Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The truth about coal climate 'solutions'

By Tony Kevin - posted Monday, 30 June 2008

We face, in coming weeks, a political tipping point in how Professor Ross Garnaut's Climate Change Review report will be publicly received and debated.

The Garnaut Climate Change Review draft report will be issued publicly on Friday, July 4. A couple of weeks after that, the Government will issue a Green Paper, which, according to Climate Change Minister Senator Penny Wong, “will outline Government's thinking informed by a range of matters” including the report, advice from within the government and consultations with business and industry.

Garnaut believes transport fuels should be included in a carbon emissions trading scheme. He told the Canberra Times earlier this month that it was “Kevin Rudd's and Penny Wong's job to decide what they can manage, but I can't see any good reason for excluding transport”.


A carbon emissions price of between $20 and $40 per tonne - an average expectation of where the market price might settle - would increase the price of petrol by between 5 and 10 cents per litre.

Neither major party is now committing itself on whether motor fuels should be included in a carbon emissions trading system. The recent public furore over increased petrol prices has spooked them both.

But Malcolm Turnbull (Canberra Times, June 25, 2008) sensibly suggests that one option is to “keep the carbon price across the board, including liquid fuels, but reduce the excise as you impose the carbon price”. In other words, leave the market price unchanged, through government forgoing the excise tax.

This makes economic and psychological sense. If the carbon emissions trading system is to have any real economic effect, it has to be universal. Once exceptions start to be allowed, everyone will want special treatment and the integrity and credibility of the system will be lost. The burden on those industries left in the system will be proportionately higher, or the system will be watered down so far as to simply become window-dressing.

The purpose of carbon trading is to kick-start a process of real reduction in how we consume fossil fuels, using market forces as the generator of beneficial change. We need an economic jolt to begin to restructure our economy towards non-emitting renewable energy technologies, across the board - in industry, transport, our homes and workplaces. There simply is no time now to tinker with half-measures.

The informed public knows this, but disturbingly we are not included in Senator Wong's list of stakeholders to whom she will listen when considering Garnaut's recommendations. Those inconvenienced by change will always shout louder than the majority - and that means all of us - who stand to benefit from it.


The coal industry has enormous lobbying and decision-corrupting influence over the political process, and I fear it may succeed in diluting Garnaut's recommendations to a level at which they will have no real effect on society's expectations and behaviour.

The recent furore over petrol price increases came at the worst possible time for intelligent public debate of the Garnaut recommendations. Public panic gives the coal industry an enormous opportunity to scaremonger and to push phoney solutions such as conversion of coal or gas into diesel fuel, and generation of hydrogen fuel.

All these so-called solutions emit greenhouse gases as coal and oil do. The only real solution is the fastest possible move to a renewable energy-based economy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in Eureka Street on June 26, 2008. Garnaut Climate Change Review website.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Tony Kevin holds degrees in civil engineering, and in economics and political science. He retired from the Australian foreign service in 1998, after a 30-year career during which he served in the Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister’s departments, and was Australia’s ambassador to Poland and Cambodia. He is currently an honorary visiting fellow at the Australian National University’s Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies in Canberra. He has written extensively on Australian foreign, national security, and refugee policies in Australia’s national print media, and is the author of the award-winning books A Certain Maritime Incident – the Sinking of SIEV X, and Walking the Camino: a modern pilgrimage to Santiago. His third book on the global climate crisis, Crunch Time: Using and abusing Keynes to fight the twin crises of our era was published by Scribe in September 2009.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tony Kevin

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Tony Kevin
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy