Direct Action

[Rorschach]

Direct Action climate plan passes the Senate with help from Palmer United Party
Date October 31, 2014 - 12:49PM

More than three months after repealing the carbon tax the Abbott government has finally succeeded in replacing Labor's climate policy with one of its own.

After a marathon debate that stretched into Friday morning, the government's Direct Action plan passed the Senate with the support of crossbench senators from the Palmer United Party.

The bill underwent a number of last-minute changes and will need approval from the House of Representatives, where the government has the numbers and the result is assured.

Labor and the Greens fiercely opposed the government's alternative climate plan but didn't have the votes to defeat it.

The legislation will establish the $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund, an incentive pool for companies to voluntarily find ways to reduce their carbon footprint.

Companies opting into the scheme will compete for government money by devising projects that can reduce emissions cheaply.

Greens leader Christine Milne said the deal between the government and PUP showed Clive Palmer's proposal for an emissions trading scheme was "a sham and a shonk from the start".

"The big polluters can now put out their hand for taxpayers dollars in order to be paid to do something they should have been doing anyway," she told the chamber.

Senator Milne raised concerns that the agreement did not appear to preserve the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, with the only undertaking from the government being that it would not bring the bills to abolish those agencies back to the Parliament this year.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the government still intended to abolish both agencies, which the Palmer United Party has previously said it will oppose.

As part of the deal, the government abandoned its pledge to scrap the Climate Change Authority, and tasked the advisory body with exploring PUP's policy for a "dormant" emissions trading scheme.

This ETS would only take effect once Australia's major trading partners adopted similar schemes.

The government says it is confident it can meet Australia's five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 by funding these green projects, such as cleaning up power stations or capturing gas at landfill sites.

The Greens said the deal also did not appear to forbid the logging and burning of native forests for energy under the Direct Action scheme, with senators expressing particular alarm that taxpayer funds could be used to pay for the burning of Tasmanian forests.

Senator Lisa Singh, Labor's environment spokeswoman in the Senate, told the chamber Direct Action was "a program built on begging big polluters not to pollute".

"It addresses the problem of climate change with all the sincerity you'd expect of someone who once declared it was crap," she said.

Both Labor and the Greens questioned whether companies owned by Mr Palmer would benefit by receiving grants under the Direct Action scheme.

In exchange for his vote, independent senator Nick Xenophon successfully negotiated for "safeguards" which will force the government, in conjunction with the clean energy regulator, to set baselines emitters cannot exceed that are in line with meeting Australia's international obligations.

"In this case the safeguard mechanism needs to be big stick to the ERF's (emissions reduction fund) gentle encouragement," Senator Xenophon said.

But the safeguards will not come into force until 2016, with Senator Xenophon telling the chamber the previous timeline of 2015 was unrealistic.

Fellow independent John Madigan also supported the legislation, but Family First's Bob Day and Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm opposed it.

Much scorn has been heaped on Direct Action over the years, not all of it from the coalition's enemies.

Liberal minister Malcolm Turnbull - who was dumped as party leader in part for his support of an ETS - once described Direct Action as a "con" and a "fig leaf" that would do nothing for the environment.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt insists it will achieve its emissions target on time and to budget.

AAP with Lisa Cox

What was said
"Arguably the Palmer United Party has achieved more for the environment in three months than the Greens have in all the years they've been here." - Frontbench minister Mathias Cormann thanks PUP while taking a dig at Greens leader Christine Milne.

"Taking money from low-income families and spending it on dodgy activities with a spurious scientific basis punishes the poor." - Family First senator Bob Day, who voted against the bill.

"Direct action is a pointless policy with no discipline on pollution whatsoever." - Labor senator Lisa Singh, who led the opposition's filibustering of the bill.

"When you jump on the climate bandwagon and have a hissy fit you ultimately miss the details." - Independent senator John Madigan in defence of the policy.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3HizIc2nG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mantra]

The Coalition appear to be getting their policies through at any price. It looks like Direct Action is going to cost twice as much as expected, especially as the Coalition had planned to make a saving by getting rid of the Climate Change Authority. Now they're keeping it. Nearly $3 billion has been promised to the biggest polluters - which makes no sense.

The budget deficit is growing rapidly, but Abbott is keeping his "promises". The sky is the limit as far as he's concerned. This government has lost all perspective of what they're doing to the average Australian. They were supposed to cut costs and reduce the deficit, but a year later and we are deeper in debt.

[Rorschach]

The Coalition appear to be getting their policies through at any price.

Really? Then perhaps the other parties should stop being obtructionist. Particularly The Greens and the ALP. from a fundamental POV The Greens should be backing Direct Action as it is a most practical conservationist policy.

It looks like Direct Action is going to cost twice as much as expected, especially as the Coalition had planned to make a saving by getting rid of the Climate Change Authority. Now they're keeping it. Nearly $3 billion has been promised to the biggest polluters - which makes no sense.

Really? And you got those figures from where? I gather you prefer the stick to the carrot eh, and think other policies have cost us nothing?

The budget deficit is growing rapidly, but Abbott is keeping his "promises".

Is it? Could you produce those figure then.

The sky is the limit as far as he's concerned.

More biased bullshyt.

This government has lost all perspective of what they're doing to the average Australian. They were supposed to cut costs and reduce the deficit, but a year later and we are deeper in debt.

First off produce the figures.
Then admit that the government has been stifled for political reasons by the real Dr Nos.
Then look at why there is a blow out... if there is which you so far have failed to prove.
Then put the blame where it belongs.

Of course you could have posted about Direct Action instead of just posting a diatribe.

[Rorschach]

Companies lining up for Direct Action: Greg Hunt
Date November 2, 2014 - 1:11PM

Companies are lining up for taxpayer money to cut carbon emissions under the government's Direct Action scheme, Environment Minister Greg Hunt says.

The scheme, which parliament passed on Friday with the support of the Palmer United Party and crossbench senators, provides financial incentives for big polluters to reduce emissions.

Mr Hunt said the first projects to win funds from the $2.55 billion funding pool through a reverse auction will be known in the first quarter of 2015.

The level of interest and pipeline of projects have been greater than expected.

"These groups are already seeking to participate," he told Sky News on Sunday.

"So my message to business, to farmers and households is very clear: the emissions reduction fund is open for business."

Firms opting into the scheme will compete for government money by devising projects that can reduce emissions cheaply.

However, he said more money will not be fed into the pool even if interest grew.

"We'll achieve it within our budget," Mr Hunt said.

The government is adamant the scheme will reach the five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020, despite doubts raised by independent analysts.

Asked if it was "all carrot and no stick" given emitters may not be penalised, Mr Hunt said safeguard mechanisms are in place which would "act as an important guideline" against rogue emitters.

The minister was cautious on whether an inquiry into an emissions trading scheme, promised as part of its deal with the PUP, would be redundant given the government had already ruled an ETS out.

"We were happy to have a review, but we'll not be implementing a carbon tax on our watch or an ETS," Mr Hunt said.

Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler labelled Direct Action a "colossal waste of taxpayer funds".

It would only achieve about a quarter of the pollution reductions needed to meet the five per cent target, he said.

"Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt stand up, put their hands on their hearts and say `We are going to achieve the five per cent reduction'," he told ABC Television.

"No one else believes it. No one else has said we have a chance under this policy to achieve a five per cent reduction, let alone the more ambitious discussions that will be the subject at international negotiations next year."

AAP

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3HsYSdDTx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far none of the naysayers have been able to put up proof that the targets will not be achieved.
Many are in fact speaking from the position of having vested interests, (political and financial).

[mantra]

Companies are lining up for taxpayer money to cut carbon emissions under the government's Direct Action scheme, Environment Minister Greg Hunt says.

Stating the obvious!

So far none of the naysayers have been able to put up proof that the targets will not be achieved.
Many are in fact speaking from the position of having vested interests, (political and financial).

That is only supposition. Have targets even been set for these corporations who are holding out their hands for more cash? We don't know what they have to do get this funding - the government probably hasn't figured it out either.

[Rorschach]

Companies are lining up for taxpayer money to cut carbon emissions under the government's Direct Action scheme, Environment Minister Greg Hunt says.

Stating the obvious! Isn't that a good thing?

So far none of the naysayers have been able to put up proof that the targets will not be achieved.
Many are in fact speaking from the position of having vested interests, (political and financial).

That is only supposition. No it is not... Have targets even been set for these corporations who are holding out their hands for more cash? We don't know what they have to do get this funding - the government probably hasn't figured it out either.Then I suggest you read the policy and any facts as they come out and stop your own supposition and negativity.