Lenore Taylor makes some points about Tony Abbott and his "direct action" plan which are obvious but being pretty much avoided by Rudd. (I assume his thinking is "stay away from the carbon tax; people don't like to be reminded about it.):
It’s not that “direct action” can’t work to reduce carbon emissions. It’s that the Coalition’s Direct Action plan – cobbled together in a couple months after Tony Abbott took the Liberal leadership and ditched the Coalition’s support for emissions trading – can’t work for the money that’s on the table.But no, Kevin, let's talk about corporate tax rates in the Northern Territory in 2018...
And almost no one thinks it can. Not the business groups that have for years now been unsuccessfully seeking detail. Not academic experts who have studied the various sources of carbon abatement it proposes. And not anyone who has sought to model it.
The Coalition has responded to the latest effort – from Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies – by shooting the messenger, suggesting the modellers and the Climate Institute who commissioned them are not “objective”.
But exactly the same question has been raised by pretty much everyone who has looked at Direct Action. The Treasury actually calculated the shortfall would be much bigger than the $4bn the new modelling has estimated by 2020.
And, as Abbott’s own frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull explained in 2011, continuing with Direct Action would become prohibitively expensive in future years.
On 4 February 2010, Abbott wrote this about his newly minted Direct Action plan: "Our policy is also much cheaper. We have estimated that it will cost $3.2bn over four years ... Our policy has been independently costed. A team of economists at the respected firm Frontier Economics says our policy is both economically and environmentally responsible."
But the managing director of Frontier Economics, Danny Price, said at the time it only made sense as a transitional plan, a precursor to either a more developed set of “Direct Action” regulations, subsidies and “reverse auctions”, or, more likely, some version of an emissions trading scheme.
It is a big hit on the budget alright.
ReplyDeleteHe simply won't go on with it and pretend the books are worse than he thought but PEFO makes that imposibble