GreensBlog

A Different World - Speech to the National Press Club

TimHollo — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:20:57 +1000

The Government and other naysayers say it can't be done. The Greens say it must be done, so it will be done.

Christine Milne spoke today at the National Press Club in Canberra, televised nationally on ABC1, setting out the Greens' vision for a safe climate and setting that against what the Government is proposing with the CPRS.

You can read the speech here and please use this as an open thread to discuss the issues it raises!

Climate Change Rally

TimNorton — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:21:16 +1000

On Saturday 13th June, a national rally is being held in most capital cities around Australia. All five Greens Senators will be speaking at or attending rallies across Australia tomorrow calling for the CPRS to be scrapped and replaced with swift action to reduce emissions, drive renewable energy and create green jobs.

Bob will address the Melbourne Rally, 1pm, State Library
Christine will address the Hobart Rally, 12 noon, Parliament Lawns
Rachel will address the Perth Rally, with Scott also attending, 12.30 pm, Forrest Place, Perth
Sarah will address the Adelaide Rally, 11am, Victoria Square

We're also expecting large numbers of Greens members to be in attendance. Full details of the rallies can be found at www.climaterally.org and resources and details about the Greens' involvement can be found at www. greens.org.au/resources

Bob has also done a short video piece:

Hope to see many of you there!

Choosing the future or sticking to the past

TimHollo — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:57 +1000

In his desire to cling to the past, John Howard was often accused of wanting to keep Australia behind the white picket fence of the 1950s. Kevin Rudd, not to be outdone, has taken this approach to new heights, tying Australia to a 19th century industrial economy for the foreseeable future while much of the rest of the world powers ahead into the 21st century.

In the kerfuffle over the Government's decision to open the door the tiniest crack to the potential for a 25% emissions cut (the barest minimum required by science and the global community from a high polluter like Australia), most people have completely missed the fact that the Government has no intention of meeting those cuts at home in Australia. Australia's polluting industry is doubly shielded from having to clean up its act -- firstly by a direct price shield in the form of free permits and secondly by the option of buying in cheap permits from overseas to cover all of its obligations.

This should come as no surprise, given that the Prime Minister, Penny Wong, Martin Ferguson and, more recently, Greg Combet, have been at great pains to reassure everyone that they would do nothing to jeopardise the supremacy of coal in Australia. But it is worth drawing together the threads to make it clear.
It's an old story that needs no repeating that, following Howard's lead, the Rudd Government's rhetoric and funding priorities lie clearly with coal over renewable energy and energy efficiency. Funding for the pipe dream of "clean coal" outstrips that for renewable energy, even though renewables cover a far broader range of technological options, many of which are far closer to commercial reality than geosequestration.

Indeed, many renewable energy technologies are ready to be rolled out now, but have to make do with the scraps from the table while the Government insists that coal will remain Australia's major power source for the foreseeable future.

Polluting industry has been left off the hook with energy efficiency by both the Howard and Rudd Governments. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, introduced by Howard and supported by the ALP, requires Australia's largest energy users to audit their energy use. I sought several times to amend the legislation to require them to actually implement the findings of those audits, but the old parties closed ranks again and again to protect the old industry from the sin of becoming more efficient. Recent analysis has shown that companies such as BHP Billiton and Bluescope could be saving many millions by implementing their energy efficiency opportunities, but inexplicably refuse to do so.

This has recently been repeated in the decision at COAG last week to exempt the big polluters from any obligation under the Renewable Energy Target. For some reason, it was decided that we will still meet our 20% target but exclude the biggest energy users from this effort, making the community at large pay for industry's refusal to move into the future.

The Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme, of course, is carefully designed to ensure that big industry does not have to do anything. The extraordinarily and unjustifiably weak target is the first attempt to reduce the need for change. In addition, the allocation of now up to 95% free permits for the bulk of Australia's trade exposed polluters -- far more than is economically justifiable, as Professor Garnaut has repeatedly explained -- means they have little incentive to change. On this week's changed program, no-one will need to do anything before July 1 2012, as there will be unlimited $10 permits up to that date and beyond it only marginal change out to at least 2020.

Between the Green Paper and the White Paper, the Government realised that the almost complete shielding of the bulk of Australia's industrial emissions from the price raised the spectre of a huge price impact on the community. Thus, the decision in the White Paper to explicitly scrap any limit on the purchase of permits from overseas. Now, if at any point Australia's polluters find themselves facing a price impost greater than they think they can simply pay, all they need to do is buy in dirt cheap permits from developing countries.

This neatly avoids any short term need to transform the economy. But it is deeply short-sighted, both environmentally and economically.

It's no surprise that many of our competitors in Europe and Asia, who have benefited for years from Australian green technologists and entrepreneurs taking their business overseas due to lack of interest at home, are salivating over this! Australia will continue the approach of exporting our green economic future, while locking ourselves into being the dirty quarry of Asia. Once our trading partners and competitors have moved on we will be unceremoniously dumped and left behind.

But of course, the only certainty of a weak approach now is that it will have to be changed down the track. The Australian people won't stand for seeing the old parties close ranks with the old polluters against the climate and the community. As the green economy booms around the world, the Australian community will get increase loud in its demand for action here at home.

Prime Minister Rudd might think he's onto an election winner with this political wedge. But, like most of his colleagues, he seems unable to see more than a year or three into the future. The Greens have longer vision. We can see what's coming and we will not shirk from advocating for it and standing by our calls for moving now on the transformation to a carbon neutral economy.

This article was first published in Crikey's email newsletter today

Protecting the climate is a job for everyone

TimNorton — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:15:10 +1000

We've just launched our new TV ad, pushing the Government to see sense on emissions trading. Australia needs real domestic action on climate change. Unfortunately, the Rudd government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is deeply flawed.

The Government has announced that it will delay the scheme by one year and deliver another $2.2 billion in compensation to Australia's biggest polluters-in addition to $7.4 billion the polluters are already getting.

The Greens are prepared to support a minimum unconditional 25% target - the bare minimum required by science and the global community - to end 12 years of climate inaction. And Treasury modelling shows it is affordable; by 2020 Australia's GDP will be roughly three times the size it is today whether we have a ‘worse than useless' 5% target or the minimum effective 25% target.

Now the Prime Minister faces a climate test. Will Kevin Rudd brown-down the CPRS by negotiating with the Coalition, or will he green up the CPRS by negotiating with the Greens?

You can support the Greens by writing to the newspapers in your state to show the Prime Minister that Australians support an emissions trading scheme that protects the environment, not polluters.

Climate Change is no Republic moment

TimHollo — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:55:31 +1000

A new meme is being pushed by people close to Labor to help force through the CPRS. Just as the failure of the Republic referendum knocked that issue off the agenda for a decade or more, the story goes, so if the CPRS fails in the Senate will we have lost our chance to do introduce an ETS for ten years.

While this might be a superficially attractive comparison, it is as far from reality as Minister Wong's statements about economic transformation are from the reality of the scheme her Government has designed.

Certainly, there are some similarities between the republic and climate change. In both cases, we see a strong public desire for radical change that is not reflected in the Government. In both cases we see a serious lack of bipartisanship. In both cases, we see a Government whose heart is not in it put forward a minimalist option that disappoints and disempowers the people.

But there is one fundamental difference which makes a mockery of the whole attempt to draw a parallel. Urgency.

There is only one reason why the Republic was on the agenda in the 1990s, after a century-long campaign - because Paul Keating and a few other determined individuals put it there. While there is and was broad public support for a move to a republic, the fact that we did not make the change last decade and may not in the next decade is a great pity, but it is no tragedy. John Howard's undermining of the referendum took the wind out of the sails of the republic push in a way that is deeply unfortunate, but nothing disastrous will happen if the push does not increase again rapidly. No-one will die for lack of an Australian republic.

Climate change, on the other hand, is on the agenda because it is a scientifically demonstrated threat which is increasingly impossible to ignore or sideline. If we do not act fast, we invite social, economic and environmental catastrophe on a scale most of us find hard to imagine.

If the current proposal falls over, as it should unless significantly improved, we have no choice but to try again in the very near future. Public pressure will only grow stronger as the threat becomes ever clearer and as the globe begins to act.

The strongest parallel between the republic and the climate is that in both cases the Australian people are being presented with a dodgy, ‘take it or leave it' option that they are unwilling to accept. In neither case should they be forced to accept it because it is the only option at the moment. In both cases, accepting the minimalist approach effectively shuts off the option of making the radical change that is necessary.

Let's reject the minimalist approach in this case, as we did with the Republic, and tell the Government to come back with a better option. This one is unacceptable.

Garnaut excised from Wong's history

TimHollo — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:23:25 +1000

After he embarrassed her government last week by saying the CPRS may be so bad that it should be taken out the back and shot (well, not quite),it seems that Minister Wong has excised Professor Garnaut entirely from her vocabulary.

In a speech to the Lowy Institute today (not yet on her website, but will be here), in which she bravely painted a picture of a fictional world quite unlike our own, Minister Wong set out for her audience the history of emissions trading plans in Australia. She raised the original proposal put to the Howard Government a decade ago, discussed Peter Shergold's report in the Howard Government's final year, and detailed her own Government's Green Paper and White Paper process.

But she completely failed to mention the Garnaut Report.

Excised from history. Oh dear.

Here is what Christine Milne had to say about the speech.

Major Economies Forum needs good will on all sides

ChristineMilne — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:40:13 +1000

Same idea. Different people. This could make a world of difference.

When George W. Bush announced moves to bring the world's major economies together to discuss climate change, it was viewed, quite rightly, with deep scepticism. The Asia Pacific Partnership and various other efforts Bush's Administration coordinated were doomed from the start by Bush's consistently destructive role in global climate politics. They were always PR processes to give the appearance of action while actively protecting polluters and undermining global agreement to reduce emissions.

These negotiation processes are, needless to say, only as good as the leaders involved.

Which is why I had some hope when I learned that President Obama had announced another similar effort - the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

Unlike his predecessor, President Obama is sending clear signals that he means to provide strong and serious leadership on climate change. He has moved swiftly to start reducing US emissions, through investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport as part of his economic stimulus package. Perhaps more importantly, he has filled key positions in his Administration with experts in the fields of climate change and emissions reduction, giving great hope to those around the world who know what people like Steve Chu, Hilda Solis, John Holdren and, most recently, Cathy Zoi, have achieved in their careers and can achieve in these positions - if they are given the freedom and resources they need in order to do so.

But, if the Major Economies Forum is to succeed in advancing the goal of a strong and scientifically adequate agreement at Copenhagen, all the key players President Obama is bringing together will have to demonstrate similar commitment. Most importantly, each must enter the negotiations open to the prospect of adopting the kind of emissions reduction targets that we need in order to prevent climate catastrophe.

That is not where the Rudd Government's thinking currently lies. Australia will enter these negotiations with a fixed upper limit on our 2020 emissions cuts - no greater than 15%.

While I accept that Australia isn't going to lead the world, it is critically important that the Rudd Government's refusal to accept strong emissions reduction targets does not give other countries involved in this process cover for playing the same dangerous and destructive game. The worst outcome would be if the US's new leadership is rebuffed by a group of troglodytes led by Australia, refusing to even consider deep emissions cuts.

President Obama has put on the table a minimum emissions reduction commitment - bringing US emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 - which is still well below what the science demands. But this has never been presented as an upper limit to the discussion, rather it has been taken as a first positive step in a long global negotiation.

To play a constructive role in the global process, the Rudd Government must open itself to the prospect of real domestic and global action to prevent climate catastrophe. The best path for Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong right now would be to immediately drop the 15% maximum 2020 target as a gesture of goodwill and good faith in the global process.

We don't want a Ferrari ETS, Minister

ChristineMilne — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:35:57 +1100

One of the most revealing things that has been said in a very shady debate thus far on the Rudd Government's emissions trading plans was Minister Wong's thinly veiled threat to the Greens yesterday, saying: "Some people want it to be a Ferrari, but if you can't have a Ferrari, would you really have no vehicle at all?"

If Wong thinks a Ferrari is desirable, then she clearly doesn't understand the environmental imperative here. However, she was obviously trying to make two points. Firstly, it is part of her campaign to convince the media and the electorate that her deeply flawed plans are better than nothing and should therefore be accepted. Secondly, she was sending out the subliminal message that the Greens are asking for something which is expensive and out of reach for the vast majority of Australians.

The Minister is wrong on both counts and her evasiveness under questioning in the Senate shows that she knows it. That fact that the Minister is now taking such a defensive line reveals that Labor knows it is bleeding support in key constituencies over the issue, as recent EMC and Auspolls have shown. A massive 37% of Labor voters, and 48% of young voters who tend to live in vulnerable inner metro seats, believe that the target should be strengthened.

Let's take this line that something is better than nothing.

Firstly, that is deliberately framed around the Government's preferred view that emissions trading is a silver bullet which, once in effect, can replace every other climate policy setting over time. Emissions trading sets a framework within which other policies work to help reduce emissions and transform the economy, but, in the absence of an ETS, there are still plenty of things we can do.

In the context of the global financial meltdown, now is a perfect time to be creating hundreds of thousands of high quality green jobs in manufacturing and services by investing heavily in upgrading the grid for renewable energy, retrofitting every home in the nation with state of the art energy efficiency, rolling out public transport networks and protecting our carbon forest stores.

Right now, Minister Wong has two options on the table that she could move on immediately to achieve huge emissions reductions. With the global market evaporating, Tasmania's forestry sector is in dire economic straits. Instead of bailing them out and propping up unsustainable jobs, the Federal Government can and should step in now to protect forests, including with a restructuring package for those workers who have been dumped on the scrap-heap by the market and retrain them for new and sustainable jobs such as managing those forest carbon stores.

With many billions of dollars looking to be invested in the global renewable energy market, now is the perfect time for the Government to sign up to the gross national feed-in tariff bill that I have on the books in the Senate. With that bill, and investment in upgrading to an intelligent electricity grid, Australia could move fast towards a completely decarbonised electricity sector.

These issues and many more will now be canvassed by the broad Senate Inquiry that we expect to be referred by the Senate this afternoon. We expect to report back in May on a broad range of options for emissions reduction beyond the emissions trading framework.

Of course, because emissions trading does set the framework within which all other climate policies act, if that trading scheme is designed in such a way that it locks out the options for deep cuts in emissions, actively preventing the transformation to a new, green economy, then it will be worse than having no ETS at all.

This is not a case of nothing being better than something -- it is a case of maintaining hope instead of closing off options for real action.
Briefly, it is worth addressing Minister Wong's subliminal swipe at a strong ETS being costly.

The Government's own Treasury modelling showed that the cost difference between meeting a target of 5% and 25% was so small as to be less than the margin of error. Treasury, against my urging, did not even bother to model the 40%+ emissions reductions that we actually need to achieve, but there is strong evidence that, contrary to the Government's rhetoric, the harder we work, the cheaper it gets to take action. This is because we learn faster and make fewer ill-thought-out bad investments along the way -- investing in lower emissions technologies, for example, instead of leapfrogging straight to zero emissions.

That's a metaphor, really, for this whole debate. Supporting the CPRS as it stands would lead to an array of bad investment decisions, locking in a higher polluting future and making it much more expensive to reduce emissions when we get around to doing so. It is the Government's plan, handing over so many free permits to polluters that the scheme may not even be self-funding into the future, which is the expensive model. Auctioning all permits and using the revenue wisely to invest in building a zero carbon economy is the frugal model.

Minister, nobody wants a Ferrari ETS! We don't want something that is flash and fancy but gas guzzling, expensive and out of reach. We want a solid, reliable vehicle that will actually do the job effectively and efficiently. We want fleets of hybrid and plug-in electric cars, walking paths and cycleways, trams, buses and trains and, importantly, we want innovation to deliver us the transport of the future.

Climate Change is about more than the mechanism

ChristineMilne — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:06:16 +1100

After a year of rushing headlong into an ill-thought out emissions trading scheme, the global financial meltdown has given Australia pause for thought in how we deal with the climate meltdown.

Thus far, however, we are still having the wrong debate. With crunch time on the emissions trading legislation fast approaching, we are bickering over the right mechanism to use when, fundamentally, our entire attitude must change.

Think of it on a personal level. The contestants on Australia's Biggest Loser aren't going to win the competition and get healthy lives back by setting themselves a meagre weight loss target and then arguing between Atkins and Weight Watchers to achieve it. They will only succeed if they make a determined commitment to themselves to rebuild a healthy body, changing their whole attitude and lifestyle to achieve that vital and realistic goal.

Instead of fighting over how little we can get away with cutting our emissions, we need to commit to doing whatever it takes to deliver a safe climate to our children. Instead of asking whether taxing or trading carbon is better for achieving incremental emissions cuts, we need to get moving fast on total decarbonisation of the economy. Until we accept that challenge, the policy debate is largely a distraction. Once we change our attitude, either mechanism can succeed.

The carbon tax versus emissions trading argument is a hoary old chestnut that divides experts and non-experts the world over. Both sides have strong arguments in their favour and both have their
drawbacks. The Australian Greens tend to support emissions trading because trading guarantees a particular environmental outcome and lets the market decide the price, whereas a tax sets the price and lets the market decide the environmental outcome. Given that Lord Stern warned us three years ago that climate change is the world's biggest market failure, we would rather be guided by a definite climate outcome than by the whims of the market.

Critics of emissions trading point to the mess the Rudd Government has made of its proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and argue that a carbon tax would be simpler and therefore preferable, even if it does not guarantee a specific carbon reduction and therefore climate outcome.

But the view that a tax is inherently simple can only be held by those who have not been paying attention to what the Rudd Government has been doing. At the urging of the big polluters, Ministers Wong and Ferguson have bravely created complexities where no-one could have imagined it possible, with the latest example being the ridiculously complicated arrangements now being discussed for trade exposed polluters to qualify for compensation.

If the Government has made such a mess of emissions trading, what guarantee is there that they would not do the same with a carbon tax? The moment the choice of a carbon tax is taken, you can bet that the big polluters would be walking corridors and knocking on doors making sure it is as weak and full of loopholes as possible. There is every chance that the inherent simplicity of a tax would be muddied beyond recognition by convoluted and intricate arrangements for compensation, offsets and rebates, muting the price signal and undermining the purpose of the exercise just as has happened with the CPRS. If the level of the tax is geared towards the CPRS's pitifully weak 5% emission cuts, very little will be achieved even if voluntary action is counted.

There are signs that the Government is beginning to recognise what the Greens have long said - that there is an abundance of cheap and easy emissions reductions out there for the taking in an economy as energy inefficient as our own. The first steps being taken towards home energy efficiency in the recent stimulus package, and the rumours that a big commercial efficiency push is coming, are positive signs. But, with the current scheme design, they will only make it cheaper for polluters to meet their weak obligations instead of being a reason to aim for a stronger target.

The Government will convince no-one with their claims that the CPRS is about transforming the economy when it is clear as day that its design is geared to protecting existing industries at all costs. The policy needs very significant work to make it both environmentally and economically effective.

The Greens have been thinking about and working on these issues for many years. We have a wealth of experience and expertise on how best to design effective policies, garnered from best practice from around the world, in successful economies such as Germany and California.

Our door is always open. The Government must recognise now that while quick arrangements could be made in order to pass the stimulus package, rushing through a deeply flawed CPRS will not be acceptable.

Obama ushers in a climate of hope

TimHollo — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:51:48 +1100

Here is one of my favourite parts of President Obama's inauguration speech this morning:

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

In other words, "Yes, we can!"

In other words, those who still subscribe to the view that politics is a slow game which cannot move quickly are wrong. Just like the climate, politics can reach tipping points which trigger great change at extraordinary speed, leaving in its wake those who are still playing the old game.

Today we can finally have some hope that the world will do what it takes to prevent the global catastrophe that would be runaway climatic disruption. In President Obama, we have a global leader who recognises the scale of the threat we face and is gearing up his country for far greater change than even they may expect.

Another of my favourite quotes from this morning's speech is Obama's slap at those who undermined civil liberties as part of the ‘war on terror':

"we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

You can read in this equally that, in President Obama, we finally have a global leader who rejects as false the choice between our economy and our environment. Obama seizes instead the tremendous potential of rebuilding the stagnating American economy with a green stimulus plan. He is starting today on the project of creating five million new jobs with a plan that puts science and innovation back at the heart of government, that will support a massive uptake of renewable energy, and that will deliver possibly the single largest energy efficiency retrofitting project in world history.

Obama's soaring rhetoric is inspiring, but what is more exciting still is that he has surrounded himself with cabinet nominees who are American and global leaders in this field.

Energy Secretary designate, Steve Chu, is a nobel prize winning physicist who has spear-headed research, development and commercialisation of renewable energy and energy efficiency and is openly sceptical of the potential of geosequestration. He calls for the transformation of America's energy infrastructure and knows how it can be done. As a Chinese American, there are reports that Chu has already made a big impression in China and could lead a new cooperative venture across the two countries towards sustainable energy.

Labor Secretary designate, Hilda Solis, is one of America's leading political champions of green jobs, author of the as yet unfunded ‘Green Jobs Act' and an inspiring and passionate speaker on the issue.

Perhaps most excitingly, Obama has nominated John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Holdren is a brilliant and passionate environmentalist, campaigner against nuclear proliferation, and scientist who, since 2005, has led the world-renowned Woods Hole Research Center.

There are certainly a few disappointing nominees in the mix as well, but then there is the factor that, for the first time in living memory, America have a President who, because of the way he campaigned and was elected, is answerable not to the big money and the big corporations, but to the countless millions of individuals who put him where he is. And, furthermore, a President who has built a massive active constituency whom he can mobilise at short notice to campaign on his behalf, spread his message, and bring America with him as he goes.

The overwhelming feeling is that Obama can deliver an extraordinary shift in America, and thus the world. Perhaps this is the moment we've been waiting for.

Yes, we can!

Joyce, the Nationals and climate change

TimHollo — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:22:47 +1100

Nationals Senate leader, Barnaby Joyce, let fly in today's press and radio with an attack not just on emissions trading but on climate change science, effectively calling it "just a load of rubbish".

According to Godwin's Law, Joyce immediately lost his argument by invoking Nazism, referring to "environmental goose-steppers" and coining a new term: "eco-totalitarianism". He also made that classic climate-sceptic mistake of raising Y2K as an example of a doomsayer prediction that never came to pass, adding this time "population explosions, food shortages, fuel running out [and] communism taking over the world." The population, food shortage and peak oil time bombs are still ticking, of course, as Joyce well knows in the case of food! But the others are arguments for strong action, not for an ostrich-like head-in-the-sand attitude. The reason Y2K didn't cause chaos and totalitarian communism (and Nazism for that matter) didn't spread far further and destroy far more lives than they did is because people actually stood up and did something about them!

But let's leave those arguments aside for the time being and consider what these comments, from a man who considers himself a future leader and the great white hope of his party, mean for the future of the National Party.

There is certainly a long-term tendency in the bush towards climate scepticism, born, perhaps, in the old city greenie / bush farmer tensions of the '70s, '80s and '90s. Farmers who, quite reasonably, didn't appreciate being told what they could and could not do developed a mistrust of environmentalists which still exists, with a stranglehold on the National Party itself. But that mistrust has long been waning in the broader rural constituency, as has the converse position amongst many environmentalists. For many years there has been an ongoing rapprochement, led by people such as Christine Milne, who grew up as a sixth-generation dairy farmer, has a positive vision for greener rural communities and who worked closely between the two 'constituencies' in her campaign against the Wesley Vale pulp mill and then her years in the Tasmanian Parliament.

Closely connected with the waning of anti-green feeling in the bush is the waning of climate scepticism. Christine's Senate office is regularly in touch with farmers and rural communities across Australia who are concerned and expressing support for her work. Many farmers are now linking the drought with climate change, are deeply concerned about their future, and are beginning to do what they can. The issue of changing tillage practice to store carbon in soils is becoming quite hot. Ideas such a green tractor powered by farm waste are spreading. Support for renewable energy feed-in tariffs, to help farmers diversify their profit streams, insulate themselves against drought and reduce emissions at the same time, gain strong support across regional Australia as well as the city.

Given all this, it seems odd that Barnaby Joyce, who is supposedly looking to the future of his party, is leg-roping it to the past.

Surely the positive, future-focussed position would be to campaign hard for help to get the bush being part of the climate change solution and to secure all the benefits that will go with that - diversified income streams, more jobs, revitalised regional communities and the knowledge that what you are doing is giving your kids a better chance in the future.

That would be right, and it would be smart politics. Instead, Joyce is making a big mistake, jeopardising regional Australia's future, leading the charge into the past and risking a serious voter bleed. This strikes me as yet another nail in the coffin of the National Party.

Climate politics vs climate action

TimHollo — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:02:44 +1100

This was published today at ABC Unleashed

The release on Monday of the Rudd Government's climate change white paper is a clear demonstration that this Government is intent on playing politics with climate change without actually doing anything about it.

The useless emissions reduction target and self-defeating design of the scheme tells only half the story. The Government pre-empted the announcement by throwing half a billion dollars at expanding coal infrastructure in the Hunter Valley, and followed it up with a badly-designed incentive scheme for renewable energy that will ensure it does not grow beyond a marginal player to challenge the dominance of the coal sector.

Today's Age newspaper's editorial put it clearly:

"Each time the Government announces a major policy initiative on energy and climate policy, it has managed to convey the impression that a politically convenient compromise has been preferred to policy that might actually encourage fundamental changes in energy use."

What we need now is transformative policy to turn Australia from a highly polluting resource-based economy into a carbon neutral society based around our natural assets of sun, wind, wave and clever, innovative, forward-thinking people. Instead, Monday's white paper delivered a policy structure that pretends to encourage change while doing everything it can to protect the status quo.

It does this in two fundamental ways - by setting an extremely weak target and by shielding as many relevant groups as possible from the impact of the scheme through free permits, tax cuts and cash handouts.

The 5% target emissions reduction target Prime Minister Rudd announced is completely globally irresponsible. Instead of setting a precedent of a country willing to put its best foot forward and play its responsible role on the world stage, it takes us back to the bad old days of special pleadings from every country which can only lead to inadequate action. To add insult to injury, Australia will go into the global negotiations with a fixed position - no target stronger than 15% - which is contrary to the spirit of the process.

If other countries follow Rudd's lead, Australia's 5% target is consistent only with a plan to see greenhouse gases go beyond 550 parts per million in the atmosphere (some say 650 ppm), a recipe for runaway climate change and global catastrophe. If we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway heating, Australia would need to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, on our way to building a zero emissions economy.

Importantly, a 40% target would not see Australia taking a lead. It is equivalent only to us playing a reasonable and equitable role in the global emissions reduction effort.

Beyond the target level, the scheme's design is fundamentally flawed. The whole point of emissions trading is to drive emissions reductions and behavioural change by shifting investment signals from polluters to clean options. The price signal caused by polluters having to buy permits provides the stick, while the sale of permits delivers large amounts of cash which the Government can use as a carrot - spending it on helping people reduce both emissions and the costs they face through investing in energy efficiency, public transport, switching to renewable energy, stopping logging, etc.

This scheme, on the other hand, gives the biggest polluters almost all of their permits free, neutering the price signal to them, and then uses the drastically reduced cash flow to neutralise the price signal for everybody else by delivering tax cuts and increased welfare payments.

Only a tiny proportion of the revenue raised by the scheme will be used to reduce people's carbon liability by reducing their carbon emissions.

50% of all revenue raised will go to shielding polluters from the scheme's impact through free permits and, what's worse, this is projected to rise over time! 47% will go to shielding householders from the impact through the short-sighted mechanism of cash handouts instead of the long-sighted approach of energy efficiency to reduce costs and pollution. A measly 3% of the scheme's revenue will actually go towards helping anyone reduce emissions and driving the new renewable energy and energy efficiency revolution.

This was a tremendous lost opportunity. By investing the billions of dollars raised through putting a price on polluters into emissions-reducing options, we could have had twice the bang for our buck, building a sustainable future through a "Green New Deal". We could have rolled out energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings and factories across the country. We could have paid to roll out intelligent networks and to take the electricity grid out to the new renewable energy hotspots that should be the focus of our new, zero emissions energy infrastructure. We could have done this while still leaving money to increase welfare payments to meet the cost-of-living increases that will come with both climate change and action to prevent it.

There are plenty more flaws with this scheme, not least the short-sighted decision to completely shield the transport sector from any impact and to actively prevent 'additional' activities - the scheme's emissions cap will also act as a floor, meaning that any actions people take voluntarily to reduce their emissions will make it easier for big polluters to meet the target, rather than 'adding' its impact on top.

The Rudd Government has failed this critical test of leadership. It has betrayed all those who voted last year for a Government that would take climate change seriously. The Greens, however, have not forgotten and will not give up. We will do everything we can in the Senate and on the streets to ensure that this scheme is "greened up".

Some are more equal than others - what does the emissions target mean?

ChristineMilne — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:00:38 +1100

This post was published originally this morning at ABC Online

One of the most important numbers in Australia's history was revealed yesterday - a number that carries with it the hopes and fears of millions of people and embodies our priorities as a nation, our balancing of the relative worth of human beings.

It has been argued that the 5 per cent 2020 emissions reduction target that Prime Minister Rudd announced is no more or less than a political balancing act - navigating a midway path between the competing demands of business and scientists, of the Coalition and the Greens. But that is an extremely superficial view, and one that fails to see just how all-encompassing climate change is. There are much deeper choices at the core of any decision on emissions targets.

Perhaps the most obvious of these choices is the question 'do we value our children as much as ourselves?' That question, fundamentally, is the reason why we have just been through the lengthy and expensive process of Treasury modelling. The Government wanted to work out if it is worth our while to invest our money now in protecting the planet for our children and our children's children.

There is something unsettling about this question. Surely, at the heart of all of us lies the evolutionary imperative to protect and nurture our children, to do everything we can to ensure that they survive, prosper, and carry our hopes and dreams into the future. But, if the question is unsettling, the answer Mr Rudd gave is deeply troubling.

Even though every economic model for years has demonstrated that the cost of acting now is dwarfed by the cost of failing to act, and that our inexorably increasing wealth will hardly be dented by slashing our emissions, Mr Rudd still thinks it is too much. Even though his own modelling shows that the economic difference between 5 per cent emissions cuts and 25 per cent cuts is vanishingly small (he was too miserly to even investigate the scientifically necessary 40 per cent cuts), Mr Rudd will not invest our current wealth to ensure that our children can prosper.

Is that a choice Australians support?

Next is the question 'do we value our farms as highly as our aluminium, our beaches as highly as our coal, our renewable energy innovators as highly as our resource extractors?'

John Howard famously said he would not sacrifice Australia's coal and aluminium workers on "the altar of environmentalism". But what he did not say is that, by refusing to ask those in polluting industries to change, he was directly sacrificing all those whose livelihoods will be destroyed by climate change and whose new, clean-tech manufacturing jobs will never appear. From farmers whose land will dry up to tourist operators who will no longer have a reef to attract people to, to the millions who live close to sea level along the coast. If runaway climate change takes hold, we all will be sacrificed because the few refused to change.

Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme might be painted green, but it is designed around John Howard's frame. Rather than the promised economic transformation, we have a scheme geared towards maintaining the status quo - protecting polluters while locking out clean industry and condemning those most at risk. Fifty per cent of all revenue raised will go to shielding polluters from the scheme's impact. Forty-seven per cent will go to shielding householders from the impact through the short-sighted mechanism of cash handouts instead of the long-sighted approach of energy efficiency to reduce costs and pollution. A measly 3 per cent of the scheme's revenue will actually go towards helping anyone reduce emissions and driving the new renewable energy and energy efficiency revolution.

Is that a choice Australians support?

Finally there is the question 'do we think we Australians deserve to pollute more than everybody else?' This is the vexed 'per capita' issue that Professor Garnaut so cleverly inverted - taking what had been a powerful argument for change and turning it into a weapon in the hands of climate naysayers. He took the 'contraction and convergence' model that is the only equitable basis for a global agreement, and perverted it by talking up future population while sidelining current per capita pollution, stretching out convergence - the point where all people have the same pollution allocation - to the far future, and ignoring historical responsibility.

The message at the heart of Rudd's emissions trajectories is that Australians, who have built our riches by polluting, deserve to keep polluting more than anyone else on the planet for another 42 years.

The way we Australians make these choices will say a lot about who we are. Are we wise and generous, or selfish and short-sighted?

I firmly believe that the great majority of Australians want us to make the compassionate, fair and reasonable choice: to do everything we can, scrimp and save, innovate and create, so that our children can prosper; to all pull together, each of us doing what we can to support the others; and to play our responsible part in the 'Green New Deal' to pass on our planet in a fit state for those who come after us.

Mr Rudd, you made your choice yesterday. It is clear that you do not have the vision to see Australia as a prosperous, green energy hub. Instead of a White Paper, you raised the white flag of surrender.

But, soon enough, the people will make their choice. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Day of Action against 5% climate target

TimHollo — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:29:00 +1100

It's hard to find the words to express quite how atrocious today's decision announcement has been.

Here's a video that expresses what a lot of us are starting to think - that all those who voted for Kevin Rudd thinking he'd be better than John Howard on climate change were sold a lump of coal.

If you're angry, come along tomorrow and join us at the rallies listed here.

So what just happened with the National Academy of Music?

TimHollo — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:28:53 +1100

Yesterday, after a whirlwind six week campaign, Melbourne Uni and the National Academy of Music put out a statement the upshot of which is that the full 2009 program that the Academy had planned to run will now be run, with Brett Dean as Artistic Director, staying in its existing location, key staff remaining the same, and places to be offered to existing students. A new independent board will be appointed with a view to determining the Academy's long-term programming.

Sounds an awful lot like a complete reversal of Peter Garrett's decision to close the Academy on October 22. So how come the Minister's spokesperson told AAP last night that

"The Greens have got this entirely wrong... The government's objectives have always been the continuation of elite classical music training into 2009 and beyond but with substantial changes to the way that is governed and administered, including new management and board. The intention was never that ANAM would close, but rather that the government would redirect its $2.5 million commitment to a new organisation from 2009. That will still happen."

It's worth going through this story step by step to highlight the slow-motion backflip for what it is. Apologies for length, but I think it's worth setting out the full story.

The National Academy of Music was established in 1994 by Paul Keating - one of the very few Australia political leaders of any stripe who really appreciated and understood classical music. It was originally part of Youth Music Australia, who run the National Music Camps and Australian Youth Orchestra. The Academy had a troubled childhood and adolescence, moving from running highly-reputed short courses (with incredibly stiff competition to get in, as I can attest to as a young musician and AYO member at the time!), to a globally-renowned full-time post-tertiary 'finishing school' for music performance. While the musical standard it offered has never really been in doubt, there certainly has been justified criticism of its administration in the past. The irony is that, in the last few years, most of those issues had been resolved, and the Academy had begun to flower and perform at or close to its full potential.

Unfortunately, tied up in all this has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in parts of the local community of South Melbourne due to the fact that the Academy was located in the South Melbourne Town Hall when the Kennett Government forcibly amalgamated councils, getting rid of the local council that was based there. The Academy was tarred with that brush, and sadly, by its own acknowledgement, has not necessarily always managed its community relations terribly well.

Because of the reasonable criticisms of the Academy as it operated in the early 00's, two independent reports into its operations were commissioned - the Mills Report into its artistic merits, followed by the Grant Report, setting out a business case. Both of these reports were gently critical, saying the Academy should do more, but very clearly calling for a huge increase in funding to allow it to do so - an increase from $2.5 million to $6.5-7 million a year. Neither of these reports has ever been officially accepted by Government or published, but you can read the full Grant Report here.

There are many theories about what actually led to the specific events of recent months, including various suggestions about an unholy alliance between Prime Minister Rudd and his good friend and close adviser, Glyn Davies, VC of Melbourne Uni, a concerted campaign by unhappy locals, or cost shifting promoted by Lindsay Tanner. None of these really stack up, when you dig deep into them.

Our understanding is that certain Canberra bureaucrats had a bee in their bonnets about the Academy and, based on their understanding of the administrative problems of some years ago, had long been agitating for radical change - the closure of the Academy and its replacement by a new school. The previous two Coaltion Arts Ministers - Rod Kemp and George Brandis - were both personally supportive of the Academy and would not let this happen. However, the Minister for Uncomfortable Contortions, Peter Garrett, provided the perfect opportunity to pounce.

On August 25, Mr Garrett wrote to John Haddad, Chair of the Board of the Academy. Here is what he had to say:

I write to advise you that the Australian Government's 2008-09 budget allocation for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) is $2.545 million to be administered through two six-month funding deeds.

I have considered the reviews of ANAM and ANAM's response to those reviews. I seek ANAM's commitment to implement the significant business reforms as recommended by the reviews.

The full allocation of funding in 2008-09 will be dependant on ANAM's compliance with the terms and conditions of the first funding deed. Should the Australian Government be satisfied that ANAM has met the terms of the first deed, the second funding deed will be entered into. The period of the funding deeds will be July to December 2008, and January to June 2009.

Should ANAM accept the 2008-09 funding offer, it will be required to incorporate in its
Business Plan 2009 and Strategic Plan 2009-11 the following:
1. balanced budgets for 2009, 2010 and 2011;
2. an amended bursary policy;
3. a commitment and plan to diversify income;
4. a commitment and plan to be national leaders in classical music education and
Initiatives that support that role;
5. a framework for the review of ANAM's constitution;
6. a succession plan of ANAM Board members to satisfy geographical diversity;
7. a plan for course certification;
8. continually engage a full-time artistic director; and
9. achieve a working alumni database.

ANAM will need to provide evidence of the above by 31 October 2008.

ANAM's success in implementing the reform agenda in 2008-09 will be a key
consideration in determining any future funding of ANAM.

The sharp-eyed amongst you will note a couple of direct contradictions in this, most notably the requirement to "continually engage a full-time artistic director" when funding is not guaranteed beyond 6 month blocks! The commitment to be a national leader in classical music education is an insult - the Academy always has been! Geographical diversity of the board is code for wanting to dissolve the existing board and replace it, and the board already has members from 4 states. Diversified income is code for requiring the Academy to fundraise off its own bat to supplement Commonwealth funding. Course certification, as anyone in the industry will tell you, is irrelevant in the extreme!

On October 3, Haddad replied to Garrett:

Dear Minister

I refer to your letter of 25 August and our recent meeting at your Electorate
Office.

The Academy Board has met twice since receiving your letter and discussed its contents at length. The unanimous view of these meetings was that the Academy must apply its most strenuous efforts to meeting the concerns raised by you and your Department.

As a first step, and after speaking with your Department, we are recommending subject to your approval, that an Implementation Working Group be established to develop a Transformational Plan to enable the Academy to address the issues covered in your letter and ensure that they are actioned within your deadlines and with full joint support. The Working Group will be comprised of members of your Department along with key staff of the Academy and will be chaired by a member of the Academy Board. We believe the Working Group should also include a representative of the University of Melbourne who have already indicated their nominee would be Barry Sheehan. The Group will be assisted by the engagement of The Boston Consulting Group who have agreed to review the Academy's structure and operations, on a pro bono basis.

As part of your consideration of our response, we also hope that we can work with your Department in making some adjustments to the proposed funding drawdowns, particularly in the next three weeks, so that the Academy can continue as a going concern. As set out in our session the variation as to the drawdown schedule that was not previously identified, creates very real difficulties for the Academy as it does not accord with the actual (and historically verified) expenditure profile of the Academy and its program.

He went on to address in turn each of the concerns raised by Garrett, setting out how it was already being addressed or could not be addressed without sufficient funds.

After several phone conversations which, according to the Academy, seemed positive in tone, Garrett wrote back to Haddad on October 22:

Dear Mr Haddad

I refer to your letter of 3 October 2008 and your response to the terms and conditions of the Australian Government's 2008-09 funding for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM), as outlined in my letter of 25 August 2008.

Your letter indicates that the Board is unable to deliver on the reform agenda or meet the terms and conditions detailed in the first six-month funding agreement. In relation to your recommendation for a working group, I do not support such a proposal as ANAM has already had sufficient time to address these conditions.

Your response reflects my concern that ANAM may not be the most effective or efficient model for the delivery of national programs supporting elite level classical music training, and I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training. Consequently, and consistent with my letter of 25 August, the Australian Government will not provide funds to ANAM to conduct its training programs in 2009. I have instructed my Department to prepare a revised funding agreement to provide ANAM with sufficient funds to complete its 2008 training program. This agreement will be provided to you shortly.

I understand that cessation of Australian Government funding may result in ANAM not continuing operations in to 2009. Should this matter require clarification, you may direct your enquiries to my department.

Note in particular that final comment. Peter Garrett knew exactly what the impact of his decision was - no ANAM for 2009. Because of actual or perceived problems with the administration of the school, he was knowingly destroying a pedagogical and cultural institution that had developed a global reputation. He was tossing out 55 of Australia's top young musicians only weeks before the end of the year, with no plans for 2009.

Impact of this decision: closure of the Academy with absolutely no plan in place for a replacement to take on the students and continue the momentum of their training. The only reference to future plans was "I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training."

The outcry began. Shortly thereafter, the Greens were approached to offer what help we could. Starting with a joint motion with the Liberals, a question in Question Time and a series of Questions on Notice, we began to get involved. At the same time, musicians and artists from around the world joined the campaign.

Thanks to this outcry, Minister Garrett was pressed to outline what would happen to the students of the Academy. On November 18, Garrett released his proposal for a new body, to be called the Australian Institute of Music Performance. The AIMP would start in July 2009, with transitional arrangements sending students to the Uni of Melbourne - a totally inappropriate solution none of them were happy about. The AIMP looked strangely like ANAM, although it would take many months, if not years, to achieve the same level of performance. In addition, it had a name that uncomfortably mirrored the existing Australian Institute of Music in Sydney.

This was the first step in the backflip. There would be a new institution that would do effectively the same thing as the existing one, but under a different name and more directly controlled by Melbourne University.

The next Friday, November 28, Christine and I met with students and staff at the Academy, inviting them to bring their music to Canberra to lift the campaign several notches. We had the privilege of attending their spectacular concert that evening! But, in the meantime - at 3.30 pm on a Friday afternoon (a favourite time of Environment Ministers to release uncomfortable information) - Garrett proudly announced that he had decided to keep the name ANAM, instead of replacing it with AIMP! This was seen by students, staff and supporters as the nonsensical slap in the face that it was.

Step two in the backflip - let's keep the same name, as well as the essentially the same activities! And, hey, into the bargain, we'll let the students stay in the same place!

After a flurry of activity over the weekend, 12 students came to Canberra with Brett Dean, the Artistic Director, and staff members Bill Hennesey, Nick Bailey and Hillary Frost on the night of Monday December 1. The call was for a 12 month moratorium on the closure to allow for a proper discussion about the Academy's future without disadvantaging the students and destroying the continuity of their training.

Bright and early on the Tuesday morning, musicians welcomed MPs and Senators at the traditional "doors" media scrums on both sides of Parliament, making quite an impact. During the day, music echoed in the corridors throughout the House, with students and staff holding a press conference and simply playing beautiful music. The President of the Senate denied them permission to play at Aussie's Café, the haunt of all the lobbyists, MPs and staff. They also managed to get meetings with Labor backbenchers, Peter Garrett and, most importantly, Terry Moran, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Finally, they secured agreement that, on Saturday December 6, there would be a meeting in Melbourne including Brett, Nick, Terry Moran, Glyn Davies and representatives of the Department.

This is where we get to the best part.

The meeting was a great success, and Brett Dean called us delighted with the outcome. The Academy would run its full program for 2009 as planned, a new, independent board would be appointed, and its first job would be to determine the next few years of programming for the Academy.

Now, there are two ways of seeing this. On one level, it is a very effective delivery of the transition strategy to a new institution, which happens to have the same name as the previous, many of the same staff, many of the same students, and be based in the same location. That's certainly what Minister Garrett's office is saying has happened - there is nothing to see, move along.

On another level, of course, it is a complete reversal. Instead of the closure of the Academy with no future plans in place, as we had on October 22, we have the Academy continuing exactly as it had planned, with the only difference being the dissolution of the board and appointment of a replacement. This is all that should have happened in the first place - Garrett should have dismissed the board and kept the Academy going while appointing a new one. Instead we had a terribly ham-fisted approach which put the students and staff through a month and a half of heartache.

All is well that ends well, I suppose.

On the bright side, they got a great introduction to the world of politics! And, as one obsessed with music and politics who used to admire Peter Garrett so greatly, I reckon this is a pretty good outcome.

What is Peter Garrett doing to the Academy of Music?

TimHollo — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:26:43 +1100

On October 31, after an entirely inadequate process, Arts Minister Peter Garrett wrote to the board of the Australian National Academy of Music, Australia's world-renowned training ground for our top young classical musicians, informing them that they would be de-funded as of 2009.

In one easy decision, the musician-turned-politician threw some of Australia's brightest young talents on the scrap heap. According to some reports, he didn't even realise that there were students enrolled in ongoing courses at the Academy. I don't know whether that would make the decision less culpable on the basis of it being less cruel, or more on the basis of sheer ignorance from a decision-maker.

Having provoked a bigger storm than he perhaps expected, Minister Garrett was forced to swiftly turn around a replacement, a transition strategy and interim arrangements. The resulting policy on the run is as messy as you would expect.

The National Academy has a tremendous reputation today, although it's true that, a few years ago, it was plagued by problems. But a lot of effort has been put into making it run more smoothly, ensuring that the top quality tuition and training that it has always offered was matched by appropriate administration. That is what makes this decision so bizarre. This decision is seemingly based on prejudices that were formed some years ago and no longer pertain.

In looking at ways to improve the Academy, two independent reports were commissioned by the previous Government into its operation - the Mills Report, which was an artistic overview, and the Grant review (pdf), a business case. It is these old and (officially) unpublished reports which Peter Garrett has repeatedly used to justify his decision to de-fund the Academy. But, in actual fact, both of them call for the funding to be increased! It is true that the Grant review made a series of recommendations for improvements - but these were couched clearly in terms of the requirement for tripled funding in order to meet them!

Instead, Peter Garrett demanded that the Academy Board meet the recommendations without any certainty of existing funding, let along an increase! He made these demands on August 25 this year. When the Board told him on October 3 that they had met as many as they could reasonably expected to meet in his timeframe and within limitations of his funding allocation, he made the decision (on October 31) to de-fund the Academy and close its doors. Several weeks on, he made the weird announcement that he would replace it with with an institution which looks like it will do essentially the same thing as the Academy does now - except that it won't open until July next year - and would kindly offer students the option of going to Melbourne University until then.

This comment is in no way meant to reflect badly on the University of Melbourne's music school. But they are not set up to do what the Academy does - it's not their job! The Academy had an extremely exciting program lined up for its students next year - a program that they enrolled for and were expecting! It involved not just private one-on-one tuition, but also chamber music with their peers, orchestral experience, and master-classes with some of the world's top performers and teachers. This level of performance training is very different from what the University will or can offer.

You can't overestimate the impact of disrupting momentum for young musicians in that way. No government would do such a thing to our young up-and-coming sports stars by de-funding the AIS, replacing with a similar institution 6 months later, and telling the athletes to just go to a University until then! Why do it to musicians? Are they just an easy target?

If the AIS had any administrative problems, the Government would deal with them in such a way as to have the least impact possible on the athletes training there.If there truly were such problems with the Academy of Music, the Government could and should have worked with all stakeholders to provide either improvements or a new school while the existing school cotinued to operate, so that students could continue to learn until the replacement was ready. Surely that would be an appropriate path.

Peter Garrett can still reverse this decision and fund the Academy to run its 2009 program at least while its long-term future is discussed.

He should do so, and you can help tell him so! You can sign a petition to save the Academy here.

Green car plan one small step in the right direction

ChristineMilne — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:58:05 +1100

This post was first published at ABC's Unleashed site:

With the global financial meltdown meeting the climate meltdown head on, the potential to deal with both crises using the same solutions has been gaining support.

Last month, the United Nations Environment Program joined with Deutsche Bank and others to promote a 'Green New Deal' based on investing billions of dollars in the four pillars of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport and ecosystem protection, reducing greenhouse emissions, building infrastructure and creating millions of new jobs. World leaders such as US President-elect Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon have publicly embraced the proposal, with Obama listing a $150 billion clean energy plan as his top priority.

The 'Green New Deal', taking its inspiration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 'New Deal' to build the USA out of the Great Depression, is only the most recent embodiment of strategies put forward from Hobart to London over the last few decades, recognising that investing in protecting the environment is the only sensible economic plan.

The Greens have long been arguing that Australia's economic future depends on investing our current wealth in a clean, zero emissions future. Since the beginning of the current economic crisis, we have been calling for a 'Green New Deal' at home and for any economic support package to be directed at sustainable alternatives. A key aspect of this is our proposal to retrofit every home in the nation with energy efficient technologies such as solar water heaters and insulation.

That's why, after weeks of silence from the Rudd Government, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister and his Industry Minister, Senator Carr, at least start using this language in launching their Green Car Package last week. Both noted that it was only by building environmentally sustainable cars that Australia's car industry can have a sustainable future - something I have been telling them for years.

But the devil, as always, is in the detail. And so much of that detail is still missing - right down to what is the definition of a 'green car' that will benefit from the package.

I welcomed the plan as the first step in recognising the importance of linking economic stimulus measures to the effort to build a new, zero emissions economy. But, in doing so, I noted that it was a small first step and that the Greens look forward to working with the Government to flesh it out.

Here is what we would propose:

In rethinking transport for a zero emissions Australia, the fundamental points are to help people to drive less and, when they do drive, to drive more efficiently and with the least polluting vehicles possible.

There is no reason why the Green Car Plan could not have been presented as a Green Transport Plan that would shift car manufacturing onto a green base and drive investment and job creation in rolling out buses, trains, ferries, trams and cycleways. Instead of thinking small, with changes at the margins to make cars that little bit more fuel efficient, we could see a plan to roll out an electrified vehicle fleet and all the infrastructure that will have to go with that - powered by a massively increased renewable energy grid, of course. American entrepreneur Shai Agassi has already proposed rolling out electric vehicle infrastructure in Australia. He should be given all the help he can to make it a reality. Agassi is only one of many entrepreneurs promoting intelligent networks, such as digital control systems for railways and smart electricity grids, which create significant efficiencies and make it easier to have an energy system powered entirely by renewable energy.

As well as investing in the infrastructure for public transport and electric vehicles, the Government should be investing in R&D and commercialisation for second generation biofuels which present a real potential for zero emissions transport without reducing availability of food crops or replacing standing forests with oil palm plantations, for example.

Aside from direct spending, there are plenty of big changes that can be encouraged through the tax system. The Greens achieved a small win by exempting fuel efficient vehicles from the Luxury Car Tax, already leading Audi to sell more efficient cars in Australia, but we propose a much broader tax shift to drive cleaner transport. We would replace the Luxury Car Tax altogether with a tax based on the fuel consumption of vehicles rather than their sale price. We would remove the Fringe Benefits Tax Concessions that encourage people to drive more. We would also take the GST off public transport fares.

When it finally decides how to define a 'green car', we will be calling on the Government to implement mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards. China and Europe are powering ahead of Australia with stringent standards in place and, without them, Australia will be left behind, regardless of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and Industry Minister.

One policy the Government has ignored altogether is the tremendous impact of changing government procurement policies to buy more efficient and hybrid cars for the government fleets. Because of the fast turnover in these fleets, this simple change has a large flow-on effect by driving many more efficient vehicles into the second hand market.

The Government has not yet embraced very much of this obvious agenda. But, with the Green Car Plan, they took the first step of recognising that the economic meltdown and climate meltdown could be addressed at the same time. There is much more to be done but, perhaps encouraged by the election of Barack Obama, we can have some hope of stronger action in that direction in 2009.

Rudd Government bypasses proven renewables for 'imaginary' geosequestration

TimHollo — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:35 +1100

Yesterday the Rudd Government demonstrated very clearly where its climate and energy priorities lie - not with the proven renewable energy solutions, but with the geosequestration pipe-dream that Al Gore has recently called "too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate".

Fresh from burying Christine Milne's feed-in tariff Bill with a majority Senate Inquiry report saying it's a "great idea, but let's not do it", the Rudd Government went on last night to push through a Bill which gives a huge benefit to those who seek to bury CO2 under the sea floor - letting them make profits without having to carry the liability. This is a recipe for a new sub-prime crisis, telling industry that they can make significant profits safe in the knowledge that they will not need to carry the can for more than 20 years.

The debate on this bill is worth reading in its entirety if you have time. It exposes quite how blinded by industry rhetoric the Government and Opposition both are. Perhaps the pinnacle of this is to be found in Senator McLucas's statement that, as far as leaks from storage are concerned, "we do not predict that will happen". Considering it is widely acknowledged by government, industry and bodies such as the IPCC around the world that leaks will happen, at the rate of at least 1% a year on average, this is a rather heroic prediction.

The Bill is largely about settling arguments between the petroleum exploration industry and the geosequestration industry, but the sting in its tail is how it deals with the planning approvals and long-term liability issues that arise from dumping massive quantities of a dangerous substance under the sea bed - what Christine has called a "21st century landfill strategy". The original Bill left the issue open, as discussed in this media release. After a closure certificate was issued for a burial site, the liability was to be settled under common law - not an ideal solution due to the uncertainties, timelines and costs involved.

The Greens' proposal was that, acknowledging that companies will not be around for the lengths of time the carbon needs to be stored for (ie perpetuity), we should take a leaf out of the book of mining regulation and require companies to post a bond to cover potential liability into the future. This, however, was not acceptable to the Opposition, who negotiated with the Government an amendment that keeps liability on the company for 20 years after a closure certificate has been issued, and then passes all liability onto the taxpayer.

Christine moved an array of other amendments to try to make the legislation somewhat more environmentally responsible, only to be told by Liberal Senator David Johnston that the changes were unnecessary because "This whole act has the environment as its fundamental objective." Only people who have no idea about environmental protection could say such a thing, as their efforts to be 'green' are frequently self-contradictory. It is not uncommonly their actions that purport to be about environmental protection that need the most scrutiny. The whole advocacy for geosequestration (let alone nuclear power) is testament to this fact.

Those who elected the Rudd Government on a platform of climate action need to know just how much they are bypassing renewable energy in favour of coal. But, when the Government deliberately tabled the feed-in report at 6pm and scheduled the debate on the geosequestration bill to conclude at 9.50pm, it is no surprise that there has been virtually no media coverage of either. We have to work hard to make sure people understand what is happening.

One thing we can all agree on - “clean coal” ain’t gonna be cheap!

TimHollo — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:44:27 +1100

The thing I’ve found most fascinating about the responses to the Treasury’s ETS modelling released yesterday is how, all of a sudden, a pile of big coal’s biggest fans are agreeing with us that coal with geosequestration isn’t going to come cheap!

Malcolm Turnbull, for example, told the media yesterday that “The cost of carbon capture and storage is probably the biggest single assumption in this whole analysis… There is no full-blown demonstration plant employing carbon capture and storage so estimates of its costs are speculative.”

Well-known climate naysayer, Brian Fisher, writes in today’s Australian that “The Treasury’s assumptions on the capital cost of construction of a CCS-ready coal-fired power plant appear to be about half those estimated by well-qualified industry experts.”

What’s that? Those geosequestration advocates who have been telling us that renewables might be nice, but “clean coal” is nicer, have decided that it’s more important to try to prove the Treasury modelling wrong than to stand by their previous argument?

They are right, of course. Even if geosequestration can be proven (which it hasn’t been), and even if it proves socially acceptable (which it hasn’t), and even if companies seeking to profit from burying carbon go ahead without a legislative promise from governments that they will be absolved of all future liability for leakage (for which there is no evidence), it ain’t gonna come cheap.

And here’s the rub - it’s already being overtaken by renewables. There are plenty of renewable energy technologies which are now or will be soon cheaper than Treasury’s extremely optimistic price projections for geosequestration.

The modelling evens itself out, though. While underestimating the cost and overestimating the potential of geosequestration, it overstimates the cost and underestimates the potential of renewables.

Treasury puts solar thermal costs at twice geothermal costs, which doesn’t match international evidence. They don’t model any rooftop PV at all - only concentrating PV power stations - even though major PV players are now saying they will achieve parity with coal in less than five years! Introduce a good feed-in tariff, and rooftop PV will boom here, as it has in Germany.

Bizarrely, Treasury puts black coal with CCS as cheaper than solar thermal power is now! And yet, somehow, even in the context of entrenched pro-coal bias, over a dozen large-scale solar thermal plants are in construction now, whereas not one single commercial CCS plant is actually being built. Solar thermal is booming, particularly in places like Spain and the southern USA, while CCS plans are falling over due to going over budget, over time, and simply not working.

The Prime Minister, meanwhile, is completely incoherent on renewable energy, as his interview with Kerry O’Brien last night demonstrated:

KERRY O’BRIEN: On the one hand the Treasury modelling appears to make a heroic assumption that science will have found a way to produce acceptably clean coal by 2020. But on the other hand it appears to ignore the impact of meeting 20 per cent renewable energy targets by 2020. Don’t both of those factors, or the absence of them, represent serious flaws in the Treasury modelling?

KEVIN RUDD: When you come to, for example, clean coal technology, CCS - carbon capture and storage, on which this Government has done a lot of work in recent times, with our proposal for a global carbon, capture and storage institute.

It’s quite clear from previous work that’s been done by the International energy agency, for example, both carbon price in the vicinity of $20 to $40 per tonne, that the use of clean coal technology becomes economically feasible. One of the reasons that we are doing this work through the global carbon capture and storage institute, is in fact to work out how governments and industry work together to close any financial gap in this very important, exciting and revolutionary technology.

The other part of your question was about renewable energy. Renewable energy, of course, is important for the future for this reason: that if you bring in renewables through a renewable energy target, what you do is bring forward a lot of investment in those new energy producers early on.”

Got that?

This exchange goes some way to explaining why the huge renewable energy sources of zero emissions energy are sidelined in the Treasury modelling, pushing the costs unnecessarily higher. And that’s before we even get to the tremendously understated (and cost-saving) energy efficiency opportunities which Brian Fisher bizarrely reckons “breach the laws of thermodynamics”. Presumably, the laws of conservation of energy mean that energy conservation is impossible, I guess.

In fact, on the energy side of the ledger, the analysis comes out looking deeply conservative and overstating the costs. On the other hand, the costs may be understated by the carbon colonialism inherent in the plan to get developing countries to do our dirty work and buy in well over half our emissions reductions! Evening it out, the costs are still vanishingly small, particularly when set next to the tremendous costs of failing to act.

What we are still missing, however, is any kind of analysis of the economic implications of meeting the real emissions targets that we need if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change - at least 40% cuts below 1990 levels by 2020, heading towards carbon neutrality as soon thereafter as feasible, with the bulk of emissions reductions being met at home (because there may not be many permits to buy on the international market if we’re all trying really hard to reduce emissions!). There is good reason to believe that, with the accelerated ‘learning’ that will be triggered by really stringent targets, the costs could actually be lower than with the mediocre targets.

I say it’s important to get that analysis done. And it is important, politically, so that we are open and accountable about the decisions we will make. As Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute told 7.30 last night “I think what we should be able to do today is draw a line under this concern with the economy and just start listening to the scientists.”

But, on another level, working out whether or not we can afford to reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change is an exercise in futility. Because, when it comes down to it, if we don’t do it, we won’t have an economy…