Malcolm Turnbull demonstrated true leadership last week when he defended scientists against self-serving polluting interests that are throwing their weight around in a desperate bid to avoid responsibility for the life-threatening damage their emission are causing. He noted that, just like the tobacco companies before them, vested interests are deliberately distorting the science and misleading and frightening the public about the effects of taking the necessary action to protect our climate.

Turnbull also pointed out how “galling” it is for the leaders of China and India (whose respective per capita emissions are one-fifth and less than one-tenth of Australia’s) to hear our leaders use their economies as an excuse for not taking responsibility for Australia’s role as the highest per capita emitter in the developed world. Civilisation-saving climate policies ought to have full, bipartisan support and Turnbull deserves acknowledgment for his strong stance, at this important time.

As Turnbull pointed out with the example of Margaret Thatcher, many conservative politicians around the world have a long history of concern regarding the threats posed by climate change and are working hard to strengthen global action to combat it. In the UK, it is the conservative (Tory) party that has been leading the push to strengthen emission reduction targets. According to UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne:

It puts Britain at the leading edge of a new global industrial transformation as well as making good our determination that this will be the greenest government ever.

Acknowledging the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee for negotiating under extreme pressure from self-serving polluters and a viciously hostile opposition party, the Gillard government’s Carbon Plan is undoubtedly an improvement on Rudd’s worse than nothing Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is important to note that the opposition was invited to be represented on the MPCCC but Abbott refused and has subsequently attacked it at every stage of its development and proceedings.

Combined with a fixed price on pollution ($23 per tonne and set-to-rise), the new ‘independent’ support for renewable energy initiatives, as well as annual reporting on emissions targets, are encouraging developments. Who does not want 100% renewable energy to replace polluting energy?

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), will have $10 billion worth of funds ($2 billion a year raised over 5 years) to allocate as loans or equity investments for “clean energy”. Half of the funds will be for strictly renewable energy, while the other half will be available to renewables or “clean” gas/renewable hybrids, but not for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. In addition to this, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will administer $3.2 billion of existing renewable energy projects.

During the Plan’s start-up period (until 2015), dodgy offshore permits cannot be substituted for Australia’s emission reductions. After 2015, when the Plan’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is set to start, there will be a limit of 50% for overseas offsets, whereas the CPRS was unlimited (read loophole that meant it was OK if NO emissions were reduced in Australia ever). Because vested interests can so easily manipulate ETS schemes, and they rely on a speculative carbon market, LIVE will fight this transition and do not expect to be alone in doing so. To give you an idea, recent analysis of the EU’s ETS revealed that the scheme has become a major source of hidden subsidies for emission intense industries (in the form of free pollution permits which are traded), with power companies expected to receive windfall profits of more than €70 billion in the current phase (2008 – 2012, the second of three planned phases).

An important improvement on Rudd’s CPRS is that our individual efforts to reduce our carbon footprints will not translate into free carbon permits for polluters (typically transnationals) to trade in a speculative carbon market. The psychological impacts of removing that loophole cannot be overstated.

Another improvement is that this scheme sets aside $1 billion for the protection of Australia’s unique biodiversity, wildlife and woodlands. With the potential for raising further awareness of what is under threat from climate change, this addition has the capacity to punch above its weight.

The support for ordinary Australians (about $4 billion over the next 4 years), transferred through the tax and welfare system, means that most people will be sheltered from most increases in energy costs, whereas Rudd’s loophole ridden CPRS was entirely focused on protecting industry profits.

Of course, the generous level of corporate welfare (a whopping $9.2 billion) offered by this scheme is wrong by every measure. Public discussions about carbon pollution contributing to climate change have been going on for decades and any business leader/investor that has ignored them should not be in business. The fossil fuel industry represents the most profitable/powerful corporations on the planet, so regardless of what Abbott thinks (clearly nothing for Australia’s future) propping up polluters profits now should not be the job of Australian taxpayers. This aspect of the Plan ought to be vigorously, and continuously challenged as we ‘move forward’. The plan mentions seeking to negotiate coal closures, specifically the most polluting (brown coal) plants in Victoria, but has not been backed up with any comprehensive measures to assist coal-affected regions to re-build with new low carbon industries. Transitioning to a low carbon economy will demand skilled labour, so compensation money should be going into retraining carbon affected workers to fill the new jobs that will be created.

In addition to the unjustifiable corporate welfare, most of the fossil fuel subsidies (roughly $12 billion) remain in place. Agriculture and most transport are not covered, which not only reduces the scheme’s effectiveness but also its capacity to raise funds to finance the renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions.

Arguably the biggest flaw of the scheme is that it will not prevent a gas rush which would be financially (read stranded assets) and environmentally disastrous. Extracting gas requires enormous amounts of fresh water and the environmental and health impacts of ‘fracking’ include scarred landscapes and contaminated ground water from migrating gases and chemicals. Meanwhile, fugitive methane emissions from gas, which are difficult to quantify, are at least 72 times, and possibly 105 times, more potent than CO2 when in the atmosphere.

Ultimately the Carbon Plan maintains a pathetically low emission reduction target (5% by 2020 from base year 2000, compared to the EU target of 25% by 2020 from base year 1990), that is light years away from the reductions the science demands if we are to avoid dangerous runaway climate change. The game is about reducing emissions FAST and anything else is a distraction.

So, be assured that LIVE will continue to support and push all Australian decision makers to adopt further, numerous measures (such as gross metered feed-in-tariffs for renewable energy) to drastically reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in the quickest time frame possible. We will continue to demand climate policies commensurate with the threats we face from climate change.