Why can't Rudd do a carbon tax?

With the Federal election likely to be called this year, probably in August, the Rudd Labor government is now in campaign mode.  Consequently, its policies and focus are directed toward positioning themselves for winning the election and not much else.

The campaign strategy discussions may have unfolded something like this:

What will be our core platform for the election?

• Let's do health, education, economic responsibility and the national broadband network
• We will lob a new health funding model on the States and bully them into submission  so we appear tough and forceful
• We can trade off avoiding the Global Financial Crisis claiming we saved Australia from financial ruin

What will be our main issues to defend for the election?

• We completely flubbed it on climate change when Copenhagen turned to custard, and we had no plan B - so lets keep blaming the Greens for not supporting the industry-friendly CPRS - and the Liberals for sidestepping our skillfully crafted wedge when Turnbull went under and Abbot took over

• We aren't doing too well on environment either, with native forests still being destroyed, the Great Barrier Reef dying, the Orange Bellied Parrot and a few other species rapidly heading towards extinction - so lets get Peter Garrett out there handing out money for a few good causes in the States. 

• The housing insulation scheme killed for people and turned it a fatal farce.  Can't remember why we gave this to the Environment Minister Garrett when he and his department know nothing about building matters or managing large scale projects. So let's take it off him and give him a bit more money to throw around.  And send him to the back bench after the next election.

• Clear the decks.  We have a few backflips to get out of the way.

• Backflip 1  (Kevin Rudd) - the need for urgent action on climate change "the great moral challenge of our time" - the CPRS (emissions trading) now on hold until 2013

• Backflip 2 (Kate Ellis)- ditch the building of 260 new childcare facilities

• Backflip 2 (Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd) - avoid scrutiny of Government advertising by the Auditor General by announcing a $38 million, taxpayer funded political advertising campaign., despite it being “a cancer on our democracy” and a clear commitment from Rudd that this would not happen., 

Then some polls were released indicating that Kevin Rudd had burnt most of his political capital in a very short space of time and his support plummeted, with opposition leader Tony Abbott seemingly now capable of winning the next election.

Let's run a scare campaign on Abbott - like Howard did on L Plates Latham.  Let's even compare Abbott to Latham.  Brief to all ministers - keep saying "Tony Abbott would win an election if one were held tomorrow".

Now we need to get back onto our core platform.  

We have an exposure on the economy - we are now seriously in debt with a large deficit.  Lets cherry pick from the Henry Tax Review something that will help us back on track to a budget surplus.  Let's go with the Resource Super Profits Tax - will lob it out there and have some biffo with the mining companies.  This will give Kevin Rudd another opportunity to demonstrate his strong leadership style, and will offset some of the fallout from gifting $8 billion via the failed CPRS to large corporations making millions out of fossil fuels.

Well, that worked, sort of.  We got the media off climate change and even backflips, but those mining companies sure have gone troppo.  Now a bit of a stoush and ritual combat is turning into another problem for us - no consultation with stakeholders (like health reform), and back benchers in marginal seats with mines getting restless.  Let's hang tough for another couple of weeks then reduce the RSPT rate a bit to shut them up.

*** End of script as at 15 June 2010 ***

This reads a bit like a script from the Hollowmen.  But then truth is stranger than fiction.

Here are a few things that should have happened:

• Negotiate with Greens and two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy
• Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others
• Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work
• Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" /geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.
• Commence a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.
• Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)
• Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species.

I am not holding my breath for any of this.  But I am astounded by the failings of our political system and our major party politicians to deliver sensible policies.

They are intent of just playing politics, striving to get into government, then just pfaffing around when they get there.

*** Script update at 15 June 2010 ***

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared on the 7:30 Report on Monday night.  He appeared to be in damage control mode forcing some smiles, rapidly blinking and appeared uneasy.  When questioned about the Resource Super Profits Tax, the mining industry campaign against it and the date of the next election he mentioned that the election could be delayed until March/April 2011.  

"Yeah, well we have an election due by whatever it is, March or April next year and we only have three year terms. You've got to use the time effectively. "

So it seems that the nascent election campaign in progress may be drastically rescheduled.  Then again he may go early to avoid Tony Abbott gaining more support.  

I wish he would just bring a carbon tax and get on with it.

External links

• FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Australia
• The end of the world as we know it
• Kevin Rudd to backflip on mining tax rate
• Labor breaks childcare centre promise

An open letter to every Australian Senator - please oppose the CPRS

Please oppose the CPRS and work towards leglislation that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions

Dear Senator,

Tomorrow, the Australian Senate votes on the second reading of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) bill. The bill in its current form should not be passed as it fails the primary test - it will not reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the foreseeable future.

The Rudd government was elected on a promise to take effective action to tackle climate change. Unfortunately, the process for developing an effective policy response and accompanying legislation for doing this has been corrupted by industry influence on government.

Several hundred public submissions during the consultation period on the CPRS white paper then the CPRS green paper have opposed most of the basic structure of the legislation, pointing out that it will not be effective in reducing carbon emissions. Government has ignored these submissions.

The Government has also ignored key recommendations in Professor Ross Garnaut’s final report on climate change such as not giving away free pollution permits to the worst polluters, and providing no exemptions for petrol.

The main problems with the CPRS are:

• The unconditional greenhouse target of 5% reduction by 2020 is tiny and far lower than the 25% to 40% target range flagged at the United Nations Bali Convention on climate change in 2008.
• It encourages the growth of highly polluting Energy Intensive Trade Exposed industries such as aluminium smelters by allocating them 25% of permits free of charge, increasing to 45% by 2020.
• Free permits are given to coal power over the first 5 years. This provides windfall profits to polluters and encourages dirty coal power to continue in the short term.
• Permits are granted as property rights instead of temporary licences. This means that polluters who get them will be paid compensation in the future if more stringent emission reductions are introduced.
• There is no limit on overseas offsets, so Australia's emissions could increase and emission permits bought from overseas to "offset" them.
• The initial cap on the CO2 price is $10 per tonne – a figure far too low to provide incentives for clean energy production.
• The high "cap" is also a "floor" so emission reductions by households are simply on sold by power stations to other polluters, resulting in no actual emission reductions.
• The government has made a political decision to link the CPRS bill with the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) in attempt to bolster their negotiating position.
• The scheme invalidates emission reductions previously associated with GreenPower.
• It ignores the latest science that shows climate change is accelerating past worst case estimates and that deep emission cuts are required immediately to counter this.
• 16 billion dollars of taxpayers money is being given to the worst polluting industries as corporate welfare by the Rudd Government. This money should be invested in green jobs and clean energy production.

Climate change has emerged as the great challenge of our lifetime. Please do not play politics with an issue this serious. Quite literally, the future of the planet and all life on it is at stake.

As an Australian Senator, I urge you to represent the best interests of the Australian public and work towards real and immediate emission reductions. You must represent the people who voted for you, not the corporate interests that lobby you.

The CPRS in its current form must not be passed. It is a political solution for an environmental and lifestyle problem.

I urge you to develop alternative legislation that will deliver emission cuts each and every year with a target of reaching zero emissions by 2020.

I also urge you to set a target of 300ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to give us the best chance of restoring a safe climate future.

The majority of investment should be directed towards energy efficiency measures and clean energy production.

In addition, strategies need to be enacted for all sectors, rather than focusing on stationary energy. For example, stopping logging of native forests immediately could reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by over 5%.

You have an opportunity to lead Australia and the world in an economic and social transition to a sustainable zero emissions economy and clean energy production. Please do not squander this opportunity.

It is vitally important that an effective global approach to tacking climate change is achieved at Copenhagen later this year. I believe Australia must play a lead role in this.

This letter was sent to every Australian Senator

Politics as usual will delivers the CPRS camel

So now it seems that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, skilfuly crafted by the Labor government to reward the worst polluters with corporate welfare largesse from the taxpayer, and to not reduce emissions until 2020 or later, will now pass through the Senate with Malcolm Turnbull's and the Liberal Opposition's support.

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.

What we have here is a failure of politics and democracy

Lesley Canold's characterisation of "failures of communication and tactics" as the barrier to our society taking real action on climate change (Age 16/6) is not entirely accurate.

There is now a common understanding that increased greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of the climate change now upon us.

However, our current political framework based on adversarial debates, incremental changes and political compromises, is where the major barriers to action lie.

Our politicians must realise they cannot negotiate and compromise with the laws of thermodynamics and nature that govern the maintenance of a safe climate. Then we may get legislation and policies for the immediate emission reductions that scientists around the world are now demanding.

The flawed CPRS is a case in point. The scheme has been designed to reduce impacts on the worst polluters and will not be effective in reducing emissions.

With climate tipping points now upon is and the some of the impacts of catastrophic climate change now evident, we need immediate and substantive emission reductions.

These can be achieved by implementing energy efficiency programs, providing more renewable energy, cutting back fossil fuel usage and protecting native forests and the carbon they store.

Links

• What we have is the failure to communicate | theage.com.au

Greens win Fremantle polling over 44% for a new paradigm

Today, Adele Carles, the Greens candidate for the Fremantle byelection, won the seat. This is an event that represents a turning point in Australian politics.

It is the first time a Greens candidate has polled over 44% of the primary vote. The previous record was 38.96% in the 2005 Marrickville by-election.

It is only the second time that that the Greens have come first on primary votes, the first being when the Greens outpolled Labor's primary vote in the NSW state district of Vaucluse in the 2007 election.

Adele Carles defeated the Labor candidate, who polled around 38% of the primary vote. The Liberals did not field a candidate.

This represents a paradigm shift in Australia's political landscape. With both major parties found wanting on critical issues such as climate change and water policy, the Greens platform of reshaping Australia to a sustainable and climate friendly economy has been endorsed by a clear majority of Fremantle voters.

If this is replicated across several other House of Representatives seats in the upcoming 2010 federal election as appears likely, the Greens could well hold the balance of power and enter into a coalition government with one of the major parties.

This would mean pathetic policy such as Labor's 5% emission reduction commitment would be "greened up" to within the 25% to 40% range scientists say we need.

And the 3+ billion gifted to the polluting coal industry by Kevin Rudd would instead be redirected to zero emissions clean energy alternatives.

There is now considerable hope Australia can seriously address the climate emergency that we are confronted with, and contribute to an effective global agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.

Exernal links

• 2009 Fremantle By-election - ABC Elections (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Post script
This is the second time the greens have won a single-member lower house seat in Australia - the first time being when Michael Organ won the federal House of Representatives seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election, when the Liberals also did not field a candidate. On that occasion, Organ received 23% of the primary vote and was elected by the preferences of other candidates (as was Adele).

The 2009 federal budget does not move as to a low carbon future

Summarising the environmental & energy items in the 2009 Federal Budget:

The Government will invest $4.5 billion (including $1 billion of existing funding) in a new Clean Energy Initiative, including:

• $465 million for the establishment of a renewable technology innovation body, Renewables Australia (could be good, if they don't sanction burning forests for fuel)
  
• $1.5 billion for a Solar Flagships Program aiming to establish 1,000 megawatts of solar electricity generation (looks good, a step in the right direction)
  
• $2 billion over nine years for investment in large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects (not good - this should be funded by the coal industry, not taxpayers).
  

Additional sustainability programs funded under the Budget include:

• $2.75 billion ($2.45 billion existing funding) to the Climate Change Action Fund under the CPRS, to inform and position business, industry and community on the impacts of a low carbon economy (This looks like a huge amount of greenwash for the CPRS? The money would be better spent on clean energy provision)
  
•  $100 million per annum to establish the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute to inform global action on the development and commercialization of this technology (not good, this is more corporate welfare for the coal industry)
  
• $100 million per annum over three years to the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund. (not sure about this one, if the the fund delivers genuine clean energy this would be OK).
  

For those that want more detail, the Climate Change Budget Overview 2009—10 provides a summary of the Government's climate change strategy, describing the objectives of each measure and the providing the name of the agencies who will implement them.

Overall, for I give it 2/10 for transitioning us to a low carbon economy and off coal.  There is far too much corporate welfare gifted to the coal industry, and not enough directed to efficiency measures and genuine clean energy.

Kevin Rudd is playing politics with our climate

So why has Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong just done spectacular backflips and both decided to delay the implementation of their flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction (Reallocation) Scheme by one year?

Why have they also increased the "negotiating range" maximum from 15% to 25% - bringing it inline with the minimum range or 25% to 40% set in Bali in 2008?

Why have they introduced a cap on the carbon price of $10.00 per tonne?

There are two answers to these questions:

1. Politics
2. Business as usual - the grubby links between government and polluting industries.

Politics

The politics is asinine. Kevin Rudd does not want to negotiate with the Greens who have stated they support emission reduction targets in the range of 25-40% that will be negotiated at Copenhagen later this year. So Kevin Rudd has designed the CPRS so the Liberal-National opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull in particular, will be forced to support it.

Turnbull has been saying it should be delayed by 1-2 years; now it has been. Turnbull supports the 5% target. Turnbull is under pressure from the skeptics in his party - such as Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey - to support a weak and ineffective CPRS.

Business as usual - links between government and industry

Turnbull is also under pressure from the same industry lobbyists - such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, and representatives from the coal/fossil fuel lobby (the "Greenhouse Mafia") - to support a weak and infective CPRS. They will threaten the opposition with hostile advertisements in marginal seats during the next election, and probably a few more dirty tricks too.

The wash up

If Turnbull - and the Liberal National "Opposition" - cave in and vote in the Senate for the CPRS with the Rudd Government we will have a scheme locked in that won't reduce carbon emissions.

Any parliamentarian who votes for the CPRS is playing Russian Roulette with a safe climate future. Kevin Rudd has stated that 450ppm CO2 is acceptable. Sorry Kevin, I disagree.

Scientists tell us that this could result in 3 degree global temperature rise, sea level rises of over 2 metres, and more frequent severe bushfires.

What can we do?

We must maintain hope that our political leaders will act responsibly and take immediate action to reduce climate change. We need to keep telling them that they must.

We need to spread awareness in the community about how "political stitch ups" are endangering our shared future, and that of the planet, by feeding the climate emergency we are now experiencing.

I think we also need to consider how we can get action on climate change informed and driven by science rather than hijacked by short term political motives.

We can also support the Greens' campaign for effective climate change action

I have also sent Don Henry from the ACF an email telling him I am reconsidering my 20+ year membership and support of the ACF, after his totally inappropriate glowing endorsement of Rudd's CPRS backflip. Is he planning to run for a safe Labor seat like Peter Garrett did?

External links

• Has Kevin Rudd "taken a signficant step forward on climate change"?, David Spratt
• Emissions rethink could trigger early election: Greens | theage.com.au
• "Greener, browner, and a lot later", Rudd greenhouse emissions retreat pitched at Coalition, The Age
• Rudd denies ETS delay is reckless | theage.com.au
• Rudd’s ETS backdown is about controlling the debate - Crikey
• Labor spineless on emissions - Crikey
  
  

A video from the Greens

Rudd's CPRS won't solve climate change

Kevin Rudd's flawed emissions trading scheme with its very weak 5% reduction target and ridiculous 15% upper limit is unlikely to be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Michelle Grattan's conclusion (Age 1/5) that the CPRS in its current form is better than nothing.

The CPRS, in addition to grossly inadequate targets, also gifts billions to the worst polluters. In doing so, it removes incentives for the worst polluting industries to clean up their act. It is also way behind the recommendations of scientists and the Bali convention where emission reduction ranges of 25% to 40% were flagged.

Australia would be laggard at Copenhagen with the CPRS, not a leader. Hopefully all parties in the Australian Parliament will agree on effective measures to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change that the Australian people are demanding. We need to reframe politics from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

The CPRS kills carbon neutrality

Further to the good work of Richard Dennis from The Australia Institute which has highlighted that the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is in fact a Reallocation scheme, it has now emerged that the CPRS is also greatly impacting local government across Australia in their efforts to go carbon neutral.

Local government has in fact led the way on climate change, with several already announcing plans and commitments to go carbon neutral, and many others seriously considering doing so too.

Unfortunately, the CPRS has created doubts and confusion about what carbon neutrality means at Local Government level.

Greenhouse Friendly abatement credits obtained to date (voluntary scheme) will be not be valid under the CPRS.

Under the CPRS, entities offsetting and or reducing emissions will no longer be able to claim carbon neutrality as their emissions are reallocated and the link between entity emission reductions and aggregate emissions will be broken.

For example, from: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — Implications for Greenhouse Friendly™

Introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the Scheme) has implications for Greenhouse Friendly™. The Scheme will impact on the types of abatement that can be provided and the issue of carbon neutrality.

The Scheme will have broad sectoral coverage, which means that from 2010, there will be less scope to pursue offset activities with offsets limited to emissions sources uncovered by the Scheme. In the lead up to the Scheme, companies could be taking action to reduce their emissions based on the expectation of a future carbon price. Therefore it will become increasingly difficult to demonstrate the additionality of abatement projects. Further, Greenhouse Friendly™ abatement credits will not be fungible into the Scheme.
National Carbon Offset Standard

The Government has made a commitment to develop a national standard for carbon offsets to provide national consistency and give consumers confidence in the voluntary carbon offset market. The offset standard will provide guidance on what constitutes a genuine, additional voluntary offset credit, as well as setting requirements for the verification and retirement of such credits, and standards for calculating the emissions of a product or service.

The Department of Climate Change released a discussion paper on the National Carbon Offset Standard on 19 December 2008 for public consultation. The Department is currently conducting public consultations.

Please note that the Greenhouse Friendly™ Guidelines and other publications are yet to be revised in accordance with this announcement.

You can download the discussion paper [here] (PDF)

From this discussion paper:

2.2 Implications for carbon neutrality
From a consumer’s point of view, the environmental credibility of carbon neutrality comes from the fact that offsetting means an entity’s activities do not increase aggregate emissions and therefore help to mitigate climate change. As described above, the effect of a cap on emissions from covered sources is to break the link between individual voluntary action and aggregate emissions.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (representing local governments) has already made this submission concerning the discussion paper [link] (PDF)

The MAV has also provided this briefing to their members [link] (PDF)

So in addition to the CPRS (if legislated) doing nothing to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, it will effectively prevent local and state governments reducing their emissions too.

External links

• State emission cuts 'futile' and would aid polluters , Royce Millar, The Age, 23 March 2009.
• Flaws in emissions trading scheme must be fixed , The Age, Editorial, 24 March 2009
• Cabinet talks on target's futility , Royce Millar and Adam Morton , The Age, 24 March 2009
  
  

Yes, Kevin Rudd is a coal eating surrender monkey

Well, my prediction of the 10% +/- 5% emissions reduction target set by the Rudd Labor government for Australia was accurate. Sadly thought, the target is a ridiculous 5%.

Penny Wong's justification for this is "jobs".

But securing today’s 19C dirty jobs while NOT building the low pollution economy of tomorrow, or creating ANY green jobs is a shocking outcome.

And the Government will be giving $billions of our money to the worst polluters.

This is hardly a recipe for progress.

This is a joke, and its on us (the public) who are expected to pay for this nonsense. And we have no say in this - the government is hostage to industry and not representing the best interests of the Australian people.

I think we need a campaign of civil disobedience.

I am considering installing a few more panels and completely disconnecting from the grid. Labor is stuffing up the Feed In Tariff legislation at both state and national levels. No more of my money will go to coal fired power interests. And remember, buying Greenpower doesn't reduce emissions either. If you don't believe me, ask a retailer and see what they say.

I will refuse to pay for the Victorian desalination plant as we don’t use any Melbourne water - our 23,500 litres of tanks keeps us supplied.

Maybe I will also withold a proportion of my income tax that will be misdirected to the ludicrous fossil fool corporate welfare?

We need to stop carbon emissions, not reward them. The Rudd government's whitepaper is perverse.

Their own adviser, Ross Garnaut, now sidelined by the Rudd government, has strongly criticised the corporate welfare measures in the whitepaper.

Listen to all the weasel words from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong about "per capita emissions".

It is really quite simple - are our emissions going down, and if so when?

The government's answer to this at present is "no", and "no commitment"

The so called, 5% reduction target is founded on the false pretence that Australia's greenhouse emissions did not rise from 1990 - 2000; hence the misleading claim that it makes little difference whether 1990 or 2000 is chosen as the base year. In fact Australia's real emissions rose by 18.98% in the 1990s (according to the AGO) but this fact is concealed by tricky carbon accounting introduced by the Howard government, which insisted on being the only developed country to include reduced land-clearing in its Kyoto calculations. This has become known as the "Australia Clause".

If Australia were to calculate its emissions on the same basis as all other developed countries this reduction of 5% relative to 2000 would actually be exposed as an increase in emissions of 13% relative to 1990. Kevin Rudd's top figure of a 15% reduction becomes an increase of 1%.

Links

• One little word undoes the PM's claims on greenhouse gases | theage.com.au
• Switch to solar undermined by Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• It's so much hot air | theage.com.au
• Garnaut turns heat on Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• Garnaut slams climate plan | theage.com.au
  
  
  
  
  

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme falls short

Elected on a campaign promise of tackling climate change, Kevin Rudd's Labor government in Australia has released a preliminary greenpaper outlining the structure of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (an emissions trading scheme) for Australia.

Curiously, the greenpaper was released only days after the Garnaut draft on climate change, and it fails to meet several of Garnaut's key recommendations.

The significant problems are:

• emission permits will be given away to the most polluting industries
• cash payments will be given to coal fired power stations
• fuel excise will be lowered to compensate for fuel price increases due to a carbon price

In addition, there are no commitments to reduce emission other than to meet the 60% reduction by 2050. No cap for emissions has yet been set, and no interim reduction targets are specified.

Unfortunately, this structure of the CPRS greatly compromises any real effect on reducing emissions.

The Federal opposition led by Brendan Nelson has an even worse policy position. They are arguing about delaying the start date for emissions trading (the CPRS) by pushing it out to 2011 or 2012. In a nutshell, they are just playing politics, and still have several "climate change denialists" within their ranks.

We need to write letters to all our elected politicians telling them it is just not good enough - we need emergency action to decarbonise our economy, not political games and weak ineffective schemes and policies that favour big polluters and don't reduce emissions.