What's Wrong With the CPRS
The Government's CPRS needs to go back to the drawing board. It rewards the big polluters and won't reduce emissions.
When the government first announced the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS), Greenpeace labelled the 5% emissions reductions pathetic and the handouts to the big polluters a giant waste of money. We weren’t alone in our criticism. Everyone except Penny Wong thought it was dismal.
So the government came back with CPRS mark II. From an environmental point of view, it was hard to see how it could get much worse. But it did.
CPRS Mark II
The largest polluters will be given even more free permits, the scheme will be delayed (effectively for 2 years) and the price on carbon capped at only $10/tonne for the first year.
To win support from some parts of the environmental lobby, there was an increase in the potential maximum emissions reduction target from 15% to 25% cuts by 2020. It was a case of one step forward, one step back. Meanwhile the unconditional emissions reduction target remains a paltry 5%.
While any increase in targets is a step in the right direction, the 25% target comes with very strict conditions which may make it illusion rather than reality. Bernard Keane from independent media website, crikey.com.au, likened the target to saying, 'Free for pensioners if accompanied by both grandparents'.
And, instead of cutting any emissions at home, the big polluters can buy ‘permits-to-pollute’ abroad. So in fact, they don’t have to reduce emissions at all.
Some scheme, that CPRS.
Read what we thought about the 'new' CPRS:
» Back to the 'Get Informed' index
At the Climate Summit in early 2009, climate groups agreed to three objectives for the year. One of them was to stop the CPRS from becoming law. © Greenpeace/Belevi
Did you know?
By investing in the research and commercialisation of renewable technologies, Australia could:
- reduce greenhouse pollution
- generate investment and boost the economy
- create more jobs