Brumby better than Feds, but lags behind climate science

Today The Age published my letter responding to yesterday's page one article, "Brumby plan exposes Gillard", and the paper's editorial, "State reclaims leadership role on climate". It seems the Premier has turned greener in the lead-up to the Victorian State election in November, but at the moment he's mainly looking good compared to dismal federal climate proposals by Labor and the Coalition, not in terms of the true benchmark of the climate science. The risk of his new policy is that International Power will be paid far too much to close Hazelwood, if that eventuates.

As usual, here's the letter as published, followed by the submitted version.

JOHN Brumby's 2020 emissions target (The Age, 27/7) looks good relative to the appalling federal proposals but not compared with what the science demands to achieve a safe climate. In the meantime, the danger lies in caving in to International Power on compensation for a staged closure of Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station. We should not pay a massive corporation hundreds of millions of dollars not to pollute when there is the capacity identified in Brumby's policy to regulate emissions from Hazelwood to render it unprofitable if a reasonable deal to close is not achieved.

Money spent paying off International Power would not be available to invest in renewable energy, cushion the economically disadvantaged in the transition to a green economy or shield workers affected by the phasing out of fossil fuels. International Power stranded itself through an unwise investment when the threat of climate change was already well known.

Now, as submitted.

John Brumby's 2020 emissions target looks good mainly relative to appalling federal proposals, not when compared to what the science demands to achieve a safe climate. His new climate policy, while an overdue step in the right direction, will ultimately need to match the science to be truly effective and credible - an outcome that cannot be judged by a citizens' assembly convened by his federal Labor colleagues.

In the meantime, the danger lies in caving in to International Power regarding the level of compensation for any staged closure of Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station. We should not be paying a massive corporation hundreds of millions of dollars not to pollute when there is the capacity identified in the Brumby policy to strictly regulate emissions from the power station to render it unprofitable if a reasonable deal to close it cannot be achieved.

Money spent paying off International Power would be money not available to invest in renewable energy, cushion the economically disadvantaged in the transition to a green economy, or shield workers affected by the necessary phasing out of fossil fuels. International Power deserves no such treatment. It stranded itself through an unwise investment in doomed emissions-intensive power generation when the threat of climate change was already well known.

Comments welcome!