On June 28 and July 3, Media Lens received repeated threats of both legal and police action from Alastair Brett, legal manager of News International’s Times Newspapers.
Noam Chomsky described the threat, pithily, as “pretty sick.” (Email, June 28, 2008) David Miller, professor of sociology at the University of Strathclyde and founder member of Spinwatch (www.spinwatch.org), commented:
“The response from the Times is an absolutely outrageous attempt to bully and censor you. It is not - unfortunately - surprising though, as the Murdoch empire is determined to attempt to snuff out those voices which try to bear witness to the truths of our age. Those that unmask naked power will be targeted by the Murdoch empire and its hench people. Maddox is the latest in a long line and is evidently a well networked member of the political elite - being a governor of the shadowy Ditchley Foundation. It is simply laughable that sending emails to complain about her distorted coverage constitutes harassment. Frankly, the drumbeat for war with Iran, to which she adds her voice, is much more like harassment, but of a whole nation. Its consequences are already more deadly serious for the people of Iran than any amount of emails from Medialens readers.” (Email, July 8, 2008)
Brett claimed Times journalist Bronwen Maddox had been subject to “vexatious and threatening” emails from Media Lens readers, which constituted “harassment”. If this did not stop, Brett told us, he would notify the police who might wish to investigate the matter with a view to bringing a criminal prosecution. As former New Statesman editor, Peter Wilby, noted in his Guardian article on the Times threat, this was no joke - prosecution for criminal harassment “can lead to six months' imprisonment or, if a court order is breached, up to five years”.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/07/pressandpublishing.advertising1)
Maddox claimed to have received "dozens of emails, many abusive or threatening". (Ibid)
Beginning with our very first media alert, published seven years ago yesterday, we have always advised our readers to treat journalists with respect (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/01/010709_US_UK_politicians_crimes.html):
“The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.”
As usual, many emails were copied or forwarded to us. We saw precisely one that could conceivably be described as “vexatious and threatening”. The email read:
"You have know [sic] idea who you are dealing with here. But I do like to help. I suggest that you read this [an inaccessible Facebook website entry] very, very carefully and fully. You have until 4pm Monday to respond to my original email or I will deem you to be fired."
This was also the only email offered up as evidence to Wilby for his Guardian piece. Unprompted by us, the offending emailer had earlier written to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, informing one executive:
“If you take more than 1 working day to reply to this email without a reason that I consider acceptable you can consider yourself fired.”
He also wrote to around 40 senior UK editors and journalists in June describing Media Lens as “a pack of absolute tossers”.
Ironically, we have been subject to far worse abuse than Maddox and Brett, and at the hands of mainstream journalists. Before becoming editor of the Independent, the former Observer editor, Roger Alton, asked one of our readers:
“Have you just been told to write in by those c*nts at medialens?” (Email forwarded, June 1, 2006 - original uncensored. Changed here to avoid triggering spam filters)
An online Observer article by Peter Beaumont described Media Lens as “a curious willy-waving exercise... Think a train spotters' club run by Uncle Joe Stalin.” (Beaumont, ‘Microscope on Medialens,’ June 18, 2006; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1800328,00.html)
We have always found these insults more chucklesome than vexatious. Chomsky was once asked for his reaction to the abuse he receives:
"Man: ‘Noam... You've been called a neo-Nazi, your books have been burned, you've been called anti-Israeli - don't you get a bit upset by the way that your views are always distorted by the media and by intellectuals?’
“Noam: ‘No why should I? I get called anything, I'm accused of everything you can think of: being a Communist propagandist, a Nazi propagandist, a pawn of freedom of speech, an anti-Semite, liar, whatever you want. Actually, I think that's all a good sign. I mean, if you are a dissident, typically you are ignored. If you can't be ignored, and you can't be answered, you're vilified - that's obvious: no institution is going to help people undermine it. So I would only regard the kind of things you're talking about as signs of progress.’" (Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp.204-5)
Questions Of Copyright
Brett also claimed that we would be acting unlawfully by publishing an email from Maddox without permission. We sought advice and one legal expert told us:
“The Times has no case over the confidentiality of email correspondence. Email correspondence, in itself, is not considered confidential - unless the precise contents of an email are confidential.”
Another suggested that the law is less clear and that the Times might carry out its threat. Another reminded us:
"Added weight to your cause is that the statements expressed and reproduced on your site represent important ‘political commentary’ (as opposed to artistic or commercial commentary). Political commentary is the most heavily protected type of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (via the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK)."
Another lawyer cited a barrister friend who nutshelled his view of the credibility of the Times’s case: "Tell them to f*ck off.”
Douwe Korff, Professor of International Law at London Metropolitan University and an expert on the European Convention on Human Rights, commented:
"I find the stance of the Times appalling in moral terms and flimsy at best in law. Their legal position, if endorsed by the courts, would severely limit freedom of the press over issues of major public concern. Is that what they want? I have little doubt their arguments would be kicked out by the UK courts if they pursued them here; they would certainly not be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This is simply an attempt by a heavy-weight corporation to brow-beat a small freelance news operation that dares to be critical of its editorial line. It is quite scandalous. The Times should be ashamed of itself." (Email to Media Lens, July 8, 2008)
Having minimal resources for fighting a court case, either in terms of time or money, we decided to delete Maddox’s email from our media alert, ‘Selling The Fireball’, as demanded. You can see the amended version here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080625_selling_the_fireball.php
We also published a message on our website emphasising the need for respectful communication with journalists. Coincidentally, we had previously discussed the issue at length in ’Compassionate Media Activism,’ an interview with former Buddhist monk, Matthew Bain, published this week on the new Elephant Skin website: http://www.elephantskin.org/2008/07/06/compassionate-media-activism-by-media-lens/
The happy result of this episode is that a number of high-powered legal minds have offered us their services free of charge should the need arise in future.
Peter Wilby wrote about the Times’ threat in the Guardian:
“We journalists are accustomed to dishing it out, but have the thinnest of skins. At the merest hint of criticism, we are apt to turn to our lawyers. One reason for this professional sensitivity, I suppose, is that journalists are insecure egotists who like to occupy the high moral ground. Criticism assaults their sense of self-worth and, since their colleagues and potential employers are assiduous consumers of print, it may damage their future prospects.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/07/pressandpublishing.advertising1)
Wilby quoted from the banned email, perhaps thereby indicating his own feelings on the matter. But his piece was ’balanced’. He criticised us for not providing a link to Maddox’s original article, for not urging readers to always read journalists’ work before writing, and for not making clear to Maddox who we were when we wrote to her. He contrasted these “failings” with the Times’s “professional sensitivities”, which he suggested were over-developed.
There was something missing from Wilby’s article, however: the human catastrophe that provides the moral backdrop to the entire debate. George Monbiot alluded to it in 2004 when he wrote: "the falsehoods reproduced by the media before the invasion of Iraq were massive and consequential: it is hard to see how Britain could have gone to war if the press had done its job.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/20/media.pressandpublishing)
Like the rest of the British media, the Times played a vital role in selling the public a pack of outrageous government lies that presented a totally non-existent and obviously risible ‘threat’ as somehow serious, plausible, and even (god help us!) urgent.
Many of the most sophisticated philosophies of human culture contend that rational understanding is the result, not just of wisdom, but also of compassion. This is certainly true of the current discussion. Brett’s complaints that our actions caused distress to one of his journalists, and Wilby’s ’balanced’ response, can seem almost reasonable, until we focus our minds and hearts (if we are able) on a single overwhelming fact. In significant part as a result of the actions of the British media, more than one million human beings are now lying dead in Iraq. In fact, the entire country has been subject to unrelenting destruction and slaughter by two decades of Western policy rooted in selfish greed. All of this has been buried in official propaganda, media silence and compromised ’balance’ - it barely exists for the public.
And of course there is more and worse. Almost unbelievably, the media’s Iran focus 2008 is near-identical to the media’s Iraq focus 2002-2003. It is entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of people will soon be lying dead in Iran as a result of sanctions and war, just across the border from Iraq.
The point is that we are unable to perceive the obscenity of the media silence surrounding this mass slaughter if we are unable to perceive the truth of those one million Iraqi deaths. And we cannot experience the truth of those deaths unless we have some compassion for our victims.
To understand what we have done to the Iraqi people, to feel something of their torment, casts the media silence in a very different light. It transforms, utterly, the actions of people like us trying to break that silence, as it does the actions of those who seek to stop us on the grounds that emailing journalists is “not proper behaviour” and makes “a mess of their inboxes”. (Brett)
In truth, the steps we have suggested are pitiful in their timidity. We have always seen media activism as a small, energising contribution intended to inspire much wider, much more profound, political organisation and activism.
What we have done to Iraq is not a video game; it is not a Hollywood invention. We really have destroyed an entire nation and brought misery to millions. About that, this whole country should not be writing a few emails; it should be in uproar.
News and politics
murdoch
media
media lens
RT On Air
Friday, 11 July 2008
Monday, 7 July 2008
GetUp - Climate Solutions Info Sheet
Climate change science & politics are moving very quickly.
We know that most Australians are confused about the severity and solutions. The government has done
a poor job thus far at bringing the electorate with them to face the challenge. That’s why we want GetUp
members to help lead the debate around the impacts of climate change and what needs to be done.
This period following the release of the draft Garnaut Report is vital to help shape this debate, as the government formulates its short and long term response. We must make certain that the government does not pander to the polluter industries and is reminded both of the reason they were elected and the importance of making the hard decisions now. This Info sheet is designed to give you some of the key facts to help you make an informed contribution to the debate.
We encourage you to take the next step and use our online tools to write a letter to the editor of your local
paper about climate solutions. More understanding of, and support for, effective climate solutions, means
more pressure on Kevin Rudd to pass strong laws to reduce greenhouse pollution.
The Garnaut Review
The Federal government commissioned the economist Ross Garnaut to do a study into the effects of climate change on Australia and the design of the emissions trading scheme (see over for explanation). The
draft Garnaut report was released on Friday 4th July, which the Government will respond to in a ‘Green
Paper’ on July 16th. Professor Garnaut’s final report will be released on September 30. It is likely that the
government will pass emissions trading legislation in March 2009, with the scheme starting in 2010.
GetUp believes that the Garnaut Report is to be supported. It is a strong wakeup call to Australians and
our politicians that there is no time for delay. But we believe it can go even further. In essence, Garnaut’s
draft report is the very minimum that should be done. We have outlined below where we think it is has fallen
short.
The Recent Science – Climate Change is Getting Worse, Faster.
The world’s top scientists and climatologists agree that climate change is happening much faster than
predicted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Australian scientist Tim Flannery
points out that, “For the rate of warming, rate of sea-level rise, and extent of carbon dioxide accumulation,
the real-world data all lie beyond what IPCC projections allow for. This indicates that we’re heading towards
a catastrophic scenario.”
For example, models developed by the CSIRO indicate that climate change will continue to reduce stream
flow in the Murray-Darling Basin, with a 10% probability of the river system drying up almost entirely. However, Tim Flannery points out that the state of the Murray today indicates this chance is higher than 10% - with the lower Murray, in particular, already at crisis point.
Recent evidence, such as last year’s dramatic Arctic melt , shows that the climate system is responding
faster than expected to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, with observed data being at the upper end,
or exceeding, IPCC climate model predictions. Melting is occurring so rapidly in the Artic that scientists now
suggest that there will be no summer ice by 2013, 90 years earlier than IPCC predictions. This is made
worse by the fact that global emissions are rising much more quickly than predicted in even the worse case
scenarios projected by the IPCC.
The Garnaut Review: Key Findings
Australia will be one of the worst affected countries from climate change. This is because:
• Since Australia is hotter and drier, small variations in temperature have a bigger effect.
• Because Australia is in a region that contains some of the most vulnerable, poor countries in the world,
such as Indonesia and the small states of the South Pacific, we will be affected by their problems
• The structure of our economy means that export prices will be punished severely by the climate-related
slowdown in poor countries.
• Garnuat found that climate change will cause up to 9500 heatwave deaths a year in Queensland by
2100
• If we don’t act, by 2100 climate change will have destroyed the Great Barrier Reef, reduced irrigated
agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin 92% by 2100, and caused 5.5 million Australians to be exposed
to dengue virus.
• If we don’t act, snow-based tourism in Australia will be longer viable by 2100; there will be an up to
35% increase in cost of supplying urban water, and significant risk to coastal buildings from increased
storm events and sea-level rise – leading to coastal and flash flooding & extreme wind damage.
• Climate change will have a disastrous impact on the Australian economy. Garnaut estimates this to be
a GDP collapse of 4.8 per cent, with a 7.8 per cent falls in real wages.
• Climate change will worsen political instability in Australia’s neighbouring countries.
• Garnaut found that the high emissions intensity of Australian energy use is mainly the result of our reliance
on coal for electricity.
The Federal Government’s Proposed Emissions Trading Scheme
What is an emissions trading scheme?
Before the last election, Kevin Rudd promised he would introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS) by
2010. The emissions trading scheme is the main focus of the Garnaut Review. Under the ETS, companies
will have to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases within an overall emissions target (currently the target
is 60 per cent reductions by 2050 over 2000 levels) set by the Rudd Government. Those companies can
trade those permits, allowing companies who pollute more to buy extra polluting power and smaller polluters
to make some money from polluting less. But the overall emissions cannot exceed the government’s
target. Australia’s emissions trading scheme will be designed to ensure Australia meets its target as part of
a global agreement to reduce greenhouse pollution – an agreement that will make up the 2nd phase of the
United Nations Kyoto Protocol.
Who is included in it and when will it start?
The Garnaut review says the ETS should be as broad as possible because the more companies and
industries who have to pay, the lower the price will be. That means power companies, agriculture companies
and transport companies should all be included. GetUp is campaigning for petrol to be included in the
scheme. The scheme is due to start in 2010, but the Opposition and carbon-polluting industries are pushing
Kevin Rudd to break this pre-election promise, and hold off the scheme until 2012.
So how will an ETS work?
To begin with, the government will need to auction emissions permits (although industry is lobbying for permits to be given away for free). Companies should have to pay for their original allocation of permits and for any they buy from other companies later on. Heavy polluters will need to buy more permits than light polluters while they work out how to cut their emissions. The Garnaut Review suggested an independent authority set up to monitor the ETS. This emissions umpire could act as a Reserve Bank for carbon, issuing extra permits to drive down the price or holding them back to prop it up, although the review says that might end up being too much trouble. The umpire would also have the power to penalise companies that exceed their allowed emissions. That would probably take the form of heavy fines. The draft review said fines would
need to be big enough to make companies sit up and take notice, rather than it being cheaper to cop the
penalty than cut emissions.
What would an effective ETS look like?
There is a lot of potential for an emissions trading scheme to be undermined by carbon-intensive polluting
industry lobby groups. The Draft Garnaut review found that a carbon tax would be more effective in reducing emissions than a heavily compromised emissions trading scheme. GetUp has developed a checklist of factors that an ETS would need to satisfy to be effective in changing Australia’s economy to a low-carbon one.
• A strong emissions cap. Australia’s greenhouse pollution must begin declining by 2010, and be reduced
50% over 1990 levels by 2020.
• Coverage of all sectors emitting greenhouse pollution including transport (esp. aviation).
• Auctioning of emissions permits - no free ‘permits to pollute’ for carbon-intensive industries.
• No compensation to industry, but assistance to low-income households to reduce energy.
• Revenue from the trading scheme to go to energy efficiency, renewable energy and public transport.
The Draft Review only recommends 20% go to deploying renewable energy – this is not enough.
• Scheme to begin operating fully in 2010 – no “soft start” to ease companies into it.
Where does the Garnaut Report fall short?
GetUp believes that the Garnaut Report does not, ultimately, go far enough in recommending the fundamental changes we need.
• Garnaut accepts that a ‘second-best’ option would be for the ETS to have a 2-year ‘slow start’ where
the price of carbon is fixed and where we only aim to meet our Kyoto targets – which are very weak –
an 8% increase in emissions over 1990 levels! GetUp believes an unconstrained ETS must begin in
2010.
• The Report proposes that half the proceeds from the sale of all permits is allocated to households,
around 30 per cent provided for structural adjustment needs for business (including any payments to
trade-exposed emissions intensive industries), and the remaining 20 per cent allocated to research and
development, and the commercialisation of new technologies. GetUp is concerned that this is a missed
opportunity to use the revenue to fundamentally change Australia’s economy to a low-carbon one. 30
per cent is too large an amount for compensating industry. More of this money should go to large-scale
deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as used to create new green jobs so we
have the people to do the work to save the climate.
• Money to assist low-income households is important, and should help these households reduce their
reliance on fossil fuels, thus saving large amounts of money over time. This means energy efficiency
programs and huge investments in public transport in outer suburban areas. Providing low-carbon
alternatives gives permanent relief from rising prices and supports the scheme’s goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOU TO ACT
Politicians will take necessary action on climate change when the voices of ordinary people demanding
change are impossible to ignore. We’re up against very powerful industries, so we need to come together
and organise to demand change!
This is a very important time to make your views heard. Over the next fortnight the government will formulates its response to Garnaut in the form of a Green Paper. We can help shape that debate by writing a letter to the editor of a few newspapers, or writing a blog post or comment. Politicians closely monitor newspapers and online blogs to gauge the mood of the public on current issues.
If you see an article that you agree with, send a letter to say why you agree. If there is an article from
someone who denies climate change is happening, write in and tell them to get their facts straight. There’s
a great toolkit on how to respond to climate change denialists: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics.
To Write a Letter to the Editor using GetUp’s online tool:
1. Go to the GetUp website: www.getup.org.au
2. On the front page, click on ‘Garnaut Climate Change Review: GetUp Responds’
3. This will take you to a campaign page where you enter your details and your postcode and write a short
letter to the editor of your newspaper.
Key points to make (you might want to focus on just a few of these)
• Climate change matters to you. Say why.
• The Garnaut Report is a wakeup call to Australians and should be adopted by the government at a minimum.
• We need an effective emissions trading scheme urgently. The scheme must start in 2010, not 2012 as proposed by the Opposition.
• Adopt strong targets for reducing greenhouse pollution – Australia’s emissions should begin to decline by 2010, and be cut 50% by 2020 over 1990 levels. The government’s current target of 60% by 2050 over 2000 levels is not enough to save our future.
• Reject the claims by polluters for free permits to pollute – they should bear the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, not our environment.
• Include as many sectors of the economy as possible in the emissions trading scheme, including transport and forestry.
• Use money raised from the emissions trading scheme to invest in energy efficiency, deploy large-scale renewable energy, help low income homes save energy, and restore Australia’s forest cover.
• The mandatory renewable energy target and other measures to increase renewable energy are really important – the emissions trading system won’t be able to reduce emissions without other measures.
We also encourage you to
1) write to, and meet with, your local Member of Parliament; and
2) Join your community climate action group - www.climatemovement.org.au
News and politics
media
We know that most Australians are confused about the severity and solutions. The government has done
a poor job thus far at bringing the electorate with them to face the challenge. That’s why we want GetUp
members to help lead the debate around the impacts of climate change and what needs to be done.
This period following the release of the draft Garnaut Report is vital to help shape this debate, as the government formulates its short and long term response. We must make certain that the government does not pander to the polluter industries and is reminded both of the reason they were elected and the importance of making the hard decisions now. This Info sheet is designed to give you some of the key facts to help you make an informed contribution to the debate.
We encourage you to take the next step and use our online tools to write a letter to the editor of your local
paper about climate solutions. More understanding of, and support for, effective climate solutions, means
more pressure on Kevin Rudd to pass strong laws to reduce greenhouse pollution.
The Garnaut Review
The Federal government commissioned the economist Ross Garnaut to do a study into the effects of climate change on Australia and the design of the emissions trading scheme (see over for explanation). The
draft Garnaut report was released on Friday 4th July, which the Government will respond to in a ‘Green
Paper’ on July 16th. Professor Garnaut’s final report will be released on September 30. It is likely that the
government will pass emissions trading legislation in March 2009, with the scheme starting in 2010.
GetUp believes that the Garnaut Report is to be supported. It is a strong wakeup call to Australians and
our politicians that there is no time for delay. But we believe it can go even further. In essence, Garnaut’s
draft report is the very minimum that should be done. We have outlined below where we think it is has fallen
short.
The Recent Science – Climate Change is Getting Worse, Faster.
The world’s top scientists and climatologists agree that climate change is happening much faster than
predicted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Australian scientist Tim Flannery
points out that, “For the rate of warming, rate of sea-level rise, and extent of carbon dioxide accumulation,
the real-world data all lie beyond what IPCC projections allow for. This indicates that we’re heading towards
a catastrophic scenario.”
For example, models developed by the CSIRO indicate that climate change will continue to reduce stream
flow in the Murray-Darling Basin, with a 10% probability of the river system drying up almost entirely. However, Tim Flannery points out that the state of the Murray today indicates this chance is higher than 10% - with the lower Murray, in particular, already at crisis point.
Recent evidence, such as last year’s dramatic Arctic melt , shows that the climate system is responding
faster than expected to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, with observed data being at the upper end,
or exceeding, IPCC climate model predictions. Melting is occurring so rapidly in the Artic that scientists now
suggest that there will be no summer ice by 2013, 90 years earlier than IPCC predictions. This is made
worse by the fact that global emissions are rising much more quickly than predicted in even the worse case
scenarios projected by the IPCC.
The Garnaut Review: Key Findings
Australia will be one of the worst affected countries from climate change. This is because:
• Since Australia is hotter and drier, small variations in temperature have a bigger effect.
• Because Australia is in a region that contains some of the most vulnerable, poor countries in the world,
such as Indonesia and the small states of the South Pacific, we will be affected by their problems
• The structure of our economy means that export prices will be punished severely by the climate-related
slowdown in poor countries.
• Garnuat found that climate change will cause up to 9500 heatwave deaths a year in Queensland by
2100
• If we don’t act, by 2100 climate change will have destroyed the Great Barrier Reef, reduced irrigated
agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin 92% by 2100, and caused 5.5 million Australians to be exposed
to dengue virus.
• If we don’t act, snow-based tourism in Australia will be longer viable by 2100; there will be an up to
35% increase in cost of supplying urban water, and significant risk to coastal buildings from increased
storm events and sea-level rise – leading to coastal and flash flooding & extreme wind damage.
• Climate change will have a disastrous impact on the Australian economy. Garnaut estimates this to be
a GDP collapse of 4.8 per cent, with a 7.8 per cent falls in real wages.
• Climate change will worsen political instability in Australia’s neighbouring countries.
• Garnaut found that the high emissions intensity of Australian energy use is mainly the result of our reliance
on coal for electricity.
The Federal Government’s Proposed Emissions Trading Scheme
What is an emissions trading scheme?
Before the last election, Kevin Rudd promised he would introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS) by
2010. The emissions trading scheme is the main focus of the Garnaut Review. Under the ETS, companies
will have to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases within an overall emissions target (currently the target
is 60 per cent reductions by 2050 over 2000 levels) set by the Rudd Government. Those companies can
trade those permits, allowing companies who pollute more to buy extra polluting power and smaller polluters
to make some money from polluting less. But the overall emissions cannot exceed the government’s
target. Australia’s emissions trading scheme will be designed to ensure Australia meets its target as part of
a global agreement to reduce greenhouse pollution – an agreement that will make up the 2nd phase of the
United Nations Kyoto Protocol.
Who is included in it and when will it start?
The Garnaut review says the ETS should be as broad as possible because the more companies and
industries who have to pay, the lower the price will be. That means power companies, agriculture companies
and transport companies should all be included. GetUp is campaigning for petrol to be included in the
scheme. The scheme is due to start in 2010, but the Opposition and carbon-polluting industries are pushing
Kevin Rudd to break this pre-election promise, and hold off the scheme until 2012.
So how will an ETS work?
To begin with, the government will need to auction emissions permits (although industry is lobbying for permits to be given away for free). Companies should have to pay for their original allocation of permits and for any they buy from other companies later on. Heavy polluters will need to buy more permits than light polluters while they work out how to cut their emissions. The Garnaut Review suggested an independent authority set up to monitor the ETS. This emissions umpire could act as a Reserve Bank for carbon, issuing extra permits to drive down the price or holding them back to prop it up, although the review says that might end up being too much trouble. The umpire would also have the power to penalise companies that exceed their allowed emissions. That would probably take the form of heavy fines. The draft review said fines would
need to be big enough to make companies sit up and take notice, rather than it being cheaper to cop the
penalty than cut emissions.
What would an effective ETS look like?
There is a lot of potential for an emissions trading scheme to be undermined by carbon-intensive polluting
industry lobby groups. The Draft Garnaut review found that a carbon tax would be more effective in reducing emissions than a heavily compromised emissions trading scheme. GetUp has developed a checklist of factors that an ETS would need to satisfy to be effective in changing Australia’s economy to a low-carbon one.
• A strong emissions cap. Australia’s greenhouse pollution must begin declining by 2010, and be reduced
50% over 1990 levels by 2020.
• Coverage of all sectors emitting greenhouse pollution including transport (esp. aviation).
• Auctioning of emissions permits - no free ‘permits to pollute’ for carbon-intensive industries.
• No compensation to industry, but assistance to low-income households to reduce energy.
• Revenue from the trading scheme to go to energy efficiency, renewable energy and public transport.
The Draft Review only recommends 20% go to deploying renewable energy – this is not enough.
• Scheme to begin operating fully in 2010 – no “soft start” to ease companies into it.
Where does the Garnaut Report fall short?
GetUp believes that the Garnaut Report does not, ultimately, go far enough in recommending the fundamental changes we need.
• Garnaut accepts that a ‘second-best’ option would be for the ETS to have a 2-year ‘slow start’ where
the price of carbon is fixed and where we only aim to meet our Kyoto targets – which are very weak –
an 8% increase in emissions over 1990 levels! GetUp believes an unconstrained ETS must begin in
2010.
• The Report proposes that half the proceeds from the sale of all permits is allocated to households,
around 30 per cent provided for structural adjustment needs for business (including any payments to
trade-exposed emissions intensive industries), and the remaining 20 per cent allocated to research and
development, and the commercialisation of new technologies. GetUp is concerned that this is a missed
opportunity to use the revenue to fundamentally change Australia’s economy to a low-carbon one. 30
per cent is too large an amount for compensating industry. More of this money should go to large-scale
deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as used to create new green jobs so we
have the people to do the work to save the climate.
• Money to assist low-income households is important, and should help these households reduce their
reliance on fossil fuels, thus saving large amounts of money over time. This means energy efficiency
programs and huge investments in public transport in outer suburban areas. Providing low-carbon
alternatives gives permanent relief from rising prices and supports the scheme’s goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOU TO ACT
Politicians will take necessary action on climate change when the voices of ordinary people demanding
change are impossible to ignore. We’re up against very powerful industries, so we need to come together
and organise to demand change!
This is a very important time to make your views heard. Over the next fortnight the government will formulates its response to Garnaut in the form of a Green Paper. We can help shape that debate by writing a letter to the editor of a few newspapers, or writing a blog post or comment. Politicians closely monitor newspapers and online blogs to gauge the mood of the public on current issues.
If you see an article that you agree with, send a letter to say why you agree. If there is an article from
someone who denies climate change is happening, write in and tell them to get their facts straight. There’s
a great toolkit on how to respond to climate change denialists: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics.
To Write a Letter to the Editor using GetUp’s online tool:
1. Go to the GetUp website: www.getup.org.au
2. On the front page, click on ‘Garnaut Climate Change Review: GetUp Responds’
3. This will take you to a campaign page where you enter your details and your postcode and write a short
letter to the editor of your newspaper.
Key points to make (you might want to focus on just a few of these)
• Climate change matters to you. Say why.
• The Garnaut Report is a wakeup call to Australians and should be adopted by the government at a minimum.
• We need an effective emissions trading scheme urgently. The scheme must start in 2010, not 2012 as proposed by the Opposition.
• Adopt strong targets for reducing greenhouse pollution – Australia’s emissions should begin to decline by 2010, and be cut 50% by 2020 over 1990 levels. The government’s current target of 60% by 2050 over 2000 levels is not enough to save our future.
• Reject the claims by polluters for free permits to pollute – they should bear the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, not our environment.
• Include as many sectors of the economy as possible in the emissions trading scheme, including transport and forestry.
• Use money raised from the emissions trading scheme to invest in energy efficiency, deploy large-scale renewable energy, help low income homes save energy, and restore Australia’s forest cover.
• The mandatory renewable energy target and other measures to increase renewable energy are really important – the emissions trading system won’t be able to reduce emissions without other measures.
We also encourage you to
1) write to, and meet with, your local Member of Parliament; and
2) Join your community climate action group - www.climatemovement.org.au
News and politics
media
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)