Exposing the myths of the ETS

Tim Wilson in The Australian explains that bipartisan support for an ETS in the United States, one of the main justifications given by Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong for Australia entering into an ETS, is no guarantee of it ever being passed into law (witness the $700 bn bailout for the US economic crisis).

Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years and are highly accountable to their electorates. Their allegiance is to their electorate first and their party second. And US voters are very sensitive to the government voting for legislation that will simply take money from their back pockets.

Indeed, and Australians should be similarly wary.

And that leads to the second myth: Australia needs to develop an ETS to participate in the forthcoming international trading scheme. But there will not be a comprehensive international trading scheme. Establishing one requires every major emitting country to participate.

India and China are very unlikely to do so.

If we keep heading down this path, the myths will become clear, and it won't take long before Australians start to ask why we are harming our economy while achieving virtually no reduction in emissions.

It is an answer Rudd and Wong should think long and hard about.

Read the rest here.