CPRS: Breaking the deadlock?

Disclaimer: I am no economist nor an economist's son. All opinions expressed to be taken with a pinch or three of salt.

The current debate in Australia over the Government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) seems bogged down, and has even reached a point where it has given Kevin Rudd the necessary trigger to request a double dissolution (though he seems unlikely to use it just yet). The danger is that the CPRS may continue to be blocked or watered down by the Opposition, delaying any significant carbon policy from Australia and contributing to the broader global impasse reached at Copenhagen. The even larger danger is that it might be passed in something like its current form and pitiful targets will be locked in for decades.

Back in 2007, "Professor Ross Garnaut was commissioned by all of the governments of Australia’s federation to examine the impacts of climate change on Australia and to recommend policy frameworks to improve the prospects of sustainable prosperity."[1] The Garnaut Climate Change Review was published in late 2008. Chapter Fourteen of the Review recommended that for an initial period there ought to be a fixed price on carbon at AUS$20/tonne (in 2005 dollars) without offsets or international trading. This was to reduce uncertainty during the period in which an international agreement was being negotiated and would give businesses something firm from which to begin their necessary modifications. Such a fixed period was to start in 2010 and cover until at least the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

I think that as an interim measure, this suggestion has merit. Undoubtedly, it is not perfect, but it may be a way of breaking the current deadlock and of avoiding a situation in which Australia ties itself to weak targets. I'm pleased to hear that the Government has entered into serious negotiations with The Greens about this suggestion, since it might represent the best that it is currently possible to do, while not closing down future improvements.

UPDATE: The dangers of carbon uncertainty from a US perspective.

Sick of weak politicians? Safe Climate Bills

Are you sick of politicians diluting and compromising on climate action, putting short term political and economic gains ahead of long-term social and ecological investment? If you are an Australian, are you disappointed with Rudd's half-hearted climate suggestions and feel (like Professor Garnaut) that he has significantly lowered his sights? Are you even more disappointed in Coalition politicians who still can't make up their mind and would even risk a double dissolution election over making the bill even weaker?

Have a look at the Safe Climate Bills recently released by the Australian Greens. Aimed to stimulate debate about what is really needed, the series of twelve bills have been warmly welcomed by Friends of the Earth, the Green Building Council Australia and many others.

The current proposed government solution is considered by some to be "better than nothing", but by giving the illusion of action while simply continuing business as usual (with a few slight tweaks), it may actually be worse than idleness. Have a read of the summary (with links to the complete bills) and see if you think this might be worth making a fuss about.
PS Although large corporations are often among the worst ecological offenders and corporate regulation is one area requiring the largest shake-up (for all kinds of reasons), sometimes, it's a little bit nicer to be writing these kinds of posts on an Apple. Smug, moi? No. But if they too are greenwashing, then at least they do it with more style than the competition.

PPS I've only just realised that I unintentionally contributed to this. Ha.