Trading emissions

The past week has certainly been an interesting time for the climate change debate. Although it perplexes me as to why we continually need to have reports warning us about the impacts if we don’t act. It would seem to me that the reports we need are how to best survive the impacts of climate change since we’re not acting.

While the Garnaut Report, which is afterall a draft, points to an emissions trading scheme as major scaffolding to diminishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is the only major item noted. Herein lies the problem (or at least one of many problems but that doesn’t sound as good).

To truly tackle climate change it is absolutely vital that difficult policy issues surrounding architectural requirements for energy efficiency, GHG emissions reductions targets, research & development in renewable energy sources, and education. Personally, I have strong reservations about the effectiveness of an emissions trading scheme for actually reducing GHG emissions. The fundamental understanding of the emissions trading scheme involves trading permits to pollute, where the cost to high emitters (ie polluters) is greater than to low emitters because of the cost of CO2/tonne. I do not see how this will actually result in dwindling GHG emissions.

Yet trading schemes may help reduce our GHG emissions if Garnaut had included recommendations on investing in public transport, ending old-growth and native forests logging, moratoriums on building new coal-fired power stations, or a range of additional measures. These additional measures are needed just as much as an emissions trading scheme but need to rolled out in concert with a trading scheme.

One of the worst straw man arguments I’ve heard and read is that an emissions trading scheme would cause massive job losses and the drying up of investment. This is a garbage set of statements backed no figures. The reality is that if, as is suggested by Garnaut, this will promote the uptake of alternative low-emissions (note not necessarily renewable energy) technology, which will require its own labour force (often referred to as the green sector), un-skilled and skilled. It will further promote and support associated industries and professions. Although my preference and that of a lot of other peoples’ is to see greater reliance on renewable energy sources over so-called low emissions technologies.

The use of low emissions technologies implies that it is somewhat better than what we’re doing now and so is ok. This misnomer belies the contribution of continued reliance on climate polluting measures feeding the waves of positive feedbacks in the climate’s systems. And these could be far worse to the liveability of the planet; it’s the only one we have, it’s no joke.

The other really annoying straw man argument being bandied about at the moment is the

But as with anything that may be publicly unpalatable there are always get-out-of-jail-free cards (like the jobs straw man). The sheer weight of calls to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, has had senior government ministers, like Penny Wong, making very wishy-washy statements about the certainty of a 2010 start date. And that’s just for an emissions trading scheme let alone introducing a raft of other measures for a measured, holistic approach to tackling climate change.

While Rudd flaps on about the G8’s need to take decisive action on reducing emissions, he must ensure Wong et al stand firm at home. Take decisive action and introduce an emissions trading scheme no later than 2010; and definitely before the next federal election.