News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Coalition gives ETS ultimatum 

Coalition gives ETS ultimatum

26 May, 2009 06:11 AM
THE Opposition will push the Government to defer its emissions trading legislation until the Copenhagen climate conference has been held.

But it will vote the scheme down if a delay is rejected.

The shadow cabinet agreed last night to recommend to today's Coalition parties' meeting a bipartisan approach on the targets Australia takes to the conference. But it wants to refuse to let the legislation through next month. All the indications are that the legislation will not be delayed, and so would be defeated.

The Greens said yesterday that they were determined to sink the legislation, which they regard as giving too much assistance to big polluters and setting weak emissions reduction targets.

The Nationals said they would never vote for it.

Nationals leader Warren Truss described the Government's scheme as a "job-destroying rabid dog" that should be put down."We won't be supporting the legislation," Mr Truss said.

The strong opposition from the Nationals and many in his own party has cornered Coalition leader Malcolm Turnbull, who helped draw up plans when in government for an ETS. He has been disinclined to defeat legislation that might pave the way for an eventual double dissolution.

Legislation now going through the US Congress has reinforced the Opposition's determination to hold out. It may also influence the wider debate. This legislation gives US trade-exposed industries and coal-fired electricity generators better protection than that proposed in the Australian scheme. The US scheme is likely to be seen as an international benchmark. Canada has put its scheme on the backburner until it is clear what the US is doing.

The Greens will introduce a motion to give the Government a "negotiating mandate" at international climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, to argue for a strong international deal. Independent senator Nick Xenophon said last night he would back the mandate motion.

The Opposition flagged last week that it would give bipartisan support to targets for Copenhagen. The range proposed by the Government is 5 to 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.

The Government and Greens want a Senate vote on the ETS legislation next month. Senator Xenophon has said he is not inclined to support a delay although he is listening to the arguments. The Opposition would need the support of both Family First senator Steve Fielding and Senator Xenophon to get backing for a deferral.

Senator Barnaby Joyce said he would support any Opposition move to delay the vote because it would be "irrelevant — the delay vote will fail. There is no point having a split before the fair dinkum vote on the ETS", which could come minutes later.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said yesterday the Government would force a vote on the legislation next month.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I wonder, do we have to repeat the mistakes of others in our efforts to reduce carbon in the atmosphere? The European Community's ETS price for carbon emissions has fluctuated wildly over recent times between 30 Euros to 8 Euros due to the recent reduction in economic activity imposed on industry. At 8 Euros, there is no incentive to reduce emissions. In fact, there is factual evidence that the European ETS initially issued more carbon pollution permits than there were emissions. Obviously, Europe's ETS is patently disfunctional. Will ours follow suit?
Posted by Trugger, 26/05/2009 6:47:28 AM
Trugger, carbon is not the problem. Carbon is black and it is a solid. The problem, if it is a problem, is the production of gases which are somehow supposed to be collecting in the upper atmosphere. It's my understanding that with continual currents of air there is unlikely to be any sustained collection in large masses. Perhaps some clever scientist can hypothesise how these agglomerations can happen. The issue of ETS seems to me to be a convenient excuse to introduce yet another tax. It seems to be the only way politicians can think to approach an issue. Whilst industry is to be the target of such a tax the reality is that it is ultimately the consumer who cops the cost because business will just pass the additional cost on to those who can't escape it.
Posted by DAW, 26/05/2009 6:50:36 PM
The world and Australia do not need an expensive and damaging ETS. There is ample scientific evidence derived from rigorous research to discredit the lie the of human-induced climate change. No correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide has been shown from the past and the IPCC, that all the "believers" like to quote, is self-serving and focused on deception. Wake up, Australia.
Posted by Bob, 27/05/2009 6:53:33 AM
This paper could have used a more flattering photo of Mr. Truss!
Posted by tigerdicky, 27/05/2009 9:01:52 AM
Consumers and farmers will cop the cost. The only things that have increased in the last hundred years are people, cars and manufacturiing industries. There are less sheep and cattle but they are being blamed. We may be using more machinery to farm but we are FEEDING the people. Highly paid executives in expensive 4wd drives living in cities apparently are not to blame nor are the huge electricity guzzling manufacturers. AND the huge overheated offices of paper pushers justifying their jobs by making the numbers add up to what they want them to say would of course being having a negative affect on global warming. The climate has been changing since day one. If global warming was an unnatural occurence we should still be in the ice age and have dinosaurs.
Posted by Helen Clark, 27/05/2009 9:15:57 AM
The question of how ag will pay is being grossly over exaggerated. In the ETS liable entities those that emit over 25,000 tonnes of CO2e are supposedly 1000 companies. Including ag does not mean every ag business will be covered. 25,000 tonnes is close to 12,500 cattle or up to 50,000 sheep (yes I know the figures can be disputed), but it is big operations that will be covered not all farms. You will suffer on costs from energy etc, just as every other citizen and business will. The big difference is ag will be able to sequestrer carbon in trees and probably in soil, therefore being the only sector that can make money from the ETS. You will be able to sell permits to recover costs increased from energy use.
Posted by the lorax, 27/05/2009 11:36:23 AM
Ha, I hope my climate changes becasue the one I have now is certianaly not desirable. There is so much we could do before we need to mandate an ETS. Let's look at our lifstyles and start there before we completely destroy our economy.

If anyone has any ideas how to get through to Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd and demonstrate the effect of this ridiculous piece of legislation, please let us know.

Posted by Sam, 27/05/2009 6:18:44 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Warren Truss: ETS a rabid dog that should be put down.
Warren Truss: ETS a "rabid dog that should be put down".
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
24 May, 2009
22 May, 2009
21 May, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe human activity is the cause of climate change?

Yes
(43.6%)

No
(48%)

Undecided
(8.4%)

Total Votes: 1138
Poll Date: 24 May, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...