LP on GetUp's ETS Protest  

Larvatus Prodeo has some comments on the recent spate of objects to Rudd's ETS proposal (now dubbed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - CPRS), noting that what is needed are tighter targets rather than quibbles about the structure - Quibbling at the margins of the CPRS

Of all the supposed flaws in the proposed CPRS, the one that seems to have gained the most traction is the concern that, as Jeremy Sear puts it “the more you sacrifice at home - the more some corporate polluter can emit instead.” GetUp is planning to run a full-page ad in The Oz tomorrow demanding the government fix this issue.

This issue has been discussed a number of times on LP. dk.au has emphasised the importance (and apologies if I’m oversimplifying here) of the sociological aspects of the issue, and the need for people to be involved in the decarbonization process - if they see their voluntary efforts being lost, support for the process will vanish. I don’t think it’s a big problem, myself. Despite all this, I don’t think anyone who cares about climate change thinks it’s the biggest problem with the proposed CPRS. The biggest problem, by far, is the twin evils of locking in monumentally inadequate carbon reduction targets and too-low projected carbon prices. The second-biggest problem is the ladeling out of free permits to Big Carbon.

All the voluntary participation in the world isn’t going to make more than a marginal difference to Australia’s carbon emissions. Tighter targets will make a big difference. So why spend all this lobbying effort to fix problems at the margins of the scheme, rather than tackling the big one head-on?

In the comments, Robert Merkel notes that Rudd is doing a Howard and shutting the clean energy players out while giving the greenhouse mafia (aka the coal industry) and the nuclear industry a clear run. Some things never change.

By the way, Bernard Keane at Crikey has spotted something very interesting. The goverment is in the process of preparing an energy white paper, and pretty much haven’t told anybody except the fossil fuel and uranium industries.

Here’s the whitepaper page. Here’s the high level advisory committee - oil, gas, uranium, the PM’s National Security Adviser, but no specialists in renewables. Off the top of my head, about the only one there with a major stake in renewables is the COO of Origin Energy, and even that’s a fairly small part of their portfolio.