Here is a story from the Age about an unhappy Ross Garnaut (from the
Garnaut Report). Ross was asked by the Federal Government to advise them what was needed in a climate change scheme, but he is unhappy that the Rudd Government didn't take his advice.
.
Kevin Rudd when announcing the scheme said he was "balancing the need to make a strong contribution to international efforts with ensuring a balanced and measured start to the Scheme." However, Garnaut believes that because of "unprecedented lobbying from vested interests" the Rudd Government has weakened its targets and given away too many free permits (often to heavy polluting industries such as the coal industry and also to 'trade exposed' industries such as the aluminium industry).
.
Remember, he argued in the Garnaut Report that "we must make sure that there is also a strong and independent voice for the public interest in the policy-making process that can keep sectoral claims in perspective" (page xxii). It seems that the public interest has been drowned out by heavy lobbying from business interests.
.
I would argue that the Government should have set a higher target if it wanted to make a "strong contribution to international efforts" and show "strong" leadership on the world stage.
.
How can you make a "strong contribution" by suggesting only a 5% change from business-as-usual? A minimum of 15% would be a "stronger contribution", but the Federal Government really should have listened to their own scientists (see
Top scientists urge Govt to remain focused on climate change) and set a target between 20 and 25%. Some scientists (and green groups) would suggest even MORE of a reduction is needed (40% - 50% by 2020).
.
Garnaut suggested limiting the number of free permits given to heavy polluting and/or trade exposed industries because the less free permits given away, the fairer the system overall. After all, it should be a polluter pays system, rather than a reward the polluter system! I believe that the scheme has been pushed towards 'business-as-usual' for heavy or 'dirty' industries.
.
This is simply not good enough. Future Australian generations will wonder why we failed to stand up at Poznan. Why wait until after the climate change conference has concluded and then announce a 'weak' target and a scheme that fails to listen to the science and the majority of scientists and many people and even many businesses that want more done? Spending big on climate change (e.g. green infrastructure and green jobs) could have helped solve both the problem of climate change and also the economic 'crisis' we all face. Anyway, here is the story:
.Federal Government's climate adviser, Ross Garnaut savages climate change plan
.
December 19, 2008
AAP.
THE Federal Government's own climate adviser has savaged parts of its climate change plan, describing the assistance to big business as "over the top".
.
Professor Ross Garnaut says a massive lobbying exercise by vested interests, unprecedented in the history of Australian public policy, has secured an overly generous deal for business.
.
He also thinks the Government should not have ruled out a deep, 25 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.
.
The Government went for a five to 15 per cent cut in its plan for climate change and emissions trading released earlier this week.
.
Professor Garnaut, who was hired by the Federal and state governments to advise on what Australia should do about climate change, said the scheme gave too much assistance to industry.
.
"I think it's over the top," he said.
.
There had been "unprecedented lobbying from vested interests ... unprecedented in Australian policy-making, the extent of it".
.
"There's no doubt that the rate of return in lobbying has been very high," Prof Garnaut said.
.
The final result - in which there are more free permits for more businesses, plus generous compensation - concerned the professor.
.
"Because it's not based on clear principle, I think that everyone will start to wonder about the wisdom of how far it's gone."
.
"I think there are some budget problems ahead." Prof Garnaut said that in general, the white paper was a positive step forward because Australia would now start to cut its emissions.
.
But in some key areas the white paper did not follow the advice Prof Garnaut set out in his own report on climate change, issued in September.
.
Also check out:
.
.
.
Posts
