Policy

The Federal Government has most of the responsibility for climate change policy in Australia. The State and Local Governments also have climate change policies, but the AYCC mostly focuses on the Federal Government.

We want the Australian Federal Government to:

1. Reduce Australia’s emissions at home

2. Invest in sustainability education

3. Do our fair share internationally

We want the Government to:

1. Reduce Australia’s emissions at home by at least 50% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels). Why? How? Read more here.

2. Make a commitment to power Australia by 100% renewable energy. Why? How? Read more here.

Young Australians must have the knowledge, skills and understanding necessary to make decisions based on their full environmental, social and economic impacts.

We want the Government to:
1. Include sustainability in our school curricula. (How: by including the recommendations of the ‘Sustainability Curriculum Framework’ into the National Curriculum, as this will ensure sustainability is included in a coherent and connected manner.)
2. Increase investment in the AuSSI (Australian Sustainable Schools Inititiave) program in the 2011 and 2012 budget, because we believe this is a great way to teach students hands-on sustainability.

We want the Government to:
1. Contribute our fair share of funding to help developing countries deal with climate change.
2. Provide specific assistance and expertise to our Pacific Island neighbours in adapting to the impacts of climate change. 

The current carbon price on the table, which is expected to be passed by Parliament late in 2011, doesn’t do everything we want. However, we do support it because it is able to be strengthened over time (which is the key thing) and does direct lots of revenue to renewable energy, allows the emissions reduction targets to be set after hearing recommendations by an independent authority, includes a study into the barriers in our electricity grid in getting us to 100% renewable energy, and does protect most households, making polluters the ones who pay. It’s good not good enough, but it’s a first step and we can ratchet it up over time. It’s much better than the policy the Opposition (the Coalition) is proposing, which pays polluters to stop polluting and invests in unproven soil carbon technology, and can’t be improved or increased over time without huge expense. Here at the AYCC we like to tell the truth, and the truth is, it’s not a great policy and we have to do way more to get us to 100% renewables. But it will get us moving in the right direction, and invest a decent amount of cash into renewables, which we like. Read more about our take on the policy here

Nope. Why would we put tonnes of money into something that might not even work, when renewable energy (like wind and solar thermal) can provide baseload power now? Also, if the coal companies want to invest in this technology, they should pay for it themselves, not ask for taxpayer Government-funded money to do it.

Nope – similar to above, why would we put money into something that is dangerous to human health and the environment, when renewables can power our country now? Also, nuclear power plants take ages to build, and we really don’t have that long to wait. They also use heaps of water, which we know is kinda sparse in Oz.

Nope – we reckon we can power Australia with 100% renewables right here, so we don’t need to outsource our emissions by buying credits from overseas. Also, some overseas credits can be kinda dodgy (i.e.it’s hard to tell if they are really reducing emissions credibly, and some of them contribute to forest destruction). Sometimes it might be OK to buy credits from overseas (i.e. to link up our emissions trading market with overseas markets) but ONLY if they are of a high, independently-verified standard. Still – we really should be cleaning up our industry at home, not offsetting.

It’s bad! It’s been alleged to leak dodgy chemicals into our water. Also – why continue to waste money on fossil fuels when renewables can be used today?

What is a ‘price on pollution’?
Putting a price-tag on pollution is a way of including the full costs of pollution into the goods and services that we use every day. Right now, the price we pay for the things we buy does not include a measure of the pollution they have created in their production, transport or use. A price on pollution would add a certain amount, say $20, $50, or $100 to every tonne of pollution produced by the highest polluting industries in our economy. Governments can price pollution through an emissions trading scheme (which is a market-based mechanism) or through a fixed price (also called a levy or tax).

Why does AYCC think a price on pollution is important?
Putting a price on pollution is important because the cost of carbon to our climate is not accounted for in our economy. Polluters can pump pollution into our skies for free! When we put a price on pollution they have to pay for it, which encourages them to reduce their pollution. We think it makes sense.

What’s the difference between a fixed price (or carbon tax) and an emissions trading scheme? Is one better than the other?
There are two ways of creating a price on pollution in an economy. One is for government to set a price on every tonne of pollution produced. The extra cost on polluting activities creates an incentive to shift to clean forms of energy production and consumption.
The other way to price pollution is to create an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The government sets a limit or ‘cap’ on how much pollution can be emitted in a year and divides this amount into pollution permits which it sells to industry and business. Businesses have an incentive to reduce pollution because they will be able to sell the permits they don’t use on the market. The price of pollution is set by the market. Each year the government can reduce the number of permits available so our overall amount of pollution can be reduced.
The Government and the Greens have agreed that they want a fixed price on pollution, beginning July 2012, moving towards an ETS in 3 to 5 years.