The scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent problem; the economic evidence says that the costs of tackling climate change are trivially small compared to the costs of inaction; and polling shows that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to see real action. So why has the CPRS stalled and why are the Liberals confident they can win a fight on the issue? How could the Government have failed to get its legislation through?
Emission reduction targets are so weak as to be useless, Richard Denniss argues.
Are your working hours 'flexible'? Thank goodness for your annual leave, when you can recover from all that flexibility. Unfortunately, your annual leave might be eaten away by the extra hours you work throughout the year.
The CPRS is perhaps the most poorly understood piece of legislation to dominate Australia's public debate in modern times. While there have been acres of press about whether climate change exists or not, and acres more about how clever the Rudd Government has been in splitting the Coalition, there has been much less analysis of what the proposed emissions trading scheme actually does, and does not do.
Last week many people were questioning why the Victorian Premier was so keen to secure additional compensation for the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on his state's biggest polluters. Luckily for him, however, he has not been forced to answer a more interesting question: Why isn't he demanding that the Commonwealth Government compensate Victoria's public hospitals, schools and transport system for the impact of its flawed emissions trading scheme?
The Government wants to allow meat from countries with Mad Cow disease into Australia. And our loose labelling rules mean you won't know the difference, writes Hilary Bambrick.
The CPRS is increasingly looking like the answer to a question that nobody asked, namely, what would be the best way to introduce a complex and expensive national scheme that sounds like a solution to climate change without really changing anything? But as the Senate vote gets closer the first question that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, must answer is this: if the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) doesn't increase the cost of transport fuels, doesn't apply to agriculture and, as Treasury modelling shows, doesn't lead to a reduction in our reliance on coal fired electricity until at least until 2033, what does it actually do?
Most of us like to complain about the banks from time to time, but compared to some parts of the superannuation industry the banks seem like the good guys. That's because many commercial super funds are profiting enormously through excessive fees on the savings of ordinary workers.
The science says that we need to reduce emissions by around 40 per cent by 2020 if we want even a fifty per cent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. The Government has ignored that advice both in setting the targets for their so called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and in developing Australia's negotiating position for the upcoming talks at Copenhagen.
The Senate debate about the CPRS is getting close, and with views as diverse as those of Steve Fielding and Bob Brown it's likely to be a cracker. Unfortunately, while there might be plenty of heat in the debate, whether the CPRS gets up or not will make no difference to global temperatures.