Antinuclear

Victoria’s Baillieu government recently accepted the recommendation of a review of the Victorian Climate Change Act to scrap the state’s 20% emissions reduction target by 2020 — the latest in a long line of anti-environment, pro-fossil fuels policy developments during its first 16 months in office. Queensland’s newly elected Newman government has opted for a more expeditious approach, axing just about every Queensland government program with a tinge of green — from the $430 million Queensland Climate Change Fund (which provides $30 million a year for climate change initiatives) to the $50 million Smart Energy Savings Program (which helps businesses improve energy efficiency).

Amid this carnage, it is worth considering just what is the appropriate role of complementary state and federal policies in tackling climate change in the context of the new carbon price……

The federal cap only covers a limited number of emissions-producing sectors – notably energy generation, industrial processes, landfill waste and fugitive emissions (for example, methane released from coalmines). Sectors not covered by the scheme include agriculture, forestry and (via changes to the fuel tax and rebate regimes) parts of transport.* Any state or federal government policies that reduce emissions in these sectors will result in abatement beyond that brought about by the federal cap. As the PC points out in its Garnaut Review submission, policies to target these sectors make sense to the extent that they would reduce the costs of achieving an overall national emissions reduction target.

Emissions embodied in the fossil fuels we export, which far exceed our domestic emissions, are not subject to the carbon price either. This gives states (which largely control mining policy) a critical role in influencing global greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/01/not-so-fast-to-the-green-scheme-graveyard/