I have a lot of reading to do over the next few days!
However, you don’t need to dig very far to find the massive unseriousness – and probably disingenuousness – in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper.
The policy decisions summary (downloadable here) essentially accepts Garnaut’s views of the international situation:
- a fair and effective global agreement delivering deep cuts in emissions consistent with stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450 parts per million or lower would be in Australia’s interests
- achieving global commitment to emissions reductions of this order appears unlikely in the next commitment period
- the most prospective pathway to this goal is to embark on global action that reduces the risks of dangerous climate change and builds confidence that deep cuts in emissions are compatible with continuing economic growth and improved living standards
So while “450 world” is the desired target, we should go all out to get some kind of agreement – which probably means a global agreement with a 550 ppm target (To be fair, 15% cuts by 2020 is actually a bigger reduction than what Garnaut suggests for “550 world”).
But what are we prepared to do to achieve a 450ppm target? In the short term, nothing:
In the event that a comprehensive global agreement were to emerge over time, involving emissions commitments by both developed and developing countries that are consistent with long-term stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 ppm CO2-e or lower, Australia is prepared to establish its post-2020 targets so as to ensure it plays its full role in achieving the agreed goal.
If we’re really serious about achieving a 450ppm agreement, why aren’t we prepared to place anything on the table to achieve it?
In the global, long term scheme of things, the bribes to the EITE industries aren’t a big deal. Yes, they represent a big transfer of money to Big Carbon from the rest of us. But they, in themselves, don’t inhibit global deals. Wimp-out targets, by contrast, do.
Well, this is the year of the Rat. And clearly they’re still scurrying about in Canberra.
I think that it is time to start planning an under ground dwelling. One that can’t be burnt in fire storms, or be sucked away by tornadoes, or be demolished by football sized hail. It’ll have to be at least 10 metres above CSL (current sea level) or maybe 30 metres going by the current prediction that the Actic could have ice free summers in 6 years, it’ll have to have 60,000 litre water storage, and be fitted with retractable solar power generation of various sorts. I’ll have to rethink the business premesis as well. Lot of work to do. Fortunatle there is still some time left.
A tiny part of me hopes that this is an ambit low figure for international negotiations but really I know that Rudd has caved.
I was never particularly bothered that Rudd didn’t create a leftist utopia because he never campaigned that he was going to do such a thing.
But this is a straight-forward betrayal of those who voted him in last year.
Yep – its pathetic alright. Im not sure what constituency this really plays to either. As we know, coal is mainly exports, so that industry kicks on regardless of our doemstic target.
Its really a form of protectionism in my view – cover for our lazier industries who dont want to pay their own producton costs, and dont want to innovate, and ultimately, who dont want to succeed in a coming international market in which sustainability will be value adding.
Roll on our 2nd rate economy, as always.
I’m with Anika ________ and her two friends who shouted down kevin rud (it is time to reduce him to his true size) at the press club release of this misserable excuse for global warming policy.
BOO…HISS…BOO!!! kevin rud. You got my vote dishonestly.
On the upside, the national green vote just jumped from 10% to 15%. Keep it coming, you dumb ALP bastards. And say goodbye to your inner city heartland – Tanner just lost his seat today.
What a cack-handed misreading of the electorate. You WILL pay for this.
I do wonder what Rudd is hoping to achieve politically with this…a 5% target seems like it couldn’t possibly be received positively by anyone. At least if it’s said “15% no matter what” he would have guaranteed at least of some amount of praise. And if any future international agreement was vacillating between, say, 20% and 25% for 2020, Australia would look laughable trying to claim it can only afford 15%.
Lefty E, your optimism is the only ray of light in this otherwise dark, cloudy day.
Politically, it seems designed only to neutralise the Libs response. Otherwise, its stunningly stupid own goal.
And frankly, who cares what those LNP losers think? Most of the public take the cue from what the LNP oppose, not what they support.
Except that given the ALP vote’s immunity to just about everything in the last 12+ months “optimistic” might be being a little generous to Lefty (assume he was even half serious).
And let’s face it, 2020 isn’t really a date on too many people’s minds at the moment.
If it doesn’t translate into seats for The Greens (and that’s no certainty) it will have been an outstanding political success.
Albanase and Plibersek are gonna want to watch themselves – I reckon they’ll lose to the Greens before Tanner does. Especially if there’s blowback from NSW state politics.
Here’s an interesting thought. Most ALP seats that the Greens have a shot in (state or federal) are held by people in the left faction of that party. If they start getting knocked off, then the law of averages says the ALP will move further to the right along the spectrum. That could cause some very interesting times for both the ALP and Greens – if the Greens play their cards right and get some momentum happening, they could end up as the major centre-left party. Throw in the Vic and NSW elections, and the next couple of years should be very interesting for them.
Lol. All I can say is what I said here, but even I did not expect the numbers to be that low. I am glad I did not preference Rudd over Howard – at least Howard would have had to gie way to Costello sometime. It looks like the ALP has firmed up strongly behind weakness.
Anyway, let’s see what happens in the Senate.
The only trouble is that the Greens, on their own, can’t give the government the votes.
No BilB, 2008 is the year of the corporate welfare cheat.
That sounds for all the world like King Rat to me, BD. This year I have had to extricate myself from two three way business partnerships where cheating and back stabbing were the modus operandi. Couple that with a commercial meltdown that has increased the cost by a huge amount of machinery that I have to buy to work the rescued products from the failures, while leaving a close friend all but destitute (share market margin calls), and I think that the timing (year) is very apt. Roll on the year of the Ox. Or as you would have it, “the year of the trudging tireless worker”.
Bird of paradox: you refer to certain vulnerable Labor MPs as members of the Left. In what sense are they “left”? How does one veriify this empirically? Is it a question of looking at what they say, or what they do? Please explain.
Michael S wrote: “But this is a straight-forward betrayal of those who voted him in last year.” So, will we see the Govt plummet in the next voting intentions poll? Will Kevin drop in the “preferred PM” poll?
Kevin has finally reached the end of his preferred investigate/inquire/model/consult phase, has reached the action part, y’know the bit where you lead, and let me just say, Kerry, he has squibbed it.
I believe Bird of Paradox was referring to the fact that Tanner and Albanese belong to the Left faction of Labor.
What is actually “Left” about them remains to be seen.
The Federal Government has now declared their CO2 reduction target in order to reduce suspected human caused global warming. This will cost billions.
How much will this lower global temperature by?
When will this lower global temperature?
How will we know human induced cooling from natural cooling/?
What happens if the forecasts are not met?
I believe these are reasonable questions when billions are being spent.
“How much will this lower global temperature by?”
Nothing.
“When will this lower global temperature?”
It won’t.
“How will we know human induced cooling from natural cooling/?”
There won’t be any “human induced cooling”. If there was, it could quite easy to separate from so called “natural cooling”, if by that you mean cooling from other factors, just as it is to separate the two when it comes to warming.
“What happens if the forecasts are not met?”
You mean what will happen if Rudd can’t meet his pitiful 5% cut? Dunno. The Australians might take him task on it or they might not.
“I believe these are reasonable questions when billions are being spent.”
When compared to the current context, the proposal is revenue neutral, in Government budget terms. All the money being sucked from Australians via higher energy prices etc. will be promptly handed back to other high energy using Australians and energy intensive industries such as coal.
What happened to “$1 per person per year”?
Exactly what were we expecting?
This issue will not loose Kevin Rudd the next election, It won’t win the Greens a significant number of seats (1 possible, but more? not likely) and more importantly, the dontation money to the ALP will continue unfettered from big business.
Let’s face it, at 59/41 in the polls Kevin Rudd hasn’t been given a Mandate, He’s been given the crown. The conversation here nearly proves it, noone thinks that the Liberals would have done better, so why set a target that will be hard when you can set a small target and still be ahead of the competition? (well short of actual concern for the future of the planet and it’s people)
PinkyOz
Oz @ 19 – Billions spent to not achieved the desired outcome. Does anyone think that is a good idea?
You statement about the ease of identifying human induced warming or cooling versus natural causes is bunkem and you know it.
Pinkyoz, I think we’re all a bit disappointed because the way Rudd and Labor were talking about climate change prior to the election and even after while in government created the sense that they were doing it because they believed it was “right”, not simply as a political exercise.
Blame us for being naive.
Oz @ 19
Revenue neutral my arse! Show me the economic modelling that proves that, inlcuding specific assumptions about what China and the US are going to do.
“Billions spent to not achieved the desired outcome. Does anyone think that is a good idea?”
I certainly don’t.
“You statement about the ease of identifying human induced warming or cooling versus natural causes is bunkem and you know it.”
No, it’s not “bunkem”. But rather than getting into a lengthy and pointless debate I’ll simply ask you to find me peer-reviewed scientific articles disproving the conclusions in other articles regarding human induced global warming.
“Revenue neutral my arse!”
All the money being raised by permits is going to plouged straight back into the pockets of Australians and business.
“Show me the economic modelling that proves that, inlcuding specific assumptions about what China and the US are going to do.”
I don’t see what China and the US have to do with Rudd’s ETS.
Oz,
I know, and we need that sort of fath in a higher good, untainted by politics or business. But it just dosn’t work like that.
On the plus side, based on my assertion, you could reasonably blame this target on the Liberals.
PinkyOz
PS Somebody work out what 5% on 2000 is in 1990 money. Might actually be an increase on Kyoto-relevant targets.
I wager Greens will get 2 fed lower house seats minimum out of this, plus 2 Senate (one each state guaranteed now) plus a good handful at state level.
Maybe its designed to purge the ALP of its left faction.
I reckon it would be.
Lets face it people, the only way the world’s CO2 emissions will be 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 is if the current global downturn lasts well into the next decade.
I am assuming from your comment about “wimp-out targets” that you regard anything less than a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990 levels by Australia as unsatisfactory.
Unless you can disprove the Government’s figures on per capita emissions, then this means you think the per capita cut for Australians should be 160 per cent between 1990 and 2020 against 34 per cent for people in the European Union.
And, if like the Greens, you think Australia should match the United Kingdom target of a 26-32 per cent cut in total emissions on 1990 levels, you are predicating a per capita cut of more than 210 per cent for Australians compared to 33 per cent per capita in the UK.
The Government’s White Paper shows that its target of 5-15 per cent for 2020 on 2000 emissions equates to 4-14 per cent on 1990 emissions and represents 37-41 per cent per capita below 1990 levels.
By comparison the EU target of 20-30 per cent below 1990 levels represents a reduction of 24-34 per capita. The UK target of 26-32 per cent below 1990 levels represents a 33-39 per cent per capita cut on 1990 levels.
So if Australia increased its percentage from 4 per cent on 1990 figures (to have the same base year as the EU and UK) its per capita reductions to match the lowest of the EU and UK overall emission reductions by 2020 (20 per cent and 33 per cent respectively) would have to be:
* 160 per cent per capita reduction compared to 24 per cent (the lowest figure) for the EU; and
* more than 210 per cent per capita reduction compared to 33 per cent (the lowest figure) for the UK.
That’s not only unreasonable, it’s unsellable in the best of economic times and an impossibility during a global financial crisis.
The White Paper points out that Australia’s population is projected to grow by around 45 per cent over the 1990–2020 period. It’s safe to assume that both the EU and the UK will have static (if not falling) populations in this period.
Australia’s rising population explains why a modest reduction in overall emissions will result in a proportionately high increase in its per capita emissions. Balanced against this, a rising poplulation means that it will be harder for Australia to achieve significant percentage reductions in overall emissions compared to the EU and the UK.
The point is that calculations based on overall percentages or per capita percentages are influenced by variables such as rising, static or falling populations which do need to be taken into account for any sensible study of the subject. But, as demonstrated above, they can also be be used to support any side of an argument. A 5 per cent overall cut is dismissed as derisory by those wanting radical change while a 160 per cent per capita cut for Australians would be seized on by those opposing any targets.
What should be remembered is that Australia’s target for the 2008-2012 commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol was 108 per cent of its 1990 figure. This was what the Howard Government was talking about when it said Australia was on track to meet its target. Australia was one of the few countries to be granted an increase on 1990 levels.
This means the effective time frame for Australia to achieve a 5 per cent reduction by 2020 is actually eight years and, assuming a 5 per cent reduction is achieved by then, the improvement will have been 13 per cent in eight years.
I know it is not always palatable to inject reason into a debate where the committed and the commentariat have entrenched views, but it is necessary.
You are correct to say the “bribes” to the EITE industries aren’t a big deal. Yet it should be recognised that the potential opposition of these industries had to be neutralised.
I suggest these industries will find it difficult to win public support against what will be a general perception of a 5 per cent target, particularly as they are getting increased compensation.
Certainly, sections of big business and its climate change denial allies (the house journal of which is The Australian) could mount a powerful scare campaign if the initial reduction were the EU’s 20-30 per cent or the UK’s 26-32 per cent.
The proposals have to get through the Senate. The White Paper’s admittedly modest target make this possible.
Foolhardiness in ignoring the reality of the political and economic climates should not be equated with courage on climate change.
I think a 5-15 per cent target by 2020 with a carbon pollution reduction scheme in place is a realistic compromise. It offers the scope for improvement, particularly if the Obama Administration gives the world a lead at the Copenhagen talks.
Providing sections of big business and the climate change deniers the opportunity to prevent any improvement isn’t really helpful.
2000 emissions were pretty close to 1990 emissions. they went down over the 1990s with the reduction in landclearing, and then back up in the late 1990s.
I commented this at JQ, thought I would repeat it here:
IS it so bad? Just indulging in some straight-line extrapolation after getting a nettled response from a friend in Climate Change Dept who i teased:
Look at graph on page 4-23 of the white paper.
In 2010 we will be at about 108-110% of 1990 emissions.
If we draw a straight line through that and 95% in 2020 (ie the 5% target), then that gives a 50% reduction on 1990 emissions by 2050.
If we draw a straight line through 110% in 2010 and 85% in 2020 (ie the 15% target), then that means that in 2050, our emissions will be at 10% in 2050 – a 90% reduction.
Seems ok if that trajectory is maintained?
A fairly basic point I’ve picked up from listening to economists: the costs of the ETS != value of permits.
The overall costs of the ETS to the country come in three basic sorts.
The first two are relatively small to negligible:
* the cost of collecting, allocating, and trading permits, and monitoring compliance.
* the costs of redistributing the money.
The biggie is
* the cost of redirected investments made (or not made) to avoid paying for permits.
For instance, if Hazelwood shuts down earlier than it otherwise would have because the cost of permits makes it uneconomic, that is a cost to the nation of the ETS.
I heard somewhere that Hazelwood was due for closure a while back, but is hanging on for an ETS so that it could get a wad of free permits, then close down and sell off all the permits it no longer needs at a tidy profit. Has anyone read enough to determine whether or not they will be able to do that, or am i paying too much attention to specious departmental gossip?
Arguing special circumstances for Australia because of high population growth doesn’t cut much ice unless you also allow for the special circumstances that make it much easier for Australia to cut:
1) The 1990 figures were inflated by the extraordinary level of landclearing going on at the time. The cuts already made to this have given us a huge headstart in making cuts.
2) Australia is drenched in sunlight, has huge amounts of wind per capita, and a larger wave power and hot dry rock resource than any other nation on Earth. Its a lot easier for us to make cuts than the Belgians, to take an example, who have none of these.
This is a pathetic sell-out.
Lefty E, I’d say three Senate seats – Vic, NSW, QLD.
Policy position 4.5
The first indicative national emissions trajectory will be:
• in 2010–11, 109 per cent of 2000 levels
• in 2011–12, 108 per cent of 2000 levels
• in 2012–13, 107 per cent of 2000 levels.
Their modeling predicts that the price required to achieve this will be $23 per tonne CO2-e. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is much much lower.
Is this Kevin Rudd or John Howard?
Robert, so a non-existent ‘problem’ has been invented by various charlatans and conmen to make money and gain power. KRudd then pretends to fix it, but is actually merely instituting a massive new tax and greatly expanding government control over the economy.
SO why the juvenile howling and vented spleens here and elsewhere?
The carpetbaggers and conmen get to make more money from the deluded, Kruddles gets a huge new tax, and everyone gets to whine at him.
Pity about the economic impact (which will reduce our ability to respond to the global cooling underway since about 2001) and the loss of jobs to working families, but what do they matter, eh?
MarkL
canberra
Australia was never going to have the kinds of targets that Europe had – we don’t have nuclear power for a start.
The target is low, and an ETS is the main mechanism for bringing carbon pollution down, but it’s not like it’s the only thing the govenment is doing. Just this weekend Rudd announced the fast tracking of its renewables fund and Queesnsland put in place energy requirements for new houses.
And with all the talk about a “Green New Deal” to get us through the downturn, I expect more funding on carbon reduction in the next budget.
Christine Milne I’m sure will go around saying the low target will result in the loss of the Great Barrier Reef. But the fact is, climate change is essentially beyond of our control. The main thing is that we have a cap and trade system of some description as a way of encouraging other countries to establish one too. And the cap will be lowered over time.
I wonder what planet MarkL is talking about in his reference to global cooling.
Thats right oz, forgot Nettle didn’t make it in 07. Definitely 3 senators.
And therein lies the sweet blowback irony of this alleged “compromise”: the Rudd Govt Mark 2 will need Greens approval to even scratch its own pimply arse post July 2011.
Steve, AFAICT the free permits to he power stations are a flat one-off giveaway. So, yes, they could shut down Hazelwood and flog off the free permits.
But there may be a gotcha clause in the detail that prevents them doing that. I’ll have to check.
JohnL @30, per capita per shmapita.
As Paul Burns says, NATIONAL STRIKE NOW!.
WHADDA WE WANT?
REAL CUTS TO EMISSIONS!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
NOW!!
NO FEES!
U.S OUT OF NICARAGUA!
NO NUCLEAR HAWKES!
GET YOUR ROARIES OFF …
sorry, got a little carried away there.
Do you prefer your bad government taken neat or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?
The Prime Minister actually acknowledged the problem, spoke the right rhetoric, but then did the coal industry’s bidding.
Carbon capture is real – the ALP has been captured by the carbon lobby. Of course, there were already signs of this. In the May budget the government means-tested solar panels, whilst giving $500 million to the coal industry.
In a way, this announcement was expected, but it still comes as a horrible shock.
Morally, this is an abdication of Australia’s responsibility to the world and to future generations – all for short term gain.
“Business” is divided on this issue. There are those who support the current paradigm – they profit from it. But there are many others – more innovative businesses, and usually smaller – who are looking for leadership to take us towards a different model. Rather than digging ourselves deeper into the greenhouse hole, we could have an inspiring journey into a carbon free future where we are no longer changing the climate and where we live sustainably. And this is a future which will build innovative businesses, create jobs, and make Australia a world beacon in innovation.
Australia is uniquely placed to contribute to resolving the climate crisis. We have great resources of sun, wind and tides, as well as geothermal energy. Our natural forests can be used to sequestrate carbon. We also control 40% of the world’s coal resources.
Instead of a bright new future, Labor is trying harder at the failed policies of the past. The government has set a risibly weak target, and is compensating the polluters at our expense. It could not have been worse under John Howard.
It is hard to credit the monumental scale of this policy failure by a government elected to deal with this issue.
We could be an inspiration to the world. Now we are its pariah.
The Prime Minister actually acknowledged the problem, spoke the right rhetoric, but then did the coal industry’s bidding.
.
Of course he has. He’s a professional.
.
This is hardly surprising it’s simple politics. Rudd looks at all the competing calls on his government and compromises. It doesn’t matter that the compromise might be useless as long as he can sell it in such a way that those who realize it’s useless are insignificant. The way politics works these people think of us – the people – as cattle to be manipulated and the various vested interests who gift them electoral money and provide really swank junkets as their mates and future employers.
.
The government will do shit until it really hits the fan. What’s going to hit the fan meantime is the economy and then watch every and his dog shut the fuck up about the environment.
How many Labor MPs are beholden to coal industry unions? In Victoria, NSW, Qld?? It’s the miners’ unions as much as the coal companies we should watch carefully. An alliance of capital and workers.
Lot of knee-jerk hand wringing going on here I see. Sad the lack of strategic big picture thought going on. I suggest people will begin to work it out over the next few weeks and realise their tantrums were just a little over played.
“I suggest people will begin to work it out over the next few weeks and realise their tantrums were just a little over played.”
Agreed on that.
It’s the miners’ unions as much as the coal companies we should watch carefully. An alliance of capital and workers.
.
Yes true.
.
You can’t blame people for trying to preserve their jobs or businesses. But the collusion between vested interests and politicians to the detriment of the country as a whole really is a blight on sensible policy.
.
Trouble is vested interests always play it both ways.So you’ve got a choice at the elections. A real one. The choice is: does the ‘l’ come before the ‘a’ or after it. Apart from that it’s just pay your tax and shut-up.
.
I tend to put my money more on peoples’ behaviour and technological innovation than the political process.
thomas how is this position going to lead to a better deal?
I really would like a plausible explanation…
Spiros at 43. I wish I could make sense of what you say. But I can’t. I wonder if you can.
Thomas Paine: the strategic picture is this:
1) we need a global deal.
2) it’s hard to see how this helps.
\
Would you like to explain your alternative view of the “big picture”?
Lefty E thinks that “I wager Greens will get 2 fed lower house seats minimum out of this, plus 2 Senate (one each state guaranteed now) plus a good handful at state level.” As someone who helped out on Adam Bandt’s campaign for Melbourne (where we turned Melbourne from safe Labor into a Labor-Green marginal), I wish I was that confident. I think the Senate estimate is conservative – I think we’re likely to gain in Vic, Qld and NSW, and retain WA and Tas. And we’re in with a shot in SA and the ACT too.
—Plug alert—
But the HoR seats don’t just win themselves, you know. To win Melbourne (presumably) and one of Sydney or Grayndler will take lots of work, and no small amount of money. If you want to ensure you’re not rewarding Labor for wimping out, you may want to consider taking action.
—End plug alert—
Preaching to the converted Alister! And yes, I really am quite confident the ALP need the Greens to pass any and all legislation by July 2011. Especially after this.
And do tell Thomas. Im very happy to entertain theories which suggest we just weren’t sold a turkey. If you can explain how this is ’strategic’, Id appreciate it. See, Id say if you were hoping to lower the bar internationally, this was the way to go.
Is it time to drop the progressive movements commitment to a market instrument to fight climate change and go back towards arguing for a carbon tax?
Steve @33,
I went to a presentation in september (i think), this site covered it with live blogging.
I asked about whether free permits would be able to be on-sold. The answer was yes, and most of the room agreed that they should be able to be. “if the company sells free permits, then they can raise capital to reduce their own emissions… “.
I believe the ETS should be what its there for, not a form of financing. If your gifted a free permit, its up to you to use it. Economic theorists might argue with me, but I’d call it bad form to get free permits, sell them and close down.
I also think that each permit should be paid for, probably purchased at a capped price to allow business certainty. Eg. Hazelwood capped at $10/permit so they can provide price certainty to customers.
Which customers?
by customers, i meant wholesale customers, Energy retailers who could plan their price rises to end consumers.
If the price was really volatile a retailer might put up prices and be accused of profiteering if the carbon price/ wholesale price decreased.
Even though i would like to see a reduction in emissions from coal stations, I dont see companies going insolvent due to carbon permit price spikes as desirable either.
Allow me to quote the CEEM submission to the Garnaut review:
Prescient stuff
Chris Anderson, a carbon tax is just as much a market mechanism – ensuring that market transactions include the price of CO2 pollution.
A non-market mechanism would be, for instance, the government banning certain types of consumer purchases or behaviour (installing incandescent light bulbs, driving hummers…), or even taking ownership of all power generation facilities and explicitly phasing out CO2 intensive generation sources and replacing them with low-CO2 ones.
With a government genuinely committed to getting CO2 down as quickly as possible (which isn’t going to happen in this country for at least another 10 years), we probably could halve our CO2 output within 10 or 15 years. It wouldn’t surprise me to see “emergency measures” considered sometime in the next 20 years, and it will be unfortunate, because it’s bound to be quite disruptive, and relies heavily on government competence.
Nuclear is the answer.
What was your question?
Certainly, replacing all current coal/gas-fired power stations with nuclear as quickly as possible would be one way to come close to halving our emissions over the next 15 years.
Not gonna happen though.
Having said that, if the Libs put that out as their policy for the next election, it would be interesting to see the reaction.
I’d vote for them, for a start (well, at least, I’d preference them ahead of the ALP).
I wager 4 lower house seats and agree with the +2 Senate.
They have a left faction in name only. Nothing progressive about the big business logging friendly and coal eating surrender monkey Labor party now.
Extreme foolhardiness (criminal negligence acually) in ignoring the reality of science that indicates we are heading for a 550ppm 3+ degrees warming with impacts on the planet and its inhabitants that are unacceptable.
Quite likely. Anyone remember Garnaut? That’s why he said NO FREE PERMITS. They reward the worst polluters. And they encourge them (like Hazelwood) to RAMP UP EMISSIONS so they get more free permits.
It’s Kevin Howard or John Rudd. Take your pick.
That’s not a fact, that’s bullshit. We can reduce emissions by 40% by 2020, but if we don’t set the target we certainly won’t reach it. We can demonstrate world leadership towards a solution. We can replace dirty coal jobs with clean green ones. We can do it.
The Rudd government and the joke “opposition” won’t do any of this though. So we need to vote parties and independents that will.
And we need a science based independent commission for climate change to form policy based on science to take real action on climate change free from political and industry interference.
There is no point leaving the poachers in charge of the game house.
40% by 2020 is probably practically feasible, but not politically so. Once the magnitude of upheaval and cost-increases becomes obvious, whatever governments gets started on such a project won’t last one term.
Alister, it’s a damn pity the Greens will target Melbourne next Federal election. That’s one of the best politicians we’ve got (Lindsay Tanner), so you certainly wont see my support for any campaign there.
Steve, they weren’t going to close Hazelwood any time soon, in fact the ETS may help it close down more quickly. Had the SEC still been in charge it reputedly would have closed down by now – except a Vic Labor Government in the 90s wouldn’t have had the money or foresight to have done that so it’s all moot.
Hmmn. Is that that same Lindsay Tanner who attacks the “radical Greens” and distributes propaganda to that effect in pathetic attempts to save his own bacon? He is part of the problem, not the solution. He has to go. After Kevin Howard’s shameful 5% copout, I think he is gone.
Look, if they’re worried about losing Tanner, I’m sure they’ll move him.
Further, that’s the same electorate (pretty much) that just voted in Mr let’s-get-cars-back-on-to-swanston-st Dolye.
I doubt the Greens will pick up any lower-house seats next election. But the ALP *do* need their preferences. Turnbull would have to be crazy not to work as hard as he can to get Greens voters to preference the Libs.
Yeah that’s the one. Brilliant bloke, highly ethical, couldn’t imagine a Greens candidate with anything like his talent (suspect they don’t have any).
Yep, if the ALP rates Tanner (and they should) they need to get him out of a marginal seat like Melbourne quick smart. It and seats like it will fall to the Greens in 2013, if not 2010.
Let’s not be so arrogant to think we can control the climate after wrecking everything else we have tried to control.
What is the perfect climate we are aiming for, who decides and who controls the thermostat?
This is a victory for common sense. From this we will grow.
Well speaking for myself, Im not too interested in “common sense” on this issue, as its pretty worthless. Im interested in the scientific consensus among people who know what they’re talking about.
But yes there is an answer for Warwick – it’s called the holocene. (Rather than the anthrocene that we’re busily constructing.)
It’s the climate that doesn’t create sudden changes to sea levels and the primary productivity of areas. It’s a bit older than the world currently is, a lot colder than it’s going to get soon.
Sudden changes to sea levels…hmmmmm, must have missed these.
Am I to assume they suddenly changed back?
Im interested in the scientific consensus among people who know what they’re talking about.
There is absolute scientific consensus that replacing all of our coal fired power stations with nuclear ones will achieve a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions.
Heed the science people