That Australia should pass emissions trading legislation before the Copenhagen climate summit.

Emphasise: there is no ultimate solution, and the public/the government/businesses will never fully agree on a scheme (for aff: but since we elected Kevin Rudd and he is quite politically central this is the best middle ground we can hope for). The ETS: Aims to reduce carbon emissions through carbon trading

Credits are produced by the government, the sum total of which is less than we currently emit Businesses buy credits, apart from those that will be initially exempt (e.g. resources), to offset their carbon emissions Hopefully businesses will reduce their emissions in a more cost-effective way than buying credits. ALP hopes to reduce our 1990 level of emissions by 5-25% in 2020.

Copenhagen Summit: Held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009 Will be attended by over 8000 delegates from 170 countries. Headed by the UN.

15th conference within the climate change framework (most recent was in Bali in 2007) Climate change info: We are currently part of the Kyoto Protocol, created in 1997 and put into place in 2005, a UN Convention aiming at stabilising emissions and reducing the global 1990 level of emissions by 5% in 2012. Australian emissions have risen 25% (inc. LULUCF) or 5.2% (excluding LULUCF) between 1990 and 2004, unlike Denmark, Germany, France and the UK who have managed to reduce their emissions. LULUCF = land use, land use change and forestry basically converting forests into agricultural land, deforestation etc., can cause large changes to a countrys emissions. For the two sides, these are the main basic points which we talked about today: Affirmative

1. That passing the ETS before going to Copenhagen will further our image as a global leader and reinforce that Australia is a country that not only cares deeply about the issue of climate change and is committed to cutting emissions, but one that takes clear action upon it. 2. That passing the ETS, especially before Copenhagen, will set an excellent example for other countries as a fundamentally good policy which is a strong, reasonable and practical way for businesses to cut their emissions through incentive-based targets a good first step in our commitment to climate change. Ideally, other countries can follow our example. 3. That passing the ETS would benefit Australia environmentally through reducing our total emissions, particularly those made by large businesses and big polluters, but also through the public taking individual action, i.e. passing the ETS would make it clear that climate change is a serious issue and encourage people to do their part. + MODEL? We can also justify our emissions which really arent that big; you can take care of this James. Negative buying the right to pollute 1. That the ETS is a fundamentally bad policy which binds us to a too-low target and does not allow for unseen difficulties it also puts the economy at risk and does not consider individual emissions. (ETS as proposed also cuts out agriculture which makes up 15% of Aus emissions, this could be a rebuttal.) 2. That rushing the decision would be detrimental if the ETS is creating targets and framework for as far off as 2020, what difference does one month make in passing the bill, especially when it would be helpful for us to learn from Copenhagen, to get ideas etc from other countries to make a more effective policy. It would be to our advantage to utilise Copenhagen to its full extent.

LINKS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXNQNo5hQY quite amusing http://archive.greenpeace.org/mayak/ - just interesting for you guys to watch http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/australia-delays-emissions-trading20090504-asf5.html http://www.resourcesmart.vic.gov.au/for_businesses_2247.html - info about the ETS, quite simply phrased.