the public all the time.
If he has been right all the time in terms of the tax, then he is kidding himself now.
Such a display of politics by a minister is unhelpful to the debate on climate change and the carbon tax and very disappointing.
The public had high hopes for Combet to advance or at least to resolve the issue of ETS or a carbon tax. He appeared to be more flexible than his predecessor, Senator Wong, in terms of dealing with other parties in the failed negotiations for the Rudd/Wong ETS.
But it seems those have been misplaced.
2010-05-13
Need good options for reducing emissions in climate change debate
Comments on Andrew Macintosh “Australia cans its carbon emission trading scheme, for now”, 13/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/13/australia-cans-its-carbon-emission-trading-scheme-for-now/
I notice that you are from the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy.
What is the centre's view on what the best policy for Australia to tackle climate change?
It would be very helpful to outline effective, efficient, equitable and practical policy options.
You state that "Australia is a middle power that is responsible for around 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. What it does domestically is unlikely to dramatically alter the course of the international climate negotiations or global warming more generally."
While that statement is not wrong, it understates the fact that Australia is one of the highest emitters in the world on per capita basis possibly just behind the US. What is Australia’s share of world population?
If high emission countries, especially they are also rich ones, do not take the lead to reduce their emissions, what moral authority do they have to include low emission developing countries that are poor?
I notice that you are from the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy.
What is the centre's view on what the best policy for Australia to tackle climate change?
It would be very helpful to outline effective, efficient, equitable and practical policy options.
You state that "Australia is a middle power that is responsible for around 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. What it does domestically is unlikely to dramatically alter the course of the international climate negotiations or global warming more generally."
While that statement is not wrong, it understates the fact that Australia is one of the highest emitters in the world on per capita basis possibly just behind the US. What is Australia’s share of world population?
If high emission countries, especially they are also rich ones, do not take the lead to reduce their emissions, what moral authority do they have to include low emission developing countries that are poor?
2010-02-10
Rudd's ETS is neither the most effective nor the least costly
Comments on Paul Kelly “Labor at crossroads in test of Rudd's character”, 10/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-at-crossroads-in-test-of-rudds-character/story-e6frg6zo-1225828481744
Paul, while most of your arguments seemingly make sense to a confused and ill-informed Australian public, a lot of them are wrong or incorrect, I am afraid to say.
For example, you say that: "He insists the ETS is "the most effective and least costly" way of tackling emissions. Rudd's argument is correct." Why is "the ETS", that is, the Rudd/Wong's ETS, the most effective and least costly way of doing that? You just took its face value/argument went with what Rudd says with no analysis at all. That may be because you either did not do an analysis or could not do it and has no way to know whether it is or not, does it.
For a moment why is "the ETS" more effective and least costly than a carbon tax that would have a wider coverage and send the most accurate price/cost signals?
Or, why can "the ETS" that would involve so much bureaucracy and traders with no real or added benefit be the least costly?
While I respect you as an acute political commentator and believe you are honest in your comments, I would urge you to do some necessary work or have some advices from those who understand the issues to make your argument really hold water. Otherwise, it is no more or no less than a piece of populist opinion.
Paul, while most of your arguments seemingly make sense to a confused and ill-informed Australian public, a lot of them are wrong or incorrect, I am afraid to say.
For example, you say that: "He insists the ETS is "the most effective and least costly" way of tackling emissions. Rudd's argument is correct." Why is "the ETS", that is, the Rudd/Wong's ETS, the most effective and least costly way of doing that? You just took its face value/argument went with what Rudd says with no analysis at all. That may be because you either did not do an analysis or could not do it and has no way to know whether it is or not, does it.
For a moment why is "the ETS" more effective and least costly than a carbon tax that would have a wider coverage and send the most accurate price/cost signals?
Or, why can "the ETS" that would involve so much bureaucracy and traders with no real or added benefit be the least costly?
While I respect you as an acute political commentator and believe you are honest in your comments, I would urge you to do some necessary work or have some advices from those who understand the issues to make your argument really hold water. Otherwise, it is no more or no less than a piece of populist opinion.
2010-02-09
Turnbull courageous but not intillectual enough
Comments on Malcolm Turnbull “Why I support the ETS proposal”, 9/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/why-i-support-the-ets-proposal/story-e6frg6zo-1225828034340
The real issue, I guess, is not whether there should be a market approach using price signals for managing climate change. It is about whether the current ETS, as the government proposed, is a good one for a market approach.
Professor Ross Garnaut, federal government’s former climate change advisor, once said the ETS was too compromised and it would be better to start again, although interestingly and mysteriously but hard to understand, he recently appeared to be supporting the ETS again.
The problems with the current ETS are: one, it will provide too much free handouts to heavy polluters; two, the government will use that as a tax tool and redistribute income; three, it will be costly to have so much bureaucratic agencies and middle traders to be involved.
A true market based approach to managing climate change is to use price signal, but not necessarily through ETS, but by directly imposing penalties on polluters, whether they are producers or consumers, whoever pollute, they should and must pay for it.
While Turnbull has stick to his gun with the ETS, he should have a rethink about the best approaches, as opposed to having to pass the current ETS. The urgency to pass the ETS has faded into insignificance after the Copenhagen summit on climate change without a satisfactory result.
That is where a true statesman should distinguish himself from second class politicians.
The real issue, I guess, is not whether there should be a market approach using price signals for managing climate change. It is about whether the current ETS, as the government proposed, is a good one for a market approach.
Professor Ross Garnaut, federal government’s former climate change advisor, once said the ETS was too compromised and it would be better to start again, although interestingly and mysteriously but hard to understand, he recently appeared to be supporting the ETS again.
The problems with the current ETS are: one, it will provide too much free handouts to heavy polluters; two, the government will use that as a tax tool and redistribute income; three, it will be costly to have so much bureaucratic agencies and middle traders to be involved.
A true market based approach to managing climate change is to use price signal, but not necessarily through ETS, but by directly imposing penalties on polluters, whether they are producers or consumers, whoever pollute, they should and must pay for it.
While Turnbull has stick to his gun with the ETS, he should have a rethink about the best approaches, as opposed to having to pass the current ETS. The urgency to pass the ETS has faded into insignificance after the Copenhagen summit on climate change without a satisfactory result.
That is where a true statesman should distinguish himself from second class politicians.
2010-02-06
Rudd government ETS performance - hypercritical or conspiracy?
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “ETS costs remain a mystery to Labor”, 6/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ets-costs-remain-a-mystery-to-labor/story-e6frg6zo-1225827292925
It is appalling that the government, even using the full support of public services bureaucratic agencies, can't answer so many simple questions related to the ETS for more than tow years.
What is even worse is that they can use the department of finance at its disposal to cost the Abbott's emissions policy in one day and brand the opposition had under-costed their climate change policy.
One can sense that such poor political performance of stunt is not only hypercritic, but also some potential abuse of power and potential political conspiracy.
The Rudd government needs to raise its game and treat the public and taxpayers with respect both for their money both for their intelligence.
It is appalling that the government, even using the full support of public services bureaucratic agencies, can't answer so many simple questions related to the ETS for more than tow years.
What is even worse is that they can use the department of finance at its disposal to cost the Abbott's emissions policy in one day and brand the opposition had under-costed their climate change policy.
One can sense that such poor political performance of stunt is not only hypercritic, but also some potential abuse of power and potential political conspiracy.
The Rudd government needs to raise its game and treat the public and taxpayers with respect both for their money both for their intelligence.
2009-12-08
Rudd will use the ETS to tax people and redistribute income
Comments on Malcolm Farr “Kevin Rudd pledges to repay ETS rise”, 8/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/kevin-rudd-pledges-to-repay-ets-rise/story-fn3dxix6-1225808012641
Rudd government is using the ETS as a tax and redistribution scheme.
Is it for tackling the climate change? Or is it to increase taxes and redistribute income in a disguised manner by the Rudd government?
It just unnecessarily complicates the climate change policy.
It appears part of the Rudd government's stealing approach, using the name of the climate cause and increase the size of his government and regulation of the country and the economy and people.
Where will Rudd government stop in its big government approach?
From the proposed more than 100 per cent compensation to low income families for the impact of its ETS, it is not difficult to see why Abbott is saying Rudd ETS is a big tax. There is no doubt it will be if Rudd gets his way!
Where did it get its mandate to do that? More than 100 per cent compensation?
Rudd government is using the ETS as a tax and redistribution scheme.
Is it for tackling the climate change? Or is it to increase taxes and redistribute income in a disguised manner by the Rudd government?
It just unnecessarily complicates the climate change policy.
It appears part of the Rudd government's stealing approach, using the name of the climate cause and increase the size of his government and regulation of the country and the economy and people.
Where will Rudd government stop in its big government approach?
From the proposed more than 100 per cent compensation to low income families for the impact of its ETS, it is not difficult to see why Abbott is saying Rudd ETS is a big tax. There is no doubt it will be if Rudd gets his way!
Where did it get its mandate to do that? More than 100 per cent compensation?
2009-10-19
What about the economics of Rudd and Wong's ETS?
Comments on Glenn Milne “Wong's ETS unites foes on Left, Right”, 19/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26226982-33435,00.html
Milne’s article quotes the executive director Richard Denniss of the Australian Institute saying that Treasury modelling buttressing the CPRS shows it will in fact have little or no impact on one of the key offenders -- the coal-fired electricity generation industry -- in our lifetime.
More specifically, Denniss states: "What she (Wong) doesn't tell us is that her CPRS, complex and impenetrable as it is, does not actually result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from our coal-fired power stations."
While I am not questioning Denniss' findings from Treasury modelling, I am curious to know where the reduction in emissions will come from, say 5-25% by 2020?
If the total emissions are to be reduced and the coal power stations will contribute to the reduction, then a big reduction must come from somewhere else.
Why will that be cheaper to reduce emissions from other areas than the coal fired power stations?
Or is the whole ETS design very bad in economic terms, because it avoids to reduce emissions in areas where the costs of doing so are low?
Milne’s article quotes the executive director Richard Denniss of the Australian Institute saying that Treasury modelling buttressing the CPRS shows it will in fact have little or no impact on one of the key offenders -- the coal-fired electricity generation industry -- in our lifetime.
More specifically, Denniss states: "What she (Wong) doesn't tell us is that her CPRS, complex and impenetrable as it is, does not actually result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from our coal-fired power stations."
While I am not questioning Denniss' findings from Treasury modelling, I am curious to know where the reduction in emissions will come from, say 5-25% by 2020?
If the total emissions are to be reduced and the coal power stations will contribute to the reduction, then a big reduction must come from somewhere else.
Why will that be cheaper to reduce emissions from other areas than the coal fired power stations?
Or is the whole ETS design very bad in economic terms, because it avoids to reduce emissions in areas where the costs of doing so are low?
2009-09-23
An excellent chance for the ETS in Australia
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Turnbull offered a helping hand”, 23/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26113065-17301,00.html
The change of tactics by the Minister for Climate Change and the Prime Minister is indeed in the national interest and the Coalition should seize it whole heartedly.
At the meeting in New York, both Japan and China have pledged to do more for the climate. There is a new momentum from both developed and developing countries. Australia should also move in tandem with the new momentum.
The Rudd government should be congratulated on its new initiative.
It is now the Coalition's turn to show leadership and put politics aside for the national interest and its own interest, because if it doesn't, it will lose the public completely.
The change of tactics by the Minister for Climate Change and the Prime Minister is indeed in the national interest and the Coalition should seize it whole heartedly.
At the meeting in New York, both Japan and China have pledged to do more for the climate. There is a new momentum from both developed and developing countries. Australia should also move in tandem with the new momentum.
The Rudd government should be congratulated on its new initiative.
It is now the Coalition's turn to show leadership and put politics aside for the national interest and its own interest, because if it doesn't, it will lose the public completely.
2009-09-17
“Funds” are a special group
Comments on Giles Parkinson “$16 trillion says they're right”, 17/09/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/16-trillion-says-theyre-right-pd20090917-VXRQK?OpenDocument&src=sph
The "funds" are a special interest group. They are not necessarily really caring for the climate, but for their own interests of making money out of climate change.
One should treat their calls with care.
The "funds" are a special interest group. They are not necessarily really caring for the climate, but for their own interests of making money out of climate change.
One should treat their calls with care.
2009-08-18
A true reason for delaying the ETS legislation
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Time to hit the brakes on ETS”, 18/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25944030-17301,00.html
It should not matter whether Australia passes the ETS bill or not before Copenhagen, give both the flexibility of the varying voluntary targets of that bill and the goodwill shown by other countries including the US and China so far. So Rudd and Wong do not have a strong rationale for Australia having to pass that bill before then. It has a strong enough mandate to go to Copenhagen and represent Australia in the best possible terms to achieve a good international agreement.
There is a strong reason for delaying that legislation, that is, to make the best possible policy among all options available with the least costs for any given targets, like analyzing the Frontier Economics modeling. So it makes sense for the government to hit the brakes on ETS now.
Rudd and Wong should be courageous enough to realize this and not to return the bill to the parliament before Copenhagen.
It should not matter whether Australia passes the ETS bill or not before Copenhagen, give both the flexibility of the varying voluntary targets of that bill and the goodwill shown by other countries including the US and China so far. So Rudd and Wong do not have a strong rationale for Australia having to pass that bill before then. It has a strong enough mandate to go to Copenhagen and represent Australia in the best possible terms to achieve a good international agreement.
There is a strong reason for delaying that legislation, that is, to make the best possible policy among all options available with the least costs for any given targets, like analyzing the Frontier Economics modeling. So it makes sense for the government to hit the brakes on ETS now.
Rudd and Wong should be courageous enough to realize this and not to return the bill to the parliament before Copenhagen.
2009-08-17
Frontier Economics' Price must be heard
Comments on Danny Price “Tyranny of old ideas dogs Emissions Trading Scheme”, 17/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25937950-5013479,00.html
I don't pretend in any way that I understood Frontier Economics' modeling, but I am so encouraged by Danny Price's article arguing for genuine debate, because there is so much at stake with global warming and emissions reductions, as Price pointed out.
Price sounds genuine enough and open and transparent. Every of the country's leading political group should take a step back, be cool and have a serious rethink about how the country should go about ETS, or possibly another new one. Party politics must give way to national interest.
The government has shown common sense and demonstrated some flexibility in its approach to the renewable and ETS by agreeing to separate the two bills, so the less contentious renewable bill can pass the senate without too much problems. It should be commended by this courageous action.
It is now again a test of leadership. Let's hope God bless Australia and our political leaderships stand the test.
I don't pretend in any way that I understood Frontier Economics' modeling, but I am so encouraged by Danny Price's article arguing for genuine debate, because there is so much at stake with global warming and emissions reductions, as Price pointed out.
Price sounds genuine enough and open and transparent. Every of the country's leading political group should take a step back, be cool and have a serious rethink about how the country should go about ETS, or possibly another new one. Party politics must give way to national interest.
The government has shown common sense and demonstrated some flexibility in its approach to the renewable and ETS by agreeing to separate the two bills, so the less contentious renewable bill can pass the senate without too much problems. It should be commended by this courageous action.
It is now again a test of leadership. Let's hope God bless Australia and our political leaderships stand the test.
2009-08-13
Senator Wong needs to be more sensible after the senate No vote
Comments on report “Senate votes down ETS”, The Canberra Times, by PHILLIP COOREY, 13/08/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/senate-votes-down-ets/1595200.aspx
Rudd and Wong need to consider very carefully why no non-government senators, including the greens, and the independents, voted with them. Political cynicism and bully are not in the nation’s interest.
They need to be serious about emission reduction and developing renewable energies. At the elast, they need to separate the ETS bill from the renewable energies bill to make the way for the renewable bill to be passed in the senate. They should not be politically opportunistic and use the ETS bill as a double dissolution trigger for an early election. That would be purely partisan politics and not in the nation's interest.
Rudd and his government should have the gut and political courage to have them judged by voters in a full term. They should not be acting cowardly to rob the public an opportunity to see the full effects of its current budget and how it makes the next one in May 2010.
Rudd and Wong need to consider very carefully why no non-government senators, including the greens, and the independents, voted with them. Political cynicism and bully are not in the nation’s interest.
They need to be serious about emission reduction and developing renewable energies. At the elast, they need to separate the ETS bill from the renewable energies bill to make the way for the renewable bill to be passed in the senate. They should not be politically opportunistic and use the ETS bill as a double dissolution trigger for an early election. That would be purely partisan politics and not in the nation's interest.
Rudd and his government should have the gut and political courage to have them judged by voters in a full term. They should not be acting cowardly to rob the public an opportunity to see the full effects of its current budget and how it makes the next one in May 2010.
Leave politics aside and examine the Frontier Economics modelling
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Business wary of $1.3bn black hole”, 13/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25921906-5018012,00.html
The Frontier Economics modelling and result deserve a careful analysis and investigation by other credible modelling agencies, including the Treasury, to see if it was done correctly.
It presents very good result, lower costs and higher reduction. But one needs to make sure it is not "too good to be true". I hope it was done correctly, but I am cautious.
Political persuasions of all sides need to be seriously examining that modelling. Politics should give way to national interest on this important economic issue that will have long term and very significant bearing on Australians’ well being.
The Frontier Economics modelling and result deserve a careful analysis and investigation by other credible modelling agencies, including the Treasury, to see if it was done correctly.
It presents very good result, lower costs and higher reduction. But one needs to make sure it is not "too good to be true". I hope it was done correctly, but I am cautious.
Political persuasions of all sides need to be seriously examining that modelling. Politics should give way to national interest on this important economic issue that will have long term and very significant bearing on Australians’ well being.
2009-08-12
Frontier Economics' too good to be true, or has the government got its ETS wrong?
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Give Malcolm his due for a clean idea”, 12/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/give_malcolm_his_due_for_a_clean_idea/
The Frontier Economics result is very interesting indeed. If that result is correct, clearly it is a better approach and must be considered by the government, if the government is serious in achieving good outcomes in an ETS.
What is better than a greater reduction in emissions and a lower cost in doing it? The government should delay the current legislation and organise a parliamentary investigation of the Frontier Economics modeling by all political parties, and any interested public.
The Climate Minister and the government are wrong in dismissing that result so lightly. It defies any reasonable logic and common sense. It shows they are not really interested in achieving good outcomes but only in political opportunism.
The Frontier Economics result is very interesting indeed. If that result is correct, clearly it is a better approach and must be considered by the government, if the government is serious in achieving good outcomes in an ETS.
What is better than a greater reduction in emissions and a lower cost in doing it? The government should delay the current legislation and organise a parliamentary investigation of the Frontier Economics modeling by all political parties, and any interested public.
The Climate Minister and the government are wrong in dismissing that result so lightly. It defies any reasonable logic and common sense. It shows they are not really interested in achieving good outcomes but only in political opportunism.
2009-05-06
Choose the lesser one between two devils: inaction for reducing emissions is wrong!
This is comments on Alan Moran’s “Emissions retreat just so Napoleon”, an article in The Australian, 6/05/2009 on http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25434632-7583,00.html.
While it is true that Rudd, Wong and the government have all shown poor leadership on the ETS issue in terms of making it right for Australia, practical and workable, it is another matter to seize on the government's change to its original proposal to discredit their efforts on climate change altogether and to confuse the public on the need to act on climate change. The public must be clear on this point and must not be confused by the author of the article. Further, the public must be very vigilant not to allow our efforts to be defeated by climate change deniers.
Yes, there will be inevitable costs to reduce carbon emissions. There is no question at all on that. If anyone thinks that the economy will be better off as a result of reducing emissions, he/she needs to think again and be realistic and not naïve. These economic costs will be real. But this is why real courage and leadership are needed on this issue. If there would be no economic costs, there would be no need for those scare-mongering people to engage in their scare tricks – they will be out of business in this particular area.
Bearing in mind the costs of climate change actions, one has to ask the question: why we do them? The reason is simple. If we don’t do it, the damages as a result of unmoderated climate changes, that is for it to continue its course due to ever increased concentration of global warming gases emitted by human beings, will post much greater cost to human beings all over the world. In a sense, we human beings are in a place between hard and rocks, that is to say, two devils.
No matter we act on climate changes or not, there will always be costs of our choices. The question then is: which is the lessor devil among the two – action to reduce emissions with economic costs, or inaction by staying put with greater damages as the global temperature rises to more dangerous levels, resulting in more extreme weathers – more frequent and more severe cyclones, floods and draughts, much higher sea levels that could put much more coastal areas, including some of our great cities on the earth, under water.
Now let’s focus on the main argument of the author based purely and squarely on narrow-minded self interest – a seemingly attractive argument aiming at both scaring and persuading/cheating the public that Australians’ welfare will be destroyed if we act on reducing carbon emissions. The following paragraphs from that article show that argument:
[Australia has an energy-intensive industry structure, a coal-based electricity generation industry and coal and gas as our export mainstays.
Capitalising on our natural advantages in fossil fuel energy has required forging supportive institutional structures, a process that has taken many decades. Our carefully developed political and administrative framework has allowed the creation of an energy supply industry that is the backbone of our present living standards. To become one of the world's lowest cost energy suppliers has entailed marrying our resource endowment with entrepreneurial and workforce skills. All this would have been jettisoned by a tax squarely aimed at destroying that productive efficiency fostered by low-cost energy.
Strongly performing industries will be at a premium in a world economy that's likely to be facing sluggish conditions for many more years. Even the most complacent optimists can no longer take as given the income derived from our present industry structure. Compounding the effects of the global economic meltdown's external assault on living standards with some purpose-made domestic measures is now revealed as a sledgehammer blow to the welfare of all Australians.]
Yes it is true and a matter of fact that Australia produces and exports a lot more energy-intensive products than most other countries. It is also true and a matter of fact that the share of coal-generated, especially using low-quality coal, power is higher in Australia than some other industrialised countries. These mean that there will be a real danger that Australia could incur higher costs than other industrialised countries, if we are not careful in our actions. No one should overlook this important point. But this does not mean we should not act and sit there to enjoy free lunch by the actions of other countries.
Global warming is a global issue and requires a global solution. While industrialised countries need to act earlier (and most did already) than their developing counterparts, eventually all nations – both industrialised and developing countries alike, especially big or globally significant emissions countries need to take part in global actions to achieve this global task. Also, there are reasons for differential targets under global actions, such as those shown in the Kyoto Protocol where Australia was given a much higher emissions target, in another word, a lower emissions reduction target.
That was a fairly equitable agreement from the Australian point of view. It was also a sensible approach. It should have been a step in the global efforts to deal with global warming. The trouble was the previous coalition government under Howard was so stupid that it did not rectify that agreement –only one of the two industrialised or OECD countries that did not do so, just in order to side with the US with the inexcusable excuse that big developing countries were not included with targets in that agreement. The other was the US under the right-wing Bush presidency in an attempt to protect its energy industry. The appalling policies and strategies by the Bush and Howard administrations undermined the global efforts and set the global climate change agenda back by a decade. What a waste! If there was a international humanitarian court, one might expect that both governments would have to be prosecuted for their enormous damages to the human beings.
Further Australia’s economic structure means we will need to rely more on technologies that will make the use of coal clean with no or little emissions. Australian government has appeared to take actions in this direction by investing in such developing technologies, although one may argue that other means than the government backed one should be investigated, and also international coordinated efforts should be made, rather than going it individually with potentially unnecessarily higher costs.
The world needs to move to the next step from the Kyoto. More urgent actions are badly needed. The economic crisis will slow the amount of emissions than otherwise the case. This would give us a bit more time and may allow us to make more considered decisions and better strategies to act. But the problem of emissions remains and does not diminish. Inaction is still not an option. On this point, the author is wrong in arguing for no action.
The mistakes by Wong, Rudd and the government are not excuses for us to abandon our efforts on climate change. On the contrary, they require us to do more and better as a nation. It also means the government should be held more accountable for its mistakes in order to avoid unnecessary and silly mistakes.
While it is true that Rudd, Wong and the government have all shown poor leadership on the ETS issue in terms of making it right for Australia, practical and workable, it is another matter to seize on the government's change to its original proposal to discredit their efforts on climate change altogether and to confuse the public on the need to act on climate change. The public must be clear on this point and must not be confused by the author of the article. Further, the public must be very vigilant not to allow our efforts to be defeated by climate change deniers.
Yes, there will be inevitable costs to reduce carbon emissions. There is no question at all on that. If anyone thinks that the economy will be better off as a result of reducing emissions, he/she needs to think again and be realistic and not naïve. These economic costs will be real. But this is why real courage and leadership are needed on this issue. If there would be no economic costs, there would be no need for those scare-mongering people to engage in their scare tricks – they will be out of business in this particular area.
Bearing in mind the costs of climate change actions, one has to ask the question: why we do them? The reason is simple. If we don’t do it, the damages as a result of unmoderated climate changes, that is for it to continue its course due to ever increased concentration of global warming gases emitted by human beings, will post much greater cost to human beings all over the world. In a sense, we human beings are in a place between hard and rocks, that is to say, two devils.
No matter we act on climate changes or not, there will always be costs of our choices. The question then is: which is the lessor devil among the two – action to reduce emissions with economic costs, or inaction by staying put with greater damages as the global temperature rises to more dangerous levels, resulting in more extreme weathers – more frequent and more severe cyclones, floods and draughts, much higher sea levels that could put much more coastal areas, including some of our great cities on the earth, under water.
Now let’s focus on the main argument of the author based purely and squarely on narrow-minded self interest – a seemingly attractive argument aiming at both scaring and persuading/cheating the public that Australians’ welfare will be destroyed if we act on reducing carbon emissions. The following paragraphs from that article show that argument:
[Australia has an energy-intensive industry structure, a coal-based electricity generation industry and coal and gas as our export mainstays.
Capitalising on our natural advantages in fossil fuel energy has required forging supportive institutional structures, a process that has taken many decades. Our carefully developed political and administrative framework has allowed the creation of an energy supply industry that is the backbone of our present living standards. To become one of the world's lowest cost energy suppliers has entailed marrying our resource endowment with entrepreneurial and workforce skills. All this would have been jettisoned by a tax squarely aimed at destroying that productive efficiency fostered by low-cost energy.
Strongly performing industries will be at a premium in a world economy that's likely to be facing sluggish conditions for many more years. Even the most complacent optimists can no longer take as given the income derived from our present industry structure. Compounding the effects of the global economic meltdown's external assault on living standards with some purpose-made domestic measures is now revealed as a sledgehammer blow to the welfare of all Australians.]
Yes it is true and a matter of fact that Australia produces and exports a lot more energy-intensive products than most other countries. It is also true and a matter of fact that the share of coal-generated, especially using low-quality coal, power is higher in Australia than some other industrialised countries. These mean that there will be a real danger that Australia could incur higher costs than other industrialised countries, if we are not careful in our actions. No one should overlook this important point. But this does not mean we should not act and sit there to enjoy free lunch by the actions of other countries.
Global warming is a global issue and requires a global solution. While industrialised countries need to act earlier (and most did already) than their developing counterparts, eventually all nations – both industrialised and developing countries alike, especially big or globally significant emissions countries need to take part in global actions to achieve this global task. Also, there are reasons for differential targets under global actions, such as those shown in the Kyoto Protocol where Australia was given a much higher emissions target, in another word, a lower emissions reduction target.
That was a fairly equitable agreement from the Australian point of view. It was also a sensible approach. It should have been a step in the global efforts to deal with global warming. The trouble was the previous coalition government under Howard was so stupid that it did not rectify that agreement –only one of the two industrialised or OECD countries that did not do so, just in order to side with the US with the inexcusable excuse that big developing countries were not included with targets in that agreement. The other was the US under the right-wing Bush presidency in an attempt to protect its energy industry. The appalling policies and strategies by the Bush and Howard administrations undermined the global efforts and set the global climate change agenda back by a decade. What a waste! If there was a international humanitarian court, one might expect that both governments would have to be prosecuted for their enormous damages to the human beings.
Further Australia’s economic structure means we will need to rely more on technologies that will make the use of coal clean with no or little emissions. Australian government has appeared to take actions in this direction by investing in such developing technologies, although one may argue that other means than the government backed one should be investigated, and also international coordinated efforts should be made, rather than going it individually with potentially unnecessarily higher costs.
The world needs to move to the next step from the Kyoto. More urgent actions are badly needed. The economic crisis will slow the amount of emissions than otherwise the case. This would give us a bit more time and may allow us to make more considered decisions and better strategies to act. But the problem of emissions remains and does not diminish. Inaction is still not an option. On this point, the author is wrong in arguing for no action.
The mistakes by Wong, Rudd and the government are not excuses for us to abandon our efforts on climate change. On the contrary, they require us to do more and better as a nation. It also means the government should be held more accountable for its mistakes in order to avoid unnecessary and silly mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
