Carbon rationing
Tony Iltis ("Stopping climate change: tomorrow is too late!" GLW #706) draws extensively from the recent Carbon Equity Project report, Avoiding Catastrophe, but is wide of the mark in dismissing carbon rationing as simply "a right to pollute [which] becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold" and that this idea is "based on the notion that greenhouse gas emissions can be negated by creating carbon sinks".
There is no relationship between the carbon rationing proposals and the sop of buying carbon offsets to allow people to greenwash high-carbon lifestyles. Proponents of carbon rationing such as George Monbiot and Mark Lynas have been sharp public critics of offsets.
Nor is rationing about granting long-term rights to pollute, as is the case with "cap-and-trade" emissions trading. Carbon rationing is about distributing to individuals a limited right to use carbon that is not based on high carbon taxes, which is the only other macro-economic option in a market economy. Carbon rationing works by an authority independent of government setting an annual carbon emissions budget for the country, which each year is decreased in accordance with the emissions scenarios necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Because households are directly responsible for about 34% of emissions in Australia, 34% of the carbon budget is made available free of charge as an equal "carbon credit" (or ration) for each citizen on an electronic swipe "carbon card", which would be used to draw on an individual carbon credit balance each time household gas and electricity, petrol and private transport is purchased. Unused credits can be sold to other individuals, but the starting point is the right of each citizen to an equal ration of the carbon in basic goods, free of charge. Such a right is not a commodity, and is more equitable than the alternatives.
The balance of 66% of emissions would be auctioned to business and government for a limited period (no more than a year) and the auction would set a price such that business and government emissions would not exceed that portion of the carbon budget target. Businesses can trade emissions with each other, but essentially businesses would pay a price on their emissions, and as the carbon budget decreased over time, this price would rise, driving the change to low-carbon technologies and effectively eliminating high-carbon commodities. Businesses are not granted a long-term property right to pollute. In essence they are taxed on their carbon pollution when they buy emission permits.
Given that carbon emissions need to be driven down very quickly to avoid catastrophe, and assuming there will be no overnight revolutionary end to the market, the simple reality is that an increasingly steep price will have to be put on carbon emissions to reduce their production, allied with massive intervention to restructure the economy, transport, building use and manufacturing of the goods we really need. Given the choice, carbon rationing looks a lot fairer and more effective than the other proposals for corporate emissions trading and/or high carbon taxes on basic energy commodities.
David Spratt
Carbon Equity Project
<http://www.carbonequity.info>
[Abridged]
NZ's green ambitions
As a regular New Zealand reader of Green Left Weekly, I was interested to see an article in GLW #704 about "New Zealand's green ambitions". Sadly, the main examples given were a policy announcement by our Labour prime minister and a marketing campaign by New Zealand's largest energy company saying it's officially "carbon neutral".
It would be hard to find two bigger examples of "greenwash". Helen Clark, praised for wanting to make the country "carbon neutral", scrapped the proposed carbon tax in 2005 and refuses to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from livestock — New Zealand's biggest contribution to global warming. Environmentalists over here are labelling her a "methane denier".
The Labour government supposedly "weaning" New Zealand off fossil fuels has doubled spending on roads, while overseeing the virtual end of coastal shipping and the closure of rail services.
Meridian Energy has a piece of paper to say that its generation is carbon neutral, and is waving it far and wide to attract customers concerned about the environment. But the shonky system awarding this certificate took no account of the massive carbon emissions produced in building Meridian's hydro stations. One earth dam — the biggest in the world when it opened — took seven years to build.
Even then, Meridian only scraped in by buying carbon credits from rival power generators. Purchasing a "carbon neutral" certificate is no different from the company's other advertising spending.
John Howard is so bad on climate change — as on many other issues — that almost anyone can be portrayed as better. Some Australians give the ALP undeserved credit for this reason. But the fact is that neither major New Zealand corporations, nor the New Zealand Labour government, are taking the action needed to stop climate catastrophe.
Grant Brookes
Wellington, New Zealand
[Abridged]
Christmas Island
As we reel at the latest refugee deal, there are signs of the sinister Ruddock legacy appearing from the past. This is not the first time that George and John talked of playing swapsies with human lives.
The question of the Christmas Island prison complex lurks in the background still unanswered. What is the future for the most expensive, highest security facility ever built in Australia (albeit an excised portion)? Who is destined to suffer there? Does the Christmas Island complex play a role in the swapsie deal? Why did the USA Homeland Security team fly down in a chartered flight from Singapore in November 2006 to inspect the high security Christmas Island facility?
The USA MOU follows those with Indonesia and Malaysia — all secret deals between our government and others. Surely we have a right to know what is being plotted in our name.
Pamela Curr
Asylum Seeker Research Centre
Melbourne
Membership exodus
A recent AC Nielsen poll indicates 24% of voters support Work Choices, 59% oppose it and the remainder are undecided. Despite massive opposition, union membership has plummeted to one in five workers, a decline most pronounced in NSW. Private sector membership has declined to 15% and nurses, teachers and public servants dominate union ranks. According to ACTU figures, 69,800 workers rejoined unions at the onset of the Your Rights At Work campaign. According to the April 10 Sydney Morning Herald, 125,900 workers fled unions over the 12 months to August 2006 — the second largest annual membership decline on record.
Given that Work Choices is the greatest industrial attack in over 100 years, with massive opposition to the legislation, why aren't unions thriving? ACTU president Sharan Burrow said "the new laws have made the workplace much more hostile to union membership". Many people are fearful of union membership, but could the unwillingness of union officials to defy these laws and lead a significant fight have contributed?
At the turn of the 20th century, unions ran militant campaigns that defied anti-worker laws. Membership and confidence thrived. Last year's French campaign against anti-worker laws had the same result.
Union influence and membership steadily declined during Labor's Accord years, and has accelerated under Work Choices. Last year ACTU secretary Greg Combet and many other officials declared their willingness to serve prison terms in defiance of Work Choices. Nothing could have been further from the truth. While countless workers have been sacked, wages slashed and conditions stripped, ALP figures have maneuvered to get Combet a comfortable parliamentary seat rather than a cramped prison cell. Many attending rallies last year were angered when Combet unveiled his "Your Rights At Work, Worth Voting For" banner. Could the hijacking of our campaign by the ALP, and Rudd's backdowns on AWAs, unfair dismissal and the right to strike have contributed to the union exodus?
Many workers are justifiably cynical of officials who hijack industrial campaigns to further their political careers. Bob Hawke, Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean, Jennie George and Michael Costa all made the jump and we can expect Combet, Bill Shorten, Doug Cameron and Richard Marles to join the chorus, "Your Rights At Work, Worth Voting For Me".
John Gauci
Marrickville, NSW
[Abridged]