Labor's emissions policy does not have to be a carbon tax to have a cost

Bill Shorten’s new climate change policy asks Australian companies to make a huge effort to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is certain to come at a cost.

Don't get hung up on whether Labor's policy is a "carbon tax".
Industrial polluters will have to pay to bring down their emissions or buy permits to meet Labor’s ambition to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, and some of them will have to pass these costs on to customers.

This does not make it a carbon tax. The semantic debate over a "tax" has poisoned Australian debate on energy and climate for too long. It is about time the policies were examined without resort to stale political soundbites.

The Labor policy expands the Coalition’s existing "safeguard mechanism" by extending it to more companies and applying a stricter benchmark for emissions.

Read the opinion  piece from The Age by David Crowe - “Labor's emissions policy does not have to be a carbon tax to have a cost.”

Major Australian companies under the gun from investors over carbon emissions

Twelve major Australian companies are being targeted over greenhouse emissions by a coterie of global investors who speak for $US32 trillion ($A45.11 trillion) and have already won a fight with the world’s largest commodity trader, Glencore.

Some of the world's biggest investors are taking
on pollution among industrial giants. 

Glencore on Thursday announced it would cap its coal production at 2019 levels, despite spending $US3.5 billion ($4.92 billion) on coal expansion in recent years. The move came after it locked horns with Climate Action 100+, the outfit fighting the greenhouse battles of more than 300 global investors.

Now Climate Action 100+ is hunting more big corporate game, including some of the biggest household names in Australia, in pursuit of its emissions reductions ambitions.

Read the story from The New Daily by Rod Myer - “Major Australian companies under the gun from investors over carbon emissions.”

Super funds shy on backing climate change votes

Super funds remain reluctant to back shareholder motions calling for more transparency from Australian companies on climate change risks, despite supporting similar proposals targeting companies in the US, research suggests.

Australian funds backed a motion targeting Occidental
Petroleum, but many declined to support votes against local companies.

And the research, produced by NGO Market Forces, argues that super funds are also lagging on their own standards of transparency, with many making only limited disclosures about how they voted at company meetings - and some not revealing this information at all.

Market Forces examined the proxy voting records of Australia's 50 biggest super funds to track how they voted on 53 climate change-related shareholder resolutions at company AGMs in Australia and the US.

Such resolutions, which are common in the US and have become more frequently used in Australia, often call on companies to disclose more information about how climate change may impact their operations, and the steps they are taking to respond to its risks. Company boards usually recommend shareholders vote against the resolutions.

Read the story by Ruth Williams from The Age - “Super funds shy on backing climate change votes.”