CPRS, ETS, GHG – climate change can be a linguistic mess of scientific terms, percentages, economic modelling and policy mumbo-jumbo.

Our new intern, Steph, has set out to demystify the emissions trading scheme.

I have a confession. I’m certainly concerned about climate change but I don’t really know what it’s about. I know that temperatures are rising and that the polar ice caps are melting. I know that it’s got something to do with greenhouse gases, how much I drive my car and whether I leave my lights on at home. I also know that Rudd and Turnbull have been fighting over this ‘ETS’ policy thing for quite a while now, but what does it all mean???

Studying an international studies degree, I felt that I needed to get a better understanding of this increasingly politicised issue of climate change. An internship at Greenpeace seemed like a logical thing to do. After all, if anyone could help me understand the whole climate change thing, the staff at Greenpeace certainly would.

I must admit that the first day was rather daunting. The only thing I’d heard about Greenpeace was in the news: Greenpeace employees being arrested after shutting down coal-fired power stations, their high-speed pursuit of Japanese whaling ships and hanging banners off of Mt Rushmore in the US.

Was I launching myself into a world of environmental-radicalism? Would I be required to chain myself to trees? Launch myself off buildings? Become a vegetarian? Sell my car? Would I be sitting in a circle singing ‘Kumbuyah’ every lunchtime?

Well, I had nothing to worry about. Far from working with a bunch of tree-hugging hippies, over the last few weeks I’ve found myself inspired and befriended by a group of intelligent and down-to-earth individuals. They’ve got the same degrees as everyone else in the business world, but they’ve chosen to work for something they’re really passionate about.

But, back to the reason that I came to Greenpeace – to better understand climate change. One thing in particular I really wanted to know was what’s this emissions trading scheme (ETS) that Rudd and Turnbull are fighting about? I managed to chat to Emma, one of the climate change gurus at Greenpeace, who patiently explained to me what it all means…

So, according to Emma, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) are two interchangeable terms for a mechanism that should, in theory, reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we (Aussie) humans are putting into the Earth’s atmosphere, like carbon dioxide and methane.

An ETS can limit these emissions by putting a price on pollution. The general idea behind emissions trading is that the government puts a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced each year. Any industry or business that creates these emissions (like a power station) would need to buy a permit giving them permission to emit a certain amount of carbon. The more carbon they want to emit, the more they would have to pay for it.

How it works – in theory – to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, is that over time, the cap would be reduced. By reducing the total level of carbon that can be emitted each year – and thus the total number of permits – the cost of the permits will rise. As it becomes more expensive to create pollution, polluting industries would be forced to come up with more energy efficient and less polluting ways of doing business.

Sound like a good idea? Well it may sound like a robust solution to a pretty complex problem, but unfortunately the way the Rudd Government has designed Australia’s ETS is anything but robust.

One of the biggest design flaws with the current ETS is that the government is proposing to hand out billions of dollars worth of permits (yep, for free!) to the biggest polluters in Australia. This is supposed to ‘protect’ them from the impact of the scheme – and no matter if it seems to undermine the whole purpose!
There are other major design flaws too. The government has aimed extremely low in determining how much of an impact the scheme will have over the next ten years. A cap of 5-25% less pollution by 2020 isn’t going to reign in Australia’s greenhouse emissions in the urgent timeframe required by climate change. This is why Greenpeace is calling for the government to take the ETS back to the drawing board, and put protecting Australia from the impacts of climate change before protecting big business profits.