The most baffling aspect to the entire debate surrounding the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is how so many who agree on a problem can be so divided about the best solution.
With the exception of a few mavericks in the Nationals and the Liberals and one lone Senator from Family First, parliament accepts that the scientific debate is over.
Anthropogenic climate change presents us with the most pressing and complex policy problem humankind has faced. Ever. And personally, I can’t help wondering what planet climate change denialists are living on.
So how did we get to a point where the major parties can’t even talk to each other about this issue, when so much is at stake? To understand how we became so lost, we need to go back to where we first started losing our way.
I believe the rot set in with the Government’s initial white paper on the CPRS. In the old days, white papers used to contain vigorous analysis of a variety of alternatives. The Government’s white paper had none of this.
In the Government’s view there was only one way. Its way. Other schemes weren’t analysed or debated. At best they were given a cursory dismissal.
The Government was acting like a used car salesman who only lets you test drive one car and then insists on you buying it.
And the Government’s aversion to alternatives continues to this day.
That is why the coalition and I commissioned leading economists at Frontier Economics to tests the Government’s model and suggest alternative approaches.
Today we released Frontier’s findings which show that a hybrid CPRS/intensity model can be at least twice as green and more than forty percent cheaper.
The scheme locks in unconditional carbon emission cuts of 10% on 2000 levels, with the scope to achieve even deeper cuts, especially if international agreement is reached, compared with the Government’s proposed 5% cuts.
The modelling also achieves a $49 billion dollar saving to Gross Domestic Product over 20 years and greater job growth especially in regional areas, compared with the Government’s scheme.
The Frontier scheme also achieves low rises in retail electricity prices of 5% compared to the 40-50% expected under the Government’s plan.
The agricultural sector is protected through exclusion to bring it in line with American and European schemes, and there is also opportunity for rural producers to make off-farm income through abatement.
Put simply, the scheme is greener, cheaper and smarter.
But incredibly, it is not up for discussion as far as the Government is concerned.
I noted the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet was able to criticize the Frontier modelling this morning without actually having seen it.
Talk about insight!
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was equally confusing when she equated the plan with one proposed in Canada, when even a cursory reading of the modelling would show it is not a replica of the Canadian scheme at all.
I would say to Greg and Penny, by all means, ‘go your hardest’, but perhaps you could at least read the modelling you are deriding. After all, an unwillingness to look alternate models is what got us into this mess in the first place.
I was also concerned about the initial response from the Greens. Now we should recognise that we all owe a lot to the Greens.
The fact that we are even thinking about the politics of environmental issues is a testament to the decades of work done by the Greens.
But it is not simply enough to highlight problems. We need to find real world solutions to problems facing the planet.
The Greens compared the Government and Coalition, and I guess by extension me, to dinosaurs because of our reluctance to wipe out coal generators with some kind of punitive plan.
Now I know why this is a popular view among some sections of the community.
But when you think through the consequences of this position, it’s hard to see how you could back it. If we actually did that in the real world, you can forget about dinosaurs and start thinking about cavemen.
Just like cavemen we’ll all be left stuck freezing in the dark.
I want to see an effective, practical plan to come out of this. And part of that plan must involve being able to flick a switch and have the light actually come on. No-one wants to be left in the dark.
If ever there was an issue where we needed all sides of politics to find the common ground, this is it. And economically if we don’t manage to reach a consensus, we will all pay.
If the economy is going to grow and grow green, it will need significant amounts of investment in new technologies.
But this level of investment will only be made in a stable economic environment.
If big business thinks a CPRS will change the minute the government changes, they are not going to commit the massive funds needed to transform the economy.
The economy will only grow green from firm soil. The Australian public expects parliament to find the best way forward. I believe the Frontier modelling shows there are better alternatives to the Government’s proposed scheme.
Now if the government disagrees, let’s talk about that. But let’s not talk through the media, or across the chamber, where saving face seems more important that saving the planet.
Lets get around a table like we should have months ago, and acknowledge we all agree on the destination, we just need to find the best route.
Because ultimately, we have to get this right. The world is literally counting on us.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
RT @bencubby: This Estonian chap is a bit of a superstar (has anyone ever said that before?) #SBSeurovision
@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.
RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented