News: The Greens offer new PM a deal on carbon price

In what Greens leader senator Bob Brown has dubbed as being “breakthrough politics”, the Greens have put forward a five point plan to Prime Minister Julia Gillard that could end the deadlock on an emissions trading scheme before the next election.

Yesterday Senator Brown wrote a letter to Prime Minister Gillard that restated “the Greens’ commitment to… find a way forward to climate change action before an election.” The letter focused on the Greens’ willingness to adopt a “Garnaut-style carbon price which could open the way later, to emissions trading.”

The proposed program outlined in the letter by Senator Brown is not a direct alternative to the emissions trading scheme supported by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The Greens’ proposal is an interim plan to establish a carbon price prior to setting up an emissions trading scheme at a later date.

In his letter, Brown listed five “key elements” which he said are to “serve as the basis for open and constructive negotiation”. The most specific point made was that the scheme should include a price of $23 per tonne on carbon which should be put in place by July 1 2011, with an increase of 4% + CPI per annum. Brown also said that the scheme should remain in action until a new global treaty establishes “longer-term emission targets”.

The other key points outlined by the senator were that “no targets would be included in the initial legislation”, that “full trading would commence once targets are legislated” and “international permits would only be allowed once trading commences.”

Brown also suggested that the construction of new ‘dirty’ coal power stations should, in line with a 2007 Labor election promise, be prevented; that an national energy efficiency target should be introduced and that “native forest; and woodland clearance – which accounts for 15-20% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions” should be ended.

In the letter, Brown told Gillard that through negotiation with the Greens a price on carbon could be set within three months – potentially prior to the next election.

In a Greens media release last Saturday, Brown criticised “Labor's right-wing ascendency”. This was after a recent decline in the Greens’ opinion poll standing, which occurred after Gillard took over from Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. Brown argued that "the Green vote "parked" with… Julia Gillard, won't stay there long" as Labor’s positions on environmental, humanitarian and business will once again become apparent to voters.

Brown did however mention that he “[looks] forward to talking to Prime Minister Gillard about a carbon price and real action to tackle climate change”.

In a media release yesterday which announced the letter to the Prime Minister, Brown also acknowledged that “the government is set to announce new solar and wind projects”. Labor’s position on climate change was asserted in Gillard’s first speech as Prime Minister, in which she announced that she “[believes] human beings contribute to climate change”. Gillard also commented that she finds it “disappointing” that Australia has no price on carbon.
---
How does emissions trading work? Click here for a video explaining the process!

The Development of the CPRS – Part Six: Emission Targets Around the World

The Labor Government’s targets in its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme have been described as being too little by some and too much by others given Australia’s small contribution to global emissions. Some Liberal party members have commented that the targets are premature and at the moment “unilateral”, and that the CPRS legislation should be deferred until after the Copenhagen Summit next month.

But at the moment, what are the proposed emission reduction targets of the other countries, states and organisations around the world? How do these compare with Australia’s targets? The below grid compiled by this blog’s author compares some (20) of the world’s targets, including draft legislation for the US state of California, which has already created a scheme ahead of the US federal government. California’s program is expected to begin in 2012. Also of interest is new Zealand’s scheme, which has already passed its parliament.

	By 2012	By 2020	Per Capita By 2020	By 2050
Australia	108% of 2000 levels. (2013 is 107% of 2000 levels.)	4-14% below 1990 levels, or 25% with an international agreement.	34-41% below 1990 levels.	60% below 1990 levels.
California (US State)	--	Equal to/lower than 1990 levels. (Guaranteed – part of state law)	--	--
Canada	6% below 1990 levels when Kyoto was ratified, however present minority Government opposes this and says it will not meet this target.	KYOTOplus: 25% decrease on 1990 levels.	--	--
China	IN 2010: 20% cut in energy intensity on 2005 levels. Reduce energy usage by one fifth.	Carbon dioxide emissions cut by 40-45%. (15% renewable energy)	--	((Not yet committed to a half reduction in world emissions by 2050
Denmark	--	20% reduction on 1990 levels.	--	--
European Union	--	20-30% below 1990 levels	24-34% below 1990 levels	60-80% below 1990 levels.
France	Already met Kyoto targets.	30% reduction on 1990 levels. (20% renewable energy.)	--	“Fourfold” reduction on 1990 levels.
Germany	21% reduction on 1990 levels. (Already met.)	36% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Japan	Aiming to be in line with Kyoto.	--	--	--
Kyoto Protocol	5.2% of 1990 levels. This is a different amount for each signatory.	--	--	--
New Zealand	--	10-20% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Norway	--	40% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Regional Greenhou-se Gas Initiative (US states and provinces)	--	10% below 1990 levels.	--	--
(Scotland – under jurisdiction of UK parliament)	--	(40% of energy from renewable sources. Other targets are set by UK.)	--	--
South Korea	--	30% lower than predicted (4% lower than 2005 levels.)	--	(20% renewable energy.)
Sweden	Already met Kyoto targets.	20% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Switzerland	--	20% reduction on 1990 levels.	--	--
United Kingdom	20% less on 1990 levels, however acknowledges that it may fall 4% short. Government estate carbon neutral.	26-32% below 1990 levels (Old info?)	24-34% below 1990 levels. (Old info?)	80% below 1990 levels/60% decrease on present levels.
United States (Proposed before Obama became President)	--	1990 levels. 17% reduction in industry on 2005 levels.	25% below 1990 levels.	80% below 1990 levels. 83% reduction in industry on 2005 levels.
Western Climate Initiative (US State alliance)	--	15% lower than 2005 levels.	--	--

(Note: Targets may change)

Missed any? Please post a response with your addition.

News: No Longer the Wong Way: The Results of the Liberal-Labor Party Negotiations Released

Today the Government released a set of proposed changes to its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation. These changes stemmed from negotiations with the Opposition Liberal Party, whom with the support of the Government aims to pass the bill through the senate. Heading each side of the negotiations are Labor Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong and Liberal Opposition Energy Spokesman Ian Macfarlane, who have been negotiating a deal for weeks. These changes include excluding agriculture from the scheme, further transitional assistance for affected industries and measures to ensure that the burden on households of increased prices on goods and services is lessened.

Today’s Media Release from the Department of Climate Change outlines the areas in which changes have been proposed. Included amongst these propositions is the Government’s previously announced exclusion of agriculture from the CPRS. The details of the proposed changes document also supplied by the Department of Climate Change says that this exclusion will be “indefinite” and the bill will “explicitly exclude agriculture”. This means that any change to this part of the passed CPRS legislation will need to be voted on by the parliament of the day.

The changes also include $1.1 billion for a Transitional Electricity Cost Assistance Program, designed to assist medium to large businesses with the increased electricity costs. An additional $4 billion is also proposed for the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme (ESAS) making the total investment in this area $7.3 billion. The ESAS is designed to lessen the financial shock of the CPRS on fossil-fuel powered electricity generators such as coal powered power stations. Coal fuelled power stations will also be receiving a further $750 million in “transitional assistance” over five years, making the total transitional assistance for the coal industry come to $1.5 billion. $270 million for the Coal Mine Abatement Fund has also been proposed.

The changes also suggest including voluntary household action in the goal of the CPRS, and the details mention that an assistance package has been designed for low- and middle-income households. The carbon price estimate has also been lowered by $3 to $26 per tonne in 2012-2013 due to the strong Australian dollar, which will reduce the cost of goods and services. The media release says that “voluntary action by households will now allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 emissions reduction target.”

The details mention that eligible Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) producers will receive free permits.

The media release also describes making the Global Recession Buffer for affected industries permanent, meaning that eligible industries for 60 and 90 per cent assistance will have a 10 per cent and 5 per cent buffer respectively to ensure sufficient assistance.

The media release explains that with these amendments, Australia will still be able to achieve its “ambitious” unconditional target of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on 2000 levels by 2020. It also argues that the “deal” is economically “responsible”.

The media release closes with a plea to the Liberal Party. “We call on the Opposition to support this negotiated package and ensure a vote on this package before Parliament rises this week” - a timetable which many Liberal party members may still not agree with.

The Development of the CPRS – Part Five: Alternative Parliamentary Emission Reduction Targets Compared

Who are the Players?
The groups which have the most say in the passing of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) are, ultimately, the Members of Parliament and Senators of the Australian Federal Parliament. The parties represented in the House of Representatives are the Labor Party (83 Seats) and the Liberal/National Coalition (65 Seats in total – 55 Liberal, 10 National). In the Senate the composition is the Labor party (32 Seats), the Liberal/National Coalition (37 Seats), The Australian Greens (5 Seats), Family First (1 Seat) and South Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

What are their Targets?

PARTY / SENATOR	2020 Targets	2020 per capita reduction	2050 Targets
Labor	5–15 per cent below 2000 levels	27–34 per cent below 2000 levels	60 per cent below 2000 levels
Liberal	Reduce carbon emissions by 150 million tonnes – 10 per cent on 2000 levels.	--	--
National	Yet to formulate a policy.	--	--
Greens	minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020	--	Net 0 emissions by 2050 at latest.
Family First	N/A*	N/A*	N/A*
Xenophon	both Xenophon and the Liberal party commissioned a report from Frontier Economics, hence the targets are the same.	--	--

*Family First Senator Steve Fielding does not believe in Global Warming, thus there are no targets in this table. 

How each party intends reaching these targets will be explored in a later instalment.

The Development of the CPRS - Part Four: Video>Cap and Trade Explained

The Government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme is based around a ‘cap and trade’ system, but what exactly is it? In this part of The Development of the CPRS series, an animation will display how the system works.

The Development of the CPRS - Part Three: Research Reports

Research reports provide scientific, social or economic information that relates to draft policy development. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is based on scientific research reports into how to combat global warming. Many research reports have suggested that Australia needs to take action regarding climate change, whilst others suggest that the changes in climate are natural and all action would do is make Australia uncompetitive in global markets. One of the reports that suggest that climate change is real is the Stern Report, which also suggests that Australia is one of the countries most at risk from the negative consequence of climate change ^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_report)}. Also, according to the Climate Change Action Network Australia, Australia is the highest per capita carbon pollution emitter of all developed nations ^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia)}. Another group, the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), suggests in turn that global warming as a result of the human contribution of greenhouse gasses is only half the issue, and changes in climate in the US and Canada are equally the result of changing currents in the Pacific Ocean and human activity ^{(http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1453831}). However the research report that has had the most influence on the formulation of the CPRS is the Garnaut Report.

When Professor Garnaut presented his report to the Government, he suggested that an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would be preferable to other schemes, such as a tax scheme or hybrid scheme, in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.⁽¹⁾ The report suggested that, through the use of an ETS, Australia should reduce it’s emissions by 25% (on 2000 levels) by 2020, and 90% by 2050.⁽¹⁾ The government at first adopted a modified version of Garnaut’s lower targets, but in May 2009 this was revised and Garnaut’s suggestion of 25% by 2020 was adopted, provided that the rest of the world agrees to similar targets. ^{(http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/mr20090504.html)}

^{(1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Climate_Change_Review)}

The Development of the CPRS - Part Two: Social Movements

Social movements are a broad changing in general public opinion that can influence government policy. A number of campaigns have changed the way people around the world view what they consume and dispose of, and how much power and pollution is attributed with day-to-day activities and purchases. The Victorian Government’s black balloon campaign is an example of such a campaign. This campaign measures carbon emissions in ‘black balloons,’ each representing 50 grams of greenhouse gas, allowing people to visualise the impact of certain high power-use actions on the environment, aided especially by the associated television advertisements ^{(http://www.saveenergy.vic.gov.au/default.aspx)}. This awareness of household ‘carbon footprints’ naturally extends to the source of the black balloons – the power stations. Increasing media attention on unclean energy sources (the Four Corners documentary ‘Heat on the Hill’ is a prime example of this) directs people to demand that every part of society should do its bit, not just households.

This social movement helped Kevin Rudd and his government gain power, with his promise to ratify the Kyoto agreement seen by many as a step forward ^{(http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1724/rudd-lays-ground-ratify-kyoto, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/03/2108345.htm, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/headlines/2007/12/03/50759/Australian-Prime.htm)}.

Earth Hour is another popular “green” movement. Earth Hour achieves wide television and advertising coverage, including stories on every free-to-air channel and pictures on Australia Post stamps. Another broad social movement is youth taking action against climate change, with the recent appearance of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition being a prime example ^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_Climate_Movement)}. Groups like this focus on getting young people to take actions such as demonstrations, to attempt to influence government policy.

Also supporting the public’s drive for climate change action is a wide range of music stars/groups (such as Bono, or Radiohead who offset emissions from their concerts and takes environmental protection measures for both concerts and merchandise ^{http://www.radiohead.com/themostgiganticflyingmouthforsometime/, http://www.waste.uk.com/Store/waste-radiohead-display-category-34-10-unbranded.html}), other celebrities such as Sir David Attenborough ^{(http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/?p=2665)} and well-known or powerful people like Al Gore^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment)} driving for action and taking action themselves. This adds support for public social change, which in turn pressures the government at election time.

The Development of the CPRS - Part One: Interest Groups

Interest groups are bodies that seek to influence government policy to be in line with their own views, beliefs or interests. There are many interest groups involved in the Carbon pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) from all areas of industry and lifestyle. The Executive Director of the ‘green group’ Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Don Henry, warned the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy that the extreme summer experienced in 2008/9 was only a “foretaste” of what is to come if climate action is not taken soon. Mr. Henry also mentioned that “more than 50,000 jobs in the tourism and recreation sectors” are at risk if action is not taken^{(http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2228)}. This appeal was in the interests of protecting jobs that would be lost if the targets in the CPRS are not made greater.

On the other side of the argument is the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA). The MCA said in a September 2008 media release that a 10% cut in emissions on 2000 levels by 2020 (with the maximum cut in the CPRS white paper at the time being 15% if other nations agree^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme)}) would “be extremely difficult to achieve given that it represents a 30% reduction on a “business as usual basis”. This amounts to a reduction in the order of 210 million tonnes by 2020 which is equivalent to the current emissions from Australia’s entire electricity generation sector.” ^{(http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/31100/MCA_interim_targets-5Sep08.pdf)} This statement portrays to the government that productivity will be crippled by greater targets and goes on to say that the targets suggested are only realistic if major technological advancements are affordably made.

Both of these interest groups attempt to protect their areas of society from any areas they see as a danger in the CPRS.