Anyway, the bill would have capped 2010 aggregate for 85% of the 2000 US GHG emissions (as defined by the EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks) in electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors, by having the EPA Administrator promogulate regulations to limit such emissions. It excluded agricultural and residential sectors and allowed the Admisitrator to exempt certain subsectors if he (or in other words the people that work for him at the agency) determined it was not feasible to measure the emissions of those subsectors. The Commerce Dept would have been the one to re-evaluate the levels of allowances to see if they met those of the UN FCCC. Those allowances would have been either grandfathered or auctioned. Some flexibilty mechanisms, penalties and the allowance system are discussed. It would also have established an NSF scholarship program for students of climate change areas and the Commerce Department researching technology transfer and the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. industrial competitiveness and international scientific cooperation.

Interesting. Wonder why it didn’t pass. Seems like some good ideas.
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm

Now that I think about it, that makes the Supreme Court decision to have the EPA relook their non-regulation of the GHGs in the case not make much sense. If Legislative wanted the EPA to do something, they would have passed the bill, and if Executive wanted the EPA to do something, it might have directed them to do so (although conceptually, Executive has decided to decentralize it and let the agency decide it appears). In light of that, I’m very confused how the Judicical could have determined that’s what the Clean Air Act covered. Oh well.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-1120.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

You just waded into the ickey pool that forms around a failed philosophy. It all sounds like a bunch of kids playing “tag”, the game quickly develops things that are “bar” and there become endless rules about how quickly one can retag the tagger, on and on and on.

No one is going to instantly drop using carbon energy, that is impractical. What is needed here is rapid development of alternatives and that takes money. The only robust solution is to apply a universal carbon tax which will work internally to build availability of alternative energy solutions.

The tax would work exactly the same ast the GST and would have the benefit of being claimed back by exporters (as GST is) thereby not disadvantaging our export trade.

The endless arguement about permits concessions tradeable emissions, etc is doomed to failure simply because there are too many interested parties. Worse, the argument will stall any action for a long time yet to come.

These industries are nowhere listed in the Shergold Plan, as far as I can see. Appendix L makes an attempt at definition, but I haven’t found any actual list. No doubt Shergold and the Rodent have a private list. These industries are to get special “transitional arrangements� which include their being given free permits every five years sufficient to cover both direct and indirect emissions of existing plant, plus additional free permits to cover the direct emissions of new plant (pp.116-117). “Over time� (undefined), the number of free permits for direct emissions would be adjusted downwards to the number which would be needed if the relevant firms were operating at “world’s best practice low-emissions technologies�. Free permits for indirect emissions would, so far as I can see, be available as long as the “transitional arrangements� were operating.

These “transitional arrangements� amount to excluding “trade-exposed, energy-intensive� industries from the National permit scheme, and calculating a separate cap for each plant which could be called part of a “trade-exposed, energy-intensive� industry. These local caps would initially be whatever emissions the plant is causing, directly or indirectly. “Over time�, they would be calculated according to whatever a “world’s best practice low-emissions technology� is. If they are not exceeded, fine; the free allocation of permits will always cover the emissions. If the local caps are exceeded, Shergold says permits would need to be purchased in the market (every other industry would have to pay the “fee� for exceeding a cap). However purchase of permits in such a situation seems unlikely because in the next paragraph Shergold says: “…the emissions cap under the [National] scheme could be adjusted upwards to account for emissions as a result of new investments in the trade-exposed, emissions-intensive sector� (p.116). So the National cap would just be adjusted upwards by an amount equivalent to the emissions caused by the new investment.

The obvious fudges, aside from the pretty monstrous idea of a separate set of caps itself, are the uncertain duration of these “transitional arrangements�, the definition of “world’s best practice low-emissions technology� and the delay before benchmarking of plants against “world’s best practice� would begin. All of these are as indefinite as the length of a piece of string, and are obviously subject to political dealing. I remember that the State Governments’ National Emissions Trading Taskforce (August 2006) plan simply excluded aluminium smelting, cement making, iron/steel making, petroleum refining and ammonia manufacture from initial coverage, and I suspect that Shergold’s private list of “trade-exposed, energy-intensive� industries would include these and perhaps more.

That’s enough for one day, and I’ve barely scratched the surface.

Despite that – I think he’s gone come November…. the mood in the electorate is that it is time for a change.

Of course we can, but that’s not the story Howard is spinning. He’s conjuring up visions of a “Garrett recession”, roads without cars, and a nuke in every suburb.

If by some miracle Howard wins on a climate change fear campaign what’s his legacy going to be if the effects of climate change are half as bad as the scientists tell us they will be?

Actually I’ve been really surprised at Turnbull running with the scare campaign, because a) He’s no skeptic and he knows how serious climate change is, and b) his scaremongering today could destroy his leadership ambitions a few years down the track when its plain to all how serious climate change is.

OTOH I haven’t noticed Costello participating in the scare campaign.

Australians won’t accept drastic cuts to our living standards for a few reasons –
1) We’re not driving the bus. We can attempt to shift it’s trajectory by shifting our puny weight to the left – but the bus is being driven by the G8.
2) There might be a cliff up ahead – or there might not. We agree that humans are contributing to global warming – but we don’t agree yet on what this really means. We are prepared to change behaviour just in case – but it is a bit like buying an insurance policy. The premiums can’t be too high.
3) We can reduce emissions without a drastic cut in living standards – we need to avoid using climate change as a trojan horse for anti-consumerism.

Occasionally your analysis is spot on, particularly when exposing the left’s denial about the true cost of deep cuts to GHG emissions (and I’m talking about the 60-80% cuts on 1990 levels, not the 20-40% cuts which can be achieved relatively painlessly) but you are dead wrong about Howard turning climate change into a strength in the blink of an eye.

Howard is still perceived as a climate change skeptic and will be for a long time. I don’t think the average punter perceives Kyoto as a “quagmire” or a failure. To the average punter Kyoto equals action on climate change, and they know every country has signed up except Australia and the U.S. The only quagmire Australia is involved with is Iraq, and we followed the U.S. there as well.

The Galaxy poll was taken before Howard launched his “Garrett recession” attack, so even if you take this poll as a true indication of a move back to the Coalition (which its not), its not because of Howard’s recent climate change attacks.

The next round of polls will be very, very interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised to see yet another “Rudd bounce”. Of course, what’s really happening is the polls have been bouncing around the 57-43 mark for months now, which is landslide territory.