[Top News] from [REUTERS]
[Green Business]
FACTBOX: Australia's failed carbon trading scheme
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:31am EST
(Reuters) - Australia's parliament rejected laws to set up a sweeping carbon emissions trade scheme on Wednesday, scuttling a key policy of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and setting a trigger for an early 2010 election.
Here are some facts about how the failed carbon-trade scheme would have looked.
* The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was set to have started on 1 July, 2011. Under the scheme, about 1,000 of Australia's biggest polluting companies and operations would have had to purchase carbon permits, covering 75 percent of national emissions.
* The government committed to an unconditional emissions cut of 5 percent by 2020. The target could have been increased to 25 percent if the world agreed to a tough new climate pact to expand or replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
* The "cap-and-trade" scheme required polluters to buy a permit for every tonne of carbon produced. The government proposed a flat carbon price cap of A$10-a-tonne on start-up. Full auctioning and trading of permits was to have started from 2012.
* The government estimated a carbon price of A$26 a tonne in 2012-13 due to the strong Australian dollar.
* The scheme included compensation for businesses and households, with money raised from permits helping taxpayers cope with increased costs for fuel and electricity. The government had also promised to cut fuel excise to match increases under emissions trading, while welfare payments would have been increased as well.
* Additional expenditure measures would initially have cost A$1.28 billion and $7.01 billion over the period 2019-20. A lower estimated carbon price meant a reduction in assistance to households that would have totaled A$5.76 billion to 2019-20.
ASSISTANCE TO KEY SECTORS
* Some polluters exposed to overseas export competition would have received assistance in 2011-12 at 94.5 percent for high emission intensive activities, 66 percent for moderate emission intensive activities and decline at 1.3 percent per annum.
* Coal Sector: A total of A$1.5 billion in transitional assistance over five years, up from A$750 million previously.
* Voluntary Action: The government would have ensured the CPRS took into account voluntary action by households to cut emissions.
* Electricity sector: An increase of A$4 billion in assistance, increasing the total value of permits to A$7.3 billion.
* Electricity Prices: A$1.1 billion would have been allocated to assist medium and large manufacturing and mining businesses with CPRS-related rises in electricity prices in the early years.
* Agriculture: Farmers would have been exempt from the scheme, but would have been able to take part in the market for carbon offset.
* Food processing: A five-year, A$150 million assistance package would have been established within a Climate Change Action Fund.
* Cost of Living: Living costs would have risen by around 0.9 percent, although power bills would have risen by 16 percent. Gas and other household energy bills were seen up 9 percent.
* Households: Around 90 percent of low-income households would have received assistance equivalent to 120 percent or more of their cost of living increase under the scheme.
(Reporting by James Grubel and David Fogarty; Editing by Jonathan Standing)
[Green Business]
SNAP ANALYSIS: Rudd handed election option on climate
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:31am EST
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been handed a trigger for an early election, giving him the option of going to the polls any time from early 2010 in order to resolve a deadlock over his carbon trade scheme.
The carbon emissions trade scheme was a key plank of Rudd's political agenda and plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and was a central promise of his 2007 election win.
This is how the issue might now play out.
* Rudd's carbon trade laws are unlikely to be revived until after an election. Normal elections for the lower house and half the Senate are due in late 2010.
* But Rudd could call a double dissolution, of the full Senate and House of Representatives, to clear the deadlock on the carbon bills. If he wins, he can then push the deadlocked package of 11 bills through a special joint sitting of both houses of parliament, where he would normally have a clear majority.
* The most likely dates for an early election would be in March or April 2010. But Rudd is a cautious politician, and will be wary about going early. Polls suggest Rudd would win, but he could find it very tough to sell a policy that is expected to drive up power bills and increase costs for business.
* The election of social conservative Tony Abbott as opposition leader on Tuesday further clouds the outlook. Abbott would be expected to have a honeymoon period of popularity in the polls, making an early election a risk for Rudd.
* Rudd has said he would prefer to serve out his full term. That would enable him to focus on other reforms and deliver another budget in May. The government has planned a major debate in 2010 on tax reform, with the head of Treasury due to report options for change later in December.
* A snap election might throw economic policy up for grabs, with Abbott likely to campaign for firmer action against asylum seekers, more restrictions on trade unions, less government borrowing and potentially a firmer stand against gay marriage.
(Reporting by James Grubel)
[Green Business]
Q+A: What happens now to Australia's carbon-trade plan?
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:35am EST
By James Grubel
CANBERRA (Reuters) - The parliamentary defeat of Australia's carbon-trade laws has handed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd a trigger for an election from early 2010 to salvage his emissions trading scheme and key climate policy.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CARBON BILLS NOW?
* Rudd plans to re-submit his carbon trade laws to parliament again in February, at the end of a forecast sizzling hot summer, giving climate skeptics in the opposition another chance to support the plan. The government may be hoping expected summer heatwaves and bushfires will harden public opinion in favor of tough action to curb carbon emissions.
WILL THERE BE AN EARLY ELECTION?
* The government is playing down the option of an early election and Rudd has repeatedly said he would prefer to serve out a full three-year term. Regular elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate are due in late 2010. This is the most likely outcome, given the carbon trade bills will be given one more chance in parliament.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF AN EARLY POLL?
* With the carbon laws twice rejected by a hostile Senate, Rudd has the option of a double dissolution, of the full Senate and House of Representatives, to clear the deadlock on the carbon bills. Rudd can now call a double dissolution election any time until August 11.
* If he wins, he can then push the deadlocked package of 11 bills through a special joint sitting of both houses of parliament, where he would normally have a clear majority. He cannot call a joint sitting after a regular election.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF GOING EARLY?
* An early double dissolution election would make it easier for Greens, minor party and independent candidates to win seats in the Senate, which could make life more difficult for Rudd in the long term.
* Rudd is a cautious politician, and he will be wary about going early. Current polls suggest Rudd would win. But polls can shift quickly and he could find it tough to sell a policy that is expected to drive up power bills and increase costs for business.
* The election of social conservative Tony Abbott as opposition leader on Tuesday further clouds the outlook. Abbott would be expected to have a honeymoon period of popularity in the opinion polls, making an early election a risk for Rudd.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A LATER ELECTION?
* Rudd can call a regular election of only half the Senate and the full House of Representatives any time from July 1, 2010. A regular election would likely see Rudd's Labor and the Greens pick up Senate seats at the expense of opposition conservatives, giving Rudd a better chance of controlling the upper house.
* Rudd would be keen to deliver another budget in May, so his government can be seen to rein in spending, countering an opposition attack on his big spending government and economic management.
* A late 2010 election would also allow the government to run a major tax debate throughout 2010. The head of Treasury is due to report options for tax change later in December. A late election would allow the government to consider its options and to go an election with an offer of vote-winning tax cuts or major reforms.
[Green Business]
FACTBOX: Australia's failed carbon trading scheme
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:31am EST
(Reuters) - Australia's parliament rejected laws to set up a sweeping carbon emissions trade scheme on Wednesday, scuttling a key policy of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and setting a trigger for an early 2010 election.
Here are some facts about how the failed carbon-trade scheme would have looked.
* The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was set to have started on 1 July, 2011. Under the scheme, about 1,000 of Australia's biggest polluting companies and operations would have had to purchase carbon permits, covering 75 percent of national emissions.
* The government committed to an unconditional emissions cut of 5 percent by 2020. The target could have been increased to 25 percent if the world agreed to a tough new climate pact to expand or replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
* The "cap-and-trade" scheme required polluters to buy a permit for every tonne of carbon produced. The government proposed a flat carbon price cap of A$10-a-tonne on start-up. Full auctioning and trading of permits was to have started from 2012.
* The government estimated a carbon price of A$26 a tonne in 2012-13 due to the strong Australian dollar.
* The scheme included compensation for businesses and households, with money raised from permits helping taxpayers cope with increased costs for fuel and electricity. The government had also promised to cut fuel excise to match increases under emissions trading, while welfare payments would have been increased as well.
* Additional expenditure measures would initially have cost A$1.28 billion and $7.01 billion over the period 2019-20. A lower estimated carbon price meant a reduction in assistance to households that would have totaled A$5.76 billion to 2019-20.
ASSISTANCE TO KEY SECTORS
* Some polluters exposed to overseas export competition would have received assistance in 2011-12 at 94.5 percent for high emission intensive activities, 66 percent for moderate emission intensive activities and decline at 1.3 percent per annum.
* Coal Sector: A total of A$1.5 billion in transitional assistance over five years, up from A$750 million previously.
* Voluntary Action: The government would have ensured the CPRS took into account voluntary action by households to cut emissions.
* Electricity sector: An increase of A$4 billion in assistance, increasing the total value of permits to A$7.3 billion.
* Electricity Prices: A$1.1 billion would have been allocated to assist medium and large manufacturing and mining businesses with CPRS-related rises in electricity prices in the early years.
* Agriculture: Farmers would have been exempt from the scheme, but would have been able to take part in the market for carbon offset.
* Food processing: A five-year, A$150 million assistance package would have been established within a Climate Change Action Fund.
* Cost of Living: Living costs would have risen by around 0.9 percent, although power bills would have risen by 16 percent. Gas and other household energy bills were seen up 9 percent.
* Households: Around 90 percent of low-income households would have received assistance equivalent to 120 percent or more of their cost of living increase under the scheme.
(Reporting by James Grubel and David Fogarty; Editing by Jonathan Standing)
[Green Business]
SNAP ANALYSIS: Rudd handed election option on climate
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:31am EST
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been handed a trigger for an early election, giving him the option of going to the polls any time from early 2010 in order to resolve a deadlock over his carbon trade scheme.
The carbon emissions trade scheme was a key plank of Rudd's political agenda and plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and was a central promise of his 2007 election win.
This is how the issue might now play out.
* Rudd's carbon trade laws are unlikely to be revived until after an election. Normal elections for the lower house and half the Senate are due in late 2010.
* But Rudd could call a double dissolution, of the full Senate and House of Representatives, to clear the deadlock on the carbon bills. If he wins, he can then push the deadlocked package of 11 bills through a special joint sitting of both houses of parliament, where he would normally have a clear majority.
* The most likely dates for an early election would be in March or April 2010. But Rudd is a cautious politician, and will be wary about going early. Polls suggest Rudd would win, but he could find it very tough to sell a policy that is expected to drive up power bills and increase costs for business.
* The election of social conservative Tony Abbott as opposition leader on Tuesday further clouds the outlook. Abbott would be expected to have a honeymoon period of popularity in the polls, making an early election a risk for Rudd.
* Rudd has said he would prefer to serve out his full term. That would enable him to focus on other reforms and deliver another budget in May. The government has planned a major debate in 2010 on tax reform, with the head of Treasury due to report options for change later in December.
* A snap election might throw economic policy up for grabs, with Abbott likely to campaign for firmer action against asylum seekers, more restrictions on trade unions, less government borrowing and potentially a firmer stand against gay marriage.
(Reporting by James Grubel)
[Green Business]
Q+A: What happens now to Australia's carbon-trade plan?
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:35am EST
By James Grubel
CANBERRA (Reuters) - The parliamentary defeat of Australia's carbon-trade laws has handed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd a trigger for an election from early 2010 to salvage his emissions trading scheme and key climate policy.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CARBON BILLS NOW?
* Rudd plans to re-submit his carbon trade laws to parliament again in February, at the end of a forecast sizzling hot summer, giving climate skeptics in the opposition another chance to support the plan. The government may be hoping expected summer heatwaves and bushfires will harden public opinion in favor of tough action to curb carbon emissions.
WILL THERE BE AN EARLY ELECTION?
* The government is playing down the option of an early election and Rudd has repeatedly said he would prefer to serve out a full three-year term. Regular elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate are due in late 2010. This is the most likely outcome, given the carbon trade bills will be given one more chance in parliament.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF AN EARLY POLL?
* With the carbon laws twice rejected by a hostile Senate, Rudd has the option of a double dissolution, of the full Senate and House of Representatives, to clear the deadlock on the carbon bills. Rudd can now call a double dissolution election any time until August 11.
* If he wins, he can then push the deadlocked package of 11 bills through a special joint sitting of both houses of parliament, where he would normally have a clear majority. He cannot call a joint sitting after a regular election.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF GOING EARLY?
* An early double dissolution election would make it easier for Greens, minor party and independent candidates to win seats in the Senate, which could make life more difficult for Rudd in the long term.
* Rudd is a cautious politician, and he will be wary about going early. Current polls suggest Rudd would win. But polls can shift quickly and he could find it tough to sell a policy that is expected to drive up power bills and increase costs for business.
* The election of social conservative Tony Abbott as opposition leader on Tuesday further clouds the outlook. Abbott would be expected to have a honeymoon period of popularity in the opinion polls, making an early election a risk for Rudd.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A LATER ELECTION?
* Rudd can call a regular election of only half the Senate and the full House of Representatives any time from July 1, 2010. A regular election would likely see Rudd's Labor and the Greens pick up Senate seats at the expense of opposition conservatives, giving Rudd a better chance of controlling the upper house.
* Rudd would be keen to deliver another budget in May, so his government can be seen to rein in spending, countering an opposition attack on his big spending government and economic management.
* A late 2010 election would also allow the government to run a major tax debate throughout 2010. The head of Treasury is due to report options for tax change later in December. A late election would allow the government to consider its options and to go an election with an offer of vote-winning tax cuts or major reforms.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます