So this is when you know that you’re involved in the thick of political future-making. Our strategy for the last 2 weeks of the campaign is double pronged – firstly to ensure that the strongest possible CPRS is passed by the senate this week, and secondly; to ensure that Australia stands up at Copenhagen.
But this latest press release from Bob Brown has shaken things up:
Canberra, Sunday 22 November 2009:
Legal advice show billions more could flow to big polluters
The Greens today released legal advice from barristers Brian Walters SC (Melbourne) and Matthew Baird (Sydney) confirming that any attempt to strengthen pollution reduction targets after the emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation is passed could trigger a constitutional requirement for more multi-billion dollar compensation to be paid, “The Rudd Government’s targets have failure written all over them. Yet the ETS legislation will lock them in until 2020 since any increase will trigger compensation claims worth billions of dollars,” Australian Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown said.
The barristers advise that: “once the CPRS Bill is passed, if a Government later seeks to implement more progressive emissions reductions targets, the Commonwealth will be exposed to claims under the Australian Constitution from polluters for substantial additional compensation, possibly in the order of billions of dollars. “This puts paid to the flimsy notion that we can pass this failure of a scheme now and easily improve it down the track,” Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne said. “The CPRS’s targets, imbedded in the object of the Act, are so weak and the compensation so generous that it is already predicted to trigger investment in coal. If, a few years down the track, an Australian government finally bites the bullet and adopts science-based targets, those coal investments will become financially unviable and billions more taxpayers’ dollars will have to be handed to polluters to compensate.
The CPRS classifies emissions units as personal property. Under the Constitution, if the government changes the value of personal property, it must be done on ‘just terms’.
“The Australian community is crying out for leadership on the climate crisis, but all Kevin Rudd has given them is spin, reciting climate rhetoric while presenting a polluter reward system that will fail the climate and the community,” Senator Milne said.
“Undoubtedly the Government’s deal with the Coalition will include some attempted environmental veneer on ‘voluntary action’. Any such move that did not allow for state, local and community action to be counted towards the reduction target would be a failure, ” Senator Brown said.
So if we keep fighting for a strong CPRS; we are fighting against politicians who are trying to get an effective CPRS. If we fight against it, we are, in one sense, joining forces with the coal lobby. What do we do?
Kate
Nick – my take is, do a pinhead switch and have everyone swap their message to “block the CPRS”. Our objective should be whatever is most effective action now, even if this means a change of direction.
It would have the benefit of demonstrating our versatility and ability to communicate – wouldn’t you take notice if you were a senator and all your calls one day were pro CPRS, and then they were all anti CPRS the next day?
This would also help send the message that our primary interest is a safe climate and we are not allied to any one scheme or party.