Alex White » CPRS

Assessment of the “Clean Energy Future” policy

Alex — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:16:15 +0000

When the new carbon price policy was announced, I was fairly skeptical about it – especially given the failure of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Media reporting suggested that there were serious deficiencies in the policy, as many or more as the CPRS.

However, I’ve taken the time to acquaint myself more closely with the “Clean Energy Future” carbon price policy and am now much more supportive. It is a good step in the right direction, and while it is not perfect, it is a significant and important platform to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution.

There are a few elements of the package that I really like:

Higher 2050 target: The new target is 80% reduction in carbon emissions on 2000 levels
Creation of a $10 billion clean energy finance corporation, to directly stimulate the clean energy sector
Fixed initial price that moves to a emissions trading scheme: a permanent fixed price would be a disaster and an ETS means a total cap on emissions
Limitations on overseas carbon offsets that can be used in Australia, from 80% to 50%
Individuals and groups can purchase and retire carbon permits, thereby hastening carbon reductions

Will this help us reach our target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C? Not by itself. International action is still required.

Bottom line: I’m glad to see that Australia has gone from being a laggard to a leader with this policy.

Read the Australian Conservation Foundation’s assessment here.

Gas should be included in carbon price

Alex — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:00:58 +0000

I heard this morning on ABC NewsRadio that the natural gas giants in Australia are pushing back on Federal Government plans to include gas in the carbon price.

Image courtesy of TruEnergy.

The negotiations over the carbon price are following the same, predictable line that the negotiations over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme followed: the carbon lobby and various other industries that contribute significant amounts of carbon pollution to our air are asking for exemptions and compensation.

Don Voelte, the CEO of the largest Australian-owned oil and gas producer Woodside, says LNG can help deliver a “better world” and should be excluded from the carbon tax.

“Everywhere else in the world understands gas,” he said.

“People in the United States see gas as the saviour – cheap, clean, transitional fuel to a better world.

“Gas is good and Australia is penalising it. We don’t get it.”

Before trotting out the line that Australia is “going it alone” (a bald-faced lie which the ABC did not correct), Don Voelte claimed that if the carbon price was to go ahead, it would be “game off” for gas.

In fact, gas (far better than coal) is a fossil fuel, is non-renewable and is a source of significant greenhouse gas emissions – predominantly from the burning of gas, and from “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive emissions are green house gases that are released through as a by-product of extracting the resource (whether coal, gas, uranium, or whatever). Typically, large amounts of methane and carbon is released as fugitive emissions from the extraction of gas. As the gas industry has expanded in recent years, the raw amount of fugitive emissions has grown significantly in Australia.

The point of the carbon price – as explained simply by Julia Gillard – is to make polluting more expensive. If gas is much less polluting than coal – the “cheap, clean” fuel that is “good” that Don Voelte claims – then it will have a clear advantage over coal under a carbon price. If it pollutes – which it does – then it should pay for the pollution. It will obviously pay less than coal.

UPDATE

Some good commentary at the Business Spectator about the role of the media and big (polluting) business in the anti-carbon lobby.

Australia is experiencing a crescendo of nonsense in relation to our contribution to halting anthropogenic climate change. The danger is that by shouting loudest, longest, the proponents of some highly inconsistent arguments are gaining the upper hand.

The government’s round-table meeting on Friday with the heads of some of Australia’s largest companies – BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, BlueScope Steel, Woodside, Woolworths and NAB – was, by all accounts, a kind of shouting match over the levels of compensation our biggest carbon emitting corporates will receive under the government’s proposed carbon tax.

But no, it’s not those company representatives being inconsistent or nonsensical – they are doing their job, putting their shareholders first and attempting to protect the profitability of their businesses.

Costs to reduce pollution cheaper than expected: Grattan Institute

Alex — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:25:57 +0000

The Grattan Institute has released a report that confirms that costs to reduce pollution, especially carbon pollution, are cheaper than governments anticipate.

The report examined six market-based pollution reduction schemes, including the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the EU carbon trading scheme and the US sulphur trading scheme.

In each case the outcomes diverged significantly from government and industry predictions. Environmental markets routinely led to lower emissions and achievement of targets at lower cost in practice than in forecasts. Forecasts tended to underestimate commercial innovation once money was at stake. In some cases the targets and regulations required relatively less change to business as usual than governments expected. Because it was relatively easy to achieve targets, the market price of emissions was lower than forecast. The price crash in European carbon markets was not just a “one-off” result of peculiarities in its initial design. The same pattern recurred in a variety of environmental markets.

The experience from these cases suggests:

Market based carbon prices are the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Forecasts about costs were generally much higher than the actual costs. The Grattan Institute also reports that market-based systems also encourage innovation across the community that “converge on the cheapest reductions”.
There should be lower limit on carbon prices in a market scheme. A “reserve” price “effectively tightens the pollution target” and presumably would stop price crashes that occurred in the European Union.
Technological innovation is key. The Grattan Institute argues that market-based carbon reduction systems are “consistently effective at identifying lower cost opportunities, promoting innovation and responding flexibly to changes.”

This report is not earth shattering – I’ve read similar statements from climate change policy experts over the last few years that say the same thing. We already know that currency price fluctuations have a bigger impact on our economy than a carbon price. We also know that it is technically feasible for Australia to reach 100% of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020.

There are consequences to introducing a carbon price – one which many on the irrelevant left and loony right don’t understand.

The pattern repeated across each of these schemes is that forecast prices for pollution permits and clean energy certificates are much higher than actuals. Forecasts consistently assume a continuation of “known” technologies, and market forces routinely deliver surprising innovations within a few years, resulting in achievement of targets at substantially lower cost than expected. In some cases the targets and regulations required relatively less change to business as usual than governments expected.

When we see the same features repeated across eight phases of six different schemes, we are entitled to suspect there might be a pattern. We can probably predict that in future the forecasts for environmental schemes are likely to overestimate the costs of reducing pollution, and are likely to be wrong about which actions will deliver pollution reduction at the lowest cost. (p.20)

The take away message for the CPRS from this report is that rather than set a carbon permit limit, the Government should set a price floor.

Experience also suggests that in designing trading schemes, governments should set price floors. The market price of carbon is likely to be lower than government forecasts. When governments over-estimate the cost of reducing emissions, they tend to choose a weak cap, or target, and make it easy to generate offsets. Governments (at least in theory) set pollution caps so that the expected benefit of reducing pollution is the same as the expected cost of reducing pollution. If the cost of reducing pollution is less than expected, it would be rational to set a lower cap. A floor price automatically corrects this tendency. A floor price effectively reduces the number of permits issued if the price falls to the floor. (p.21)

The experience of pricing schemes also suggests that floor prices should be delivered by setting a minimum price at which permits will be issued. This is preferable to setting up a government agency such as a central bank of carbon that intervenes in the market whenever prices fall below the floor price. (p.22)

This report comes at at time when the Australian Government is looking anew at the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I wrote back in 2008 that the Federal Labor Government needs to “stand up to the self-interest of big business and the climate change skeptics in the Opposition.” I also wrote in 2008 that Labor looked as though it would squib on making the hard choices it needed when crafting the CPRS legislation.

I hope that the new Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, and Prime Minister Julia Gillard, show more courageous leadership this time around.

Exchange rate movements had bigger impact than a carbon price

Alex — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:45:11 +0000

The rising Australian dollar has had a bigger impact on our economy than an $85 per tonne carbon price.

A new Access Economics report says:

Exchange rate movements and the introduction of a carbon price are similar to the extent that both have comparable economic impacts and firms are able to adapt to the new environment.

This means that the recent increase in the price of the dollar has been twice as big a shock as an aggressive CPRS. Some sectors – like higher education and tourism – have experienced some pain, but it is mostly business as usual.

This puts paid to the scaremongering of the climate doves and denialists like Tony Abbott and the Liberals who have said that a carbon price would damage the Australian economy.

The report demonstrates that the Australian economy is flexible and could easily withstand a substantial price on carbon.

Lessons from the Modern Prince, Part 3: He was against it before he was for it (aka: the Barnaby principle)

Alex — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:52:20 +0000

This week has seen what appears to be the end of the honeymoon period for Tony Abbott, coinciding with his triathlon run, resignation of key powerbroker Nick Minchin, reshuffle and demotion of Barnaby Joyce, and his disastrous health care debate with Rudd.

Abbott’s reversal of fortune is a case study of Machiavelli’s advice to “avoid flatterers” as advisors, and to stick to your guns. Following the advice of flatterers and flip flopping is a recipe for a prince (or political leader) to be held in contempt.

This series of posts is part of Project 52 – one post per week throughout the year.

It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full, because men are so self-complacent in their own affairs, and in a way so deceived in them, that they are preserved with difficulty from this pest, and if they wish to defend themselves they run the danger of falling into contempt…

With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.

Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XXIII

There is a tendency for political commentators to look at a poll and then search for the most recent things that happened while the poll was being conducted to explain the results. In my view however, polls don’t measure what people thought of the week before the poll. Rather, most people (who don’t follow politics or current affairs regularly) are impressionistic. They get their political news in small bursts over a period of months (or even years).

Thus, polls measure people’s impressions of politics that have been formed over a long period of time. Polls closer to elections (such as the week before the election) are far more likely to find people at the time they are turning their mind to politics.

How are we to see the recent Newspoll that has Abbott’s personal ratings drop significantly, Labor’s TPP to rise, Rudd’s popularity to return to 2008 levels and the Liberals’ economic credibility to crash?

There are two reasons.

“It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full“… Tony Abbott has surrounded himself with a shadow cabinet full of flatterers. In modern political parlance, these people are his ideological clones: ideas free populists. Barnaby Joyce is the standout of these flatterers, praised by Abbott as an outstanding “retail politician”.

Political parties that rely on flatterers as shadow-ministers “fall into contempt” with the Australian people, who can see that the shadow-ministers simply give advice to promote their own ideological interests. Barnaby and his ilk (the Peter Duttons, Cory Bernardis, Sophi Mirabellas, Greg Hunts, Eric Abetzs, and Bronwyn Bishops) are seen as Abbott yes-men (and yes-women). They have no credibility on policy. They are simply ideological warriors.

Because Abbott only listens to these flatterers, and because the people can see they are without substance or wisdom, he has fallen into contempt.

Abbott highlighted this fact when he first elevated Barnaby Joyce to the shadow cabinet as Shadow Finance Minister, and then dumped him in favour of Andrew Robb (another flatterer).

Tony Abbott's problem is that he flip-flops.

“…outside of these, he should … pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions.” Tony Abbott compounds his political sins of listening to Barnaby Joyce by being a flip flopper. He is the modern equivalent to Emperor Maximilian (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire during Machiavelli’s time).

Fra Luca, the man of affairs to Maximilian, the present emperor, speaking of his majesty, said: He consulted with no one, yet never got his own way in anything. This arose because of his following a practice the opposite to the above; for the emperor is a secretive man — he does not communicate his designs to any one, nor does he receive opinions on them. But as in carrying them into effect they become revealed and known, they are at once obstructed by those men whom he has around him, and he, being pliant, is diverted from them. Hence it follows that those things he does one day he undoes the next, and no one ever understands what he wishes or intends to do, and no one can rely on his resolutions.

Tony Abbott didn’t consult over his announcement on paid parental leave and opposition to the Government’s scheme. There was a great commotion and dissent in the Coalition Party-room over the business-tax element of the plan. Similarly, his shadow ministers were annoyed that they weren’t consulted. As a result, Abbott announced that he may end up supporting (or at least not opposing) the Government’s parental leave scheme.

Tony Abbott was against health care reform, saying “it’s a bad plan”, yet after the horror Newspoll, he said: “The coalition will not necessarily oppose the government’s public hospital changes”.

The constant flip flops demonstrate that (apart from the fact that Abbott should be an acrobat rather than an ironman) the Opposition Leader is incapable of being steadfast in his resolution. At the first sign of trouble, he changes direction – like a political weather-vane.

This view was established from the start of his leadership, when Abbott supported, then opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Malcolm Turnbull branded Abbott a weathervane over this issue.

Looking at the recent Newspoll, Machiavelli’s advice seems apt for Abbott’s poll-plummet: “He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.“

Lessons from The (Modern) Prince, Part 1: The CPRS

Alex — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:11:27 +0000

As part of my Project 52 posts, I thought I’d spend a few weeks musing on the lessons of Niccolo Machiavelli not learned in our modern times. I’ve added a parenthetical “Modern” as a reference to my favourite theorist Antonio Gramsci‘s famous treatise The Modern Prince. In The Modern Prince, political parties are cast in the role of the Renaissance prince.

The modern Labor party is acutely aware of history – the Howard decade, the Hawke/Keating and Whitlam legacies. Many of the senior operatives in Labor are amateur experts on American history or the history of World War 2. Unfortunately, there seems to be a book missing on their shelves. The seminal Florentine real-politick manual, The Prince.

This is particularly evident in the handling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it arise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter VI.

“Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions…” This is evident when looking at the national debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the first step to economy-wide change built around putting a cost to polluting. Climate change is one of the most serious problems facing Australia and the world, and is caused in no small part because of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. There is no cost to pollute, so no incentive for businesses or citizens to reduce their emissions. The CPRS introduces a (small) cost. It is a first step towards a clean economy.

The political problem is that large emitters profit enormously from the current arrangements. They can pollute with no accounting of the externalities of their actions. Needless to say, they have fought tooth and nail to stop any reform. It is in their interest to oppose any change, and furthermore to fund efforts to make the introduction of the CPRS as politically painful as possible. This has seen scare campaigns run in regional electorates, legions of carbon lobbyists descend on Canberra and marginal seat MPs, and millions of dollars sent to climate denialist groups (including the Liberal Party).

“…and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.” Similarly, any added cost to polluting will be in large part passed on to consumers – citizens. This added cost to ordinary Australians has prompted opposition from a significant (but no a majority) part of the community. Ordinary Australians are being asked to subsidise the big polluters through taxes, and to bear any increased costs through polluters passing on higher costs. This is despite the large number of Australians who support carbon pollution reduction.

Little wonder that supporters are “lukewarm”.

“This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side…” In this case, the opponents are the Liberal Party, who, while they cannot make laws, can hold up laws. Supporters of the CPRS are worried about supporting in the event the Liberals get reelected. Furthermore, they are unwilling to invest in a climate of uncertainty when the Liberals are blocking the CPRS in the Senate. Similarly, many ordinary Australians are being targeted by the scare campaign of the carbon lobby – they are scared of losing their jobs. The carbon lobby (especially aluminium) is especially effective. The vast bulk of Australians are disorganised and inattentive, while the carbon lobby and big business have money, organisation and the Liberal Party in their favour.

“…and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” Even those people who support adding a cost to carbon pollution, there is waning support. Many are cool on the idea because they believe the CPRS does not go far enough. They get information from “green groups” that say that the CPRS gives too much compensation to big polluters or that the targets are not high enough. (Without joining the dots that currently there are no targets, and no reductions in pollution at all). Simply put, they do not believe things will be better under the CPRS – especially since the reforms are so long into the future (2020, 2050 and beyond).

If Machiavelli were around today, he would no doubt be shocked that Labor has been so unMachiavellian.

For environmentalists, and environmentalists in the Labor Party, it may pay to follow the Florentine’s advice a little more closely. We need to overcome the credibility gap in stating that a price on carbon will be pain-free. As Machiavelli says, the most effective princes (or parties) are those who are virtuous and truthful, in reality.

Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics

Alex — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:14:41 +0000

Alan Kohler, of Business Spectator fame, wrote yesterday in Crikey:

Against all expectations, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have actually come up with a clever climate change policy, and certainly one that will change the debate in Australia.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will now have to quickly do a deal with the Greens to get a government scheme through parliament, or else simply give up and blame everyone else.

With the failure at Copenhagen having pulled the rug out from under him, and a global agreement on emissions trading now impossible this year, Kevin Rudd must avoid a 2010 election on his current CPRS at all costs. To do that by dealing with the Greens now would mean a two-year carbon tax eventually turning into an emissions trading scheme â€“ a big risk.

(My emphasis.)

Unfortunately, this kind of commentary is completely misleading, unhelpful and uninformed. For a business analyst, it shows a concerning naivete in the political process and the dynamics of the Australian Senate.

For the record, the Labor Government needs seven (that’s seven) additional votes in the Senate to pass legislation.

Seven votes.

The Greens Party has five (that’s five) votes in the Senate.

There are two (that’s two) cross-bench, independent senators, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding.

To pass any legislation through the Senate, Labor needs both (that’s both) cross-bench Senators and all (that’s all) of the Greens Party Senators.

There is simply no possible way for a “deal with the Greens” to deliver a carbon tax or anything else. A “deal with the Greens” would deliver an extra five (that’s five) votes in the Senate, falling two (that’s two) short of a majority. Even if Senator Xenophon voted with Labor and the Greens Party, Senator Fielding is an avowed climate denier (and so wouldn’t vote for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme).

“Dealing with the Greens” would not deliver a two-year carbon tax. It would deliver precisely nothing at all.

Social media and the vulnerability of "old politics"

Alex — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:33:49 +0000

The big difference between the current Liberal Party leadership tensions, and previous ones, is the role that social media such as Twitter and blogs, and “live updates” from SMS, are playing.

Journalists in the Canberra press gallery are getting updates from Liberal MPs from inside party room meetings. The updates are “live” – that is, sent moments after the event. The journalsists are then passing those unfiltered rumours straight on to social networking tools such as Twitter. Their Twitter followers then “re-tweet” those rumours, spreading them like wild fire.

The second element playing into this leadership crisis is the activities of Liberal staffers, members and supporters in placing pressure on Liberal MPs. Many Liberal MPs reported that they received hundreds, even thousands, of emails opposing the (amended) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This seems to have been orchestrated by conservative, CPRS-opposing staffers in Canberra, with a Twitter, Facebook, email and phone call campaign.

Whereas earlier leadership crises in both Labor and Liberal have happened over days and months, with splitters, leakers and the media carefully controlling the messages going out to the public, this leadership spill has been “opened up”. The crisis certainly has been exacerbated by the openness.

This vulnerability to instant communication and the pressure that can be exerted through social networks, shows how brittle the Liberal Party (and traditional, “old politics”) is.

Traditional, old politics, relies on command and control and discipline. The fact that Liberal MPs are now tweeting, reading @replies and getting out their own message (rather than toeing the party line) through Facebook and Twitter is undermining the traditional Westminster-style Liberal party.

The Liberal Party has long been considered to rely on strong leadership to hold divergent and opposing ideological views together under the same roof. Now, with social networks rising to prominence, MPs that otherwise would fall in line with the party, can now pander to their ideological allies, and likewise, be pressured by those same allies.

Similarly, dissident MPs such as Abbott and Minchin can have their supporters and staff utilise these new technologies to get out their anti-leader media lines.

The instant, live, always-on nature of the media cycle also means that journalists can no longer check sources. When they get a rumour, they risk losing an exclusive by trying to verify it. As a result, they are captured by MPs pushing an agenda. This has created enormous confusion. A case in point is the “exclusive” from The Australian that Julie Bishop asked Turnbull to step down; both Turnbull and Bishop later denied the story.

Whoever wins on Tuesday at the Liberal party room meeting, it is clear that leadership politics has been changed forever.

Postscript: Tweets by MPs are not covered by Parliamentary Privilege.

More double dissolution speculation

Alex — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:57:13 +0000

With the spectacular self-immolation of the Liberal Party this week (see the spill Twitter chatter here), speculation about a double dissolution on climate change is mounting.

Last night, several political insiders expressed their belief that it was in Labor’s interests to go to a double dissolution when (if?) the Liberals delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on Monday.

The latest Newspoll shows that the Liberals would lose twenty seats (most of them from the moderate Liberal faction).

I’ve written previously about the extreme unlikelihood of a double dissolution.

The view expressed is that if a DD was held, it would focus on leadership, rather than climate change or the CPRS. With polls showing catastrophic losses for the Liberals, they would be effectively reduced to a rump in the Lower House. Only their more reactionary elements (the Abbotts, Minchins, Abetzs and Mirabellas) would remain, rendering them unelectable for a generation. With the Greens with the balance of power, Labor would still be able to get things through, with the flexibility to turn to the Greens or Liberals, and avoid the fringe elements of the Xenophon No Pokies Party (who would get two senators from SA) and the Fielding Family First senator (who would replace a Liberal rather than Labor senator). (I should note that this theory was expressed before Possum’s cogent post on this issue.)

With ABCC election expert Antony Green holding the view that a DD is unlikely, Rudd has come out to rule it out:

“I’ve been elected by the Australian people to implement our mandate including the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We intend to get on with the business of doing that,” he said.

“I’ve said consistently going back a long long time that my belief is the Australian people expect us to fill a full term. My view on that has not changed.”

He says he expects the Opposition to keep its commitment.

“Our strong and continuing resolve as a Government is to serve our full elected term,” he said.

“My expectation is the negotiated bi-partisan deal on climate change in Australia passes the Australian Senate and passes the Australian Parliament.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course, this could still see an “early” (half-senate) election in around August (or after July 1). Whoever emerges as Liberal leader from the party room meeting on Tuesday, is likely to face an electoral rout. Rudd can only get stronger from waiting until the earliest he can go for a half-senate election. Disunity really is death.

As a reference for people who believe that a DD is likely or even in Rudd’s interests, I recommend reading Antony Green’s articles on the issue, especially this one.

Letter in Crikey

Alex — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:01:16 +0000

My letter in Crikey today

Regarding “Make the World Pay“: I’ve noticed it is fashionable for Crikey to publish CPRS-bashing articles from the Greens Party and others (e.g. Bernard Keane).

There is no doubt that the CPRS is less than many people hoped it would be — especially the excessive industry assistance. The simple fact of the matter is that the CPRS is better than nothing, and lays the foundations for stronger, more robust action, CO2 emission reductions, renewable energy investment and green job creation in the future.

Those bashing the CPRS, such as Senator Milne from the Greens Party have yet to offer a serious alternative. Instead, the Greens Party and other CPRS-bashers have fallen alongside the worst elements of climate sceptics, who oppose any carbon emissions whatsoever.

The CPRS is not revolutionary, but does create the structure for future emissions reductions. Those who want the CPRS voted down, such as Senator Milne, need to come up with a genuine alternative, rather than just 10 minute protests, 30 second ads on TV or pithy statements such as “The Greens are there in Parliament arguing the case for meaningful action.”

Senator Wong and Labor are in there actually trying to deliver on outcomes that will protect the climate. The Greens Party and other CPRS bashers need to put up, or shut up.