http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-black-hole-in-tony-abbotts-frat-party-climat...By Giles Parkinson on 15 August 2013
It’s been a week full of insight into the future of Australian politics. First, Opposition leader Tony Abbott adds “sex appeal” to the CV of one of his leading candidates. Then he challenges Kevin Rudd “to be a man” and do what he did and put the Greens last on the ballot paper.
In Abbottville, to be a real bloke, you need to reject the “fringe” economic policies of the Greens, and plump instead for another minor party – presumably coal baron Clive Palmer, Bob Katter, the Shooters Party, or Pauline Hanson. As Tad Tietze writes in The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/greens-abbott-attack even micro-parties that flirt more or less openly with fascist policies, are “in principle” preferable to the Coalition than the Greens.
The emergence of “frat party” politics shouldn’t be a surprise to those who have read of Abbott’s student history and the circumstances of his rise to the leadership of the Coalition.
It was a political hat-trick borne out of the need of vested interests to kill the carbon price. It’s hard to find anyone who takes its proposed replacement policy, Direct Action, seriously – based as it is around one known constant – a 15,000 strong, litter-collecting green army. (Although, as Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Alan Moir suggests, the green army could be put to other uses).
But, as the polls now suggest Abbott will form the next government – and may well be dependent on the “loony right” – the policy is worth a serious look. And the Climate Institute has done just that.
The TCI analysis – prepared by Monash University and SKM-MMA – reveals Direct Action to be what most suspected: a lot of hocus pocus that fails on just about every conceivable measure, the sort of policy designed by and for people who don’t actually believe in the science of climate change. Or as Climate Progress write today, for people who can’t stand the solution.
The analysis punctures several large holes in the Coalition’s rhetoric on Direct Action: it does not, as the Coalition claims, reduce Australian emissions; it would still rely on heavy purchases of international permits; it would be incredibly expensive; probably impractical; would provide an effective $50 billion subsidy to polluters; and would set the country at a massive competitive disadvantage in a low-carbon global economy.
The analysis suggests that Direct Action is simply not capable of reaching even the minimum 5 per cent reduction target – and would require an extra $4 billion by 2020 (on top of the $3.2 billion budgeted by the Coalition) to get there. Contrary to the Coalition’s claim, Australian emissions under Direct Action would rise 10 per cent, rather than fall. To reach the bipartisan upper cap of a 25 per cent emission reduction target – which depends on the scope of international action – would require a further $15 billion.
Over the longer term, the picture is even worse, as Malcolm Turnbull has warned previously. To meet 2050 targets would require an extra $88 billion, but still Australia’s emissions would be 45 per cent more than what they are now. “Australians would emit nearly three times the global average under 2°C climate scenarios under the Coalition’s modelled policies,” the report says.
Ironically, if the Coalition wants to meet its targets with Direct Action, it will likely have to reinforce some of the “complementary” policies it is trying to unravel. Not only would it have to spend taxpayer’s money on international permits, it would be forced to take other measures – such as raising the renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030 (rather than dilute it as its boosters hope it will), or set strict emissions standards that would force coal-fired power stations out of the market.
In effect, the survey is suggesting that Abbott would have to take the sort of action proposed by Barack Obama, setting absolute pollution caps on coal-fired power stations and the like. Obama admits that regulatory action is more expensive and less efficient, but the only way forward given the Tea Party Republicans won’t allow a carbon price. Abbott’s team, which takes its cue from the same think tanks that inform Tea Party rhetoric, is imposing its own restrictions – paying the price, in Abbott’s world, of being a real man.
This excerpt from TCI’s report is particularly damming of Direct Action:
“This (Direct Action) implicitly subsidises current emitting activities and does not create a broad-based incentive for firms and individuals to invest in low emission technologies and behaviours.
“Using a similar approach to that used by the International Monetary Fund, which factors in a conservative estimate of the climate damage of every tonne emitted, The Climate Institute calculates that this subsidy equates to around $50 billion to 2020. This allows emission intensive activities to out-compete cleaner technologies for a longer period of time.”
[continued ...]
Forum
Pages: 1
The black hole in Tony Abbott’s climate policy (Read 851 times)
