After weeks of media coverage of the Rudd Government's proposed emissions trading scheme that viewed the issue through the prism of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Liberal Party, all sides in the debate will now be forced into talking about the detail of the policy as Mr Turnbull's goes about seeking amendments to Kevin Rudd's preferred scheme.
Maverick Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce calls the ETS "a tax on everything" and has made it clear he won't support it. Mr Turnbull says the Government's scheme is "friendless" and has called on Mr Rudd to negotiate genuinely and in good faith. Meanwhile Mr Rudd says the Opposition must not use the negotiating period to unduly delay the passage of the scheme as he insists Australia's ETS must be ready to go before the December global climate change meeting in Copenhagan.
In Tuesday's The West Australian, columnist and blogger Paul Murray says the early passage of the ETS will save not one ounce of carbon emissions, but it will make sure someone pays for the pollution.
What do you think? Is the Rudd Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme necessary? Is a market-based solution the best way to reduce greenhouse gases? Has the media given enough attention to the detail of the policy's implications? And will Malcolm Turnbull be able to bring his colleagues along for the ride, even in the unlikely event Mr Rudd accepts every Opposition amendment?
Comments
I'm not convinced on Global Warming. Scientists have told us for years that the earth has gone through several ice ages and warming. Some igmored by the supporters of global warming. I do believe more could be done to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce pollution. An improved public transport system and the reduced use of cars, sewerage pumped into the desert and not the ocean, wind farms and solar. Manufacturers of electrical goods to make then so they turn off and not just sit on stan
Oct 20 03:37 amNO doubt the cost of any carbon pollution scheme will be borne by the consumers not big business. I haven't seen any figures how much it is going to cost the individual and I don't believe there has been any honesty about that cost. I think the "carbon trading" idea is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. There is no chmney to let the carbon etc out of the atmoshere and no new water being delivered from elswhere. What we have is what we got and we need to take care of
Oct 20 03:44 amI thought it was Malcolm Turnbull's ETS. The government has been able to get away without presenting any detail of what it involves. I read a lot and wouldn't have a clue of what is proposed. Has the media and the government dudded us on the details? At least we knew all the scary details of the GST before it came in. So under an ETS can cows fart or can't they? Like most things from the Rudd Government it is all about politics and nothing to do with policy or good government.
Oct 20 09:42 amThere are heaps of problems with "cap & trade", with the "cap" part of the system, any reduction in carbon emission by individuals does not reduce the "cap" amount, it means that large polluters can emit more. The pollution permits are being given to large polluters and will be able to be traded. Remember the global financial crisis caused by financial "masters of the universe", just imagine what they will do with "carbon permits" and "
Oct 20 09:57 amGlobal what? guskrik, absolutely right.
Oct 20 09:59 amEverything I've heard, seen and read says it all happened just before and just after the Ice Age. Although, if we did very very very super simple things to cut down on stuff, it will be allot more pleasant for everyone.