Two critiques of the CPRS today. First, Barry Brook and Tim Kelly have sent a submission to the Senate inquiry, discussing the problems they see with the CPRS. Most should be no shock to LP readers – Brook points out the ineffectiveness of voluntary actions under the CPRS regime, and, given that, calls for more consideration of the carbon tax alternative. Guy Pearse is in The Age discussing the subsidies to Big Carbon and the likelihood of most of Australia’s “cuts in emissions” being the result of purchasing carbon credits on the international market.
Pearse’s belief is that most of the purchased credits will be the result of avoided deforestation in developing countries, and he’s probably right. However, his argument seems to sometimes veer dangerously close to the position that only emissions reductions obtained by burning less fossil fuels are somehow legitimate:
Moreover, if cheap carbon storage in forests is done instead of cutting emissions, that enables industries to continue on their merry way and delays the hard task of cutting actual greenhouse pollution by another couple of decades.
Emissions not released because forests aren’t logged, and peat bogs are left submerged, aren’t any less “real” than ones released by burning coal or oil. We will clearly have to stop emissions from both sources.