[Reprinted from Oct 2009]
Now on to this month’s rant, which might be subtitled “autopsy of failure”. I want to examine the failure of Labor, for basically being themselves in arriving at their current position on climate change legislation, as well as moving it forward to a conclusion. But first, I must return to an earlier target, the Greens, for their act of taking jobs they were either completely unqualified for, or that they never intended to carry out the responsibilities of in the first place, and thereby being frauds.
It all stems from a brief summary of what would be the Greens amendments to the CPRS (as provided by the Environment Manager) of about a week ago:
- A 40% cut to Aust’s GHG emissions on 1990 base by 2020;
- A 100% renewable energy target and national gross-feed-in tariff;
- Enshrined in Aust law a commitment to stabilise global emissions at an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million;
- An emissions trading scheme with no price cap, full permit auctioning, no five-year warnings for business on emissions caps, voluntary offsets included in the caps, agriculture excluded and two yearly reviews;
- Agriculture to be dealt with under a “green carbon” sequestration plan that would end all clearing of native forests;
- Compensation for emission-intensive industries based only on their trade exposure, as determined by the Productivity Commission;
- The axing of fringe benefits tax on inefficient cars and fuel tax credits for mining and forestry; and
- Energy efficiency upgrades in all Aust homes and businesses.
Now, here’s a shocker. After reading through all the amendments above and having a bit of a think about them all, I could agree to all IN FULL. Even the couple that I find a bit fluffy and more populist than substantive. They are not the same sort of impractical aspirational rubbish we normally get from the greens. Had all of these been available and on the table back in August when the government was telling the Coalition to put up or shut up (and possibly face an early election), the Greens should have been out there with a simple summary of the above and been campaigning on the merits of their position then, rather than just bitching and whining about the target levels back in August, and then bitching and whining about how Labor will do a deal with the Coalition last week. Essentially, they are now whining about the fact that because they failed to follow the process for making amendments, they are not responsible for the fact that their really super ideas are not going to be in the final legislation, and some deal between Labor and the Coalition (possibly, or possibly not including the Devil) will shut them out of the process.
See, the thing is, that laws don’t get passed by some snapperhead having a bright idea in the shower in the morning that he jots down on a recycled serviette over a bran toast and green tea, and then bicycling into the house or senate and saying to his colleagues, “Hey guys, I have this CPRS thing sorted”, after which they have a quick read, all applaud his brilliance and then have the thing all passed through both houses that afternoon before heading out to volunteer at the local animal shelter. The fact is, REAL legislation is passed with lots of work that involves arm twisting, sharp elbows and lining up alliances quite early, and most importantly through a pre-set PROCESS that must be followed. Liberals aren’t allowed to offer vocal “NOs” as a documented set of amendments to legislation, and if the Greens wanted Labor to do a deal with them to do some real good for the environment and sell Australia’s credentials as a green leader in the world, the time to do that passed by in July or August.
It’s a real pity that the good ideas of the Greens will not be included in the CPRS that will eventuate from the negotiations on its finalisation, but it will be their intransigence and failure to follow the process of adopting new legislation that will be at fault. They were the ones that made the “perfect” the enemy of the “good” initially. They failed to participate in the process, leaving the field of play to a competition between an overly pragmatic idea with too many giveaways, and no idea at all. The only good news resulting from the way things have played out in Australia with respect to the CPRS is the potentially looming split between the Coalition on the issue, or perhaps even a split between the Nationals, the Liberals and Liberal Climate Change Deniers.
The Greens should have been inside the tent with Labor, fighting out the points of facts and fairness on the CPRS along with those in business who are getting too much of their way. But unfortunately, they have excluded themselves, are irrelevant to something that should have been their core, and possibly are doomed to the same fate as the Democrats before them.
#1 by BF on November 24th, 2009
Hulka,
Many thanks for this enlightening rant on matters politic. However, I do not trawl this website for this end. Rather than your enlightened opinions on policy matters, and in keeping with the expectations I have formed based on my interpretation of your Golden Rules for this blog (”to provide facts, comments and answer questions on issues of environmental engineering, specifically as they relate to the debate about climate change”, I visit this blog to gain your insights into the practical measures that I can take to address climate change as an individual, and as the Manager of a small business.
By this, I seek discussion around cost effective environmental engineering suggestions for addressing climate change. I am happy to acknowledge that the said profession is “broad church” and that such dialogue may cover issues as diverse as the science of monitoring and reporting, as well as end of pipe or process solutions to minimising my CO2 footprint.
As a suggestion, can I ask you to enlighten your blog followers on any lessons that you or your company can pass on about your corporate journey to carbon neutrality?
Regards
BF
#2 by Sgt Hulka on November 24th, 2009
Thanks for your input BF. To this point I have been ranting into the wind, and not had an opportunity to provide any of the promised content in the way of practical advice that you seek. My intent was to provide specific answers to specific questions, so perhaps you have a specific concern that might be addressed.
In general terms, as a small business, you should educate yourself about the issues that are significant to you in relation to climate change (what are my emissions in total? what are the significant contributors? How much of a reduction can I afford to make?) and then decide your plan of action.
If you, as a business, can eliminate significant sources of emissions you should, but you should not go broke in the process. No sense in educated companies that are trying to make a positive change being lost as they try to compete with “dirtier” companies.
Then, you should examine if gaining carbon neutrality status for any of your products or services provides you with a competitive advantage that is worth the cost of the certification and offsetting. If it does, you should pursue the marketing of carbon neutral offerings.
#3 by BF on November 25th, 2009
Hulka,
I am very interested in your insights about competitive advantage for carbon neutrality, and your observation that edcuated companies should not be lost as they compete with dirtier companies. Perhaps this could be the topic of a blog where you expand on this further, using your own company’s experience as a working example?
#4 by Sgt Hulka on June 11th, 2011
OK, I am now flummoxed. How did I save you? And while I do think I am sensible, and that comment seems eminently relevant to my analysis of the political issue above, I am wondering, do you have a point Queenie? Here’s the deal. If I offer something by posting it here and you like it, or agree with it or are even just entertained by it, and you feel you want to post something, you owe me the courtesy of offering your opinion on the issue or a useful additional fact.
If you don’t do that, I am likely to consider you a lucky spambot that generated something that tricked my screening for it.