Climate Change by Legislative Attrition
Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Wednesday 25th November 2009, 10:46pm
by ScottLudlam in
And so we go into the first long night of the CPRS bill. The deal has been done, with enough Liberal Senators giving the Government the numbers to extend sitting hours late into tonight and all the way into next week if necessary.
From here on it becomes legislated climate change by force of attrition. A massive transfer of wealth from Australian householders to heavy industry has been agreed between the ALP and Malcolm Turnbull's shell-shocked core of supporters.
Without the normal ritual of senate committee review and public submissions, the process has gone directly into the "committee of the whole" stage of detailed consideration by a handful of people who have already made up their minds.
For what it's worth, this is the only avenue left to test the assumptions, the rhetoric, and the uniquely Australian form of madness underlying the deal that's just hit the table. During the coming long hours, the Greens will get the opportunity to forensically pull apart the busted logic underlying this package and lay it bare: for the historical record yes, but also for the next stage of the campaign.
There is no theoretical limit on how long this process can take. With a thick stack of Government amendments agreed in advance with what's left of the opposition, and a series of Greens amendments pointed in exactly the opposite direction, the outcome is clear and only the duration remains a mystery.
The Government and a sullen batch of liberals will combine to dice any proposals to lift the targets or introduce a hint of scientific or economic integrity into the scheme when Senator Milne moves the Greens amendments.
In return, a handful of us will put our firm and lasting opposition on the record when the weariness sets in and the various pieces of the Rudd/Turnbull deal go to the vote. Then we move to the next amendment.
Repeat, for as long as necessary, until people have just had enough. Barring a meteorite or some random tectonic shift in the coalition party room, that's how this rotten package of legislation is going to pass.
We keep going in here because there are times when things come together and you pull an unexpected win out of this brittle and archaic decision-making machine. This is probably not going to be one of those times.
Next year there's going to be an election. If you're reading this from outside Parliament house then chances are you're not going to get a vote on this bill. But in 2010 we'll all get the collective opportunity to tell the fossil-fired major parties exactly what we think of this whole shambles, and that is going to be a campaign worth joining. See you there :-)
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Thanks
Good on you, Scott, for staying the course. The process isn't entirely flawed, because the people have already put you there. Next time, there'll be more of you. Until then, thanks to you and your colleagues for the hard work and long hours that you put in for what is right, even when - no, make that especially when - it is unlikely to change the outcome.
You make us proud.
ETS
Our political leader K. Rudd
Has turned out a terrible dud
The biggest polluters
Now licensed freebooters
No wonder we're baying for blood
The best outcome would be
The best outcome would be for the Liberals to get absolutely wiped out at a double dissolution election, destroying any illusions the right-wing of the party have about the support that they have in the public for killing the planet, turning back refugee boats, making good quality, life-long education accessible only to the rich, removing workers' rights, etc.
We need an ALP government who are willing to put wedge politics aside and focus on making Australia, and the world, a better place. As long as Steven Fielding is in the Senate's balance of power, this can not happen. We need a Greens balance of power to ensure that Rudd is doing the right thing. We can't trust the Liberals to propose sensible amendments to any policy. All they're good for is making a racket in the chamber and stabbing each other in the back over the spoils of defeat.
The trouble is.........
The trouble with that argument Sam, is that far more of the electorate support the Liberals, or their dissenting wing at least, on ETS than support the ALP, let alone any meaningfull policy on global warming which the ALP similarly lack. As to refugee policy et al Howard knew he was onto a winner with that and that is why the ALP basically have not shifted from his policy. Furthermore, any election that produced a swing to the ALP of the magnitude that you desire would almost definitely wipe out the Greens too. During the 2007 election I argued till I was blue in the face with people that there was no fundamental difference between the ALP and the Libs and that the Greens should only preference the ALP in return for very definite electoral advantage to themselves. Sadly most of the Greens campaign appeared to be directed to getting the ALP elected rather than putting themselves forward as the only party offering real change. Now far be it from me to say that I told you so, but I shall say it anyway, I told you so.
I'm Sorry but im not optomistic.
On the issue of climate change, I am not optomistic. Even though many Australians will trumpet that they want to reduce their carbon footprint, when it comes to actually doing something they are hesitant or simply wont budge, or worse. make life difficult for those that are doing something about it.
Just one obvious example of this is bicycle riding. It is a shame that the delegates to the climate change conference are going to Copenhagen in its cold winter. The delegates might see one of the solutions to climate change on the street itself, the humble bicycle. Copenhagen is said to be a happy city because the people are healthy and some of this has to be put down to the fact that 37% commute by bicycle, and this percentage includes all modes of transport not only car versus bike. So more people actually ride to work then drive, with the city aiming for an overall percentage of people commuting to work by bicycle to be 50% by 2015.
Back in Australia however, what happens if you ride a bike to work. Instead of being congradulated for reducing pollution, congestion, etc, you are told that you should pay registration like everyone else, you have things thrown at you, you are largely ignored by the police, and you are vilified as a group in the media, and by former NSW roads ministers. You are told to "get a car", even though you most probably own one but are chosing instead to ride a bike.
So back here in our land of intelligence (not), we ridicule and make life difficult for those doing something about pollution, and make it easier for people to drive their car for short trips gain weight and cause pollution.
In our land of boundless intelligence we wonder why people ellect people like Howard, support locking up refugees in cages for long periods, and although they carp on about climate change will make up every excuse to not do anything about it, they (the Australian public) will keep voting for the major parties, they will keep driving 500 metres up the street in their SUV or V8, so they can suck down some grease laiden fast food, and they will go home and switch off a light for 2 seconds, thinking that is doing their bit. They may even go on forums and say they support action on climate change then on their way to work, cut off, hurl abuse at, or tell a cyclist to "go get a car".
Australia needs an attitude adjustment.
You wonder why im so negative? The proof is in the actions of Australians.
When it comes to the crunch Australians wont do anything about climate change, they simply bitch and moan about what politicians should do, then dont back up their thoughts with action, when it comes to voting, or physically doing anything about it.
Sorry, but thats how I see the reality.
Sorry grandkids, the climate is now F$#ked because I couldnt be bothered riding my bike 1 km to work because I may have got my hair wet, and besides, I told them cyclists to "get a car", so sorry for the fact that the world is now screwed, you know my car was important to me.
Have your say on EITE subsidies
17/12/09
Attention:
Renewable Energy Team
Renewables and Reporting Branch
Department of Climate Change
Please accept this submission by David Egan of Haberfield regarding the draft RET EIT regulations.
No submission from a multi body entity or lobby group should carry more weight in the decision-making process than an individual voter.
It is better to cease spending on CCS and devote all of the money instead to well hole drilling rigs to provide base load geothermal power immediately. Thereby ensuring renewable base load power for renewable energy certificates (RECs).
Instead of assisting Energy Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries, heavy penalties should be implemented for not buying 50% green power within 3 years, and 100% green electricity within 5 years. In order to remain in Australia and comply, they would have to invest immediately in green energy projects as technology exists, but current green energy supply is too weak.
I offer the following considerations:
1. Increase the shortfall charge for non-compliance to the RET to 50 times the value of an entities shortfall electricity usage value, plus a government administration fee.
2. No partial exemption certificates (PECs) should be included in the legislation to assist any entity for any purpose whatsoever.
3. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) should be used to reduce business tax liabilities by EITE and other businesses if RECs have been held for more than 5 years. A market smoothing mechanism for July needs to be developed for RECs though, perhaps they can only be redeemed or sold in 12 monthly intervals from the month of purchase or issue.
4. RECs should be used to reduce tariffs that must be implemented on products and parts originating in countries with lesser carbon controls.
5. Energy intensive trade exposed (EITE) industries should be given their eviction notices ASAP, since collectively they represent less than a speculative 6% of the economy and produce most of the emissions.
6. Should EITE industries choose to stay in Australia they should be made to buy all of their energy from renewable sources within 5 years with a major polluter surcharge (MPS) applied immediately as an interim measure.
7. All money collected by the government in relation to any emission control scheme should be redirected to renewable energy infrastructure without dilution or delay.
Summery:
Make the polluters pay for most of Australia’s reduction efforts or leave.
Regards,
David Egan
Dave's draft submission follows
17/12/09
Attention:
Renewable Energy Team
Renewables and Reporting Branch
Department of Climate Change
Please accept this submission by David Egan of Haberfield regarding the draft RET EIT regulations.
No submission from a multi body entity or lobby group should carry more weight in the decision-making process than an individual voter.
It is better to cease spending on CCS and devote all of the money instead to well hole drilling rigs to provide base load geothermal power immediately. Thereby ensuring renewable base load power for renewable energy certificates (RECs).
Instead of assisting Energy Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries, heavy penalties should be implemented for not buying 50% green power within 3 years, and 100% green electricity within 5 years. In order to remain in Australia and comply, they would have to invest immediately in green energy projects as technology exists, but current green energy supply is too weak.
I offer the following considerations:
1. Increase the shortfall charge for non-compliance to the RET to 50 times the value of an entities shortfall electricity usage value, plus a government administration fee.
2. No partial exemption certificates (PECs) should be included in the legislation to assist any entity for any purpose whatsoever.
3. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) should be used to reduce business tax liabilities by EITE and other businesses if RECs have been held for more than 5 years. A market smoothing mechanism for July needs to be developed for RECs though, perhaps they can only be redeemed or sold in 12 monthly intervals from the month of purchase or issue.
4. RECs should be used to reduce tariffs that must be implemented on products and parts originating in countries with lesser carbon controls.
5. Energy intensive trade exposed (EITE) industries should be given their eviction notices ASAP, since collectively they represent less than a speculative 6% of the economy and produce most of the emissions.
6. Should EITE industries choose to stay in Australia they should be made to buy all of their energy from renewable sources within 5 years, and a major polluter surcharge (MPS) applied immediately as an interim measure.
7. All money collected by the government in relation to any emission control scheme should be redirected to renewable energy infrastructure without dilution or delay.
Summery:
Make the polluters pay for most of Australia’s reduction efforts or leave.
Regards,
David Egan
Post new comment