| Sourced From Green Left |
On February 18, 10 Australian economists criticised the Rudd governments proposed carbon emissions trading scheme, and called for a science-based policy to achieve 25%-40% cuts in emissions by 2020. The statement is reprinted below.
* * *
The Australian government is to be congratulated for its decision to take part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) cannot be regarded as consistent with the governments expressed goal of a global agreement to stabilise the climate.
Among a number of serious flaws, the proposed target of a 5% reduction in emissions (with a 15% reduction conditional on a global agreement) is simply inadequate to deal with the problem.
In our view, the CPRS fails on the following criteria:
First, while there can be no doubt that a high carbon price will result in a significant transformation of the Australian economy, it must be remembered that such transformation is the actual goal of an emissions trading scheme.
It is ironic that, while the usual purpose of compensation packages is to ease the pain of such transformation, in the case of the Rudd governments package, compensation is being used to prevent such a transformation. The CPRS actually rewards the major corporate emitters for failing to act, despite having been on notice since at least 1997 that the emission reduction targets would be adopted.
Second, the most significant consequence of the global financial crisis is to increase uncertainty and, in turn, reduce new investment. The creation of more ambitious emission targets would provide certainty that would stimulate major investment in renewable energy infrastructure.
The consensus scientific and economic opinion is that the consequences of failing to address climate change will dwarf the costs of the current financial unrest.
Third, the Rudd scheme structures the compensation opportunities for energy-intensive, trade-exposed corporations in such a way as to provide an incentive for these corporations to expand production and emissions.
This will effect further restructuring of Australian industry that consolidates its energy-intensive character to the disadvantage of low-energy, energy-efficient industries.
Fourth, the proposed compensation of trade-exposed energy-intensive industries is underpinned by the implicit notion that government should ensure a level, and thus competitive, playing field. Yet the proposed compensation package will benefit industry sectors dominated by international corporations that hold considerable market power. The proposed compensation package will further enhance that market power, not create competitive markets.
Fifth, the Rudd government has designed a scheme in which every tonne of emissions saved by households frees up an extra permit for the aluminium or steel industry to expand their pollution.
In addition to destroying the moral incentive for households to
Related posts:
- Australia to unveil carbon emissions trading scheme
- Penny Wong to go easy on carbon emissions trading scheme
- Kevin Rudd under pressure over delay to carbon trading scheme A
- Europes carbon trading the god that failed
- Ford Australia Supports Governments Decision to Include Transport in the Emissions Scheme
