Australians in dark on emissions effort
Stapleton, John. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T] 23 Feb 2009: 4.
Stapleton, John. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T] 23 Feb 2009: 4.
Abstract
“Most people think by doing their bit in the household they will reduce Australia’s emissions,” Dr [Richard Denniss] said.
“While most people understand that emissions trading creates a cap above which emissions can’t rise, it also createsa floor below which emissions can’t fall.”
“It seems like a dangerous strategy,” Dr Denniss said. “With such a complex proposal, the Government should think back to the political difficulties John Hewson faced when he couldn’t explain simply what impact a GST would have on the price of a birthday cake.”
Full Text
MOST Australians have no idea how Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme will work, and do not realise individual efforts will make no difference to stopping climate change.
More than three-quarters of Australians believe that if they reduce their household emissions, the nation’s total emissions would go down.
Polling to be published by the Australia Institute this week found almost 90per cent of respondents believe households and individuals should be able to contribute to reducing national greenhouse emissions.
More than 70 per cent of of the 1000 randomly selected people polled believe their actions, such as turning off light bulbs and putting insulation in their roofs, have contributed to a reduction.
Australia Institute executive director Richard Denniss said the polling, conducted this month by Research Now for the paper Zero Sum Game, showed massive public confusion about the way emissions trading would work.
“Most people think by doing their bit in the household they will reduce Australia’s emissions,” Dr Denniss said.
“But the fact is once emissions trading comes in, every tonne of emissions saved by households simply frees up an extra permit that will allow big polluters to increase their emissions.
“This is because emissions trading relies on a fixed number of pollution permits being in circulation at any point in time.
“While most people understand that emissions trading creates a cap above which emissions can’t rise, it also createsa floor below which emissions can’t fall.”
Dr Denniss said Kevin Rudd did not appear to understand his own scheme.
He said the Prime Minister appeared to mislead parliament recently by claiming that, in spending $4billion on insulating 2.2million homes as part of his economic stimulus package, greenhouse emissions would be reduced by 49million tonnes.
In fact, under an ETS all it would do was transfer these emissions to large polluters, Dr Denniss said. He said the Government appeared to be relying on the public’s lack of understanding to build support for the scheme.
“It seems like a dangerous strategy,” Dr Denniss said. “With such a complex proposal, the Government should think back to the political difficulties John Hewson faced when he couldn’t explain simply what impact a GST would have on the price of a birthday cake.”
The Australia Institute polling also found that about half the population believes big polluters should pay for the costs of climate change.
MOST Australians have no idea how Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme will work, and do not realise individual efforts will make no difference to stopping climate change.
More than three-quarters of Australians believe that if they reduce their household emissions, the nation’s total emissions would go down.
Polling to be published by the Australia Institute this week found almost 90per cent of respondents believe households and individuals should be able to contribute to reducing national greenhouse emissions.
More than 70 per cent of of the 1000 randomly selected people polled believe their actions, such as turning off light bulbs and putting insulation in their roofs, have contributed to a reduction.
Australia Institute executive director Richard Denniss said the polling, conducted this month by Research Now for the paper Zero Sum Game, showed massive public confusion about the way emissions trading would work.
“Most people think by doing their bit in the household they will reduce Australia’s emissions,” Dr Denniss said.
“But the fact is once emissions trading comes in, every tonne of emissions saved by households simply frees up an extra permit that will allow big polluters to increase their emissions.
“This is because emissions trading relies on a fixed number of pollution permits being in circulation at any point in time.
“While most people understand that emissions trading creates a cap above which emissions can’t rise, it also createsa floor below which emissions can’t fall.”
Dr Denniss said Kevin Rudd did not appear to understand his own scheme.
He said the Prime Minister appeared to mislead parliament recently by claiming that, in spending $4billion on insulating 2.2million homes as part of his economic stimulus package, greenhouse emissions would be reduced by 49million tonnes.
In fact, under an ETS all it would do was transfer these emissions to large polluters, Dr Denniss said. He said the Government appeared to be relying on the public’s lack of understanding to build support for the scheme.
“It seems like a dangerous strategy,” Dr Denniss said. “With such a complex proposal, the Government should think back to the political difficulties John Hewson faced when he couldn’t explain simply what impact a GST would have on the price of a birthday cake.”
The Australia Institute polling also found that about half the population believes big polluters should pay for the costs of climate change.