Former Greens staffer Ben Oquist, one of those who brought the two men together, said the move was a step forward

The Australia Institute has defended its role in negotiating the Clive Palmer-Al Gore climate announcement because the concessions made by the Palmer United party had “avoided a big step backwards” and reset the climate debate in Australia.



In an email to supporters, the thinktank’s strategic director and former Greens staffer, Ben Oquist, one of a number of people involved in bringing Gore and Palmer together, defended the move as a step forward, despite PUP’s unchanged resolve to repeal Australia’s carbon pricing scheme after the Senate resumes next week.



PUP will now use its balance of power votes in the Senate to retain the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Climate Change Authority and the renewable energy target.



“Six months ago it seemed certain that the Abbott government would succeed in its plan to scrap the RET, the CEFC and the CCA,” Oquist wrote.



“[The institute’s] research has long shown that the RET has been the key mechanism driving investment in clean energy production … It has had more impact than the carbon price at zero cost to the government. Billions of dollars in investment was being put at risk by the Abbott government’s determination to unwind the scheme.



“The Palmer-Gore announcement has reset climate policy and politics. Keeping the CCA, the RET and the CEFC is much more than most expected from PUP. We have avoided a big step backwards … [it] also reframed the debate about carbon pricing – it's hard to suggest carbon pricing is some form of left-wing, economy-wrecking conspiracy when a billionaire mining magnate supports it.”



Oquist says it “would have been preferable for PUP to have delayed a vote on the carbon price repeal by sending it to a committee. It would have been preferable for them to amend the existing carbon price to move straight to the floating price [due to start next July]. The fact is that the PUP senators and Clive Palmer think that their voters expect them to vote it down, and that's what they intend to do.”



Government backbenchers have been pushing for the RET to be watered down (it currently requires 41,000 gigawatt hours of power to be sourced from renewables by 2020) on the grounds that it pushes up power prices. Before the PUP announcement senior government sources were suggesting the scheme could be closed to new entrants after the government’s own review of the scheme, chaired by the businessman and self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton. More recently backbenchers have been pushing for a less drastic scaling back.



ACIL Allen modelling done for the government’s review shows the current target will increase the average household bill by an average of $54 a year between now and 2020, but will reduce bills by a similar annual amount over the following decade compared with what they would be if the RET were repealed.



The modelling used assumptions highly unfavourable to renewable energy, including that coal and gas prices would remain almost unchanged until 2040.



Separate modelling for the Clean Energy Council by Roam Consulting – with different assumptions about gas prices – found that bills would be $50 higher by 2020 if the RET were repealed, compared with it being retained.



And polling has revealed that Australians overwhelmingly want the renewable energy target to be retained or even increased.



The polling, done for the Climate Institute, shows 72% of Australians want to keep or expand the RET.

The Coalition went to the election promising to keep the RET, which underpins investment in energy sources such as wind and solar, but said it would review the fact that the policy was exceeding its original goal of delivering 20% renewable energy by 2020 because of falling electricity demand.

Warburton, a veteran industrialist and the chairman of the Westfield Retail Trust, described his views on climate science in a 2011 interview on ABC.

“Well, I am a sceptic,” he said. “I’ve never moved away from that. I’ve always believed sceptical. But a sceptic is a different person than a denier. I say the science is not settled. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’ve never said it’s wrong, but I don’t believe it’s settled.”