News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Emissions trading scheme stalled 

Emissions trading scheme stalled

24 Jun, 2009 04:11 AM
THE Opposition has committed to voting on the Government's emissions trading scheme in August after successfully stalling the legislation in the Senate.

The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, yesterday admitted a successful motion proposed by the Coalition to reorder Senate business has left little time to debate the trading scheme before Parliament stops sitting on Thursday night.

The reordering motion puts six other pieces of legislation ahead of the emissions trading scheme debate on the Senate agenda, including the budget increase in the aged pension.

The Government has long stated it wanted a vote on the emissions trading scheme in the June session of Parliament.

The Opposition first proposed the reordering of Senate business on Monday but failed to gain the crucial vote of the independent senator Nick Xenophon.

But on Monday night Senator Xenophon and the Opposition struck a deal, and the senator backed the reordering motion in exchange for Opposition support for his motion to delay the vote by August to conduct new economic modelling.

Senator Xenophon's motion is likely to be defeated today, but yesterday's events means the legislation will have to wait until August anyway.

The Opposition and Senator Xenophon are discussing the financing of the new modelling, which will investigate different emissions trading designs.

Senator Wong said the Opposition, which indicated last week that it intended to filibuster the debate to stall the vote, had put political stunts before the climate change challenge.

"We made clear we wanted this debate brought to a conclusion in this session," Senator Wong said.

"If we are unable to do that as a result of what has occurred today and yesterday, that is something for which [the Opposition Leader] Malcolm Turnbull bears responsibility."

The Opposition will vote against the legislation in August.

It has indicated it will not pass the legislation until after December's international climate change talks in Copenhagen and the US establishes its position on emissions trading.

The US Speaker in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has indicated a vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, which establishes a US emissions trading scheme, will occur in the House by the end of this week.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I thought the governemnt won a mandate at the last election. I also thought Turnbull would put the environment ahead of his own political interests. He should have, as the events of the last few days shows he doesn't have much political nous so he may as well do something that's good for the country.
Posted by Tonypolony, 24/06/2009 8:05:52 AM
Tony, Just because Labor won an election does not give them a mandate to destroy the country with an ill-conceived carbon taxation system. I'm all for being sustainable but an ETS is not a viable solution. ETS taxation has very little to do with the environment. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide makes up 5 to 7 % of the carbon dioxide circulating above sea level. How does a tax have a real impact? Basically it can't.
Posted by John Michelmore, 24/06/2009 9:13:06 AM
John a few points. Firstly I don't think Labor are trying to destroy Australia. You are being emotional. Secondly either you believe that human carbon emissions are contributing to climate change or they don't. If you don't believe they do, then any measure to stop them won't make sense to you. You may want to hang out with Senator Fielding who has visited climate change sceptics in the US recently (I presume taxpayer funded) and thirdly taxes on carbon emissions (or any similar scheme) push up the price thereby reducing demand. It's classic economic demand/supply theory. Hence taxes will modify behaviour and reduce carbon emissions. I am all for carbon taxes with a commensurate reduction in personal taxes.
Posted by Tonypolony, 24/06/2009 3:11:14 PM
Tonyphony you must be kidding? What would the proposed scheme do for the enviroment? If anyone wants to get serious about the environment then the simple answer is to depopulate. If you think a tax will improve the environment you are mistaken. As the world gets more and more people the supply of food is not getting anymore, nor is the area where it can be grown. The fact less area is being used for agriculture must mean less plant life using co2.
Posted by mick, 24/06/2009 4:04:33 PM
Yes the usual argument put up by the fanatics, decrying the cautious 'sceptics', not prepared to listen to an alternative view. Let's have an open and balanced debate.
Posted by jerangle, 25/06/2009 5:54:34 AM
It is not a tax, it is a trading scheme. GST is a tax. One outcome is that landholders will be paid to plant trees which will help the environment. Companies will be economically driven to reduce the amount of ghgs. These GHG which include CO2, CO, NOX, SO2 have many other environmental impacts beyond global warming. The introduction of a SO2 cap and trade in the US dramatically reduced acid rain, in fact it was much more effective than either the companies or the government thought it could be.

Mick I was sure you of all people would know that agricultural production has increased dramatically over the past 50 or so years and will keep doing so with GM, better land management etc. But why would you care if there is more or less CO2 being used by plant life, it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. The usual suspects are on the blog running through the list of "excuses" their masters have given them without any thought on the consistency or veracity of thier comments.

Jerangle - I look forward to an open debate, not a fanatic but not brianwashed "yet".

Posted by the lorax, 25/06/2009 7:46:26 AM
That's a good one - now the anti agw crowd are cautious!!!!!!!!! Based on even the most rudimentary risk analysis process the cautious action would be to limit the emissions of CO2e.
Posted by t, 25/06/2009 8:04:35 AM
The ets is a very good reason to put on another tax for no great benefit. Emissions may need to be reduced, but until USA, China, India and all the other polluters, start doing this, Australia's effort is just a drop in the ocean at great cost to our industries.
Posted by R, 25/06/2009 12:39:38 PM
That we are small economically does not mean we are small in global influence. We are still known as leaders in many areas and being a leader in this area is one such area we could create profound affect. A land with such a primarily agriculture and mining basis as ours should be seen to be adventurous. The soil and how we manage it is known to be a great untapped source of sinking planetary emissions for the entire globe... we should be cashing in on this great resource by creating tremendous soil sinks that other countries pay US for doing! We cannot hope to compete in labour or govt. subsidies so why not leap at this opportunity.
Posted by smeady, 25/06/2009 6:15:16 PM
Tonypolony, 1)Senator Fielding paid for his own trip. 2) If you think you'll get a tax reduction to help you pay for the ETS tax you will get a surprise. 3) Australia currently is not in a position to take any economic advantage of an ETS. If you think employment will come from tree planting you must have forgotten farmers have big seeders these days.
Posted by John Michelmore, 25/06/2009 7:14:38 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 June, 2009
21 June, 2009
19 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Is the Grains Council of Australia worth saving?

Yes
(31%)

No
(50.9%)

Undecided
(18.1%)

Total Votes: 332
Poll Date: 21 June, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC

Irwin Hunter 160x160
 
Banjawarn Station


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...