You are on page 1of 3

GOVERNMENT REPORT Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2011) Department Of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

: Annual Report 2010 – 2011, Canberra, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. WEBSITE Australian Government (2012) Working Together For A Clean Energy Future <http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/> (page updated 16 March 2012, accessed 18 March 2012). NEWSPAPER ARTICLE Arup, T. (2011) „Carbon-tax law Abbott proof, PM declares‟, The Age , 9 November. JOURNAL ARTICLE Rizos, X. (2011) „Will the market save us? : The logic of a carbon tax‟, Overland, 1(205), pp. 21 – 25 EDITED BOOK Lowe, P and Wilkinson, K (2009) „How do environmental actors make governance systems more sustainable? The role of politics and ideas in policy change‟ in N. Adger and A. Jordan (ed.), Governing sustainability, New York, Cambridge University Press, first edition. BOOK X uses primary reference to a range of secondary data and evidence collected from internal and external coalition audits, financial forecasts and models, research and surveys.

From the Rudd governments ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol in 2007, to Garnaut‟s Climate Change Review in 2011 and subsequent lobby for a “national price on carbon”, parliament has not only played a critical role in debating the causes of increased average global air temperatures, but has also been critically engaged in evaluating proximate national policy measures to ratify the environmental consequences of anthropogenic human intervention in Australia. Two sources – Chris Lane‟s article in „The Australian Financial Review‟: “Carbon tax „does nothing‟: Joyce” and Xavier Rizos‟ academic article in the „Overland Journal‟: “Will the market save us: the logic of a carbon tax” will be used to critically examine the relationship between bicameral parliament and the environment. Xavier Rizos: “Will the market save us: the logic of a carbon tax” a) Rizos‟ article concerns the development and critique of parliaments “flexible mechanisms” aimed at reducing Australia‟s CO2 emissions in conjunction with the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the Green Climate Fund. He frames the scientific, economic, environmental, social and political issues of climate change as both a potent issue facing future generations and the government‟s goals of environmentally sustainable development and intergenerational equality. Rizos categorises contemporary parliamental party perspectives as “stick” and “carrot”.

b) Rizos argues the need for the Coalition and Labor parties to adopt a neoliberal synthesis stance. Rizos propounds the technologist “stick” argument as a call for immediate social change. This ecologist modernisation perspective states that if high atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem, then the federal government should promulgate decrees to phase them out such as the Emission Trading Scheme and the carbon tax. Revenue generated would then be used to invest in clean energy technology, creating an Australian green industry worth as much as $US2.3 trillion by 2020, producing 770,000 green jobs in the process. Rizos then contrasts this perspective by debunking the fatalist or rationalist “carrot” model – beginning in 2015 - arguing that the “invisible hand of the market” and carbon trading scheme adopted in this neoliberal approach will place too high a financial burden on industry. Given the current economic climate, this model will too severely weaken Australian business, leading to a certain “political death” for the federal government. c) Rizos uses referrers to evidence from a range of secondary data collected by internal and external audits, financial forecasts and models, research and surveys by Coalition and Labor governments. The average weekly cost to households of $9.90 and the carbon price of $23 referred to by Rizos are examples of supportive statistical and analogical evidence derived from empirical modelling and forecasting. Furthermore, direct quotations – such as the allusion to BHP Billiton CEO Marius Kloppers reference to the carbon tax as a “dead weight cost” – represent forms of supportive testimonial evidence used by Rizos. Rizos also used basic anecdotal evidence such as “carrot” and “stick” to support his argument for neoliberal synthesis.

d) Rizos article works to provide tremendous support in answering the essay by firstly alluding to a range of quantitative data from statistical modelling and forecasting by reputable government organisation such as the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Rizos then critically evaluates this data through strong testimonial reasoning, such as the role of wide socio-political spheres – media hype and the “Convoy of No Confidence” – to strengthen his qualitative conclusion greater parliamental or “state” intervention is required, therefore amplifying my understanding of the fundamental relationship between parliament and the environment.

e) To fully answer the question, I will need to go beyond Rizos to discover more examples of reliable primary anecdotal evidence and future emission forecasts – particularly dialogue from the senate and house of representatives, and emission levels following the imposition of the carbon tax and CTS – to better determine the extent to which parliament currently has and will influence the environment.