I’ve been meaning to post since last night on the crazy Garnaut submission the Productivity Commission released yesterday, but simply haven’t had the time.
In the interests of having something on the blog about this important piece of work to undermine climate action, I thought I’d just post Christine’s comments from yesterday.
“The Productivity Commission’s statement on MRET and emissions trading needs to be seen in the context of their refusal to engage in serious climate policy discussion on emissions trajectories, climate science and energy efficiency.
“The Productivity Commission’s extraordinary analysis of emissions trajectories, suggesting that global emissions could peak as late as 2030, demonstrates that they have completely failed to come to grips with climate policy.
“The IPCC conservatively said that global emissions must peak by 2015 and come down rapidly if we are to have even a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
“The Productivity Commission was also utterly wrong in its analysis of the contribution that energy efficiency can make to emissions reduction, and their position has been refuted by essentially every expert in the field.
“International experience shows that emissions trading is not sufficient to trigger the appropriate scale of emissions reductions. This is particularly the case because governments will tend to start emissions trading slowly and give existing industry a free ride, an approach which may be insufficient to attract the strong level of investment required.
“The urgency of climate change means we need as many complementary measures as we can reasonably develop to ensure serious action. Relying on emissions trading alone is doomed to fail.
“We need MRET as well as emissions trading, a feed-in law, energy efficiency measures, investment in public transport and alternative fuels, and much much more if we are to rebuild Australia for the post-carbon economy.”
‘Nuff sed. Have a good weekend…
Hi Tim,
Eloquently put as ever by Christine, even if I disagree!
I think the problem is that people aren’t prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to combat climate change, not that the mechanism of carbon trading isn’t the most efficient way to do it - but let’s not rehash that argument yet again…
To a question - what parts of their discussion of energy efficiency do you object to most strongly?
In sum, they are the kind of economic fundamentalists who believe that, if a dollar coin is lying on the ground, someone will bend down and pick it up pretty soon. Therefore, if energy efficiency opportunities exist, people will have already taken them. Therefore they don’t exist. QED.
That’s an ugly summary, but is effectively what they say in their big report on energy efficiency a couple of years ago.
Regardless of the fact that pretty much everyone else says energy efficiency could deliver massive emissions reductions fast and cheap. And overlooking the fact that there are many barriers to efficiency, such as up-front cost, lack of information, lack of prioritisation, disconnect between those making the energy use decisions and those paying the bills, etc.
It’s a silly position, disconnected from the real world. Just like their position on emissions trajectories. It might make economic sense, but bears no relationship to what might happen to the planet in reality…