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.

Ministerial responsibility. A major flaw in the ETS. Thinking long term.

Government assistance to industry. New anti-SLAPP legislation in the ACT. ACMA’s recent decision on subliminal advertising. The need for wellbeing in a climate-changed Australia.

Why we care more about the financial crisis than climate change. The 50 per cent discount on capital gains. Whether there has been an exodus from public schools to private ones.

Richard Denniss explains how an emissions trading scheme works; Josh Fear looks at financial choices; Gemma Edgar explores the possibility of a national compact between the government and NGOs and David Richardson writes about the problems of hidden unemployment.

Not only can current jobs be adapted to green jobs, Australian engineers who now go to Europe, California or China might be lured home. Eventually, every job needs to be a green job: every industry will need to readjust to the reality of climate change and play their part in cutting Australia’s emissions. At best,

Incoming Executive Director Richard Denniss shares his strategic vision for the Institute.

Clive Hamilton left the Australia Institute at the end of February to devote himself to writing. Here he pens his last comment for the newsletter.

Ross Garnaut, who will report in June to the Rudd Government on its emissions trading system, is a former trade economist now spending a lot of time thinking about how to prevent powerful industries undermining the Government’s plans. He has come up with a radical solution. Let’s have one target, a carbon budget aimed at

The science is becoming more alarming by the month, and so are the impacts of global warming itself. The demand for decisive action can only intensify over the next three years; it will require far-sighted policies to bring about a wholesale transformation of the nation’s energy economy, a structural change on a par with that

Comments this week by Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull suggest that the Government is beginning to realise the incompatibility between endless growth in the aviation sector and the prevention of dangerous climate change. Even if Australia adopts a lower target of 60% reductions by 2050, as the Labor Party has proposed, aviation could still gobble

The Prime Minister, various ministers and the fossil fuel lobby have for years claimed that cutting emissions would be economically ruinous, cause massive job losses and destroy our international competitiveness. None of these claims is backed by credible evidence and can easily be shown to be false.

Turbulence ahead by Andrew Macintosh and Christian Downie Universities and fossil fuel capture by Christian Downie Silencing dissent: The Federal Government strikes by James Arvanitakis Grassroots campaign against sexualisation of children by Julie Gale See Paris and Die? by Steve Biddulph Academic economists call for Kyoto ratification by Clive Hamilton Insuring against catastrophic change by