Climate
policy is one of the areas where there are very substantial differences between
the major parties.
Many
people concerned about Australia’s inadequate climate policy hoped that the
change of Prime Minister would lead to a more effective climate policy. However,
the Liberal and National sceptics are still controlling the Government’s
climate policy with the aim of doing as little as possible to reduce the
nation’s carbon emissions while claiming that the Government is taking the
matter seriously.
A
couple of events illustrate what a problem this is for Turnbull, the man who
apparently still believes that climate change is a major concern which needs to
be addressed. Statements in April from two
senior Coalition Ministers – Attorney-General George Brandis (Liberal Party)
and Nationals Deputy Senator Fiona Nash highlight the division in the
Government over this area. Both claimed
that the science on climate change was not yet settled. And a NSW State Liberal Council meeting in
early March passed a resolution calling on the federal government to “arrange and hold
public debates/discussions” between scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and “independent scientists” (presumably climate sceptics). More than 70% of the delegates apparently
supported this motion. This indicates a
high level of climate scepticism amongst NSW Liberals.
A
further illustration of lack of interest in or commitment to the climate issue
may be seen in a recent National Party booklet - Protecting and improving our environment - available
in the Page electorate. This discusses
the party’s policy in a variety of environmental areas but makes no mention of
climate change or its impacts. Surely
one of the greatest environmental and economic threats to our nation should
have been worthy of a mention! Obviously
Fiona Nash is not the only National who does not believe climate science is
“settled”.
It
is no wonder that the Coalition’s policy on climate change is so weak given the
division in their parties over the issue.
The Coalition has committed to a target of a 26-28% reduction relative
to 2005 levels by 2030. They claim these
reductions are to be achieved through their “Direct Action” policy which
involves auctioning emissions reduction projects to the cheapest corporate
bidder. It’s a scheme involving paying
polluters - from taxpayer funds - to limit pollution. And these polluters are industries which have
already had many years to clean up their acts.
Environment
Minister Greg Hunt claims that the Government’s targets for 2020 will be
achieved but does not acknowledge that this will only happen because of surplus
credits Australia still has for land clearance. “Direct Action” alone will not
do it.
The
Labor Party presents a united front on the need for strong climate action and has
a much stronger policy for addressing climate threats. It has pledged reductions of 45% over the
same time frame. It intends to achieve
the reductions through an emissions trading scheme and also has plans for a
significant boost to the development of renewable energy, a sector which
contracted during the Abbott prime ministership.
The
Climate Change Authority believes that large reductions are necessary,
recommending cuts of 40%-60% by 2030 relative to 2000 levels. So Labor’s target is more in line with their
recommendations than is the Coalition’s target.
The
climate issue has not been a major one during the election campaign. Understandably the Coalition wants to focus
on what it believes are its strengths – and climate change policy certainly is
not a strength because of party division and the weak policy Turnbull inherited
from Abbott.
Labor
has endeavoured to raise the climate change profile in the campaign with its
policy. Predictably the launch of its
proposal for an emissions trading scheme saw a Liberal scare campaign about Labor’s
climate policy which has been debunked by The Guardian’s Lenore Taylor[1]. She concludes her article with: “And the
barren, stupid climate wars and dumb fact-free scare campaigns are a guaranteed
recipe for a terrible economic and environmental failure.”
While
there might not be much stomach for effective climate action in the Coalition
parties, a recent survey has found that the concern about climate is more
widespread in the community than it was five years ago. Deborah Cotton[2] from the Sydney University of Technology found
that 75% of people believe it is an important global issue and that 57% of
respondents want Australia to act on climate change irrespective of whether
other countries do or not.
“Inter-generational
theft” was a term used by the Coalition during the first year or two of its current
term. They used it in connection with
budget deficits. We do not hear this
term now that the Coalition itself has increased the budget deficit
substantially. However, “intergenerational
theft” could be applied to what will be happening to future generations as a
result of weak responses to the climate emergency. The impact of our lack of
action now will place an intolerable burden on future generations.
If
the Coalition is returned to Government, there will be a need for a vigorous
campaign to force it to adopt much stronger measures to cut our emissions and
do our share in the global effort to restrict the extent of global warming. The
big question is whether Malcolm Turnbull will have the courage to stand up to
the dinosaurs in his party and to act in the national interest and the
interests of future generations of Australians.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers
28th June 2016
______________________
______________________GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment