News Service from House Harris

Opposition's climate plan could be too good to be true

CANBERRA, Aug 10 AAP - Cheaper! Greener! Smarter! Does it come with a set of steak knives too?

The opposition has released a new proposal to tackle climate change.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says it will cost less while doing more to help the planet than the government's proposed emissions trading scheme.

But is the opposition's wonder scheme too good to be true?

Mr Turnbull's idea is to have two schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

An ETS would cover some parts of the economy.

But the dirtiest part of the economy - electricity generators - would have a separate scheme.

Under the government's ETS, companies pay for all their pollution. The government collects the cash and hands it back in compensation.

Under Mr Turnbull's scheme, generators would only pay for pollution over a certain level. They would pay less to pollute, so electricity prices would rise by less.

The idea is that dirty power generators would pay some money to clean power generators, instead of everyone paying lots to the government.

The scheme's proponents say it would cost much less to the economy, leaving spare money to spend on other ways of slashing pollution (funding poor countries to reduce emissions).

This is why Mr Turnbull has labelled his scheme "greener, cheaper and smarter".

It might be none of the above.

Critics, including the government, say it would be too complex to have two separate greenhouse schemes.

It's not fair to give electricity generators an easier ride than other sectors of the economy, they say.

It's not clear if having a separate, baseline scheme for generators would allow Australia to meet its target of reducing emissions. That's crucial.

And it's not clear at this stage if the scheme adds up.

But don't throw Mr Turnbull's plan in the bin - elements of it could have merit.

The government's scheme has been roundly criticised from many quarters and has won little political support. It's headed for a round one defeat in the Senate this week.

One issue is churn: The government would make us pay quite a lot to pollute, then give the money back in compensation.

The opposition would keep out of our wallets, imposing lower costs and giving less compensation.

The government would not pay farmers to capture and store carbon pollution; the opposition would.

The government would cut emissions by a minimum of five per cent, the opposition by 10 per cent.

So it's possible parts of the proposal could find their way into an Australian scheme later this year.

On the other hand, people in Canberra - and indeed everywhere - are so bamboozled about emissions trading that the government might be able to ram through its scheme as is.