Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

I have been following closely, but not writing much on, the debate in Australia over Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax.  How it plays out will be fascinating to watch and will provide as much a lesson in Australian politics as anything to do with climate policy.

This report from The Australian provides a great example of how politicians can make life extremely difficult for those experts who share their goals:

The Prime Minister took her carbon tax pitch to the heart of Australia's $40 billion coal sector today, telling NSW miners her plan wouldn't place their jobs at risk.

 Ms Gillard told workers at Mandalong's Centennial Coal, in the Hunter Valley, that the mine would stay open for as long as there was coal in the ground.

"This mine will continue to work for those 20, 25 years," she said. "It will continue to be here until the end of its productive life."

She goes further even,

The federal government has committed $1.3 billion to protect coal jobs, while Treasury modelling says the industry's output will more than double between 2010 and 2050 under the carbon tax.

But it also says the proportion of Australia's energy supply derived from coal will fall from 80 per cent now to 20 per cent within 40 years. . .

Earlier, Ms Gillard was tackled on ABC radio over the impact of her carbon tax on Australia's biggest coal port.

"How can (the tax) not have a negative impact on economic growth in this region?" an ABC Newcastle presenter asked.

The Prime Minister said Australia would continue to export coal under her carbon tax, dismissing suggestions Chinese demand would tail off as a result.

"There's a strong future for coal mining in this country, it will continue to grow. Employment will continue to grow," she said.

Tony Abbott, the opposition leader, is plenty happy to hear this line of argument from Gillard:

But the Opposition Leader, speaking in Victoria, said the government plan clearly stated that coal would produce just 20 per cent of the nation's power by 2050.

"The Prime Minister should stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people in coal mining regions," Mr Abbott said.

"The whole point of a carbon tax is to get us using less coal. That means less production, less investment and less employment in the coal industry." . . .

Mr Abbott said: "How can it be that it is wrong to burn Australian coal in Australia but it is somehow right to burn Australian coal in China?"

Gillard may or may not believe what she is saying about the future of coal production in Australia -- politicians say all sorts of things in the heat of political battle.  What would be interesting would be to see how policy experts who know better who support the proposed tax respond to a question such as the following:

Is Julia Gillard's commitment to increasing coal production in Australia in the coming decades consistent with efforts to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy?

From a policy or mathematical perspective there is an obviously correct answer to this question -- No.  It may be the case in the context of Australia's current debate that from a political perspective (as a matter of crass expediency) there is a different answer.  How experts deal with this conflict between policy and politics makes for an interesting case study in the politics of expertise.

One the one hand, if an expert answers the question posed above accurately, then s/he will be seen as giving support to the criticisms levied by Tony Abbott against the proposed tax.  On the other hand, if the expert supports the claims made by Julia Gillard, then s/he will be saying something that is incorrect, giving further ammunition to the opposition.  What would you do? 

I'll be looking for how experts address this issue, and I'd welcome your pointers as well.

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

This week, the Australian government unveiled the details of its long-anticipated carbon-pricing scheme, which include a fixed-carbon price of $23 per tonne as well as several measures to encourage the research, development, and deployment of renewable energy technologies. In contrast to the death of cap-and-trade in the United States last year, the passage of Australia's national carbon price legislation is virtually guaranteed. Unfortunately, much of the legislation rests with the magical thinking that international offsets will drive the country's decarbonisation, rather than full-scale efforts to drive the development and deployment of clean energy technologies.

Under the proposal, Australia will have a fixed-carbon price of $23 per tonne from July 1 2012, before moving to a cap-and-trade scheme in three years' time. A Climate Change Authority will be established to advise the government on emission reduction targets and a minimum target of 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020 has been agreed on. Starting in July of next year, the nation's 500 largest emitters (excluding the agricultural sector) will be charged for each tonne of carbon they emit. To assuage voters, petrol is excluded from the scheme and compensation will be available for nine out ten households. Industry will receive $9.2 billion to manage the introduction of the carbon price.

Carbon pricing was not an issue the centre-left Labor government chose to champion. It is well known that as Deputy PM, Julia Gillard advised her predecessor Kevin Rudd to drop Labor's first attempt to price carbon--the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Under Julia Gillard's leadership, the party contested the 2010 election with an explicit pledge not to pursue a carbon tax, but after an inconclusive election result the measure was reluctantly accepted as the price of forming a minority government and hanging on to power.

Throughout the carbon price debate Labor politicians have propagated the myth that a carbon price alone will decarbonise the economy. Addressing the Committee for Economic Development of Australia earlier in the year, the Prime Minister claimed "a carbon price will drive another sweeping technological revolution like Information Technology did in the 1980s and 90s." As I have argued previously, when it comes to clean technology innovation and deployment, carbon price is no silver bullet. Now, with The Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate, the government was forced to concede the limits of carbon pricing and adopt additional renewable energy support measures.

Continue reading "Australia Unveils Carbon Price Policy" »

After 20 years of dominance, the pollution paradigm--the idea that we could solve climate change similar to the way we've addressed conventional pollution problems--irretrievably failed in 2010. At the end of 2009, the collapse in Copenhagen spelled the end of efforts to enact legally binding emissions caps at the international level. In the United States, cap and trade failed for the fourth time in ten years and is politically dead for decades.

Carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes are also in retreat in other nations around the world, including Canada and Australia. Recognizing both the political difficulties associated with carbon pricing and its failure to reduce emissions where it has been tried, more scholars and opinionmakers in other countries are advancing an innovation and investment-centered climate agenda developed over the years by the Breakthrough Institute and its allies.

Continue reading "More Voices Advance a New Climate Paradigm Abroad" »

The following essay was written by Tad Tietze and Elizabeth Humphrys, and originally published at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website (http://www.abc.net.au/). The opinions expressed in the essay are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Breakthrough Institute.

What if one of the biggest debates in federal politics today - the increasingly hysterical and partisan debate on a carbon price - actually mattered very little in terms of the practical outcomes purportedly being sought: the de-carbonisation of the Australian economy?

First some basic assumptions so that this doesn't get into a debate between "believers" and "sceptics". We are talking here to those, like us, who believe that climate change is real, human-driven, and poses a serious threat to ecology and society. We proceed on the basis that the consensus scientific opinions on the nature and scale of the threat are roughly right, and that rich countries with high carbon emissions like Australia need to slash emissions by over 90 per cent by 2050 if they are to play a just part in averting a global problem.

Yet it is precisely the immediacy and magnitude of the threat that leads us to reject the argument put by Wayne Swan in his speech to the National Press Club this week, that the "only way to drive investment in [clean-energy] technology is to put a price on pollution. Only a market mechanism does the job". Instead, we believe that seeing a "price on carbon" as central to a low-emissions future, whether in the form of a carbon tax or trading scheme, is both inadequate to the task at hand and a dangerous distraction from effective climate action.

Furthermore, while many people who want serious climate action have understandably thrown their weight behind the current carbon tax proposal being formulated in Canberra because at least "something" is being done, we believe this represents a political dead end for the climate movement which will constrain the possibilities for demanding more serious action in the future.

Continue reading "The Carbon Price Debate As Smokescreen For Inaction" »

The United States and Australia have inked a new partnership to pursue joint solar energy research designed to make solar energy cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement in Melbourne on Sunday, with the Australian government set to commit up to $50 million towards the program.

Ms Gillard said the aim was to make solar power as cheap as conventional energy sources.

"One of the greatest barriers to a broader commercial take up of solar power is its cost and that is specifically what this joint research initiative will address," Ms Gillard told reporters.

"The joint project with the United States is part of an aggressive effort to bring the sales price of solar technology down by two to four times."

Ms Clinton said the program aimed to make solar power competitive with conventional energy sources by 2015.

The price had dropped by 50 per cent in the past three years but there was more work to be done, she said.

"Under this initiative our two governments will share both the costs and the benefits of research and development which will speed up innovation," she said.

Secretary Clinton also pledged a $500,000 grant from the U.S. State Department to support a global survey to identify opportunities to reuse carbon dioxide emitted by power plant and industrial processes, headed up by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, a recently established research center co-funded by the Australian government.

Australia, with perhaps the greatest solar energy potential in the world, has an obvious interest in pursuing affordable, scalable solar power solutions, and has also maintained several long-standing solar research efforts. Can the two new partners accelerate efforts to make solar energy cheap?

Originally published by On Line Opinion.

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

Julia Gillard's announcement last Friday marked a new low point for Australian climate change policy. If reelected, a Labor government will fill the void created by its decision to defer the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) a collection of low-impact policy measures: miniscule investments in renewable energy; an ill-conceived "cash for clunkers" program; and the much criticised plan for a "citizens' assembly" to establish "community consensus" on climate change. Such measures do not reflect the urgency and scale of the climate change challenge.

In the wake of Gillard's announcement, several climate advocates made the case that community consensus on climate change already exists. Be that as it may, community consensus doesn't tell us whether climate change is a priority issue for Australians. Polling released last week revealed a disturbing truth for Australia's climate change advocates. Contrary to the rhetoric of many, addressing climate change ranks well down the list of the most important issues for voters in the 2010 federal election.

Continue reading "Dealing with the Electoral (Un)Importance of Climate Change" »

Cross-posted from the ABC's The Drum Unleashed.

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

The ascension of Julia Gillard provides an opportunity for Labor to reorient its climate change policy agenda.

Contrary to what its proponents have argued for years, emissions trading has not been as politically feasible as initially thought. Labor's inability to pass a market-based mechanism in its first term not only brings into question the political palatability of neoliberal-inspired policy, but also draws attention to the need for alternative approaches.

With the national climate change debate focused solely on capping and trading carbon, policymakers have forgotten that there are many paths to reduce Australia's emissions and transition to a clean energy economy.

The launch of Beyond Zero Emissions' Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy report is an attempt to push back against narrow-minded policymaking. It details a path for Australia to meet 100 per cent of its energy needs with renewable energy by the end of the decade. Making the plan a reality will require a radical shift in climate policy.

Continue reading "Progressive Climate Policy: the Case for Nation Building" »

Julie Gillard, who replaced Australia's Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, has expressed interest in pursuing climate and energy policy, just not the rickety carbon emissions trading scheme proposal that ultimately cost Rudd his job.

According to coverage by the Sydney Morning Herald (via E&E News; subs. req'd):

Julia Gillard has declared she is the woman to back if voters want action on climate change, despite confirming she will not reverse the government decision to shelve the emissions trading scheme until 2013...

Ms Gillard is preparing to announce new policies to address climate change - including an energy-efficiency program and new renewable energy projects - to fill the gap left by the decision to shelve its trading scheme.

The government allocated $652.5 million in the budget to new renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs...

We will as a nation need a price on carbon; to get there we need community consensus,'' Ms Gillard said.

Gillard's focus on a carbon price - a policy that continues to be embattled in the U.S. and ineffective in the EU - raises plenty of skeptical eyebrows as to whether climate and energy policy will prove to be her undoing, as well.

Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.

By Breakthrough Fellow, Leigh Ewbank

At the weekend, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed called for increased direct action campaigning to encourage governments to act on climate change. "What we really need is a huge social 60s-style catalystic, dynamic street action," said Nasheed in the Guardian.

If the people in the US wish to change, it can happen. In the 60s and 70s, they've done that.

President Nasheed emerged from the last year's Copenhagen Climate Conference with considerable clout among climate change campaigners, and rightly so. In the process of drawing attention to the plight of his homeland, the Maldives, a chain of small islands threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges, Nasheed became a leading voice for the vulnerable and poor in the international negotiations. Nasheed has since received several awards for his commendable efforts.

The Maldivian President's comments will no doubt be music to the ears of some climate advocates in Australia, however, the merits of such an approach should be carefully considered. Is direct action likely to be as effective for climate change as it was for social issues in the 1960s? Is Nasheed's optimism that renewed grassroots action will compel governments to implement effective climate policies well-founded?

Continue reading "Direct Action on Climate Change: Successful Tactic or Green Nostalgia?" »

By Leigh Ewbank. Published by On Line Opinion, and cross-posted at The Real Ewbank

It's no understatement that last week's Federal budget was bad for climate change. The Rudd Government, fresh from its emissions trading backdown, once again failed to live up to its rhetoric. It failed to act on "the greatest scientific, moral and economic challenge of our time". And it failed to deliver the scale of investment needed to drive our transition to a clean energy economy.

There was a belief that the 2010 budget would include some big investments to combat the climate crisis. Rudd's decision to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to 2013 coincided with a sharp decline in public support for the government. The Prime Minister's own approval rating has collapsed in recent weeks, falling 14 points to 45 per cent - the lowest level since taking office in 2007. The budget was regarded as a way for Rudd to regain his edge on climate policy. He would have the opportunity to restore the confidence of voters suspicious of his government's commitment to climate change.

As we now know, the government's investment in renewable energy was markedly less than the year earlier. But should this come as a surprise? No. It shouldn't.

Continue reading "Labor Must Start Nation Building" »

Fed up with the Australian government's failure to enact strong clean energy policy, a broad coalition of Australian academics, environmental organizations, and clean energy advocates have written an open letter calling on Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to include major federal investments in clean energy technology in the new federal budget.

The letter, organized by Beyond Zero Emissions, comes as a response to the failure of the much-compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was pilloried as a giveaway to fossil fuel industries and ineffective for driving clean energy deployment. Instead, the letter calls for a new approach to climate and energy policy in Australia.

"The time has come for the Rudd government to take an ambitious nation-building approach to climate policy. Labor should commit to a renewable energy project with the scale and vision of a Snowy Mountains Scheme for the 21st Century," says Beyond Zero Emissions Executive Director Matthew Wright, referring to the massive hydroelectric system that was the largest engineering project ever to take place in Australia.

Wright says that the federal government should be spending at least as much on clean energy as it is in it's new national broadband plan, which is expected to invest $42 billion over the next 8 years.

Former Breakthrough Generation Fellow Leigh Ewbank has helped spearhead this initiative over the last year. Last month, he wrote an op-ed calling for such a project in Australia's national broadcaster, ABC, and has also helped organize the effort as Director of Public Policy for Beyond Zero Emissions.

With climate policy in disarray here in the United States as well, leading environmental organizations and progressives would do well to look to our friends in Australia for a new model to move away from compromised and politically unsustainable emissions trading and toward major public investments in clean energy innovation and infrastructure to create a prosperous clean energy economy.

Here is the full press release of the letter:

Frustrated by Rudd's ETS Backflip, Thousands Call for Massive Federal Budget Investment in Renewable Energy.

MELBOURNE - Frustrated by the Rudd Government's inaction on climate change, a broad coalition of prominent Australians and organisations representing hundreds of thousands of people have signed an open letter calling for the government to massively increase renewable energy investment in tomorrow's federal budget.

Notable signatories include:

• Progressive online campaign organisation Get Up!, boasting over 350,000 supporters
• Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics
• Leading climate scientist Professor David Karoly
• Guy Pearse, Research Fellow at the Global Change Institute and author of High and Dry
• Major national environmental organisations Friends of the Earth, Environment Victoria and Greenpeace Australia
• The Australian Youth Climate Coalition, with a membership of over 50,000
• Renewable energy advocate the Alternative Technology Association
• Renewable energy industry group the Australian Solar Energy Society
• The independent think tank The Australian Institute
• The Electrical Trades Union Victoria
• Over 30 community-based climate groups from around Australia.

"The time has come for the Rudd government to take an ambitious nation-building approach to climate policy. Labor should commit to a renewable energy project with the scale and vision of a Snowy Mountains Scheme for the 21st Century," says Beyond Zero Emissions Executive Director Matthew Wright.

"There is a critical need for public investment in large-scale renewable energy projects and climate-friendly infrastructure. These projects are the best way to reduce Australia's emissions and protect the nation from dangerous climate change," says Matthew Wright.

"Most Australians would be shocked that the Rudd government is investing up to 28 times more money in the broadband rollout than in renewable energy and climate-friendly infrastructure. With a funding differential like this, it's reasonable to presume that our Prime Minister considers slow internet a greater moral challenge than climate change."

Wright says, "Public investment in sustainable infrastructure should match the investment in the National Broadband Network at a bare minimum."

See also:

Australia Needs a Solar Snowy Mountains Scheme

Cap and Trade De Ja Vu

Australian Climate Politics: Time Labor Adopted a New Approach?

Published by the ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.

By Breakthrough Fellow, Leigh Ewbank

Australia needs a Plan B for climate policy. We need a nation-building project on the scale of the Snowy Mountains Scheme to invest in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure. This is the fresh approach needed to drive Australia's transition towards a clean economy and protect the nation from dangerous climate change.

The Prime Minister's announcement yesterday that the government will delay its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until 2013 is a tacit admission that pricing carbon is not viable in the current political environment.

Labor and proponents of emissions trading have been living a fantasy for too long. They have ignored the realities of politics to pursue a policy that had no reasonable chance of being implemented at a time when climate change experts agree we must act. Now, Australia is set for yet more inaction.

Continue reading "Australia Needs a Solar Snowy Mountains Scheme " »

The U.S. Senate isn't alone in putting the breaks on cap and trade legislation plans. Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has also "put its carbon emissions trading plan on hold," until the end of 2012 according to the New York Times.

Some analysts believe the government's decision was a tactical one. Though Mr. Rudd's approval ratings remain strong, recent polls have suggested that climate change is becoming less important to an electorate that has shifted its focus to education and health care reform, skyrocketing housing costs and immigration. National elections are due this year.

Continue reading "Cap and Trade De Ja Vu " »

Cross posted at The Real Ewbank and Beyond Zero Emissions.

The Australian Greens have put high-speed rail (HSR) back on the national agenda. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has called on the Rudd government to fund a study identifying the best route for connecting Australia's two largest cities, Melbourne and Sydney, with HSR.

The ambitious project represents the type of nation building that should be at the heart of national climate policy. The project has the potential to reduce Australia's ballooning carbon emissions, and kick-start the development of a larger HSR network that can one day connect all of Australia's mainland capital cities.

Continue reading "High-Speed Rail Back on Australian Agenda" »

Published by On Line Opinion, Australia's leading e-journal of social and political debate.

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

Recently, the Australian Greens challenged the Rudd Government to "break the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) deadlock" by implementing an interim price on carbon. The move no doubt stunned many with its pragmatism and has since won the backing of the government's former chief climate change adviser Ross Garnaut. While the move may give the Greens a PR boost, the proposal will work to strengthen the Coalition's recent framing of carbon pricing as a "great big tax". This of course has implications for Labor's climate policy agenda in an election year.

The Greens proposal would impose a $20 per tonne "price" on carbon emissions for two years, starting from July this year. According to the Greens, the interim measure would allow the nation to start addressing its ballooning carbon emissions and provide the Parliament with enough time to resolve differences over the government's emissions trading legislation. While this sounds like a sensible proposition, it plays into Abbott's strategy of framing Labor's emissions trading scheme and other carbon pricing measures as a "great big tax." Without the presence of carbon trading, Coalition MPs will have an easier time convincing the public that "carbon pricing" is in fact a form of taxation.

Continue reading "Australian Climate Politics: Time Labor Adopted a New Approach?" »

Originally posted at The Real Ewbank

By Leigh Ewbank

Australia's new Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has declared war on the Rudd Government. He has kicked-off his leadership by implementing a polarisation strategy, with the emissions-trading policy forming a central part of the political battlefield. The Opposition's new strategy provides some insight into the way in which the cap and trade politics might unfold in the United States.

The new Opposition Leader has identified the proposed emissions-trading scheme as a weak point for the Rudd Government. Labor exposed its vulnerability with efforts to keep the public debate centred on climate change 'skeptics' and 'deniers', the best example of which being Rudd's high-profile speech at the Lowy Institute late last year.

The Rudd Government has created the perception that emissions trading is the only available climate policy option. They have framed opponents of the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as 'climate skeptics' and opposition to the policy as preventing action on climate change. Former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull bought into this logic--or played along with it--throughout the emissions trading debate and diminished the need for the Government to explain the details of the CPRS to the general public. The result is that while the Government's emissions trading policy is well known to the electorate, how it functions remains largely unknown--excluding of course the climate campaigners, policy wonks, and politicos closely following the passage of the legislation.

Continue reading "Australia Update: Opposition Attempts to Brand Emissions Trading a Tax" »

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

Less than three weeks from the Australian Senate's highly anticipated second vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) bill, the Australian Government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) has revealed new problems with the Rudd Government's deeply flawed cap-and-trade plan. Crikey's national politics correspondent Bernard Keane has found that the CPRS will require a massive $5 billion of taxpayer subsidies in its first five years, and that taxpayers won't break even until 2022. With the Labor Government releasing this crucial data so late in the game, it's no wonder that Australia's policy analysts are finding some interesting surprises.

In addition to the billions of dollars in public money the scheme requires to function, Keane shows that the government will give away more free permits to polluting industries than originally thought, concluding that:

"In 2012-13, free permits to [Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed Industries] EITEs account for 28% of revenue. By 2020, they account for nearly 35% of scheme revenue..."

Such giveaways will keep downward pressure on the domestic price of carbon and increase the viability of polluting industries for a decade.

Continue reading "Australian Prime Minister Ignores Cap and Trade Critique" »

As the time for developed and developing nations to come to a global agreement on climate change mitigation and pave the way for productive climate negotiations in Copenhagen dwindles, Australian climate change ambassador Louise Hand proposed an idea that could potentially bring the ongoing stalemate to an end, just in time.

According to Reuter's coverage of the climate talks taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, Hand pitched the delegates on the concept of a national schedule, which, instead of stubbornly insisting on binding emissions targets, commits developing countries to a series of climate mitigation steps that are both economically and realistically feasible. Rich countries would still be free to agree to the targets most of them are so insistent upon.

In this way, all countries involved are demonstrating a commitment to climate change mitigation without putting their growing economies at risk. As Hand remarked, the concept is relatively simple:

"At its core it is a simple idea...Each party would have a national schedule attached to the treaty. In the schedule would be parties' mitigation actions -- economy-wide targets for developed countries; a suite of actions for developing countries."

While some environmentalists are concerned that allowing developing nations to sidestep binding targets represents backsliding from the Kyoto framework, this concept of national schedules may actually prove more effective at reducing emissions than targets, which are typically "magical" climate change solutions rather than specific, achievable action plans.

Continue reading "New "National Schedules" Proposal Could Change International Strategy in Time for Copenhagen" »

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Just one week after it bowed to political pressure and delayed the implementation of a national emissions trading scheme, the Australian Government has announced plans to invest billions of dollars in renewable energy. According to Bloomberg News:

Australia's government will invest A$4.5 billion ($3.4 billion) in the development of infrastructure to generate energy from clean sources such as solar and wind power and to reduce carbon emissions. The government will invest A$2.4 billion in low-emission coal technologies, including funding of A$2 billion for industrial- scale carbon capture and storage projects, according to its annual budget released in Canberra today. The government will invest A$1.6 billion over six years in large-scale solar electricity generation projects, the budget said.

While the Rudd Government's 2009-10 budget is by no means groundbreaking in terms of climate change and energy, it still allocates substantial cash for worthy renewable energy projects. To add much needed renewable energy to the national grid, there is $1.5 billion to build up to four large-scale solar thermal power plants. This is supported by $465 million to establish 'Renewables Australia', a new body to spearhead renewable energy research, development, and deployment in Australia.

Those of us familiar with the Breakthrough Institute will notice familiar themes with these renewable energy initiatives. In addition to the proposal reflecting Breakthrough's longstanding policy prescription for direct government investment in renewable energy, the new agency called Renewables Australia closely resembles the 'renewable energy hubs' that featured in the recent proposal by Breakthrough and Brookings (see 'To Make Clean Energy Cheaper, U.S. Needs Bold Research Push').

There are other significant points to make about the Rudd Government's plans:

1. The Australian Government is beginning to throw off years of strict adherence to neoliberal economic policy that barred direct government investment in building clean energy infrastructure. It's too early to tell, but with any luck the misleading notion of governments 'picking winners' will be put to rest.


2. As friends and foes weaken Prime Minister Rudd's cap-and-trade policy, Breakthrough-style investment measures are being put into practice and have--so far--escaped political opposition. In this case it's possible that government support for both carbon-capture and storage (CCS) technology and renewable energy was the reason for this--effectively neutralizing opposition. For those of you seeking to settle the 'cap-and-trade' v. 'investment' debate, you'll have to wait for another day.

The magnitude of investment the Australian Government will commit to renewable energy is much smaller than Breakthrough recommends for the US, but this type of investment-centered policy represents a step in the right direction. Let's hope that the Obama Administration and Congress secure US leadership in renewable energy by implementing a scaled-up strategy in 2009.

For more on Breakthrough's take on Australia's climate change policy, check out 'Australia Shelves Cap and Trade'.

Stream it directly from the ABC News Australia site, or download the mp3 here (particularly if you're a Mac/Linux user).

From Peter Mares at ABC Australia National Radio:

"This week, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced changes to the Australian federal government's planned emissions trading scheme, postponing the start date, increasing the compensation for big polluters and promising deeper cuts to Australia's greenhouse gases (with the proviso that the rest of the world does the right thing). The result is a scheme that's both greener and browner - if such a thing were possible. But as we examine the pros and the cons of the decision, some argue it's all pointless anyway. Climate change sceptics dispute the need for any reductions at all; then there's the critique from sections of the environmental movement that an emissions trading scheme is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titantic: far too little, far too late. On the program today, we're going to hear the case for state intervention - the idea of a Marshall Plan for alternative energy in which public money is used to solve the global warming problem."

See more on the Breakthrough's take on this issue here: Australia Shelves Cap and Trade Until 2011.

As we predicted back in March, Cap and Trade is going under Down Undah. Several outlets are reporting that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to shelve the implementation of his proposed cap and trade system until 2011 in an apparent effort to quell concerns that the carbon pricing plan will impact the Aussie economy and shore up support for the controversial proposal in the testy Australian Senate.

To date, Rudd and his center-left Labor Party have already offered numerous industry-friendly concessions, including free allowances for major polluters as part of a so-called "global recession buffer." It wasn't enough to find the necessary votes, so today, Rudd announced even more concessions, including: more polluter giveaways; a delayed start for the program's cap and trade scheme, which won't go into effect until July 2011; and a fixed price for carbon emissions permits of just $10 (AUS) per ton of CO2 for the first full year of the program after that (through July 2012).

Continue reading "Australia Shelves Cap and Trade" »

It was with much fanfare and bravado that then-newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia announced at the 2007 Bali climate talks that his nation would abandon opposition to climate action and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Better late than never, Rudd said and bravely declared, "I can unite the world on climate."

To deliver on that bold promise, Rudd directed his ministers to put together a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on CO2. The outline of an Australian "Emissions Trading Scheme" was rolled out last week with plans to implement a cap and trade program in June 2010 aimed at cutting emissions 5 to 15 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

Now, the Australian Prime Minister's efforts to put a price on carbon and cap emissions are under fire from both Right and Left, and cap and trade is going under Down Undah.

Continue reading "Cap and Trade Going Under Down Undah" »