ETS - everyone looks bad
What a muddle. Rudd has put off the once unputoffable ETS by 1 year. To appease Green groups, he's increased the 'maximum' 2020 target to 25% of 1990 levels (up from 15%). Turnbull has shown himself to be more and more irrelevant, once again attacking the Government simultaneously for putting it off, and for trying to introduce it in the first place. The Rudd government has pandered once again to business groups, who are so stuck in short term thinking about this issue. Its really a bad look. I suggest that now, with bad economic times anyway, any short term impact of adjustments to a lower carbon economy would be somewhat masked. And it would position Australia very well to take advantage of the upside once the world economy begins to normalise.
Turnbull, on the other hand, is balancing a resurgent hard-right in his party (Lead by Nick Minchin) - who don't believe in climate change anyway, against the antics of the mercurial Barnaby Joyce - leading the nationals in an 'over my dead body' approach to emissions trading. Turnbull himself, I think, wants and ETS and knows that it would be better sooner, rather than later. But to quell an uprising against him by his party, he must move further and further into the camp of the sceptics.
I'm also surprised that some of the environmental groups (the Greens Party excepted) have come out backing this scheme. They seem pretty pleased about the increase to 25% reductions in emissions. However, this is conditional on a 'strong' international consensus emerging from the Copenhagen conference at the end of this year. Depending on how you define 'strong international consensus' (plenty of wiggle room there), its unlikely this will eventuate. At best, there will probably be an 'in principle' agreement. Also, for the first year, carbon credits will be limitlessly issued, at a pathetically cheap $10 per tonne. So we've put off the decision by a year, watered down its implementation at that point, and increased our 'maybe if the stars align' target. Its pretty sad to see green groups line up to support that.
Ross Gittins wrote an interesting article in todays SMH I agree - no one has come out of this looking very good.
Just coming back to Turnbull briefly... Labor strategists are keen on painting Turnbull as the 'no-man'. He has consistently opposed everything the Government has done. And I think this is begining to stick in the media. More and more reports are focussing on Turnbull's 'no' response to everything, and this will do him serious damage. He needs to take a stand on something. Business groups are getting jack of it too - writing a letter to Turnbull to clean out the masses of deadwood in the Liberal party, or risk losing campaign funding. If they are to stand any chance in the next election, they would do well to heed that call. At this stage, they stand for nothing, having leapt to a more progressive position, then being slowly dragged back to the staid right by the likes of Minchin, Bishop, Andrews, etc. Its time to decide, are they the party of Howard, or have they moved on?
Turnbull, on the other hand, is balancing a resurgent hard-right in his party (Lead by Nick Minchin) - who don't believe in climate change anyway, against the antics of the mercurial Barnaby Joyce - leading the nationals in an 'over my dead body' approach to emissions trading. Turnbull himself, I think, wants and ETS and knows that it would be better sooner, rather than later. But to quell an uprising against him by his party, he must move further and further into the camp of the sceptics.
I'm also surprised that some of the environmental groups (the Greens Party excepted) have come out backing this scheme. They seem pretty pleased about the increase to 25% reductions in emissions. However, this is conditional on a 'strong' international consensus emerging from the Copenhagen conference at the end of this year. Depending on how you define 'strong international consensus' (plenty of wiggle room there), its unlikely this will eventuate. At best, there will probably be an 'in principle' agreement. Also, for the first year, carbon credits will be limitlessly issued, at a pathetically cheap $10 per tonne. So we've put off the decision by a year, watered down its implementation at that point, and increased our 'maybe if the stars align' target. Its pretty sad to see green groups line up to support that.
Ross Gittins wrote an interesting article in todays SMH I agree - no one has come out of this looking very good.
Just coming back to Turnbull briefly... Labor strategists are keen on painting Turnbull as the 'no-man'. He has consistently opposed everything the Government has done. And I think this is begining to stick in the media. More and more reports are focussing on Turnbull's 'no' response to everything, and this will do him serious damage. He needs to take a stand on something. Business groups are getting jack of it too - writing a letter to Turnbull to clean out the masses of deadwood in the Liberal party, or risk losing campaign funding. If they are to stand any chance in the next election, they would do well to heed that call. At this stage, they stand for nothing, having leapt to a more progressive position, then being slowly dragged back to the staid right by the likes of Minchin, Bishop, Andrews, etc. Its time to decide, are they the party of Howard, or have they moved on?
Post a Comment