“… comparing the total expenditure under the Coalition’s policy … to the total value of the permits under an emissions trading system is a completely false comparison.’’
“Well the Coalition policy claims to be on track for that but it does so only by virtue of overly optimistic assumptions about what can be done with soil carbon. The other issue is the reductions or sequestration in soil carbon is not recognised under the international accounting rules.”
“You’ve got a Labor Government arguing a case for a very strongly market based mechanism and you’ve got a Liberal/National Opposition arguing a case for a heavily interventionist regulatory policy. There is a certain irony in this.”
On the sprawling campus of the Australian National University is the honeycomb shaped Coombs Building. In this labyrinthine beehive of boffins The Capital Post sought the expertise of Dr Frank Jotzo.
Dr Frank Jotzo
He was economic adviser to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, consultant to the World Bank and he has worked in economics and environmental think-tanks in Indonesia and Germany.
Tackling the issue of climate change is hard enough. Trying to understand what is really going on when politicians muddy the waters is even harder. In this interview Dr Jotzo shines a light on the weaknesses and strengths of both policies. What is revealed is an Opposition policy that is unnerving for anyone who wants to see future reductions in carbon emissions.
Filed under: Feature interview, climate change, CPRS, ETS, Greg Hunt, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Tony Abbott
