Carbon price tug-of-war
Under the carbon price the government will collect more than $7 billion in revenue by encouraging Australians to reduce their emissions, yet at the same it will pay almost twice as much in subsidies to encourage the use of fossil fuels.
If subsidies are greater than penalties, how effective are current policies as tools for changing behaviour? Is it really a case of “polluter pays” or more like “pay the polluter”?
The government has announced that it is abandoned the idea of a Clean Energy Target and will instead mandate what it is calling dispatchable power.
This is likely to mean that as more renewable energy is built it will also encourage more coal and gas fired power.
What will this mean for Australia’s carbon emissions and our Paris commitment to reduce emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent by 2030?
New polling three key Liberal seats of Warringah, Wentworth and Kooyong on the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) policy shows voters overwhelming support pricing carbon, would be more likely to support a NEG that achieves 50% renewable energy, and do not think the NEG will lower electricity prices and back the States keeping their own renewable energy targets.
The new ReachTEL polling, commissioned by The Australia Institute’s Climate & Energy program, surveyed residents across the federal electorates of Wentworth (859 residents), Kooyong (911 residents) and Warringah (879 residents) during the evening of 19th October 2017.
A new report from The Australia Institute shows that the Minerals Council of Australia’s coal advocacy is out of all proportion with its members’ interests
The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) represents companies that mine a wide range of minerals, yet delivers three times more media coverage for coal than for any other mineral.
Analysis of MCA media over the last year saw it mentioned in 1,594 stories featuring coal and just 511 featuring iron ore, the next highest.
Figure 1: Media mentioning “Minerals Council” and…