I actually don’t think it is incredibly complex issue…

Oh I think you’ll find it is. We need to study this further, perhaps leak a “six point plan” to the media, or maybe “a raft of measures”. We need to do some more polling, more focus groups, let the stakeholders have their say, and generate several more papers of various hues. If the public service fast tracks things we might get it done in nine months, but they’d prefer 12 to 18.

In the end, we’ll probably get an awareness campaign.

Just look at Nelson and Turnbull ducking and weaving with “we are committed, but not to Rudd’s agenda - it is important that we get it right”. Which is code for more delays and populist nonsense.

I actually don’t think it is incredibly complex issue - its just that lots of vested interest and money is threatened and they will do anything to protect the status quo for as long as possible.

We should price carbon with a tax and introduce mandatory efficiency measures immediately. And put a moratorium on building new fossil fuel power stations.

Just fiction of, no science and practical engineering left in places where biologically motivated protectionism rules.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/browns-chilling-vision-of-our-fate/2008/07/09/1215282928003.html?sssdmh=dm16.323452

…and the libs have said that they will not support anything before 2012 (after the next election when they expect to have power again).

Stalemate.

but don’t lose the cynicism

Hell yeah. Looking forward to The Hollowmen tonight!

There are a bunch of well informed souls discussing the issue of policy stagnation at present. Regardless of any input from the present government we will, as a country, continue to pay for the last 10 years of conservatism, dearly.
You can rail against it as much as you like, but it’s done, and you’re better of cajoling people on to the bus at this stage rather than trying to round them up with a stick.
Save your energy for when we really so need stick-wielders, but don’t lose the cynicism.

Please tell us all what it is that we should ‘get on with’.

The ETS legislation. Send it up to the Senate ASAP.

I for one don’t want a half-baked approach to this complex problem

Its going to be a half-baked, cobbled-together, negotiated mess whether you like or not. If it goes to the Senate soon we’ll know whether Nelson and Fielding will negotiate, or reject it out of hand. If its the latter there will be a DD election, and the sooner Rudd goes the more chance he has of winning. If they negotiate (unlikely, but possible), the policy details will have to be worked in consultation with the sane elements of the Liberal Party (Turnbull, Hunt etc).

Either way we’ll save ourselves a couple of years of green papers, white papers, and Penny Wong’s mind-numbing spin.

No I’m not Penny Wong. I’m older and male.

Please tell us all what it is that we should ‘get on with’. I for one don’t want a half-baked approach to this complex problem. You can argue that we should be much further advanced than we are. And we might have been if the Coalition had moved on this several years ago, as it should have. But given that we’re in the position we’re in, let’s get it as right as we can.

You may be right that a DD will be required to get the necessary legislation through, but that would not be the case if the Coalition was willing to participate in a bipartisan approach. But that’s not possible now that Nelson has decided that political opportunism is the only way to resuscitate his flagging leadership. To hell with the national interest.

Is commissioning the Garnaut Report while in Opposition doing something? Is releasing a Green Paper to detail the Government’s response to Garnaut doing something? Is the planned community consultation on the Green Paper to inform the preparation of a definitive White Paper doing something?

Er, no. Are you Penny Wong by any chance?

Like BilB said, the ALP had 11 years to formulate policy. Why do they need several more?

Do people actually believe the government will somehow get it ‘right’ if this process drags on for a few more years? Surely the lesson from the GST is that the final policy will be political compromise that’s tolerable to the broadest range of views. It won’t be the best policy or the ‘right’ policy, it will be a cobbled together compromise.

Anyway, as I said above, the government can spend another two years generating papers of various colours, and consulting community far and wide, but whatever they come up with it will almost certainly be knocked on the head by Nelson and Fielding.

So lets just get on with it, and bring on the DD election!

The Coalition had 11 years in Government to contemplate this, but inhibited by climate change denial, did nothing until near the end when it seemed politically opportune to become ‘a believer’. It was Government members who had their feet up.

Rudd has been leader for less than 20 months. Within months he commissioned the Garnaut Report. It was never contemplated that Garnaut would be the final word and that legislation would rapidly follow. So the Senate rising for the Winter Recess will not delay progress. Your reading of this as a ‘cute’ move is implausible. If Rudd were to try to rush legislation through without his Government’s response to Garnaut, Treasury modelling and other inputs, there would be outrage. So Labor is not waiting for something to come to mind. It is doing what we ought to expect of a sensible, economically conservative government; it is gathering the best data available and consulting widely to ‘get it right’ as Brendan Nelson insists.

Labour had 11 years with their feet up to contemplate all of this, and have a ful working plan. But they didn’t. The Greens have a fully developed agenda. Labour is still waiting for…what ever it is that comes to mind. I find it incredibly convenient that Garnaut releases his report just weeks after Senate access has been shut off and there is no way that any significant action can get through. That was all just a bit too cute.

No one, even the sceptics, thinks global warming is a simple problem; no one thinks responding to it will be easy. So why would we not want an informed, and if necessary protracted debate about the problem and the best approach to address it? Anyone who understands systems theory realizes that the global warming debate needs to take into account the myriad of interwoven factors that contribute to it if we are to get within reach of a sensible response, which in itself requires the consideration of complex and often conflicting actions.

You contribute little to sensible debate when you imply inaction and demand Rudd ‘do something’. Let’s hear more from you about what YOUR approach would be.

[link]

Australia exports significant coal to India, and a little to China.

Top counties exported to are:
1. Japan,
2. Korea (Rep)
3. Taiwan
4. India
5. China

Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world with 28.9% market share (in 2004).

It’s all piss and wind.

Surely this is a self reflexive comment. As pointed out by #23,24,26. Perhaps tone down the colourful metaphors and look at what’s running now. Whatever scheme is introduced, market forces will affect it and change it.

superdonk:
The problem with the let other people do the hard yards is missing out on benefiting from possible emergent tech opportunities for industry in this country. There are already examples of Aussie tech expertise heading overseas.

I’ve no doubt you’re right (on coal)and for the sake of short posts my point is simplistic in the extreme.
The world has plenty of levers. I guess my point is that the idea that business will go on ‘mostly as usual’ while we tinker with just a few things that seems palatable right now could be completely false.
As we get deeper and deeper in to this mess things that seem extreme now may not be so within a lifetime. What if the responsibility is moved from those on the demand side to those on the supply side? Without supply those on the demand side will have their hand forced, instead of the nice polite requests we see at present.

Checking up on a claim by a Pakistan blogger that Pakistan held 20% of the worlds coal reserves http://www.gsp.gov.pk/resources/seminars2.htm
, if this information is correct then the blogger may well be correct and your link may not show the very latest picture. Pakistan claim to hold 218 billion tonnes against Australia’s 78 billion.

How can politicians in Australia criticise China and India as major emitters, and justify this for not pursuing our Kyoto responsibility. Australia, the largest exporter of coal in the world , is selling them the coal they are burning.

Petrc, that’s a quote from your link. It’s my impression that China and India are mostly burning coal that they dig up in their own back yard. Also that we export little to them but quite a lot to Japan and Korea. Do you perchance know?

The point you make has more force if it’s based on facts. I’m not sure that the facts are right. It’s the bit in bold I’m concerned about.

Conversely, Australia’s per capita emissions are huge, the science is looking increasingly scary, and it is possible that for the world to stabilise at a non-disastrous level, then developing countries may need to reduce their emissions by 25-50% by 2020.

Yes, and Australia’s coal exports equate to an additional 24.6 tonnes of CO2 per person in Australia [link] which means we are not only the largest domestic emitters, we are by far the largest “exporters of emissions” too.

This explains the desperate flailing around to pretend CCS is viable.

Bring on a carbon tax and cut the spin and waffle. Time we grew up, accepted our pivotal global role in the production of CO2 emissions, and did something about it.