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

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

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

Australia is a wealthy country. Although the current slowdown in the rate of economic growth has had a substantial impact on the government’s finances, the fact is that much of the ‘boom’ preceding this downturn was squandered through round after round of tax cuts. This occurred to such an extent that, despite the fact that

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

While it may seem appealing to wait until we know where the new jobs are going to be before we start moving away from the jobs the atmosphere can no longer support, developing such a ‘plan’ is a fool’s errand. The fact is we did not wait until we knew where photo development lab workers

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

Under John Howard, the Liberal Party was able to walk both sides of the philosophical street. On “economic” issues they were opposed to government interference in the individual’s “right to choose”, but on “social” issues the Liberals seemed comfortable with the idea that government knew best. The real issues, though, such as whether people should

Mutuality in a Market Society by Pamela Kinnear Pearson on Welfare Dependency by Clive Hamilton Subsidising the Health of the Rich by Julie Smith Green Power: Taxing concern? by Richard Denniss