The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (or CPRS) was a proposed cap-and-trade system of emissions trading for anthropogenic greenhouse gases, due to be introduced in Australia in 2010 by the Rudd government, as part of its climate change policy. It marked a major change in the energy policy of Australia. The policy began when the Australian Labor Party was in opposition and the six Labor-controlled states commissioned an independent review on energy policy, the Garnaut Climate Change Review, which published a number of reports. Labor, after winning the federal election and forming a government, published a Green paper for discussion and comment. The Federal Treasury then modelled some of the financial and economic impacts of the proposed scheme. The Rudd Government published a final white paper on 15 December 2008. The Government announced that the legislation was intended to take effect in July 2010; but the legislation for the CPRS (aka ETS) failed to gain adequate support and was twice rejected creating a double dissolution election trigger. After a bitter political debate which saw former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull lose his leadership of the opposition to the anti-CPRS Tony Abbott. The Rudd government did not call an election and the CPRS lost public support. In April 2010, Labor then deferred the CPRS. It has now been passed into law.
Read more about Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: History, Green Paper, Treasury Report On The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation, White Paper, May 2009 Changes, November 2009 Changes, Withdrawal of Bill
Famous quotes containing the words pollution, reduction and/or scheme:
“Like the effects of industrial pollution ... the AIDS crisis is evidence of a world in which nothing important is regional, local, limited; in which everything that can circulate does, and every problem is, or is destined to become, worldwide.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“The reduction of nuclear arsenals and the removal of the threat of worldwide nuclear destruction is a measure, in my judgment, of the power and strength of a great nation.”
—Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.)
“Television programming for children need not be saccharine or insipid in order to give to violence its proper balance in the scheme of things.... But as an endless diet for the sake of excitement and sensation in stories whose plots are vehicles for killing and torture and little more, it is not healthy for young children. Unfamiliar as yet with the full story of human response, they are being misled when they are offered perversion before they have fully learned what is sound.”
—Dorothy H. Cohen (20th century)