It’s something of an unusual alliance but the Australian Greens Party hope a deal struck with the conservative Liberal-National government on debt will expose the true cost of paying for the coalition’s controversial Direct Action plan on climate change.
As part of the deal secured with the minor party to scrap the national debt ceiling, and aimed at circumventing opposition from the Labor Party, the conservative government has agreed to report on the impact of climate change policy in future budgets.
AAP Newsagency reports Australian Greens leader Senator Christine Milne said this would highlight the cost of tackling climate change without a market mechanism such as an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“That is a good improvement, too, so people can clearly see what not going to a market mechanism is going to cost in terms of the budget,” Senator Milne said in the national capital, Canberra.
The Liberal-National government is currently trying to repeal Australia’s carbon price laws, a move opposed by the Australian Greens, while the Labor opposition has said it will only agree if the current fixed-price ETS is replaced with a market based ETS.
The government’s Direct Action plan will use taxpayer funds to directly pay for activities that reduce carbon dioxide emissions, whereas an ETS requires businesses to pay for the greenhouse gases they release.
The Australian Greens have fiercely opposed Direct Action, and vowed to block the repeal of Labor’s carbon pricing mechanism in the Senate.
AAP reports in his letter to Senator Milne, Treasurer Joe Hockey said a debt statement with details regarding government spending on climate change would be included in future budgets and key economic reports.
The extent to which this expenditure had contributed to debt would also be included.
All future Intergenerational Reports will retain an extra section on the environment, including climate change and the effect of these policies and their impact on the economy and budget.
“I will consult with the Australian Greens on the scope of what could be included within the section,” Mr Hockey wrote.
