As the passage of the Federal Government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) enters a crucial stage in the Senate, commentators from Charles Sturt University (CSU) have expressed concerns with the current scheme.
Specific areas and comments include:
Emissions Trading Scheme: Professor Kevin Parton, CSU Institute of Land, Water and Society (Orange and Bathurst). “A carbon consumption tax has a number of attributes that make it preferable to an Emissions Trading Scheme. One drawback of the ETS is that it disadvantages Australian firms in the export and import-competing sectors. They must pay for permits, while similar firms in other countries do not. By taxing consumption rather than production, the carbon consumption tax alternative puts all firms back onto a level playing field."
Energy: Barney Foran, Research Fellow, CSU Institute of Land Water and Society (Albury-Wodonga). “The atmospheric pollution problem the globe faces is essentially physical and has to be resolved by physical methods, developing new energy infrastructure and changing consumption behaviour. National debate surrounding the ETS reminds us of a Winston Churchill one-liner: ‘nations will eventually do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all other possibilities’. This ETS represents a life support mechanism for economic theories that are now outmoded. A continually expanding physical output driven by growing personal consumption is not compatible with a stabilisation and rapid reduction of carbon emissions. Australia must rapidly reduce the carbon content of electricity, transport fuels and landuse, while helping its near neighbours achieve a reasonable lifestyle and human development. Using this ETS to drive an outmoded economy into a low carbon future is like trying to win the Bathurst 1000 driving only in reverse gear using rear vision mirrors for guidance.”
Agriculture: Professor Kevin Parton, CSU Institute of Land, Water and Society (Orange and Bathurst). “Agriculture contributes up to 20 per cent of the total Australian greenhouse gas emissions, with beef farming contributing about 30 per cent of the emissions from agriculture and sheep farming nearly 20 per cent. It is, however, very difficult to measure emissions from the individual farm, unlike a large industrial facility, because there are different numbers and classes of livestock at different times of the year, and there is no ‘typical’ cow. Agriculture needs far more research to accurately calculate emissions, which has implications for the system to be adopted.”
Social effects: Dr Helen Masterman-Smith, social researcher, CSU Institute of Land, Water and Society (Albury-Wodonga). “While the Federal Government’s ETS and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme contain several social justice elements, international experience suggests that ‘green job’ booms, that are expected to flow from such schemes can entrench social inequality if poorly handled. The US experience indicates that there is a ‘low road’ and a ‘high road’ to jobs in the ‘green economy’. Many green jobs involve poor pay and conditions. On the other hand, ‘good’ green jobs are expected to emerge in well-paid, male-dominated occupations. Strong labour and environmental law are essential to ensure Australia follows the high road to a socially and ecologically sustainable future. The question of how women, young, Indigenous and low paid workers will benefit from, and contribute to, a low-carbon economy requires greater attention. Research on these questions is urgently needed to inform socially inclusive solutions.”
Social
Explore the world of social