Extract from The Guardian website:
Business group declines to say whether it thinks Coalition's plan will meet global targets on emissions reductions
- Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
- theguardian.com,
A major business group has declined to say whether it thinks the
Abbott government’s Direct Action climate policy will meet global
targets on emissions reductions and whether it can actually reduce
emissions in a cost effective manner.
The Australian Industry Group says the Coalition’s flagship environmental policy, which has been around for two election cycles, is still very much “under development” and firm conclusions on its efficacy must wait “further articulation of the policy”.
It has used a submission to a Senate inquiry into the policy to criticise the centrepiece of the Direct Action plan – the emissions reduction fund – saying the fund has “several challenges to overcome in order to achieve the government’s emissions reduction goals at least cost to Australia”.
The business group contends the government needs to consider allowing access to international abatement options critical “for reducing the costs and risks of Australian emissions reduction ambitions”.
International emissions credits should be incorporated in the policy, and the AiG adds the government should be the purchaser of international carbon credits.
The emissions reduction fund proposed in Direct Action is focused on domestic abatement in order to meet Australia’s stated target of cutting pollution by 5% by 2020 – an approach business says is too expensive.
In another notable submission to the Senate inquiry, the Climate Change Authority – an independent advisory body which the Abbott government proposes to abolish as part of its climate policy overhaul – does not mince its words.
The authority’s chair, former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, has previously argued the 5% target is insufficient to stave off the dangerous effects of climate change and he repeats that argument in his submission to the Senate inquiry.
Fraser says major political parties in Australia profess to accept climate science but produce policies falling short of the challenge. “For acceptance of the science to mean more than lip service, however, it has to be backed by policy measures commensurate with the challenges identified by climate scientists,” he says.
“Real acceptance of the science would be accompanied by concerted action now and into the future to reduce the risks of dangerous warming of the planet over the decades ahead,” he says.
Fraser argues in the submission that the global dimension of the climate challenge is not served by high per capita emitters like Australia “sitting on the sidelines, waiting for others to make the running”.
He backs the argument that international abatement options should be part of the policy mix and reasons that appropriate responses should include both market and non-market mechanisms.
Fraser says the authority has not studied Direct Action closely because it has been occupied with other priorities and much of the policy remains ambiguous. “Even the label ‘direct’ is not without ambiguity: the implication seems to be that ‘direct’ action is in some way superior to ‘indirect’ action but the dividing line can be blurred.”
“Is a price on carbon, for example, less direct [and less effective] than planting more trees?” Fraser asks.
He says it is entirely the new government’s prerogative to abolish agencies such as the authority. “That said, it is puzzling – particularly given the complexities and far-reaching ramifications of climate change – that any government should choose to deny itself access to informed and balanced advice from an independent body like the Climate Change Authority.”
The Australian Industry Group says the Coalition’s flagship environmental policy, which has been around for two election cycles, is still very much “under development” and firm conclusions on its efficacy must wait “further articulation of the policy”.
It has used a submission to a Senate inquiry into the policy to criticise the centrepiece of the Direct Action plan – the emissions reduction fund – saying the fund has “several challenges to overcome in order to achieve the government’s emissions reduction goals at least cost to Australia”.
The business group contends the government needs to consider allowing access to international abatement options critical “for reducing the costs and risks of Australian emissions reduction ambitions”.
International emissions credits should be incorporated in the policy, and the AiG adds the government should be the purchaser of international carbon credits.
The emissions reduction fund proposed in Direct Action is focused on domestic abatement in order to meet Australia’s stated target of cutting pollution by 5% by 2020 – an approach business says is too expensive.
In another notable submission to the Senate inquiry, the Climate Change Authority – an independent advisory body which the Abbott government proposes to abolish as part of its climate policy overhaul – does not mince its words.
The authority’s chair, former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, has previously argued the 5% target is insufficient to stave off the dangerous effects of climate change and he repeats that argument in his submission to the Senate inquiry.
Fraser says major political parties in Australia profess to accept climate science but produce policies falling short of the challenge. “For acceptance of the science to mean more than lip service, however, it has to be backed by policy measures commensurate with the challenges identified by climate scientists,” he says.
“Real acceptance of the science would be accompanied by concerted action now and into the future to reduce the risks of dangerous warming of the planet over the decades ahead,” he says.
Fraser argues in the submission that the global dimension of the climate challenge is not served by high per capita emitters like Australia “sitting on the sidelines, waiting for others to make the running”.
He backs the argument that international abatement options should be part of the policy mix and reasons that appropriate responses should include both market and non-market mechanisms.
Fraser says the authority has not studied Direct Action closely because it has been occupied with other priorities and much of the policy remains ambiguous. “Even the label ‘direct’ is not without ambiguity: the implication seems to be that ‘direct’ action is in some way superior to ‘indirect’ action but the dividing line can be blurred.”
“Is a price on carbon, for example, less direct [and less effective] than planting more trees?” Fraser asks.
He says it is entirely the new government’s prerogative to abolish agencies such as the authority. “That said, it is puzzling – particularly given the complexities and far-reaching ramifications of climate change – that any government should choose to deny itself access to informed and balanced advice from an independent body like the Climate Change Authority.”
No comments:
Post a Comment