“Individual efforts to reduce energy use will have absolutely no effect on the level of Australia’s emissions,” he said. “The least understood feature of the ETS is that the more effort households put into reducing their energy use, the more spare permits they are freeing up for the big polluters. It is a zero-sum game.”

“Nothing an individual does will make any difference,” he said. “Individual actions like replacing globes, installing insulation and solar water heaters and collective actions like Earth Hour will be to no avail.”

“We spent all this money and it reduced Australia’s emissions, but once an ETS comes in, other people like us won’t be able to make a difference as other sectors of the economy would just increase their emissions by the same amount as individuals reduce theirs. It doesn’t make sense,” she said.

THE millions of well-intentioned Australians turning off light bulbs, installing insulation in their ceilings and solar panels on their roofs, cycling to work or buying low-emission cars are wasting time and money.

Commentators from both sides of the climate debate have criticised the emissions trading scheme proposed by the federal Government as being ineffectual.

Under the scheme, the more individuals save on their emissions the more corporate polluters such as coal stations and aluminium smelters are allowed to emit.

The left-leaning Australia Institute and pro free-market think tanks the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies all condemned the ETS this week.

Australia Institute head Richard Denniss said an ETS had almost no friends, either within industry or among economists and green groups.

“Individual efforts to reduce energy use will have absolutely no effect on the level of Australia’s emissions,” he said. “The least understood feature of the ETS is that the more effort households put into reducing their energy use, the more spare permits they are freeing up for the big polluters. It is a zero-sum game.”

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said every Australian should help reduce carbon pollution and contribute to meeting Australia’s emissions reduction target.

“Improving energy efficiency in our homes will position Australia to set even more ambitious carbon pollution reduction targets in the future,” she said.

But Mr Denniss dismissed these claims: “If Minister Wong is genuinely proud of her system, she should honestly and simply explain to the public that for the next 12 years at least, nothing they do to reduce their emissions will have any impact.”

Chartered accountant and member of the lobby group Sandbag Climate Campaign, Jeremy Burke, said people would feel betrayed by an ETS.

“Nothing an individual does will make any difference,” he said. “Individual actions like replacing globes, installing insulation and solar water heaters and collective actions like Earth Hour will be to no avail.”

Reserve Bank board member and economist Warwick McKibben said the problems with an ETS were well known and the rest of the world was already moving away from such schemes.

John Humphreys, research fellow at the CIS, said that by cancelling the House of Representatives inquiry this week the Government was shutting down debate. “It’s a shame; it is an important debate,” he said.

“Under the ETS as it is designed if you do reforms in your own home it allows the electricity companies to sell those permits to another carbon emitter.”

Tracey Tipping, 32, who sells environmentally-friendly products online, has done everything possible to reduce her emissions. She and her husband have installed energy-efficient light bulbs in their home and bought carbon offsets for their car. The couple recently spent almost $20,000 after rebates on their solar panels and hot water system, reducing their already lean electrical consumption by 80 per cent.

“We spent all this money and it reduced Australia’s emissions, but once an ETS comes in, other people like us won’t be able to make a difference as other sectors of the economy would just increase their emissions by the same amount as individuals reduce theirs. It doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Credit: John Stapleton

ORIGINAL COPY