Direct Action remains a slogan, not a policy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Senate supports Climate Change Authority call for more ambitious climate goal, RET support, dismisses Direct Action as a slogan. Government members dissented.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Abbott government’s Direct Action climate change policy is deeply flawed, not viable as a replacement for the carbon price, and is unlikely to achieve the most basic of goals required of Australia to meet its fair share of global carbon emissions reduction, a Senate Committee report has found.

The report, tabled on Wednesday, also calls on the Coalition to immediately adopt a more rigorous emissions reduction target, in line with the Climate Change Authority’s recent recommendation of 19 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

“There is overwhelming evidence indicating that the world must act now, and act urgently, to address the catastrophic consequences of climate change,” says the report. “Australia has a responsibility as the world’s highest per capita emitter to contribute its fair share of the global effort.

“The committee agrees with the evidence provided by academics, climate experts, the independent Climate Change Authority, environmental organisations and industry that Australia must substantially reduce its carbon emissions.”

Established in December 2013 to inquire into what is described as the federal government’s “failure to systematically address climate change,” the Committee’s members hail from the Labor Party (3), the Coalition (2) and the Australian Greens (1).

The report reveals that Labor and the Greens are united in calling for the Abbott government to keep Australia’s carbon pricing scheme in place; to adopt, immediately, the CCA’s recommended emission reduction targets – both short-term and long-term – and; to adopt a carbon budget approach to climate action.

“A carbon budget will help communicate to policy makers, industry and the public that early action on abating carbon emissions will be cheaper and more effective than delayed action,” says the report, which recommends the adoption of the CCA-proposed carbon budgets of 4,193 Mt CO2-e for the 2013–2020 period, and 101.1 Gt CO2-e for the 2013–2050 period.

Not surprisingly, the Committee’s two Coalition members – NSW Nationals Senator John Williams and South Australian Liberal Senator Anne Ruston – disagree, arguing in the Dissenting Report that the current 5 per cent emissions reduction target is “sufficient,” and that the carbon tax should be repealed and replaced with the party’s proposed alternative Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).

(Interestingly, point number three on the Coalition Senators’ Dissenting Report is the statement that “the Government accepts the science of climate change.”)

But Greens leader Christine Milne is scathing in her comments about Direct Action and its centrepiece ERF, describing the former as “vastly inferior to existing law,” and the latter as “a small grant-based subsidy scheme for polluting industries… (that) will drive no transformation in the economy.”

“While it should be acknowledged that Direct Action is still transforming from a slogan into a policy,” Milne says in the Additional Comments section of the report, “there was not one single economist in written submissions or testimony who supported Direct Action over the existing emissions trading scheme. In contrast, economists have supported the retention of the existing law.”

Shadow ALP climate and environment minister, Mark Butler, has taken the opportunity of the report’s release to reiterate his party’s commitment to “seriously consider” the CCA’s recommendations on carbon emissions, and has called on the Coalition to do the same.

“Under existing legislation, the government must provide a formal response to the CCA’s recommendations by May,” Butler said in an email to RenewEconomy.

“It’s the Government’s responsibility to meet these statutory requirements and explain if it will change Australia’s targets in line with the CCA’s recommendations and our global commitments to reduce our carbon pollution. The Government also needs to explain to the Australian people how it plans to reach any emissions reduction target with their bad policy.”

But the Greens and the ALP don’t agree on all of the Committee’s findings – their opinions diverging over the recommendation that the introduction of the emissions trading scheme be brought forward to July this year.

“This is a cynical move based on making it cheaper for big polluters,” Milne says. “It is not a policy position responding to the accelerating global warming crisis.”

Milne argues that an extra fixed price year is necessary “to minimise the dislocation for clean technology investors,” rather than making it temporarily cheaper for big polluters by fast-tracking the introduction of the ETS.

Outside of Parliament, the committee report has been welcomed by green groups for its overlying message that Australia is not doing enough on climate change.

“The government’s proposed climate action plan is not up to the job of cutting Australia’s emissions to the extent required to deal with the problem,” said Australian Conservation Foundation climate change program manager  Victoria McKenzie-McHarg.

“It’s time the government started listening to expert scientists and expert economists – and now this committee – rather than the voices of vested interests,” she said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. barrie harrop 6 years ago

    Direct action is just a mirage at this stage.

  2. Alen 6 years ago

    Japan is only country that officially is not going to meet its target, projected to have 3% increase rather than a reduction. Their reason is obvious to everyone (Fukushimi nuclear disaster and subsequent closure of other plants), but they are pushing hard with their renewables schemes to again wean-off FF in the near future. Fukushima itself has a 100% renewable target now. Will Australia be the only country to fail to meet its target without a acceptable reason?
    Maybe once the Barrier Reef collapses (with Palmer set to fast track this demise) maybe only then Australia will mobilise into proper action.

    • takver 6 years ago

      Alen, you are substantially incorrect about the reasons for Japan’s reduced target. Fukushimi and shelving of all nuclear production can only explain a small proportion of Japan’s reduced target, although it has been cited as the main justification.
      “If we were to replace all nuclear production that is envisaged by 2020 with the current fuel mix that we have including fossil fuels and renewables, we would still get to a target of minus 17 or minus 18 per cent below 1990 level. Certainly that explains part of the adjustment of the pledge or of the target, but not the majority.” – Climate Analytics spokeperson, Marion Vieweg at COP19 Nov2013

      • Alen 6 years ago

        What then is the reason behind such a significant change in emissions?the nuclear disaster and the subsequent outcome seemed to neatly explain Japan’s shift in emission targets, and I simply assumed this to make sense and did not look at it any further.

        • takver 6 years ago

          It can only be put down as a political motivated change with a more conservative Japanese Government. I reported on the criticism of the target change at the time:

          • Miles Harding 6 years ago

            As in Australia, I see this is a statement of desperation by the government to restore an ailing economy to some semblance of ‘health’ by using 20th century tools.

            The world is becoming increasingly desperate for innovative solutions to its dire problems. These governments are demonstrating their inability make the leap needed to escape a horrible fate.

  3. RobS 6 years ago

    I don’t see how a report can find direct action “flawed” when we have no idea of its details yet.

  4. Name 6 years ago

    We can say direct action as in the Emissions Reduction Fund is flawed because what is known already shows it to be flawed. For example it is a voluntary program, the shape and scale of it is incompatible with the emission reduction needs of the biggest polluters (not enough money to do anything), the term of only five years means the annual costs for actions that would normally be amortised of ten,twenty or more years will be two to four or more times those expected, baseline setting will take a lot of resources and time to arrive at transparent fair robust and repeatable values. It is estimated that direct action might achieve 15% of its expected abatement. It is a Clayton’s policy…
    David Rossiter

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.