Why? Because Turnbull wants to avoid a double dissolution trigger for an early election he knows he would lose, and because the Liberal Party is equally beholden to the same corporated dirty industry interests that the Labor Party is.
Those who claim that the CPRS needs to go in so "it and the targets can be strengthened later" are either fooling themselves or trying to fool the rest of us.
It it goes in lame due to industry influence - as appears to be the case - it will remain lame.
"Politics as usual" does not have a framework for delivering the paradigm shift we need to embrace a clean energy future.
I am still uncertain as to what will deliver this paradigm shift. I think it needs to a combination of:
- More direct input from climate sicentists on emission reduction targets
- Remove the profit motive from polluting carbon intensive industries, perhaps by putting a real and effective price (tax) on carbon instead of a nebulous "trading scheme" full of loopholes
- Referendums on climate and energy policy - rather than interminable irrelevant debates in parliament and bad policy like the CPRS
- Set up a bipartisan taskforce on climate change to remove the crippling political and industry interference from policy creation
- Pressure from a grass roots movement across Australia and the rest of the world to foster policy and process change.
The CPRS bill may be rejected the Senate next week and the final date for a vote delayed by several more months, but the final outcome is clear: The Labor and Liberal parties will eventually vote together to pass the CPRS and lock in failure to reduce emissions in Australia.