Comparison of State and PM's proposals for emissions trading
Wednesday, 06 June 2007 06:20
There is a good summary of the PM's task force's recommendations, and a comparison of these with the state schemes on the site of Blake Dawson Waldron lawyers.
In key aspects the proposals from the States are better for the environment, and I believe better for business as they provide more certainty than the vagueness in the PM's proposal.
A quick summary (with my comments in brackets) is:
|Item||PM's (Federal)||State||My comments|
|Targets||Aspirational||60% by 2050||Aspirational targets essentially mean no-targets, and minimal movement if past history is to be repeated. 60% by 2050 is inadequate to prevent dangerous levels of warming, but better than nothing).|
|Timeline||2012||2010||The scheme needs to start, as early as possible, as it will cost less and is more predictable to businesses who are currently planning based on extreme uncertainty. 2012 puts it outside the term of the NEXT government, so is essentially a meaningless promise.|
|Inclusions||Broad: all energy, industrial and fugitive emissions from the beginning (except those from agriculture and land use).||Narrow: stationary energy sources and fugitive emissions from gas pipelines.||The one area the PM's report is better, i.e. it covers mobile sources, both exclude agriculture which means no impact on the major emitters - bovine posteriors|
Otherwise they are broadly equivalent.
Recent articles from Mitra's blog