Things to write
There is a Senate inquiry into the government's Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme, and it is currently calling for submissions. GetUp has provided a handy link for you to make a submission online. At first I thought 'but I'm not an expert! I can't possibly make a submission to a Senate inquiry!' But then I thought, that doesn't matter. The CEOs of coal power stations and gas mining companies sure aren't experts on carbon permit trading protocols either, and they have certainly made submissions... So the more 'concerned citizen' submissions GetUp can collect as a balance, the more likely it is that the Senate will actually listen to the experts on our side. Individual submissions closed 25 March, so I assume GetUp has received an extension to collate submissions from members. However the inquiry committee is due to report back to the Senate in one week, so GetUp needs your submission soon if you want it to be counted.
Environment Victoria has a handy fact sheet about what an emissions trading scheme ought to do. You can also draw on the talking points in this post, or feel free to plagiarise my submission :o) I picked the three points I thought were most important, but there are certainly many others you could cover.
What I wrote:
The government's own white paper on Climate Change noted that 'Taking responsible and decisive action on climate change is crucial to our economic prosperity now and for the future.' However, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in its current form fails to do this.
- Giving away free permits to certain industries means that the rest of the economy has to make up the difference, while the price signal for the biggest polluters is eliminated. An alternative would be to offer adjustment assistance trade exposed energy-intensive industries which is separate from the permit scheme, only exists until an international scheme is in place, and is contingent on industry participation in a low-carbon transition plan.
- The 5% absolute target is utterly inadequate and likely to harm international efforts for stronger targets. The government's reasoning is that with a growing population this absolute target translates to a much larger per capita target of 34-41% below 1990 levels, comparable to EU targets. As the second-largest largest per capita emitters of carbon, it is only fair that we make a greater per capita reduction. With evidence accumulating that climate change is happening far faster than we thought it would, we simply do not have time to slowly ramp up from weak targets.
- The target is not only a cap: it is a floor. Preventing individual and small business actions from further reducing emissions is counterproductive and must be fixed.
I am deeply concerned about this issue and hope that the legislation can be improved.
Yours sincerely,
Me.
Or just repeat the handy talking points on GetUp's submission page.
The link again: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=608
Go forth and tell someone who cares!
Environment Victoria has a handy fact sheet about what an emissions trading scheme ought to do. You can also draw on the talking points in this post, or feel free to plagiarise my submission :o) I picked the three points I thought were most important, but there are certainly many others you could cover.
What I wrote:
The government's own white paper on Climate Change noted that 'Taking responsible and decisive action on climate change is crucial to our economic prosperity now and for the future.' However, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in its current form fails to do this.
- Giving away free permits to certain industries means that the rest of the economy has to make up the difference, while the price signal for the biggest polluters is eliminated. An alternative would be to offer adjustment assistance trade exposed energy-intensive industries which is separate from the permit scheme, only exists until an international scheme is in place, and is contingent on industry participation in a low-carbon transition plan.
- The 5% absolute target is utterly inadequate and likely to harm international efforts for stronger targets. The government's reasoning is that with a growing population this absolute target translates to a much larger per capita target of 34-41% below 1990 levels, comparable to EU targets. As the second-largest largest per capita emitters of carbon, it is only fair that we make a greater per capita reduction. With evidence accumulating that climate change is happening far faster than we thought it would, we simply do not have time to slowly ramp up from weak targets.
- The target is not only a cap: it is a floor. Preventing individual and small business actions from further reducing emissions is counterproductive and must be fixed.
I am deeply concerned about this issue and hope that the legislation can be improved.
Yours sincerely,
Me.
Or just repeat the handy talking points on GetUp's submission page.
The link again: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=608
Go forth and tell someone who cares!