Why have they also increased the "negotiating range" maximum from 15% to 25% - bringing it inline with the minimum range or 25% to 40% set in Bali in 2008?
Why have they introduced a cap on the carbon price of $10.00 per tonne?
There are two answers to these questions:
- Politics
- Business as usual - the grubby links between government and polluting industries.
Politics
The politics is asinine. Kevin Rudd does not want to negotiate with the Greens who have stated they support emission reduction targets in the range of 25-40% that will be negotiated at Copenhagen later this year. So Kevin Rudd has designed the CPRS so the Liberal-National opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull in particular, will be forced to support it.
Turnbull has been saying it should be delayed by 1-2 years; now it has been. Turnbull supports the 5% target. Turnbull is under pressure from the skeptics in his party - such as Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey - to support a weak and ineffective CPRS.
Business as usual - links between government and industry
Turnbull is also under pressure from the same industry lobbyists - such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, and representatives from the coal/fossil fuel lobby (the "Greenhouse Mafia") - to support a weak and infective CPRS. They will threaten the opposition with hostile advertisements in marginal seats during the next election, and probably a few more dirty tricks too.
The wash up
If Turnbull - and the Liberal National "Opposition" - cave in and vote in the Senate for the CPRS with the Rudd Government we will have a scheme locked in that won't reduce carbon emissions.
Any parliamentarian who votes for the CPRS is playing Russian Roulette with a safe climate future. Kevin Rudd has stated that 450ppm CO2 is acceptable. Sorry Kevin, I disagree.
Scientists tell us that this could result in 3 degree global temperature rise, sea level rises of over 2 metres, and more frequent severe bushfires.
What can we do?
We must maintain hope that our political leaders will act responsibly and take immediate action to reduce climate change. We need to keep telling them that they must.
We need to spread awareness in the community about how "political stitch ups" are endangering our shared future, and that of the planet, by feeding the climate emergency we are now experiencing.
I think we also need to consider how we can get action on climate change informed and driven by science rather than hijacked by short term political motives.
We can also support the Greens' campaign for effective climate change action
I have also sent Don Henry from the ACF an email telling him I am reconsidering my 20+ year membership and support of the ACF, after his totally inappropriate glowing endorsement of Rudd's CPRS backflip. Is he planning to run for a safe Labor seat like Peter Garrett did?
External links
- Has Kevin Rudd "taken a signficant step forward on climate change"?, David Spratt
- Emissions rethink could trigger early election: Greens | theage.com.au
- "Greener, browner, and a lot later", Rudd greenhouse emissions retreat pitched at Coalition, The Age
- Rudd denies ETS delay is reckless | theage.com.au
- Rudd’s ETS backdown is about controlling the debate - Crikey
- Labor spineless on emissions - Crikey
2 comments:
Peter, I agree with almost everything you said - except supporting the Greens. Lately the Greens have become just like all the other political parties - ready to sacrifice principles for votes. In Qld the Greens said they were against the Traveston Dam but then did their best to ensure the ALP was elected again so they could build the dam. It will be the finest dam the Greens will ever build. After belting everyone around the ears that a target of 40% is almost essential for our survival, they are happy to get into bed with the ALP at 25% - who is "rogering" who on that one?? Finally, the Greens are supporting the Aussie troop build up in Afghanistan. What? People will say they haven't supported it. Ah, but they have. The Greens have opposed the sending of troops to every action, including Afghanistan yet this time when the ALP is doing it they are silent. You certainly can't trust the Libs or ALP and we are all learning that you can't trust the Greens - apparently they don;t really stand for anything
Janus, I understand your frustration with politics, often compromises get made that are not ideal. I am not sure about issues such as the Traveston dam in Queensland. Personally, I think dams are a major environmental issue, and are not much good when they are empty. I favour distributed local water storage and better recycling rather than building more dams.
The Greens still oppose the deployment of Australian troops in Afghanistan. However, given they are there, I think the Greens position is that they should properly supported. I think the policy is that troops should be used for civil and nation building purposes rather than combat.
I think the Greens are light years ahead of both Labor and Liberals on forests, climate change and energy policy.
Post a Comment