 |
| The battle to cut carbon emissions is heating up. Pat Scala |
The dissenting report of the Climate Change Authority, to be released on Monday, also calls for dirty brown coal power stations to be closed down through a bidding process funded by a mandatory charge on other generators.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg – who last week poured cold water on the CCA majority report which said an emissions trading scheme would be needed to achieve the existing 2030 target – is unlikely to back the more radical plan.
But pressure from the Greens for bigger cuts could encourage the energy sector and business community to lock in a political compromise that will be accepted by both the Coalition and the ALP.
The two dissidents, economists Clive Hamilton and climate scientist David Karoly, said the CCA's report had failed to meet the terms of reference set by the federal government.
"Overall we view the majority report as a recipe for further delay in responding to the urgent need to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions," the minority report said.
"We regret that a consensus report has not been possible but feel that in good conscience we cannot lend our names to the majority report. After consideration, we have therefore decided to write a minority report."
Professor Karoly said the majority report – which was backed by the eight other board members including chair Wendy Craik and industry boss Kate Carnell – "lacked credibility".
"Even if Australia reduces its emissions by 28 per cent by 2030 as our current targets dictate, more than 90 per cent of Australia's current carbon budget will be used up by then," he said.
"Put simply, the actions recommended in the report will not put Australia on a path to playing its role in limiting global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees celsius".
They said the CCA should have stuck to its previous recommendation of a 40 to 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
Instead of an emissions intensity trading scheme, the dissent report has backed a cap and trade scheme and the abolition of the $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, saying it was a waste of money.
The CCA board was overhauled late last year and the majority report – which recommended an emissions intensity trading scheme for the electricity sector within the existing Direct Action framework – has been seen as providing a pathway forward for the Turnbull government.
But Professor Hamilton said it was disappointing the majority report had chosen to frame its recommendations around what was politically possible rather than what needs to be done to protect the nation.
"The evidence suggests that most Australians want stronger action on climate change and we hope that policy makers are not spooked by the fear campaigns of the recent past. Climate change is too big and too important," he said.
CCA chair Dr Craik last week defended the majority report saying she believed it met the terms of reference set by the federal government.
"We believe we have. The authors stand by the report," she said.
The Business Council of Australia last week backed a move towards an ETS which industry is hoping will be adopted as part of the federal government's review of climate policies next year.
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Brendan Pearson said the CCA majority report was a good starting point, but he stopped short of formally backing the market-based emissions intensity scheme.
He described the dissenting report as a "childish dummy spit" saying its recommendations would undermine wider support for climate change policies.
"There are good reasons why the Climate Change Authority rejected these proposals – they would drive the economy into the ground, destroy jobs across the country and as a result actually reduce public support for action to address climate change," he told The Australian Financial Review.
"The CCA [majority] report is a good primer for a national policy discussion. The bottom line must be that we must keep energy affordable and reliable as we reduce our emissions footprint. The best way to do that is to adopt a technology neutral approach. No energy source should be ruled out, including new super-efficient coal plants and nuclear power."
Links
No comments:
Post a Comment