• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Coalition's climate change policy (1 Viewer)

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
idk if there's a thread for this already

Coalition's $1 Billion Environment & Climate Policy

Abbott unveils $1b climate fund plan


Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott says the Coalition's climate change policy released in Canberra today will be cheaper and more effective than the government's planned emissions trading scheme.

If elected to government, the opposition would spend $3.2 billion of taxpayers' money over four years on incentive payments to industry to reduce emissions.
"Our policy will be simpler, cheaper and more effective than the government's," Mr Abbott said.
"This is because it relies on incentives not penalties."

Mr Abbott said the incentive payments would be given to big polluters if they reduce emissions from existing rates. Industry that rises above the current rate of emissions would be fined an undisclosed amount.

"Business as usual will not be penalised," Mr Abbott said.
The scheme is geared to reaching a 5 per cent emissions reduction cut by 2020 on 2000 levels, the same as currently proposed by the government.
But Mr Abbott told reporters in Canberra the opposition was still committed to reaching the Government's tougher targets of 15 and 25 per cent if certain conditions are met in a global agreement, which Mr Abbott believes is unlikely.

The Coalition policy is not costed for a 15 or 25 per cent emissions cut.
The policy includes a $100 million scheme to install 100,000 rooftop solar panels every year and incentives to plant 20 million trees.
Mr Abbott said the incentive payments would be made on the basis that industry action reduced emission, helped the broader environment, had no cost to consumers nor cost jobs.

The Rudd government will today reintroduce its emissions trading scheme into Parliament. The scheme would cap emissions and require industry to buy permits for the greenhouse gases they emit.
The revenue from selling carbon permits would then be used by the government to compensate industry and household for rising costs associated with the scheme.
So which scheme is better (assuming we'll inevitably have one or the other)?
 
Last edited:

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The opposition would spend $3.2 billion of taxpayers' money over four years

lol
 

kaz1

et tu
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
6,960
Location
Vespucci Beach
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2018
ETS wins, at least it's taxing the people who make the pollution.
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Incentives ARE penalties.

They have to come from somewhere, i.e. the taxpayer.

What he is proposing is essentially robbing workers to give money to big corporations. Ultimately this penalizes businesses anyway since consumers have reduced spending power.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
The ETS was fundamentally flawed.

This.. isn't great either.



*frustrated noise*
 

aussie-boy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
610
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Under the ETS, prices will rise by a few % purely for the profit of traders (ignoring price rises linked to the actual price of the permits) - this seems remarkably inefficient

There are only 3 significant contributors to greenhouse gases - energy, transport and agriculture

There's an article in SMH Business Day today about how current solar tech is able to produce 24hr baseload power equal to that of coal. Electric cars are being released this year and public transport patronage is growing strongly.

A simple investment in the construction of large scale renewable plants to replace our old coal ones is the easiest way to meet emissions targets (and really not that expensive) - surely this is the best way forward
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Did anyone see Tony Abbott on the 7:30 report?

It can only be classified as bullshit and chips...

The man has NO idea what he's doing or what he's talking about!
I saw him on something. Kerry Packer I think it was was absolutely ripping him apart with simple, pointed questions that weren't even intended to trip him up. Abbott looked like the joker he is. It was gold.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I saw him on something. Kerry Packer I think it was was absolutely ripping him apart with simple, pointed questions that weren't even intended to trip him up. Abbott looked like the joker he is. It was gold.
yeah you might have seen him and kerry packer in a DMT assissted trip
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
yeah you might have seen him and kerry packer in a DMT assissted trip
Fine, fuck you, it was Kerry O'Brein on the 7:30 report. :(

lol Kerry Packer *facepalm*
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,911
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
this will reduce emissions by up to 5%. Seems like a pretty token effort.

though anything the liberals offer that will screw the economy up less than the ETS has got my support
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
though anything the liberals offer that will screw the economy up less than the ETS has got my support
You can't even by sure of that. It sure didn't see that way when Abbott was trying to explain his scheme on the 7:30 report.

The only aspect of Abbott's scheme that I liked was when he mentioned that his scheme involves doing things that are good for the environment as well as reducing carbon (i.e. are worth doing regardless). I think that's something people have been losing sight of.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
this will reduce emissions by up to 5%. Seems like a pretty token effort.

though anything the liberals offer that will screw the economy up less than the ETS has got my support
lol u support spending $3.2 billion of stolen money
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
this will reduce emissions by up to 5%. Seems like a pretty token effort.

though anything the liberals offer that will screw the economy up less than the ETS has got my support
it's the same target as Labor's plan - a 5% reduction on 2000 levels (not today's levels)
 

Teclis

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
635
Location
The White Tower of Hoeth, Saphery, Ulthuan
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
While the ETS is flawed I think it does have some good points.

It forces Electricity companies to work harder on reducing their emmissions, forcing them into the realm of renewable energy... which the free market won't help with until non renewable energy sources start to become too expensive.

It puts electricity prices up... which is a GOOD thing!

People should learn to use less Electricity... The amount of houses I drive past with heaps of lights on is ridiculous. Leaving the lights on in a room you are not in is the most pointless thing ever... leaving things like Microwaves and Kettles plugged in and on at the power point is a waste...

It will change the way people think... GOOD!
 

hotdimsim

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
108
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The problem with the Liberal scheme IS that it is incentive based. Abbott said himself he's not going to penalise business if they continue with business as usual. Furthermore, it will cost business money to reduce emissions, yet what they get from the government wont be near enough to recover this expenditure. Hence, business will continue as usual which is what Abbott wants.

Furthermore, Abbot continued stating on the 7:30 report they would penalise companies whose carbon INTENSITY rose. Again, another way of stating 'business as usual' as intensity refers to the amount of carbon released per megajoule of electricity produced. Therefore, an easy way of producing more carbon (and getting away with it) is merely stating that they are producing more electricity with that carbon (which is completely counterproductive to the fight to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels) and hence emissions can rise without any penalty. Oh, you may say a company will then (theoretically) have to be more efficient energy producers, but companies aim to do this already as it saves them money. This bit of the Abbott plan is nothing but his own merry-go-round, as its legislation which doesnt actually do anything.

/End rant.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The latest data indicates that Abbott's climate scheme will do two things:

a) Increase carbon by 13%
b) Cost users more in electricity and gas prices, contrary to his claims (this piece of data was provided by the electricity industry itself!)
 

pman

Banned
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,127
Location
Teh Interwebz
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
the best climate change strategy is that outlined on the 7:30 report last night-do nothing for ten yrs and see what happens, If what is predicted does happen, then fix it, if not, do nothing!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top