7-04-07, 8:56 am

Carbon trading schemes are supposed to limit the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, by rewarding industrial organizations which achieve low emissions and penalizing those with high emissions.

However, the [Australian] Howard Government's recent announcement of a planned carbon trading scheme made so many concessions to Australia's heavily polluting industries that it is virtually useless.

For a start it was not intended to commence until 2012 at the earliest. The Government also refused to place a cap on emissions, a crucial aspect of any carbon scheme, and made major concessions to the industries with the worst emission records. Just to put the boot in, the Howard Government is insisting that the state governments abandon their renewable energy targets.

The Government's actions illustrate how a potentially worthwhile scheme can be emasculated by a government which is intent on protecting the interests of the industries which are the worst performers.

Emission reductions, economic growth

The Howard Government has consistently defended its actions by stating that implementation of a carbon trading scheme, and other measures to tackle the threat of climate change, would devastate Australia's economy.

This position grossly undervalues the potential economic benefits of a healthy renewable energy sector. It is also contradicted by the experience of nations which have chosen to abandon their reliance on fossil fuel energy sources.

The European Economic Community, for example, has implemented the world's largest and most comprehensive carbon trading scheme, and the economies of its various nation states appear to have suffered no overall damage whatsoever. Both China and India, whose economies are booming, are now associated with the EEC scheme.

The greenhouse gas emission rates of the US and Australia are both heading for thirty ton per capita. In contrast, despite its extremely cold climate, which necessitates a very high consumption of energy for residential and industrial heating, Sweden's emission rate is just over 5 tonnes per capita.

The campaign to lower emissions in Sweden has been partly inspired by the example of the small city of Vaxjo, which now has an emission rate of just 3.5 tonnes per capita. The city has achieved this remarkable result by imposing heavy taxes on petrol consumption, recycling the heated waste water from its power plant to homes and workplaces, facilitating the redesign of houses to achieve greater energy efficiency, introducing environmental educational programs, and imposing parking fees on petrol-driven vehicles but not on low-emission cars.

The city uses anti-emission tax revenue to facilitate the development of renewable energy production. It also encourages walking or cycling, and uses bio-waste for energy production. Its success has aroused great interest in many countries, especially China and Japan.

Since 1996 Sweden has imposed an emissions tax, which is currently $US50 per tonne for industries, and $US150 per tonne for other emitters.

Sweden intends to end its dependency on oil by 2020. With a growth rate pf 5 percent per annum, its economy has now been rated the fifth most successful in the world.

But not here

The economic success of Sweden and other low-emission nations cuts no ice with the Howard government. The sector of capital which is responsible for most of the world's emissions, and which is politically represented in Australia by that government, comprises companies involved in power generation, the processing of metals and oil, and the manufacture of cement and other high-energy products.

This sector is still extremely powerful. It has, after all, managed to delay the implementation of any form of carbon trading scheme in Australia and the United States since the first serious warnings of the impact of climate change some twenty-five years ago.

An extraordinary aspect of this situation is that the position taken by the rulers of the polluting industries corresponds with their immediate financial interests, but not with their personal interests. After all, climate change will adversely affect the world's entire people, including those corporate rulers and the members of their families.

The myopia of greed under capital was succinctly illustrated in a recent comment by John Howard, the polluters' political defender. Ignoring not only the scientific evidence of climate change, but also the obvious fact that the world's climate is no respecter of political or national boundaries, he rejected the warnings given in the recent UK report prepared by Sir Nicholas Stern as 'Eurocentric.'

There is a rapidly-growing national concern in Australia about climate change. However, with leaders such as Howard at the helm, it would appear that the blind are currently leading the sighted.

From The Guardian.