Making carbon a pollie-free zone
Having witnessed the damage that politics has caused to the now abandoned Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and to the current debate over its successor, Professor Ross Garnaut has concluded the only safe way to manage a carbon price going forward is to keep politicians as far away from the process as possible.
The government’s principal climate change advisor has recommended that not one, but three separate institutions be created to establish and implement Australia’s carbon price arrangements: an independent committee to advise on future emissions reduction targets and revisions to Australia’s emissions cap; a separate independent agency to advise on assistance to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEIs); and an independent “carbon bank” to administer the emissions trading scheme. It could be quite an empire.
He also reinforced the need for a broad coverage of the economy under a carbon price, contrary to some recent industry submissions which have argued that EITEIs effectively be quarantined from the scheme.
Garnaut is, on Tuesday, releasing the completed updated of his 2008 Garnaut Clmate Change Review, along with two supplementary papers. One of them, on governance issues, was released ahead of time, presumably to help the popular press digest the import and substance of the documents.
As he mentioned in his recently published updates, Garnaut wants the government to establish a UK-style Climate Change Commission that would provide advice on national targets and scheme caps; how to progress towards meeting those targets, and to manage the switch to a floating price; as well as expanding coverage of the scheme.
Like the UK model it would make recommendations to the government, which would have 60 days to accept or reject that advice; although, unlike recommendations made by the Foreign Investment Review Board, it would have to explain to parliament if it didn’t agree.
Regular reviews of the scheme would also be conducted. The first one would need to take place no longer than two years after the scheme’s proposed start in July 2012, so that the government could consider its recommendations before the switch from a fixed price to a market-based scheme, and subsequent reviews would need to take place at least every five years.
Garnaut presumably looks at the situation in the UK with some envy. The climate commission’s work is taken seriously by both sides of politics, to the extent that the recently-announced target of a 50 per cent reduction by 2027 was made with bipartisan support and with nary a politician seen ferreting about in a fish market looking for an overpriced fillet, or an inflated door handle. Although it’s not entirely clear whether the Climate Commission was a cause or the result of bipartisan support in the UK.
The second independent agency recommended by Garnaut would advise on assistance to EITEIs, framing them in the light of costs imposed by other countries. He sees this having similar features to the Productivity Commission – and could, in fact, be that commission which, coincidentally, presents to the government on Tuesday its own investigation into the implicit price of carbon in other major economies.
Garnaut suggests, however, that it develop a “principled approach” to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry assistance beyond the interim period, which means ditching the CPRS-style mechanisms that will be in force during the fixed price period. Industry, nevertheless, wants the CPRS-style measures extended through to the market-based system.
Finally, Garnaut recommends an independent carbon bank – similar in purpose to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority – as he did in his 2008 review. He says the carbon bank should have a high degree of independence in the administration of the ETS, which would include monitoring, reporting and verification systems, enforcing compliance, determining obligations to surrender permits, and managing the national registry of emissions units, and hopefully avoiding some of the mismanagement and fraud that has blighted the European ETS.
Garnaut is also resubmitting his proposal of an Energy Security Council, which could manage financial and contract market instability and contagion risks, and would be armed with instruments such as loan guarantees that could be used as a “last resort” in the case of financial stress, but not as a means to provide compensation.
And he repeats his call for a “low emissions innovation council” that would oversee and direct Australia’s research, development and commercialisation effort in low-emissions technologies, which would have links with existing initiatives such as the Australian Research Council Linkage Grants program, Commercialisation Australia and the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. He suggests ACRE, currently under the tutelage of the Department of Resources and Energy, should have greater independence and its role should be expanded to include all low-emission energy technologies.
Comments on this article
Computer Board, Beer Board or
Computer Board, Beer Board or a Food Board, or even a Gas Board to dictate how a whole sector should perform, yet the beer is plentiful, diversified and plentiful and cold. Gas is at the door Internet is in every home almost, and last I looked there was food in the supermarket. Factory Jobs in Ohio
Does it really directly
Does it really directly matter what I, Peter, Les or Roger independently comment on the subject?....what the masses vote for is what matters in the end! - and a good majority of Australians will vote for the most cost effective measures for social, economic and environmental security because the majority of Australians are starting to understand the real importance of the issue..It’s only a matter of time and one would think that bipartisan political cooperation on some issues would be a common occurrence in modern Australia and a key explanation for the lack of this must be mainstream media influence.
But, the majority of Australians will not vote for Anarchy - will not vote for a failed bankrupt state.... we should be assisting the good politicians with their weaknesses and supporting them with their strengths not group bashing them nor demoralising politicians that are there for the same reasons we are here (the guy from Crikey made some good points the other night on Q&A, but some comments were a bit harsh). Who will run this country in this modern competitive world with no government or beaurocrats? This country would quickly falter if the people stopped paying taxes and the government stopped investing it - and the deep instincts of all people feel that even if they have access to the ways ways of skipping taxes, they know they are skipping taxes!
Natural thinking aligns with
Natural thinking aligns with evolutionary principles and says that people’s defence of their personal evidence based beliefs will breed natural minor/major disagreements with those that hold different beliefs, which breeds defeat or negotiation and/or resolution on evidence and then progression again towards even better solutions and higher truths.
Australia does not need everyone being politically soft and tolerant of mis-truths does it?
Politics does not need morphine. Australian culture does not need morphine.
Even though I would like my chances on a guess, I am going to nominate Giles for superb journalism and also because as of yet it is still not clear who he votes for, which is rare in journalism. If people want the Coalition then vote that way, if Labour vote Labour – if Green vote Green (but I have some questions for the Greens which I would like to share soon if that’s ok). It is a privilege to vote so vote - but what is the point of demeaning government or good beaurocratic bodies? What is the alternative without them?
"No warming" - weather Vs climate
Roger, your examples are of weather - which fluctuates. Climate is the long-term average of weather, and the climate is definitely getting warmer. Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM as a start.
Devil in the Detail
The Labor party introduced Medicare which has resulted in the Australian health care system mow being rated 19 out of 20, just above the USA. This is partly due to its picking of winners, Specialists, and losers, General Practitioners.
There has been an enormous expansion of the health care bureaucracy with very small gains, if any, in the nation’s health. For example, recent analysis shows that most elderly people spend the last three months of their life in and out of hospitals at great expense and against the wishes of the patient and family.
A carbon reduction scheme designed by those with Labor’s philosophical base is most likely to be expensively administered with little or no effect on global warming. The evidence is in Medicare and the Public Hospital system.
Hopeless in outcome for the individual and the nation but supporting an ever growing Bureaucracy.
Devil in the Detail
The Labor party introduced Medicare which has resulted in the Australian health care system mow being rated 19 out of 20, just above the USA. This is partly due to its picking of winners, Specialists, and losers, General Practitioners.
There has been an enormous expansion of the health care bureaucracy with very small gains, if any, in the nation’s health. For example, recent analysis shows that most elderly people spend the last three months of their life in and out of hospitals at great expense and against the wishes of the patient and family.
A carbon reduction scheme designed by those with Labor’s philosophical base is most likely to be expensively administered with little or no effect on global warming. The evidence is in Medicare and the Public Hospital system.
Hopeless in outcome for the individual and the nation but supporting an ever growing Bureaucracy.
Making carbon a pollie-free zone
Giles , you have hit the nail on the head !
For the first time I detect an inkling that you are finally coming to the realisation that this whole arrangement has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide or 'pollution' or 'saving the planet' and everything to do with personal ambition & power !
Your words " It could be quite an empire" say it all !
I feel that Garnaut envisions himself ensconced as that emporer !
As for the "say YES to the carbon debate"...........................excuse me !
WHAT DEBATE ??
The public have NOT been allowed to HAVE a debate !
Only ONE SIDE of the issue has been PERMITTED !
Any 'other point of view' expressed or query raised concerning either "the science" or the necessity for a change in our life-style has resulted in vehement personal attack & condemnation from the Prime Minister & all the way down to her lowest minion ! That "the science" has been imbued with such mystical power in a secular society is astounding ! It has become a case of "there is no need to explain it because you (idiots) wouldn't understand it anyway" & from there it has evolved into a "belief system" with adherents or believers & the "sceptics" (heretics) to be verbally flagellated, if not quite burnt at the stake , at every opportunity !
Personally , I say "NO" to Garnaut , "NO" to a carbon tax, "NO" to an expansion of the bureaucracy & "NO" to the unnecessary & dishonest arrangements currently being foisted onto Australians !
Making carbon a pollie-free zone
Can anyone tell me which part of the planet is warming.
Our Autumn has been the coldest for 40 years.
Last summer was mild.
Europe last winter coldest for years.
JUST ANOTHER SCAM for the gullible.
Garnaut side stepping democracy
The idea that bureaucrats could run such an organisation is scary, what Garneaut has done is try to take it out of the the governments hands. Who's idea was it in the first place?
Central Planning of Energy...
Abandonment of pollies from the process because they can't be trusted an empire of non-market bureaucrats will profuce a better out come.?
There used to be Milk Boards and Egg Boards in the 1950s. Laughable now. There has never been an Internet Board, or a Computer Board, Beer Board or a Food Board, or even a Gas Board to dictate how a whole sector should perform, yet the beer is plentiful, diversified and plentiful and cold. Gas is at the door Internet is in every home almost, and last I looked there was food in the supermarket.
Sorry Ross you flubbed it. The problem is essentially simple. Nothing, repeat nothing exists technologically in the renewable sector that provides utility scale 24/7 energy. Nothing. It ie easy to do calculations that solar arrays 100kn x 100 km will power the planet, and a gazillion windmills will solve the problem....that is until you do the calculations and realise there isn't enough silver on the planet for the mirrors in solar, and samarium being a rare earth element, a key material in windmill generators, is in short suplly NOW! What it means is not only a scamble for expensive technologies, but those technologies will NOT follow the downward cost curve, instead resources depletion because of the demand will cost ever more to get key metals.
None of this has even been factored into our dear professors thinking distracted as it is by empire building and bulding moats around his ideas using Agencies and Committees.