By Josh Kenworthy | Melbourne editor

Hazelwood Power station in Victoria. Image: Jenny Jagerhorn

The Victorian government’s plan to shut down Hazelwood Power Station, outlined in its Climate Change White Paper, has been welcomed by unions in the area.

The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC) Secretary/Treasurer, John Parker said he was pleased with the white paper because it gave the industry enough notice to begin shifting to new industries.

“We’ve been saying to the government, ‘we want to know the truth and we want to know your best estimate of what’s going to happen’.”

Parker said, “The employer’s association have been saying for quite a while, behind the scenes, that by 2020 with a carbon trading scheme two of the power stations will probably be gone. And what we’ve said [to the government] is that we need… to be able to do that transition now.”

He also described the closure as a “brave call” by state government to give the early notice which is in stark contrast to the thousands of people left unemployed during the privatisations of the Kennett era.

GTLC Assistant Secretary, Steve Dodd, said it is now important that the government “consult the community and the unions about setting up new jobs for the people to run into.”

According to Parker, the average age of Hazelwood workers is 55 so it is expected that retirement will help with phasing out of Hazelwood while the rest of Gippsland’s skilled work force, mostly working in the power industry, will need to transfer to new industries like solar, construction, wind or dairy.

The white paper, released on Monday, outlines plans to shut down one quarter of Hazelwood Power Station by 2014 and to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.

Environment Victoria (EV) said the emissions target showed strong leadership.

“Victoria’s new target is a strong leadership move that is head and shoulders above any other state or national emissions reduction target in Australia. It is in stark contrast to the weak targets and lack of policy from both the Federal ALP and Coalition,” EV chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy said.

“While the science tells us we need to go further than a 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2020, the Premier is building a bridge between what we are currently doing about climate change in Australia and what we need to be doing,” she said.

Josh Kenworthy is a student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Related articles

Hundreds protest over Rudd’s backflip
Climate protesters planning new protests
The grimy valley struggles on

Despite being made of plastic bottles and recycled materials, the Plastiki catamaran survived its four-month ocean voyage to land in Sydney with a rousing call to end plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, Nick Evershed reports.

By Jess Black

Container deposit scheme is getting mixed responses. Image: kingdesmond1337

Monday’s commitment by the States and Territories to further assess the viability of a National container deposit scheme has been dubbed both heartening and a waste of tax payer’s money.

The scheme, which has been challenged by industry bodies, will see a country-wide roll out of container collection depots which will remunerate the consumer 10 cents for every bottle or can returned to the collection site.

“It’s actually a significant step forward. We’ve had the argument from the NSW government for quite a long time and “We need to have a federal approach” has been the excuse that they’ve used to duck for cover,” said Ian Cohen, Greens Member of the NSW Legislative Council.

Chief Executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), Kate Carnell, has issued a press release denouncing the move.

“There have already been a number of tax-payer funded reports on this issue – industry can’t see what another one is going to achieve,” Carnell said.

The AFGC has previously supported decisions to postpone the scheme, citing cost to consumers and the effectiveness of existing recycling systems.

Executive of the Total Environment Centre, Jeff Angel, said these figures have traditionally been manipulated to cast a negative light on the scheme, with figures failing to take into account the 10 cents, per bottle that the consumer is remunerated.

According to Angel, 80 per cent of consumers return their bottles.

“The impact per container is minimal and has been estimated maybe half a cent a container. The allegations by industry assume that people don’t take their container back to get the deposit, which is the vast part of the loss [estimated by industry],” said Angel.

Carnell argues that the scheme would induce a price rise of 14 per cent, based on ex-GST wholesale rates in South Australia.

“Industry figures are based on the impact of a 10 cent deposit on the price of every beverage container subject to CDL [Container Deposit Legislation], plus a handling fee of 4 cents per container – this is the price paid to the depots who receive bottles from the community.”

However, container disposal is not the only item at stake should the legislation be introduced.

Collection depots could also provide a solution to the growing problem of e-waste.

The transition from analog to digital TVs is one such issue.

Cohen fears that any infrastructure would come too late to assist with the disposal of the thousands of TVs made redundant by the change.

“It’s a massive and growing problem in our highly technological society and also e-waste has toxic components and if they go to landfill they become a toxic problem for many problems to come.”

While South Australia has had a container deposit scheme in place since 1897, Angel stresses the role of a National scheme in a sustainable future.

“This is not an act of nostalgia, this is about building 21st century recycle infrastructure,” said Angel.

The AFGC failed to respond to questions as to whether this dual purpose influenced their stance on the scheme.

A spokesperson for NSW Environment Minister Frank Sartor confirmed the government’s support for further investigating the proposal, while also highlighting the success of current recycling methods.

“NSW has a very effective recycling system that has seen our recycling rate increase from 45 per cent in 2004 to 58 per cent in 2009. Household packaging collected from kerbsides has increased by 21 per cent in seven years, which is an increase from 88 kilograms per person in 2000/01 to 106 kilograms per person in 2006/07.”

Joel Filk | The Wire

The 'Nuclear Scumbags tour' was part of the week long activities during the SOS conference. Image: Students of Sustainability

Hundreds of students have protested outside the offices of the big players from Australia’s uranium industry.

The ‘Nuclear Scumbags tour’ day of action was part of the Students of Sustainability (SOS) conference being hosted by Flinders University in Adelaide on Wednesday.

“Students are bearing witness to the uranium industry in Australia. They want change. They want that end to uranium mining,” said Nuclear free campaigner David Noonan.

“They want an end to the nuclear risks and the unresolved waste management that comes from our uranium exports.”

“The truth needs to be told. People need to know that Australia has driven down environmental protection standards to suit the uranium mining industry,” he said.

Listen to this story on the Wire:

Workers at the BHP Biliton building were told that the building entrance was shut down during the protests with one protestor, a former BHP employee, pouring green slime outside the building to represent the destruction being caused in leaking uranium mines.

Police were on site to ensure safety during the event but protesters said they were not there to cause any trouble, but to highlight issues.

One protester said, “Peaceful protest definitely… hopefully we won’t be looking at Adelaide through some jail bars.”

Madeline Hudson, Anti-Nuclear and Clean Energy Collective (ACE) thinks that everyday Australians need to care about rallying together for this issue because protests have made the difference before and can make the difference again.

“The Australian public think we live in a democracy but when it comes to, and particularly uranium mines, they not applicable. They are exempt. And why should they be exempt. Especially when we need to be transitioning to safe, renewable energy,” she said.

“I think it will be an effective point-of-note when it gets in the media that he has been contacted and that we want a response from him.”

Joel Filk is a reporter for the Wire.

Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne editor

Hazelwood Power station in Victoria. Image: Jenny Jägerhorn

The air is crisp and the clouds over Latrobe Valley are as grey and thick as the smoke spewing out of the pipes of Australia’s most polluting power stations. The mining of the oldest brown coal reserves started in the 1950’s and even the younger power stations, built in the 80s, look like icons from the former Soviet Union, with their toxic green façades.

The brown-coal-fired generation plants in the valley account for 85 per cent of Victoria’s greenhouse contributions. Hazelwood power station produces up to 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 15 percent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, and 3 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions.

Environmentalists are calling for the closure of Hazelwood by 2012 to be followed by Gippsland’s other brown coal stations.

“Environmentalists have to make a large decision on how they’re going on about it. It’s not just the power stations they’re going to shut down, it’s three major towns [Morwell, Moe and Churchill] within the region and all the people that support the power stations as in workshops and industries that rely on it,” says Phil Bramstedt, who works as a belt technician at the Yallourn mine.

He has been working in the power industry for 25 years and has seen all the commotion around the industry during the past decades.

“There’s nothing they’ve really thought on the community side. Basically, Latrobe Valley has been built over the 70 years as a coal industry,” says Bramstedt.

Once owned by the state

All six power stations, Yallourn Power Station, Hazelwood Power Station, Energy Brix Power Station, Loy Yang Power Stations A & B and Jeeralang Power Station (gas), were once run by the government owned State Electricity Commission (SEC). The height of power production was in 1974, when the SEC employed 26, 000 workers in Latrobe Valley.

The privatisation of the state’s electricity in the 1990’s was commenced by the Kirner Labor government and continued by the Kennett Liberal government, delivering $23 billion dollars to the state coffers.

Hazelwood Power Station and the associated mine were privatised in 1996 and sold for $2.35 billion.

However, the privatisation came as a bombshell in the Latrobe Valley and led to mass layoffs. Jobs went down from 11, 000 in 1989 to only 2, 500 people working in the power industry in Latrobe Valley today, and many never returned. The SEC trained around 500 apprentices a year, but nowadays, the apprenticeships are a fond memory. The Government’s withdrawal wounded both the economy and the psyche of the community. Thriving families spiralled into despair as employment opportunities went up in smoke and social infrastructure failed.

Social problems

Gippsland Trades and Labour Council secretary John Parker says there are two to three generations of families that have lived but haven’t worked in the Latrobe Valley since the privatisation, which has led to major social problems with a lot of drug and alcohol abuse.

In the 15 years to 2005, the population of Latrobe municipality dropped from 75, 000 to 70, 000. More would have left the valley but were unable to because of the plummeting property prices.

“The biggest problem is that we have a market driven economy, but what we need is planning and leadership that work together with the community and the unions,” says Parker.

He sees the Government’s recent decision to postpone the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which aimed at cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by making the industry pay for the right to pollute, as unfortunate.

PHOTO GALLERY – Click to enlarge

“It would have given a certainty to the workers. Companies want to wait until the last minute and then just close everything and give redundancy packages. The rest of Gippsland will collapse around them without the support form the government,” says Parker.

The effects of what happened after the privatisation can still be seen. Many of the small businesses never recovered. Walking down the streets empty shops can be seen all over Morwell.

Bramstedt says the government backing in the Latrobe Valley is virtually zero.

“Every time we set up some sort of scheme to do anything here it’s always moved up to Melbourne or some consultant overseas. We put up the ideas and the next minute they’re moved out. Politicians don’t listen to anybody here,” he says.

One-fifth of local jobs in the valley remain directly related to electricity. Phil Bramstedt believes that closing down the coal business would mean the end for Latrobe Valley.

“This will just be like an American ghost town. I’ve already told my children not to rely on the Latrobe Valley as an employer in the future. My 21-year-old daughter is living and studying in Melbourne and my sons have made plans to move there. It is a very large part of Victoria’s economy that the government has to look at,” he says.

Australian Manufacturing Worker’s Union (AMWU) organizer in the La Trobe Valley, Steve Dodd, has a more positive vision about the future of coal but stresses that there needs to be a just transition to new industries.

He sees a future in coal and believes the power stations need to be retrofitted to make a more pollution-controlled zone, whether it will be in power stations or to put coal in to some other use, such as coaled oil or coal fertilisers.

“There’s got to be a change in the short term, there’s got to be a change in the long term, but it has to be a just transition with all parties involved. That includes not only the business groups but also the union and the community groups. They shouldn’t only be done on the basis on the next election in sight,” Dodd says.

“Heard promises before”

On the opposite side of the street from Loy Yang lies a big hole with a massive amount of the black gold. From here the coal strip goes up to a building that crushes the coal. Conveyer belts then move it further and dump it into the ominous, curved brown boilers. The 150-meter high chimney pumps out 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The endless, overpowering, signature smell envelops you through the sticky air.

In March 2010, it was announced that the operators of Loy Yang A (Loy Yang Power) signed a contract with Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals Australia for the supply of electricity to power aluminium smelters at Portland and Point Henry until 2036.

Loy Lang workers Neville Darragh, 53, and Toby Thornton, 50 have both worked in the power industry for more than 25 years and recognize that there has to be a change.

“There will have to be a move away from coal, but the biggest problem is where are we going to take the electricity from,” says Darragh.

They have heard promises by the Government before, assuring that new industries would come into the area, but without seeing it carried through. They fear that the past could be repeated.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure, Hazelwood was due to close 2005 but they’ve extended it to 2031. There isn’t really anything else,“ says Thornton.

“And Morwell power station [Energy Brix Power station] was supposed to shut down in 1996, all the money was set aside to close it down and it’s still running,” says Darragh.

“They’ve known that the plants here are getting old. They’ve had at least 20 years where they could have started looking around building new things.”

Redundancy packages a solution?

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) says that a move away from coal is inevitable, but it believes the transition time would have to be minimum seven years.

Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division says that the average age of the members is 53 years. So a natural or early retirement could be a solution, requiring that the Government supports them. If the power stations were closed gradually the younger employees could be moved to the newer power stations, Hardy suggests.

But the two Loy Lang workers aren’t convinced.

“How are we going to enjoy the life quality, if we don’t have the power? I think the government wouldn’t allow that. Where would they find money for that, when they they’re struggling with building new hospitals and roads,” says Thornton.

Both agree that people would probably look at redundancy packages if they were given enough to sustain their quality of life. But another aspect is that they feel that one needs a sense of wellbeing in the community as a contributor.

“You can’t just sit in the house and do nothing. We’re hands on people. When the SEC sold it off and downsized and gave away packages, people sat at home and the whole society here changed,” Darragh says.

The question remains, even if most of the workers retired earlier what else is there for the Valley?

“Even if they’re going to have these power stations closed, and if new technology would come along, who are they going to get to build it? These people pass on worthwhile skills to the younger generation,” says Thornton.

The Government recognises that the older and dirtier Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations are likely to close over the next ten years although compensation to the generators will slow that process. To combat devastating job losses alternatives need to be found.

Steve Dodd, from the AMWU, believes in developing manufacturing in Latrobe Valley.

“It could be solar hot water heaters or making parts for wind turbines, there could be a whole range of different, manufacturing of things in this region. It needs a bit of backing up from the government and the power stations and business groups.”

“We believe that there are more opportunities in new technology and in new ways of doing things than in the old power stations that haven’t been upgraded. If it would still be in government hands there would be two new power stations more up to date,” he says.

A recent report by Green Energy Markets for Environment Victoria has found that the closure and replacement of Hazelwood power station could be achieved by the end of 2012 for $320 million a year. The report also points out that an early closure of the power station would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent.

Consultants Green Energy Markets found that Hazelwood could be replaced in one of two scenarios.

Firstly, a combination of large-scale gas-fired power of 1800 megawatts and an expanded renewable energy program of 1500 megawatts, mainly from wind.

Secondly, install less gas and introduce a residential and commercial energy efficiency program, wiping out the need for a quarter of Hazelwood’s electricity.

Environment Victoria expects between 1900 to 2500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood.

Another part of the jigsaw of the future may lie in hot rocks.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University have discovered that the best site for geothermal power is in the Latrobe Valley. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

John Parker questions the capacity of it. The existing coal-fired power plants in Latrobe Valley generate more than 6000 megawatts. Loy Yang A alone has four generating units with a combined capacity of 2200 megawatts.

“That’s a lot of power to replace within a few years. The problem with all of the thermal, carbon capture and solar test plants so far is that all are based on give us some money and we’ll try,” says Parker.

Nuclear power, popular in many countries in the European Union, where it provides around a third of the electricity, has had significant societal barriers to overcome in Australia. But perhaps attitudes will change?

“Nuclear power will come to Australia, we can’t get away from that, because people still want their lives to go on. If a nuclear power station is to be built it needs to be built here because the infrastructure is here. So I believe there will be a mix of energy,” says Darragh.

“Even if we decided to go on nuclear power, there would be another 10-15 years before we would have anything on tap,” says Thornton.

Despite the unhappy past they still have hope for the future.

“It’s got to be positive, there’s a lot of pressure everywhere, so I reckon pressure usually brings good,” says Darragh.

Both find it disappointing that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong hasn’t been to Latrobe Valley although there were promises to do so. Perhaps if she did, she would see how devastating bad planning could be to a community.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Related articles
Hundreds protest over Rudd’s backflip
Climate protesters planning new protests

By Sarah Michael

Consumers are confused with so many different recycling labels in use. Image: Trounce

Almost 90 per cent of Australian homes have access to recycling but many don’t know what the various symbols stand for.

A report released by Victoria University entitled “The Role of Labels in Directing Consumer Packaging Waste”, found that many are confused by the numerous recycling symbols currently in use.

Author of the report, Sarah Buelow says some of the most commonly used recycling symbols are also the most misunderstood.

“The little chasing arrows with the number inside that’s on pretty much all plastic packaging that you’ll find, everyone thinks that that’s the recycling symbol when it’s actually just the identification code to inform you what plastic the package is made out of.

“People automatically assume that means recycle it when that’s not really, that’s definitely not what its saying.”

Listen to the full story:

Buelow thinks that manufacturers are using too many different kinds of symbols and consumers are left confused because there is no standard set in place.

“There is a whole bunch of different things kind of all based on the same ideas but they [the labels] are just very different. You can combine those labels… because only a few of them are regulated. It’s a bit of a free-for-all.”

By Kirsten Brogaard | Melbourne Editor

A familiar scene in Melbourne streets. Image: Kirsten Brogaard

Experts believe that consumers need to know more about what to do with electronic waste, if a national scheme is going to solve the growing problems caused by e-waste.

Among those calling for more education on the issue is John Gertsakis, executive officer of Product Stewardship Australia, an organisation put together by the television industry to help recycling move along.

“The key to success in terms of environmental effectiveness in e-waste is significant collections of the products; diversion from landfill; material recovery; and community awareness in all states and territories,” Mr Gertsakis said.

Since November 2009, Product Stewardship Australia has been working with the government to put the national e-waste scheme together. A part of that is figuring out how to make consumers more aware of what e-waste is and what to do with it.

Currently, only about ten per cent of Australian televisions, computers and other electronic devices are recycled, and Australians know very little about the problems of e-waste, according to Terrie-Anne Johnson, chief executive of Clean up Australia.

“People wouldn’t be able to tell you what items in their home or their office are actually classified as e-waste. We are encouraged to separate our paper, plastic, metals and glass but electronic waste has not been discussed.”

With a rate of growth three times faster than public and domestic waste, the growing piles of e-waste are creating an environmental hazard as toxins and metals, such as mercury and lead in the electronics, are sent to landfill instead of being recycled.

“It is growing so quickly and people don’t know how to get rid of it,” said Ms Johnson, who has been trying to raise awareness about the issues of e-waste for the last decade.

“Generally there is a minimal amount of awareness of the impact of electronic waste and the scope of the problem.”

The government and industry is still working on the scheme, which is only planned to include recycling of televisions and computers. However, some private businesses and a few states have already started to collect and recycle electronic waste, although without much awareness being raised about it.

“Most people would be unaware that they even exist, because there has been no real strong publicity around this,” waste management consultant Peter Allan said.

Allan is the author of ‘Waste and Recycling in Australia’, the government report on e-waste.

He agrees that making the consumers more aware is a crucial factor for the e-waste scheme to succeed.

“They are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars raising the awareness on what the community’s collection options are.”

Mr. Gertisakis from Product Stewardship Australia is already thinking about how to develop an education and information program for the public and he is hoping to reach the Australian consumers when the scheme is up and running next year.

“By the end of 2011 I expect that more people will know that e-waste is something you don’t just put out with your general rubbish but it is something that should be recycled, refurbished and reused,” he said.

Kristen Brogaard is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

According to a new report published in Nature magazine by a team of international scientists, the global ocean’s upper layer is definitely warming up. Sophie Perri talks to CSIRO Climate modeller Tony Hirst about climate change, and the state of our oceans.

An example of coral bleaching. Image: Matt Kieffer.

Tony: Over the periods of good instrumentation we are getting warming of about point four degrees near the surface, this is over about the past 18 years or so and about point one degree warming at about 500 metres or so, roughly speaking. This may not sound like a huge amount but it’s expected to be ongoing and is contributing as I say about one millimetre a year to see level rise.

Sophie: Why are the oceans so critical to our understanding of climate change?

Tony: They provide quite a bit of buffering, where they absorb a lot of the heat which is being trapped by the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and then they go and mix it down to a considerable depth away from the surface and that leaves the surface rather cooler than it otherwise would be. Unfortunately though the heat of the water at depths causes it to expand and as it expands that causes sea level rise to happen, and so sea level rise is occurring we measure at about two to three millimetres a year and about half of that is due to the warming of the sub-surface waters.

Sophie: What does ocean warming suggest about the pattern of climate change? What is this telling us exactly?

Tony: It’s providing us with more evidence that the pattern of climate change is progressing as expected. Which means warming currently, over the surface over-all, of about point two degrees or so per decade is increasing as greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere increase.

Listen to this story on the Wire:

Sophie: So Tony, what does this mean for the coral reef and fish stock?

Tony: For coral reefs, if you get temperatures above a certain level then there’s increased risk of bleaching of the coral reefs, in which case the coral may become damaged which may well result in damage to the reef. At exactly what temperatures that will occur is still a matter of scientific investigation. But we have had two severe bleaching events in the past decade and we expect more as the upper ocean waters warm up.

Sophie: What will be the impacts of the seas warming on the El Niño la Niña weather pattern?

Tony: That’s an area of very active research and currently the research suggests that we would be more inclined to have more El Niño like conditions going forward… So as to what’s likely to happen next, well that all depends on the future amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If the greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for a long time at about similar levels as they are today then we would expect the oceans to keep warming at similar rate and that warming will continue for centuries because the heat will gradually mix down into deeper and deeper ocean, and taker centuries to get down to the deepest oceans. If however, the level of greenhouse emissions continues to increase, that warming of the ocean will intensify and that will cause increased rates of sea level rise which will then be ongoing for centuries after that. Sea level rise is a very long term thing, and once you get it started its hard to stop it. Unless, the only thing that would stop it would be a major reduction in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that’s going to be probably quite hard to achieve.

By Ryneisha Bollard

A skyline polluted with carbon emissions. Image: Ian Britton

Following the Australian government’s decision to delay an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) till 2012, the U.S. government has released their own ETS draft along with other plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions under a new climate bill.

Stephen Howes, Director of International and Development Economics at the ANU’s Crawford School of Economics and Government, spoke to the Wire about what this means for Australia.

Stephen Howes: There is a strong emphasis in this bill on providing rebates to consumers. So consumers will be compensated for those price increases just as they would have been under the Australian scheme. So it’s similar to the Australian scheme it just has even a stronger focus on compensating consumers and that makes a lot of sense

So the idea is you’re not compensated on the amount you individually use because if that was the basis then you would have no incentive to be more efficient with your energy use.

But you’re given compensation on the basis of, you know, how much the average household or a household of your type would be using. So the consumer is shielded from that price impact, but again the incentive is there for all consumers to use electricity more efficiently, and for producers to switch from high emissions to low emissions technology.

Ryneisha Bollard: The climate legislation, apart from the ETS, does include things like renewable energy?

Stephen Howes: It has a lot of provisions relating to different technologies and most of them relate to government investments, so governments will invest in carbon capture and sequestration, you know so-called clean coal, there are financial incentives to support the nuclear industry and I assume there are financial incentives for the renewable energy sector. There isn’t a separate renewable energy standard as we have in Australia now.

Ryneisha Bollard: Kevin Rudd has put part of the blame on the delay for and ETS here on the lack of progress on climate change internationally. Do you think he can still make this argument given that the US is developing an ETS of its own?

Stephen Howes: The Australian position has always been that we are going to cut our emissions by at least five percent, no matter what other countries do, that has been our position. And then envision we would do more if other countries do more.

The government has always said that five percent sounds like a small number, but its actually not going to be easy to achieve.

So the real question about the Australian Government position I think goes beyond what’s happening in the US, its about how we’re going to achieve that five percent and we really don’t have policies in place to achieve that. In terms of the significance of this piece of legislation, its certainly a step forward for the US, I think it’s a big step forward, but it is only a step, so its not at all guaranteed that the senate will pass this bill.

There has been attempts in the past, and while the numbers have gone up they haven’t gone close to passing it yet. If it were passed, then if the senate and the house were able to reconcile their two bills and you actually got an act to the president, I mean that would transform not just the outlook for action in Australia but the whole global outlook.

So it’s a very significant voyage America’s engaged on, this Bill takes them forward, but does it take them all the way?

Listen to this story on the Wire:

Ryneisha Bollard: How effective do you think an emissions trading scheme is on reducing carbon emissions?

Stephen Howes: Well I think everyone would agree that unless you have a price on carbon, you wont get an emissions reduction and an emissions trading scheme is just one way to get a price on carbon. So I think a price on carbon is essential to get any reduction on emissions.

It’s not the only instrument you need, but it is an essential part of the policy mix and where it’s been tried, which is in the European Union.

You know, for all the problems that the European Union’s had, they have seen that the emissions trading scheme and the carbon prices its introduced has seen a reduction in emissions.

It’s not just a theoretical proposition it has a track record as well.

Ryneisha Bollard: You did mention that, if they do get it past it would have a significant impact on progress on a global climate deal, could you just elaborate with that? I mean what kind of immediate actions after that do you think we’d see. Do you think we’d see? Do you think we’d see more countries taking on climate legislation including an emissions trading scheme?

Stephen Howes: Yeah, you know you can look at it historically and the fact that we had the Kyoto protocol which the US signed, but then never ratified, and that failure weakened that protocol. And so right from then, I think the absence of US leadership more than anything else has hurt the global climate change efforts.

So just symbolically for the US to move forward in this would have a galvanizing effect. First of all in other developed countries such as Australia and Japan who are considering carbon price.

But then, equally importantly, or more importantly, in the developing countries, you know now as a result of Copenhagen countries like China have got quite ambitious targets to contain their emissions. And they’re now thinking about, “Well what policies do I put in place to contain those?” But you can hard expect China to put in place a price on carbon, you know unless the United States does.

China might end up doing that anyway but there’s certainly a high probability of China doing it, and it would be a higher carbon price if the US goes and does it.

So I think as well as a much better atmosphere for the international negotiations you’d see an effect on developing policies in both the developed and the industrialising countries.

Ryneisha Bollard is a reporter from the Wire.