I think the policy needed to appear to be a lame duck or it just wouldn't have passed in the political climate at that time, the backlash from the fossil fuel groups would have been biblical compared to just extreme. What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme - the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change. The billions of dollars worth of free emissions credits given to coal power plants and heavy polluters would have been fuel for future political fires lit right under their arses. I know it's sneaky but so are the fossil fuel groups, you have to bring something to a knife fight. The scheme could have made significant progress by now but instead we lost yet another decade.

I suppose the policy's flexibility could have been abused by any future government too, so yeah that's a problem. It's possible the policy could have been making good money for the government by then so it would have been more politically/fiscally costly to reduce the price on emissions.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme

Sure, but so was the Clean Energy Act 2011. The policy Gillard passed after negotiations with the Greens was a fixed-price period leading in to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme—the very same model being taught even in high school economics classes of the time.

It really cannot be emphasised highly enough, too, that this is policy that had actually been proven to work. The period where the CEA was in effect is the only sustained period of reduction in carbon emissions in our history.

the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change

The thing is, as Adam Bandt said in this 2020 interview, ratcheting up the price at a later date would have put the Government on the hook for compensating polluters, as a feature written into the Bill itself.

Plus, who's to say that the LNP and the Murdoch press wouldn't have campaigned just as hard against the CPRS as the CEA?

good conversation, thanks 🙂 ❤️

Indeed, it's one of the things I'm really loving about this site so far. There's so much more room for nuance and genuine discussion.

[–] cuppaconcrete@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

You've changed my mind! Great interview, I wasn't aware of their being a requirement to reimburse polluters on changes to the carbon price/cap. I should have done more homework. Rudd should have negotiated with the Greens and made better policy, he sabotaged himself.