The Greens state that the CPRS “locks in failure” because of the handouts to polluters. While it could be argued that the CPRS “rips off the taxpayer” because of the assistance measures, which also distort the price signal to a certain extent, it doesn’t have much to do with “locking in failure”. The scheme caps and gateways approach is what risks “locking in failure”. But I think the Greens want a nice simple message.

I think the decision on whether to support the CPRS, oppose it, or critique it and let people make up their own minds, is a political one. It is a decision that should be based on strategic considerations in the presence of uncertainty.

The reasons some parts the environment movement intensely dislike this bill (and hence the Greens are under heavy pressure to oppose it) are as follows:

1) the targets aren’t as tight as to be consistent with the kind of global deal they think is necessary.
2) too much money is spent compensating polluters (who’ve been fighting emissions trading for more than a decade), and not enough on households and their favourite green technologies.
3) apropos 1 and 2, it *locks in* targets which are too unambitious.
4) it’s too easy to meet the target by buying offsets internationally rather than making reductions here, which a) may not result in net emissions reductions as – for instance – forestry is simply displaced rather than reduced, b) doesn’t drive the development of technologies to reduce emissions, and c) is somehow believed to involve punishing poor people while the rich world gets off again.
5) it doesn’t reward additional voluntary effort.

I think these have varying merit, to say the least – point 1 is the biggie, the rest are sideshows at best – but there you have it.

I still think when I’m older I’ll found a political party called the “Competence Party”…