Proposed amendments to the Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme may hit low-income families hardest, while failing to address the problem of big polluters. Shevonne Hunt reports.

Senator Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water (Image: penrithsustainabilityunit)

Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the Opposition, says that his amendments to the government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme will make the plan cheaper and more efficient whilst delivering the same outcome for the environment. Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water, says she welcomes the proposals and will now sit down to negotiate a deal in earnest.

But what kind of deal will they be hammering out? The coalition’s amendments include several major concessions to big polluters that will cost more in compensation and protect the very industries contributing to climate change.

Tony Moore, climate change program manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the proposed changes favoured the big polluters in Australia.

“The concessions proposed by the coalition had an extra 11.2 billion dollars additional compensation for the big polluters in this country over the first five years of the scheme,” he said.

“That’s on top of the compensation that’s already been promised by the labor government.”

The Conservation Foundation, along with the Climate Institute, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Council of Trade Unions are calling for the Government to reject the coalition’s amendments saying that they weaken the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), and place a heavy burden on low income Australians.

Listen to the Wire’s podcast of this story

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Dr. Stuart Rosewarne from the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney said that even though the coalition are asking for further compensation for the big polluters, they have no guarantees that the industry will lower emissions.

“There was a very telling response by Ian McFarlane, the acting shadow Minister for the Environment … when he made the simple comment that the ETS won’t necessarily reduce emissions,” he said.

“I think one of the real dangers of what the Liberals are proposing is that it would substantially increase levels of compensation without any guarantee that the big polluters are going to reduce their levels of emissions. In some respects it will actually encourage them to increase their emissions.”

Claire Martin, from the Australian Council of Social Services, said that compensating the big polluters will end up hurting low income earners.

“If there are greater subsidies going to the generators who provide power from coal, then what we won’t see is the incentive to change that source of power,” she said.

“And subsisdies will then take away from important support for low income households to pay for higher energy costs.”

The coalition has also asked for agriculture to be completely exempt from the CPRS. Currently under the Government’s scheme it would be excluded for the first five years only. This amendment has received support from the industry, with the National Farmers Federation saying it make good economic and environmental sense.

Professor John Quiggan, an economist at the University of Queensland said: “I think what we’re seeing though is a suggestion from the coalition that agriculture should get all the aspects of the scheme where they benefit – they should be fully included – but anywhere they will be costs they should be excluded.

“And clearly if every industry got that kind of treatment, either the scheme wouldn’t work or the full cost would be loaded back on the tax payers.”

Richard Dennis, executive director of the Australia Institute said that even without the coalition’s amendments the CPRS is weak.

“The politics of this are really straightforward,” he said.

“The public thinks something is happening to tackle climate change, the polluters are confident that it’s not. Unfortunately I think by the time people figure out what has actually happened then we’ll do to climate change what we’ve done to the river Murray, and that is kill it with a very poorly designed trading scheme.”

Shevonne Hunt is a producer for the Wire

Do you think more exemptions will ruin the CPRS? Tell us what you think below.