Kevin Rudd, please don't weaken Australia's policies for tackling climate change

Open letter to Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia
CC:  Mark Butler, Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Chris Bowen

Dear Prime Minister,

I support your government’s efforts to introduce a price on pollution and am working in my community for stronger action on climate change and a renewables-powered future.

I am concerned that your government might be about to weaken the carbon price package. The price on pollution is working, is lowering emissions, and along with other programs like the Renewable Energy Target is driving transformation of our power supply. If it ain’t broke why fix it?

If you do decide to change the scheme, please keep the following things in mind:

1. We need to increase ambition on climate change and adopt a higher pollution reduction target than our current 5% target;
2. Moving to a floating price early will have budgetary implications. I’d support cutting polluter handouts like the unnecessary billions going to brown coal generators or polluting diesel subsidies for miners. But cutting important programs like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Biodiversity Fund would be inexcusable.
3. We’re still missing really important planks of climate change policy. We need a legislated National Energy Efficiency scheme, we need longer term and higher renewable energy targets; we need to reduce and ultimately phase out coal and gas exports; we need to remove fossil fuel subsidies and we need a plan for climate change adaptation. We’ve only just begun the critical journey of decarbonising our economy.
4. We need to protect Australia's remaining native forests for their natural values and to preserve the carbon they store.

I understand what’s at stake this Federal election and that there’s an important choice before Australians. That’s why I urge you to be the leader we need on climate change.

You are tasked as Members of Parliament with representing your local constituents and the Australian People.  I urge to to avoid doing deals with big business that will weaken Australia's policies on climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions.  The Carbon Price has proven to be effective.  Please do not weaken it.

External links

• Send a message to Kevin Rudd to keep moving forward on climate action, Environment Victoria

Victoria must keep the 20% emissions reduction target

Dear Premier Baillieu and Dr Lynne Williams,

CC: Hon Michael O’Brien, Minister for Energy and Resources
Hon Ryan Smith, Minister for Environment and Climate Change
Hon Peter Ryan, Deputy Premier
Hon Kim Wells, Treasurer

Re: Review of Climate Change Act

I support the Victorian Climate Change Act and would be deeply disappointed if Victoria’s target to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 2020 was abandoned.

I note that the Climate Change Act 2010 passed both Parliamentary chambers unopposed. The Coalition participated in the Parliamentary debates at length and stated publicly on numerous occasions that it accepted the 20 percent emissions reduction target.

I understand that the current review is a legislative requirement as outlined in the Climate Change Act due to the introduction of a price on carbon. I’m calling on your government to ensure this review strengthens, rather than weakens our state government action on climate change.

I support the Act, and encourage the Baillieu Government to ensure Victoria takes leading action on climate change in addition to the national price on carbon because:

• The 20 percent target will attract investment in clean energy jobs and industries in Victoria;
• There will still be market failures under a price on carbon. We will still need to support energy efficiency measures, remove fossil fuel subsidies, support public good research and development and overcome barriers to clean energy deployment. 
• The price on carbon does not cover all sectors of the economy. In particular we need state policies to address emissions from transport and agriculture;
• Victoria’s 20 percent target is stronger than Australia’s national target and therefore   represents a bridge between where we are now on emissions nationally and where the science tells us we need to be;

I am deeply disappointed by the series of actions the Baillieu Government has taken to dismantle Victorian climate policy since being elected. I call on the Government to take this opportunity to change direction on the environment and climate change. I trust that this review is about developing a policy agenda that faces up to the challenge of climate change and this government’s responsibility to act, rather than shirking our responsibilities to current and future generations.

I have previously provided submissions to the Victorian Government about the urgent need for strong emission reduction targets and am very disappointed to see Victoria is now moving backwards on this.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Campbell

Real leadership on emission reductions is required now Mr Rudd.

Kevin Rudd is a hypocrite and a political opportunist who is doing nothing to reduce Australia's emissions with a fatally compromised CPRS (ETS).

Instead he just plays politics by slamming "the opposition" and torpedoing Copenhagen negotiations for his fossil fuel Corporate mates (with his ridiculous 5% emission reduction target).

Developed nations such as Australia, the United States and European countries must demonstrate how to live a low-carbon lifestyle in a sustainable low-carbon economy replete with green jobs.

This would provide a template for developing nations such as China and India to adopt. Unfortunately, our political leaders are intent on providing corporate welfare to polluters to continue on, and are not displaying the leadership we need on this.

We don't need nuclear or more coal exports.

We need:

• real emission reductions each and every year on a trajectory to 40% reductions by 2020 and zero net emissions by 2030
• renewable and zero emissions energy now - wind, solar, wave and geothermal
• improve energy efficiency by 40% or more.

Links

• Rudd blames climate sceptics for global sabotage
• Old king coal
• Climate war gets personal for Rudd
• The climate change lobbying register (PDF)
  
  
  

Yes, Kevin Rudd is a coal eating surrender monkey

Well, my prediction of the 10% +/- 5% emissions reduction target set by the Rudd Labor government for Australia was accurate. Sadly thought, the target is a ridiculous 5%.

Penny Wong's justification for this is "jobs".

But securing today’s 19C dirty jobs while NOT building the low pollution economy of tomorrow, or creating ANY green jobs is a shocking outcome.

And the Government will be giving $billions of our money to the worst polluters.

This is hardly a recipe for progress.

This is a joke, and its on us (the public) who are expected to pay for this nonsense. And we have no say in this - the government is hostage to industry and not representing the best interests of the Australian people.

I think we need a campaign of civil disobedience.

I am considering installing a few more panels and completely disconnecting from the grid. Labor is stuffing up the Feed In Tariff legislation at both state and national levels. No more of my money will go to coal fired power interests. And remember, buying Greenpower doesn't reduce emissions either. If you don't believe me, ask a retailer and see what they say.

I will refuse to pay for the Victorian desalination plant as we don’t use any Melbourne water - our 23,500 litres of tanks keeps us supplied.

Maybe I will also withold a proportion of my income tax that will be misdirected to the ludicrous fossil fool corporate welfare?

We need to stop carbon emissions, not reward them. The Rudd government's whitepaper is perverse.

Their own adviser, Ross Garnaut, now sidelined by the Rudd government, has strongly criticised the corporate welfare measures in the whitepaper.

Listen to all the weasel words from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong about "per capita emissions".

It is really quite simple - are our emissions going down, and if so when?

The government's answer to this at present is "no", and "no commitment"

The so called, 5% reduction target is founded on the false pretence that Australia's greenhouse emissions did not rise from 1990 - 2000; hence the misleading claim that it makes little difference whether 1990 or 2000 is chosen as the base year. In fact Australia's real emissions rose by 18.98% in the 1990s (according to the AGO) but this fact is concealed by tricky carbon accounting introduced by the Howard government, which insisted on being the only developed country to include reduced land-clearing in its Kyoto calculations. This has become known as the "Australia Clause".

If Australia were to calculate its emissions on the same basis as all other developed countries this reduction of 5% relative to 2000 would actually be exposed as an increase in emissions of 13% relative to 1990. Kevin Rudd's top figure of a 15% reduction becomes an increase of 1%.

Links

• One little word undoes the PM's claims on greenhouse gases | theage.com.au
• Switch to solar undermined by Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• It's so much hot air | theage.com.au
• Garnaut turns heat on Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• Garnaut slams climate plan | theage.com.au
  
  
  
  
  

Will Kevin Rudd be a coal eating surrender monkey?

The Rudd Labor government is set to releases it's much awaited target for greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2020. What will will it be?

We have some some clues.

Rudd said on The 7.30 Report last week.

The second point I would say is this: is that this Government is determined absolutely to get the balance right. We understand the need for decisive action on the environment long term. If we fail to act there, the economic and environmental consequences for Australia are horrendous, as they would be globally. Secondly, we intend, also, in framing our approach to the carbon pollution reduction scheme to be entirely mindful of the difficult economic circumstances Australia and the world is facing as well. And I’m sure when this is delivered, early next week, we’ll get attacked from the left, from the right, we’ll get attacked by various radical green groups saying that we haven’t gone far enough because we haven’t closed down the coal industry by next Thursday.

So the governments PR tactics in dealing with climate change are revealed:

1. Frame the debate so that anyone who says Rudd’s weak target is weak is “a member of a radical green group trying to close down the coal industry”

Like Governor David de Kretzer, Professor Karoly, Al Gore, Malcolm Fraser, Arnold Schwartzeneggor, Barack Obama, Ban Ki-Moon, Prince Charles and Rupert Murdoch etc?

2. Make a token gesture towards renewable energy

Kevin Rudd announced today that the government would "bring forward $500m funding for renewable energy".

But he and Peter Garrett will keep the class warfare going with the cap on the solar rebate, and allow the dog’s breakfast of mostly woeful state Clayton’s feed-in tariff legislation to proliferate.

Whenever I hear the world “balance” from the government, I get a shiver down my spine.

Balance the wishes of the coal eating rent seeking surrender monkeys against the probable loss of the Great Barrier Reef, 3m sea level rises, and ice free (and 5 degree hotter) summer Arctic and no more snow in Australia?

This is not balance, this is capitulation and gross negligence.

The target? My guess is Rudd will come up with a 2020 target of a reduction of 10% (+/-5) and may even be audacious/hypocritical enough to also announce a long-term “aspirational” non-binding target of limiting greenhouse gases to 450ppm.

When we need a 40% by 2020 target, and to reduce GHG from the current 380 to 350 or lower.

Al Gore hit the nail on the head in Poland:

"We can’t negotiate the facts. We can’t negotiate the truth about the situation. And for those who are too fearful to finish, it can be done and must be done. Make sure we succeed, . . . It is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation."

And overseas:

• European Union leaders in Brussels have juest set targets for EU greenhouse gas emissions reduced to 20 percent lower than 1990 levels by 2020.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger has set the following targets for California: 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, 80% below 1990 by 2050

The problem with Kevin Rudd's Labor government is that they are:

• Not listening to the Australian people who want immediate reductions in emissions

• Captive to big business and industry - delivering a weak ETS that won't reduce emissions

• Playing russian roulette with our environment (reef, Kakadu, snow, water for major cities, bushfires)

• Neglecting obvious energy efficiency opportunities that can immediately reduce emissions and save us money

• Propping up our high emissions motor industry rather then legislating for a transition to clean electric cars

• Allowing the ongoing destruction of Australia's native forests resulting in emissions of up to 1000 tonnes per hectare, rather then protecting them immediately

• Deliberately ignoring the latest science that now indicates we are in a climate emergency (Hansen, etc)

• Playing politics and looking for weak compromise solutions when we need emergency action on emission reductions to ensure a safe climate future.

• Once again consigning Australia to being a climate laggard, not a global leader.

And of course Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are no better, and actually still even worse - they have more climate change denialists/delusionists in their ranks.

Links

• Take action - information on latest science and politics, from the Climate Emergency Network
  
• Kevin Rudd on The 7.30 Report
  
• Climate change quotes - Greenlivingpedia
• Climate change - Greenlivingpedia
  
• Gore's tough message to leaders BBC NEWS
• PM fast-tracks renewable energy investment - ABC News
• Rudd under fire for keeping solar rebate cap - ABC News