tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13662496.post655925995897875232..comments2024-03-05T22:10:22.733+11:00Comments on Peter Campbell's blog: The failure of CopenhagenPeter Campbellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11193189968913129464noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13662496.post-30058759379915894582010-01-21T04:51:34.502+11:002010-01-21T04:51:34.502+11:00I worked on the Higgins campaign for the greens - ...I worked on the Higgins campaign for the greens - I dont understand why people were down about it - it was a great result! <br /><br />33% primary vote with no labor candidate, highest federal primary vote ever. Better than the 28% they got in Kooyong, with a similar high profile candidate, Peter Singer.<br /><br />And the Liberals spent half a million versus the greens 35k.<br /><br />A great result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13662496.post-762770238312629862009-12-22T23:49:44.534+11:002009-12-22T23:49:44.534+11:00Grant,
Australia has developed a meeting culture ...Grant,<br /><br />Australia has developed a meeting culture in both government and corporate circles where there is often too much talk and too little action.<br /><br />The problem with restricting Copenhagen negotiations to the top 20 polluters is that they are all demonstrating great unwillingness to stop their polluting ways, and it is the rest of the world that is suffering as a result. In particular, small developing nations of the Pacific are worst impacted - the writing is on the wall for their demise due to sea level rises.<br /><br />Look at the protests that brewed up around G20 talkfests and top down globlisation policies - I really don't think it is in the worlds' best interests to go back there.<br /><br />A global 2 tonnes per capita targets would get around specifying and agreeing individual country targets. <br /><br />I think that spending on sectors like health, education, welfare and transport now need to allocated in a framework where avoiding dangerous climate change is the number one priority - otherwise they all be adversely impacted as the effects of climate change intensify. Imagine a Black Saturday every year for the next decade.<br /><br />I think the next election will be fought on all the normal topics with lots of the usual spin - just look at the Higgins by-election as a case in point.<br /><br />Unfortunately it seems that more climate catastrophes are required to shift the majority of voters away from the "politics as usual" of the old parties.<br /><br />The really big opportunities that are being overlooked are green and clean energy jobs and exports - which can be acheived without a dramatic drop in living standards. Beware the scare campaigns of the big polluters. They really don't care about jobs, or the environment. <br /><br />We need som real courage from our political leaders, not the fawning to old industries that we currently see from both the Labor and Liberal parties.Peter Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193189968913129464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13662496.post-49256157848088351932009-12-22T12:03:19.130+11:002009-12-22T12:03:19.130+11:00Peter, I like most Australians did not expect much...Peter, I like most Australians did not expect much to come from Copenhagen. I know you worked in a corporate environment, and would have experienced meetings with a cast of thousands where, due to the numbers, vested interests, etc. nothing was achieved.<br /><br />In my view, we should now (and should have done from the start), restricted the Copenhagen show to the top 20 polluters, and had them work out emission reductions that their economies, businesses, and electorates would have accepteed. Binding targets with penalties are a major negative, as these items are sure to ensure that Western Governments only agree to attempting to reduce their emissions to very small amounts. No Western Government would survive if their nation did not meet targets and they had to reduce spending on Health, Education, Welfare, Transport, and even the Environment, to enable them to pay some imposed penalty.<br /><br />I have noticed that Bob Brown has stated that next years election will be fought on emission reductions, but I suspect that this would be very dangerous as it would be very easy for a opportunistic party to prove that costs of energy will go througth the roof, taxes will dramtically increase (possibly through a carbon tax), unemployment increase, all cost increases to businesses would be passed to the electorate, and Government expenditure would have to be decreased in major areas affecting the electorate. <br /><br />It would be better for the Greens to work with the Government of the day, to reduce emissions, over say 20 - 50 years, through steps that do not impact too dramtically the living standards of Australians. Remember, Australians buy 800k - 900k new motor vehicles a year, hundreds of millions of electrical appliances, and we need to build tens of thousands of new homes each year. It would be a very brave / stupid party that went to the electorate, and told them that what ever they had bought, they cannot use as somebody is going to price the cost of energy so they cannot use the new item just purchased. Add to this, if somebody did push up the price of energy, then inflation would ensure interest rates rise, causing more pain to the electorate. No, Bob needs to work with the Government to reduce emissions through steps that all stakeholders agree to, and that will not impact too dramtically the living standards of the electorate.Grantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13662496.post-10214903296472152482009-12-22T02:39:57.503+11:002009-12-22T02:39:57.503+11:00Very depressing. But lets keep up the good fight!...Very depressing. But lets keep up the good fight! Hopefully as the cost of alternative energy keeps going down and down we can reach a turning point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com