Between the lines is the Institute’s selective analysis of the policies and politics affecting the wellbeing of Australians. This edition looks at the Cooper Review into superannuation; the ‘quarantining’ of income support; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; bank profits and food waste.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent problem; the economic evidence says that the costs of tackling climate change are trivially small compared to the costs of inaction; and polling shows that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to see real action. So why has the CPRS stalled and why

Emission reduction targets are so weak as to be useless, Richard Denniss argues.

The CPRS is perhaps the most poorly understood piece of legislation to dominate Australia’s public debate in modern times. While there have been acres of press about whether climate change exists or not, and acres more about how clever the Rudd Government has been in splitting the Coalition, there has been much less analysis of

Last week many people were questioning why the Victorian Premier was so keen to secure additional compensation for the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on his state’s biggest polluters. Luckily for him, however, he has not been forced to answer a more interesting question: Why isn’t he demanding that the Commonwealth Government

Between the Lines is the Institute’s selective analysis of the policies and politics affecting the wellbeing of Australians. This edition considers: the strange argument for carbon price compensation; buying power stations vs compensating them; an uncharitable act; and, bank profits.

The CPRS is increasingly looking like the answer to a question that nobody asked, namely, what would be the best way to introduce a complex and expensive national scheme that sounds like a solution to climate change without really changing anything? But as the Senate vote gets closer the first question that the Climate Change

The science says that we need to reduce emissions by around 40 per cent by 2020 if we want even a fifty per cent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. The Government has ignored that advice both in setting the targets for their so called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and in developing Australia’s negotiating

The Senate debate about the CPRS is getting close, and with views as diverse as those of Steve Fielding and Bob Brown it’s likely to be a cracker. Unfortunately, while there might be plenty of heat in the debate, whether the CPRS gets up or not will make no difference to global temperatures.

Economists can and do get it wrong. The lead up to the subprime mortgage crisis being an obvious case in point. While some economists and regulators were convinced all was well, many people were alarmed at a system that enabled people to buy expensive houses with loans that were beyond their means of repaying. It

Picture this country five years from now, once an emissions trading scheme is fully operational. How will your life be different? Will higher energy prices radically change your approach to work, travel, shopping and leisure?

1. Electricity and pricing signals ”¦ 2. ”¦ How is our behaviour affected? 3. The Australian home: a sacred site for tax policy? 4. The slippery slope of the war on terror

Richard Denniss examines the work of the Institute over his first year as the new executive director; Brian Walters looks at anomalies in the common law with regard to public and private interests; David Richardson dissects the benefits of the mining boom; Georgia Miller explains some of the problems inherent in the nanotechnology revolution.

Denticare: making a mountain out of a molar. Dissent is a dirty word. A fair-weather friend: Australia’s relationship with a climate-changed Pacific. Extract from author Ben McNeil’s speech at the launch of ‘The Clean Industrial Revolution’.

the ‘cap-and-slice’ proposal actually resembles the public’s perception of how emissions trading works more closely than the CPRS. Three-quarters of respondents to a recent Australia Institute survey said that Australia’s total emissions would go down if every household reduced its electricity use. Only 13 per cent gave the answer that corresponds to the CPRS: that

It is hard to imagine a scheme that is less fair than the CPRS. The Commonwealth collects the revenue and the states do the spending. The polluters get compensation and those dependent on the public health and education systems get nothing. Of course tackling climate change doesn’t need to be so unfair. With the legislation

Edited extract from Senator Christine Milne’s address to the National Press Club. Poverty and sustainability in developing countries: the impact of international trade in carbon. Australia’s Government debt: how does it stack up? Five disease outbreaks that are worse than swine flu.

The mining boom bonanza barely spread beyond the mining industry itself but the negative implications of the mining boom were felt very widely. This is important in view of the current suggestions that the end of the mining boom implies that Australians will have to tighten their belts. Symmetry should apply in the event of

The benefits of the mining boom: where did they go? Renewable energy: the more the merrier, but how would we know? Mutual obligation by any other name.

The CPRS has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. A mechanism to ensure that the efforts of individuals and state governments to reduce emissions result in lower emissions, not extra permits for other polluters, needs to be introduced. Similarly, the decision to insulate the petrol price from the introduction of a carbon price needs

While it may not have been the government’s intention, it looks like the most potent symbol associated with the CPRS might be the Senate uniting to vote it down. The likely delay in implementing an effective scheme is a source of much regret for people who have called for urgent action for many years. But

Dr Bill de Maria discusses the new whistleblowing proposals; David Ingles laments the exclusion of people on NewStart from either of the stimulus packages and explains the great superannuation tax concession rort; Reconciliation Australia looks at reconciliation a year after the Rudd apology; Tully Fletcher examines the current state of legal aid; Richard Denniss enumerates

A Human Rights Act for Australia. Executive excess. Policy on the run; is policy underdone? Food security

The CPRS in its current form is deeply flawed. If the government wants to see the legislation passed, it is going to have to amend its proposal. In order to take advantage of every additional emissions reduction and allow every concerned citizen to make a direct contribution, the government needs to convert its ‘cap and

It is often said that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. But it seems that in the case of Minister Wong’s version of emissions trading, the so called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), there is nothing more pitiful than an idea whose time never actually came. The targets are

The CPRS is looking more and more like a hotted up second hand car. It sounded good in the advertisement, had all the fancy bits added on and looked really shiny and ready to go. Unfortunately the closer you look at it, the less reliable it gets. It might not be as fancy, but an

The unfortunate reality is that, having waited a decade for a government to express a willingness to do something about climate change, we are now faced with a choice between a policy that locks us into failure by dictating that emissions in Australia cannot fall by more than five per cent and abandoning the CPRS

Burying bad news in the media. The impact of climate change on new businesses. Cooperatives. The Government’s new human rights consultation.

Hugh Saddler and Helen King examine the difficulties implicit in applying emissions trading to agriculture; Josh Fear reclaims your time from the telemarketers and examines the superannuation industry in Australia; David Richardson explains how accelerated depreciation would help the renewable energy industry; Richard Denniss looks at a new top tax rate; John Langmore asks whether

An economical truth. The bogus economic case for telemarketing. Bee lines. Over a barrel.