carbon reduction

Realist approach to carbon reduction | The Australian

The hyperbole of deep greens cannot be taken seriously

IN the absence of a global agreement, the Rudd Government has gone as far as it responsibly could in announcing unilateral cuts in greenhouse emissions of between 5 per cent and 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. Kevin Rudd has made the exercise harder than it should have been and more prone to errors by insisting on starting the emissions trading scheme in July 2010 on the basis of an artificial political deadline without any sign of a post-Kyoto agreement. That said, the Prime Minister's policy response to the Garnaut report is largely balanced, prudent and cautious. While honouring his promise to act on climate change, it is mindful of the need to protect jobs in challenging economic times.

Mr Rudd is not starry-eyed about the chances of international agreement, acknowledging it may well come after the Copenhagen meeting in a year's time. Yet an ambitious global agreement, not futile, economy-destroying cuts of our own, is the only way to reduce the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Mr Rudd is politically astute in recognising that most voters are smart enough to recognise that, and do not share the deep-green agenda of climate-change fanatics. There is little room for debate with people who believe there is no time like the present to shut down the coal industry completely.

The Australian agrees with Greens leader Bob Brown on one point however: that the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday was little different to the one John Howard would have been making if had he won the last election. On other points, Senator Brown should listen to families who need their jobs and enterprises that need to stay in business, even in tough economic times. He should listen more to the Australian Workers Union, which recognises its members' livelihoods are at stake. So should the shrieking banshees carted out for yesterday's announcement. Some of the journalists' questions to Mr Rudd, too, owed more to emotive hyperbole than an understanding of what is achievable by a small country whose greenhouse emissions will be 1 per cent of the world total by 2030.

The Greens have rendered themselves irrelevant with their breathtakingly ridiculous claim that the Government's response "sold out the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Murray-Darling Basin, the Australian Alps and the entire eastern seaboard". Mr Rudd signalled clearly he would not be negotiating with the Greens to get his package through the Senate. That is wise. But Malcolm Turnbull should be under no illusion that he can hold the Government to ransom, either. The Government will use this as a test of the Coalition's sincerity on climate change, and the Opposition Leader will have to play his cards carefully.

The Government has taken on board the concerns of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries with a $2.9 billion package. Sensibly, this now includes LPG and petrol refining. The number of free permits for this sector has been increased to 25per cent from 20 per cent in the earlier green paper. As Mr Rudd said in his speech, forcing such industries offshore would be bad for jobs and bad for the environment if they relocated to nations with much larger greenhouse emissions. The $750 million fund for coal and the development of carbon capture and storage recognise the importance of coal in meeting domestic energy needs and export returns.

Compensation for low- and middle-income households is the largest compensation component, with the Government looking after 2.9 million people in low-income groups. This politically savvy approach underlines the Government's determination not to adversely affect the standards of living of the most vulnerable in society. This will be balanced with an energy-efficiency package to help households and businesses adjust to changing conditions.

The Government has embraced the Garnaut strategy of gearing up to meet more ambitious goals should international agreement arise. This remains the real environmental goal, but as Professor Ross Garnaut says, it will be harder to achieve than trade or arms agreements.

carbon reduction