The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was trash policy hated by both business and environmentalists

If you’ve ever argued with the drips¹ at some point they will bring up “Muh ETS” as a narrative about the ALP being better on the environment. It’s a lie. The ETS was trash policy hated by both business and environmentalists and it’s failure was a self inflicted wound.

First let’s talk about what the ETS is. It was actually part of Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) Basically it put a price on carbon using a market mechanism (ETS) + subsidies for transition and had a low target for actual carbon reductions.

So what did the experts think of it? The target of 5-15% reduction on the scheme was a joke. Experts also tore into exemptions for the worst polluters. The scheme was a complete farce.

You can find their responses here:

RAPID ROUNDUP: Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme – White Paper – experts respond

This is part of a broader pattern where the ALP adopts the aesthetic of change while actually doing less than the bare minimum. You can see it with the ALPs record on same sex marriage.

So how did the broader environmentalist movement respond? They held a summit of over 150 groups and they came to the agreement to campaign against the law. The Greens followed both the scientific community and grass roots activists demands.

Climate Summit decides 2009 objectives

So did the CPRS even have the support of the business sector. Nope. These people don’t want anything that will cost them a cent. When you see business leaders pine for the ETS it’s 100% in bad faith. All they want to do is distract from their complicity.

This is most visible in the minerals council submission to parliament in the CPRS. Whinging about risk cost and red herrings about tech. Also note the attempts to lie about modelling.

The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) has several key reservations over the proposed CPRS. It claims that the scheme design is out of step with other schemes being implemented globally, is not calibrated with the availability of low emissions technologies, and will impose the world s highest carbon costs. It suggests that the proposed $40 price cap for emissions permits is too high and will not prevent damaging carbon price volatility. It is concerned that these design features will make meeting the proposed 2020 target very challenging.

Although the MCA welcomed certain aspects of the changes announced on 4 May, it is still concerned that the auctioning of AEUs will not be gradually introduced, and that the scheme will distort domestic economic activity by imposing different carbon costs on various sectors of the economy. It is wary of a complex scheme design with critical elements (including the treatment of emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms) being dealt with in regulations, which adds uncertainty and imposes high compliance burdens.

The Council has voiced concerns over results of modelling undertaken by Concept Economics showing that, under the proposed CPRS, almost 24,000 jobs would be lost from the minerals sector by 2020. In light of this, the Minerals Council believes that a phased approach to the introduction of full auctioning of permits would save thousands of jobs while still delivering the required environmental benefits.

So we are at a point now where this bill is hated by everyone but the ALP and the moderate Liberals. So let’s get to how the incompetent political maneuvering of two people who saw themselves as “great men of history” lead to the massive dumpster fire.

Let’s start the timeline in 1 February. The Greens 7 months before the vote announce they are going to fight the bill because it’s trash. In August Rudd decides to ignore months of warnings by the Greens assuming weak climate action is enough to hold them hostage.

The wedge predictably fails humiliating Rudd. The Liberals vote against the bill.This is like running into traffic and being surprised when a car hits you. It’s extremely dumb. The greens continue to offer to negotiate a better target with the ALP.

I want you to pay close attention to the last source. Particularly how the Liberals are acting in the Senate.

Abetz is engaging in climate change denial here. This is a huge warning sign that will come back to haunt Rudd later.

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz accused the Government of painting everyone who is against the scheme as a climate change sceptic. “Labor’s response to those that question some of the scientific paradigms has been shrill, extreme and doctrinaire,” he said. If the Government waits three months to re-introduce the legislation and it is again defeated, it will provide a trigger for a double dissolution election.

The ALP humiliated decides to blow up negotiations with the Greens by refusing to put higher targets on the table.

The Minister (Ms Wong) said she would negotiate around the Greens’ proposed amendments on the condition that any negotiations exclude the critical issue of emissions reduction targets. “Senator Brown and I have written to Minister Wong urging her to reconsider this extraordinary pre-condition, given that the Greens have not placed pre-conditions on discussions,” Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne said. “Minister Wong’s demand once again exposes how disconnected from reality this debate has become. We have a Government and Opposition in furious agreement about doing far too little to avert the climate crisis and no focus on the critical question of actually cutting emissions. – Wong strikes targets from CPRS negotiations

This leaves Rudd and Wong with one option. Our other “great man” Malcolm Turnbull. Remember the warning signs from earlier? They’re coming back with a vengeance soon. So the duopoly negotiate a deal. The whole time the hard right is losing it.

Kevin Rudd offers an extra $7 billion compensation to win emissions trading scheme support from Coalition MPs

Surprise! The right makes a move on Turnbull because he overestimates himself and underestimates the hard right. It gets more interesting. The only reason Abbott wins is Turnbull can’t handle defeat and decides to stand again and split the moderates.

Shock win for Abbott in leadership vote Tony Abbott is the new leader of the Liberal Party after ousting Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote in a leadership spill today.

Shock win for Abbott in leadership vote

At this point the ETS is dead. Abbot is now in control of the coalition and the bill is even more shit so the Greens aren’t ever going to vote for it. It dies in the Senate. Rudd now has a double dissolution trigger despite being humiliated again.

Senate votes down ETS

Rudd’s then thinks that he can get pressure by getting an international treaty at Copenhagen. It fails miserably.

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure

Rudd doesn’t call a double dissolution. Instead he runs away from the ETS. It’s everyone else’s fault. He’s a great man you see. It’s not like it was a poorly constructed bill designed to make the ALP look progressive. Gillard knifes Rudd soon after.

Rudd deflects blame for emissions backflip

While Rudd lives bitterly ever after, the Greens surge in the next election taking huge amounts of votes from Labor. They also take their first House of Representatives seat. This paves the way for the for the Greens to negotiate a carbon price with Gillard. This is an important lesson now.

Note this is part one of two. The next part is about green-washing and will investigate why the ETS is used as a means of complaining about the Greens.

Original piece here – Thread reader

Addendum

James Burke writes: The Coalition’s been in government for six years. So why is Labor attacking the Greens again? For ten years Labor’s been trying to summon the courage to stand up to the schoolyard bullies. Every morning it whispers into the mirror: “This time. Today’s the day I tell Rupert and Gina and Alan and the rest to piss off, and they’ll see I mean business and leave me alone!” Yet every day, year after year, it wets its pants and hands over its lunch money… then goes looking for a smaller kid to pick on.

References

https://web.archive.org/web/20081222011246/http://www.aussmc.org/CPRS_White_Paper.php

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wong-backs-labors-antigay-marriage-stance-20100725-10q37.html

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australia-on-verge-of-signing-emissions-trading-scheme-plan-after-last-minute-concessions-to-coalition/news-story/ecb4dd0b8ca392de445608648c8569b9

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/climate-summit-decides-2009-objectives/

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd059#Main

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-27/rudd-deflects-blame-for-emissions-backflip/412154

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

https://www.smh.com.au/national/senate-votes-down-ets-20091202-k51z.html

https://greensmps.org.au/articles/wong-strikes-targets-cprs-negotiations

https://greens.org.au/cprs

Footnotes

1. The definition of a “drip” on Twitter, hasn’t really been formalised. It began as a drip emoji to depict Angus Taylor’s water scandal then its meaning evolved to describe vocal, almost cult-like Labor supporters.