Comparing carbon policies made easy
Major debate now envelops Federal Parliament on climate change and how Australia will respond to the threat. This is a complex debate with numerous implications for the Australian environment, businesses and individuals. It could also be the ‘trigger’ for new federal elections in 2010.
A Charles Sturt University (CSU) expert on climate change policy, Professor Kevin Parton, has developed a simple comparison between the two policies, both of which aim to reduce greenhouse gases by encouraging new non-polluting technology or sequestrating, or ‘storing’, carbon dioxide.
| Issue |
Federal Government
|
Federal Opposition |
| Policy mechanism | Increase the price of carbon by charging polluters | Subsidy to those producers who volunteer to introduce non-polluting or carbon-sequestering technology
|
| What is the encouragement for sustainable new technology? | Disadvantages old carbon polluting technology and hence encourages all new sustainable technology | Guesses what sustainable technology will work and encourages just a few technologies, such as soil carbon storage and tree planting.
|
| Carbon price | Sets the carbon price and allows market to determine the best type of future technology | Avoids setting carbon price and tries to induce adoption of new technology directly
|
| Paid for by | Polluters (but eventually price increases for consumers. Also features compensation for less-well-off) | Taxpayers |
| Impact on greenhouse gases (effectiveness)
|
Slight at outset, but much scope to reduce greenhouse gases by decreasing the amount of carbon that can be emitted. | Impact slight. Possible large cost to government if the scheme is extended
|
| Complexity | Complex, but most individuals do not need to know about the detail | Simple
|
| Explanation given to date | Poor (eg, few people realise that fewer than 1000 firms are involved and that they collectively produce 75% of greenhouse gases) | Good
|
| Economic efficiency | In theory the most efficient policy (but it becomes less efficient the more exemptions - eg, free permits - that are allowed) | Less efficient
|
| Impact on social equity | If compensation is paid to consumers, equity effect is close to neutral | Neutral
|
Co-digesting textile and food waste could create renewable methane
Researchers have found that co-digesting textile waste with food waste can improve methane...
Study assesses recycled content use in home builds
Using a completed dwelling, the study explored how the percentage of recycled content use can be...
Beyond compliance: why ESG in construction is becoming a people issue
The shift comes as the industry faces significant workforce pressures, with skilled labour...
