Tag Archives: abbott
Tony Abbott Pours Scorn On The Concept Of An ETS
BY:LAUREN WILSON From: The Australian July 15, 2013 ETS on the horizon Kevin Rudd says he’ll scrap the carbon tax and move to an emissions trading scheme a year earlier than was plann TONY Abbott has dismissed emissions trading schemes as markets for the “non-delivery of an invisible substance”. The Coalition Leader’s criticism of the widely accepted, market-based method of trying to curb carbon emissions came as Labor prepares to switch from a carbon tax to an ETS one year earlier than originally planned. Treasurer Chris Bowen said today the Rudd government’s decision to move early from a fixed to a floating carbon price was a response to changes in the Australian economy and a concession families could do with hip-pocket relief. But Mr Abbott, who has campaigned against a carbon tax, said the change meant nothing. “It’s more fake change from Kevin Rudd. The one thing he has done is he has admitted that what the Coalition was saying about the carbon tax was right all along,” he told reporters in Sydney. “This is not a true market, just ask yourself what an ETS is all about, it’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.” Under an ETS, companies trade permits allowing the right to discharge emissions. Permit buyers effectively pay a charge for polluting, providing an economic incentive for reducing emissions. Mr Bowen today conceded the costs of switching to an ETS next year will be “significant”, as he again refused to rule out a cut to industry assistance programs. However the Treasurer rejected opposition claims the hole punched in the budget by fast-tracking to an ETS would be in the order of $6 billion. “We are responding to two things, we are responding to the change in the Australian economy, the rapid transition away from the mining boom and the need to stimulate non-mining investment,” Mr Bowen told ABC radio. “And we are responding to people’s concerns about cost of living – it is an acknowledgement families can do with cost of living relief,” he said. The Treasurer said the cost of making the move to an internationally-linked ETS sooner was “significant”, but rejected Coalition claims of a revenue shortfall $6 billion. “The opposition doesn’t know what it’s talking about, we’ll be putting out the Treasury figures, the Treasury figures make it very clear what the cost is and how it is going to be paid for,” he said. “It’s obviously a significant cost but it’s not what the opposition are suggesting.” Mr Bowen said the household compensation would remain, but refused to rule out changes to the industry assistance package. “Yes there are industry assistance measures that are predicated on a certain price, but I am not pre-empting what are going to do in the package,” Mr Bowen told Sky News. He warned the government had made “tough choices” to find savings to offset the revenue shortfall, but stressed Labor was committed to the schoolkids bonus. “The schoolkids bonus is a very important measure, it’s very important to the government and it will remain very important to the government,” he said. Mr Abbott said the ETS was “still a tax”. “He won’t admit it but you will keep the carbon tax under Kevin Rudd. If you vote for the Coalition, the carbon tax is gone, lock stock and barrel. Not rebadged, not renamed but abolished,” the Opposition Leader told the Nine Network. “The best thing to do is to get rid of it altogether. Mr Rudd vindicated everything we have been saying about the carbon tax,” Mr Abbott said. Greens leader Christine Milne, who negotiated the original carbon pricing package with the Gillard government, warned the Prime Minister against taking the axe to green schemes. “I am really concerned with where the government is going to get the money it’s a $4 billion to $5 billion hit on the budget,” Senator Milne said. “I want to see the clean technology fund maintained, the biodiversity fund maintained, low carbon communities – enabling people who live in those communities to be more energy efficient – I want to make sure the Climate Change Authority stays,” she said. “I am really concerned Labor will slash them, they’ve already taken the knife to the biodiversity fund this year,” Senator Milne said. Continue reading
‘A So-Called Market In Invisible Stuff’: The Meaning Of Tony Abbott’s Carbon Rhetoric
July 15, 2013 Ben Cubby Environment Editor Abbott slammed on ‘invisible substance’ Tony Abbott has attracted criticism for saying the ETS is a “so-called market” for an “invisible substance”. Autoplay ON Video feedback on Monday, answering his own rhetorical question about what a carbon trading scheme is. Abbott’s emission was received with glee on social media, where people pointed out that there are many “invisible substances” – natural gas, oxygen and bacteria spring to mind – that both have market value and are essential to life on Earth. It’s the latest in a long campaign to redefine the stuff that comes from burning coal as a “colourless, odourless gas”, a harmless three-way cuddle between one carbon and two oxygen atoms that, happily, provides “plant food”. But, while the “invisible substance” line is facile, it is worth examining a little more closely, because it contains a few hints about the opposition’s strategy. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has ramped up his rhetoric against market regulation of carbon emissions. Photo: Jonathan Ng The phrase “so-called market” not only plays to the sympathies of people suspicious of money markets, it positions the Coalition as the party with the knowledge to discern real markets from fake ones. The “non-delivery” hints at Labor government unreliability, and the “no one” points to the ethereal nature of the carbon exchange mechanism, where permits have a set value for a set period of time, but become worthless after that, like unused movie tickets. The fact that you can’t really make a non-delivery to no-one seems to have escaped Abbott, but the staffer who penned the line could argue the twisted grammar echoes the confusing nature of an ETS that won’t actually reduce emissions for a few years. Best of all, “invisible substance” plugs into a medieval mistrust of scientists and their incomprehensible powers. The sentence links these modern-day alchemists together with the shadowy financiers who would run the so-called markets, trading invisibility while we pay for it. Or something. It suggests that Abbott is prepared to wear some public ridicule in exchange for speaking directly to that part of his supporter base that is unmoved by scientific evidence about global warming. Never mind that the Coalition is proposing to spend about $10 billion of the public’s money fighting an “invisible substance”. That can be hidden behind its earthy rhetoric of “direct action” and a “green army” getting its hands dirty with a hard day’s practical work. What the Coalition is really trying to do is wrest back control of the language of climate change, because if it can control the language, and debate on its own terms, it can win. Read more: http://www.theage.co…l#ixzz2Z8DAdFr5 Continue reading