The ALP government's environmental credentials have suffered a second meltdown in as many weeks.
First came a dip in support for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's keystone climate policy, the CPRS.
Then came revelations that the government had employed dodgy contractors in its "green loans" scheme, resulting not only in shoddy insulation but the deaths of four people.
With his "green loans" scheme, environment minister Peter Garrett has illustrated perfectly how not to conduct a government environment program.
Step one is to insufficiently plan, budget and administer the program. Step two is to hand over government contracts to unreliable, cowboy contractors. Step three is to blow the budget on trying to fix the mess, wasting taxpayer money that could have been spent actually cutting emissions.
The February 12 Sydney Morning Herald reported that the scheme's budget initially "provided for 360,000 assessments of household energy and water use, backed by 75,000 interest-free loans of $10,000 to implement efficiency measures.
"The government allowed for 800 assessors to sign up, but closed the books at 10,000. The program was to run to the end of 2012 but, with more than 200,000 assessments booked, may not last nine months."
The work was contracted out to private firms, in some cases unaccredited, who often failed to adhere to stringent safety standards in their rush to cash in on the program. Their shoddy standards have led to foil insulation being installed near electrical wiring, causing fires and four deaths.
The budget blow-out will inevitably rise, as Garrett has ordered independent electrical safety inspections of all houses that were insulated as part of the scheme. An external inquiry will also be conducted of the scheme itself and its accreditation program.
This isn't the first time the Rudd government has mismanaged an environmental program with Garrett at the helm.
Last year, a government solar power rebate program attracted eight times more recipients than anticipated. Consequently, the program's budget blew out to $850 million. Rather than expanding this program and increasing its funding to meet popular (and environmental) demand, the scheme was shut down.
On February 19, Garrett announced that "green loans" would be abandoned and replaced by a $1000 Medicare rebate for householders.
The government's approach of handing over measures to cut emissions to the private sector is deeply flawed, costly, and in this case, has been fatal for the four people whose deaths were caused by foil insulation.
Health and safety is the responsibility of the employer, but why is the environment department handing out contracts to assessors and contractors whose training, standards and practices it has no control over?
It's no surprise that a new dodgy "green" industry has flourished to take advantage of overdue and under-resourced green programs. Garrett's scheme has essentially been a freebie for private businesses that have shown they are not interested in safety and genuine green development.
Green companies may be selling a different kind of product, but their motives are still to spin a profit.
The widespread public take-up of these programs shows many Australians want to make changes to help stop global warming (and spend substantial amounts doing so — the "green loans" scheme provided an interest-free loan of $10,000).
However, Rudd's schemes so far have been small in scope and unable to cope with the levels of public demand. Perhaps the biggest problem with Rudd's programs is that they still place the cost of going green on individuals.
Green programs need to be run by government, rather than just administered and funded by the environment department then passed on to private contractors. The construction of all new housing developments needs to be subject to the strict energy efficiency standards.
The green industry should also be subject to rigorous regulation of health and safety laws.
The provision of government environmental schemes that freely provide home improvements would have a two-fold effect. Not only would they help cut household emissions, they would create a multitude of green jobs. An expanded green wing of the public sector would be far more accountable to the public and could better enforce training and safety standards.