AUSTRALIA and New Zealand are unlikely to meet their greenhouse gas
commitments by relying solely on economic carrots like emissions trading,
according to a report to the Victorian government. The stick of
regulation鈥攕uch as energy efficiency standards鈥攊s also needed.
The study which reached these unfashionable conclusions was commissioned by
the Department of Premier and Cabinet from the Allen Consulting Group. Entitled
Greenhouse Emissions Trading, it aimed to examine the economic impact
of pricing emissions of carbon dioxide. Businesses could then choose to pay,
spend money on reducing their emissions, or trade their emission rights to
others. Economists usually promote such market-based mechanisms as the cheapest
way of meeting the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Under the treaty, New
Zealand is committed to stabilise its greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level
some time between 2008 and 2012, while Australia said it would restrict its
increase to eight per cent above the 1990 level.
The study concluded that the overall economic impact would be much less if we
used a mixture of regulation and incentive, rather than put all our eggs in the
market basket. (A recent US study has come to similar conclusions.) Among the
regulatory measures mentioned are efficiency standards for buildings and
appliances, as well as annual vehicle inspections to push gas-guzzlers off the
roads. Such changes would provide encouragement for improving technology in
those areas.
Advertisement
Several other recommendations, however, are more politically sensitive. For
instance, in keeping with emissions trading, the report calls for a negotiated
cap on greenhouse emissions from industry, with a penal tax on releases in
excess of the agreed limit. It also suggests a new tax on petroleum
fuels鈥攁nd we鈥檝e recently seen what a political hot potato that can
be鈥攁s well as phasing out the present subsidies on road freight, a
proposal which caused political grief for the Wran government in New South Wales
20 years ago.
The study urges a national approach to land clearing based on the principle
of no net release of carbon. This would mean that permits for clearing would
only be granted if reafforestation elsewhere stored equivalent amounts of
carbon. Given that the Australian government recently yielded to National Party
pressure to block a Queensland proposal to prohibit land clearing in that state,
there seems little likelihood of a national approach on that front.
The report鈥檚 modelling suggests that the balanced approach it proposes would
have no significant effect on the economy. But politically it creates winners
and losers. As has been amply illustrated in the case of our indigenous people,
governments are quite prepared to overlook the losers, if they aren鈥檛
politically powerful. In this case, however, the losers would include weighty
corporations and long-established industries, such as coal and aluminium. So
don鈥檛 hold your breath waiting for a response. What Queensland premier Peter
Beattie recently called 鈥渢he policy vacuum鈥� on greenhouse gases is likely to
continue.
A legal appeal more than 20 years ago has deprived Australian courts of a
useful forensic tool, says Brisbane-based forensic dentist David Griffiths. Bite
marks, which can be used to identify criminals, have not admitted as evidence in
Australian courts since a 1970s appeal against an assault conviction in the
Northern Territory.
Griffiths was speaking at the latest of the Horizons of Science series,
organised by the Centre for Science Communication at the University of
Technology, Sydney. The forum reviewed advances in forensic science. In this
case, the recent developments may revive an old technique.
Each individual has a distinct pattern of teeth that leaves a trademark bite.
鈥淎round the world, bite marks have convicted serial killers, terrorists, child
molesters, perpetrators of domestic abuse, rapists and thugs,鈥� Griffiths said.
In some cases, the criminal left bite marks on the victims, but at least one
conviction was based on a half-eaten apple left at the crime scene. Australian
courts were quite happy to accept bite marks as evidence until the Northern
Territory appeal made lawyers wary of the validity of the technique.
But, says Griffiths, modern forensic dentistry has made significant progress.
Dentists have set up a system of quality control that should give prosecutors
confidence in the standing of the evidence. So we may see bite marks joining
fingerprints and DNA as solid evidence in criminal cases. I wonder if anyone has
told the rugby and boxing tribunals yet.