A Climate For Change

Because climate change is seriously uncool.

Environmentalists: Fuel Emission reduction policy well behind world's best practice

Policy Plans released by Julia Gillard and her Climate Change Minister Penny Wong for mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards and a $2000 rebate for trading in pre-1995 cars for new fuel efficient vehicles, were cautiously welcomed by environmentalists while being criticised for not going far enough and being funded by cuts to other climate change action programs such as Carbon Capture and Storage and solar energy. "Under this plan, Australia's fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles will be about a quarter of a century behind China's when they are eventually law. We must make our cars cleaner quicker." said Don Henry, Australian Conservation Foundation executive director.

Australian emission standards are currently voluntary. Under the envisaged mandatory standards emissions from light vehicles would reduce by 14 per cent by 2014 and 30 per cent by 2024 based upon 2008 emission levels. While Government modelling suggests a significant fuel saving - a typical motorist could save around $600 per year on fuel costs - the estimated amount saved could prove elusive due to the threat of peak oil to affect major increases in petrol prices in the next decade. The government has not released petrol price modelling to check their figures.

The car industry has welcomed the $394 million plan to give motorists a rebate on trade-ins between January 2011 and the end of 2014.

The Australian Conservation Foundation questioned why the 30 per cent emission reduction would not be introduced until 2024 when many countries already have mandatory fuel emission requirements. "Australians want healthier cities and more efficient cars, but the standards announced today are weaker than European standards and certainly not world's best practice," said Don Henry. "Europe, the United States, Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea have all had mandatory fuel efficiency standards for new cars for years. China's new car fleet was already more efficient than Australia's in 2002."

Greens Climate Change spokeperson Senator Christine Milne welcomed the initiative but criticised the Government for cutting back renewable energy programs to fund it, and the lack of a carbon price mechanism being set to fund such initiatives. "Prime Minister Gillard's refusal to legislate for a carbon tax means that she does not have a source of funding for climate initiatives and it is completely wrong to take money out of Australia's renewable energy future to pay to take clunkers off the road." she said.

"The Greens would take the money from coal via a carbon tax, or from fuel excise, whereas the Prime Minister's rhetoric on climate change is becoming even more hollow as she prepares to attack the solar industry one again. Prime Minister Gillard seems to think that nobody cares if only two of the 52 applications in the solar flagship program are funded, but she will find that Australians do care about the solar industry and will not look kindly on this daylight robbery from the solar sector." said Senator Milne.

Sources

Views: 12

Tags: ACF, Gillard, Greens, Henry, Wong, carbon, climate, efficiency, emissions, fuel, More…standards, vehicle

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of A Climate For Change to add comments!

Join A Climate For Change

Comment by Ronnie Wright on July 26, 2010 at 11:39
Implementing mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards and a $2000 rebate for trading in pre-1995 cars for new fuel efficient vehicles and claiming it is a climate change program is nothing more than government green wash or to put it more bluntly it’s a lie.

Just what does the government think people will do with the $2000 rebate; use it as additional insulation in their ceilings? No, they will spend it and ANYTHING they spend it on will have emitted greenhouse gas in its manufacture or use.

Fuel efficiency means saving money on fuel. The same thing applies. People will use the money saved because of efficiency and spend it on other things that emitted greenhouse gas in its manufacture or use while others will just drive more or faster because they can do so more cheaply (see rebound effect).

Here is a suggestion for addressing this problem as listed on Wikipeda at the link for rebound effect listed above:

In order to ensure that efficiency enhancing technological improvements actually reduce fuel use, the ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation." This can be achieved through, for example, the imposition of a green tax, a cap and trade program, or higher fuel taxes.

I suspect that these decisions are more related to peak oil than climate change.

Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

Photos

Loading…
  • Add Photos
  • View All

Badge

Loading…

© 2012   Created by Grant Hill.   Powered by .

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service