Don’t think the Government is not playing a careful game of expectations management with its approach to a carbon reduction target.
This is a government that sells itself as being in “the reforming centre” of Australian politics. Remember that phrase? We haven’t heard it too much since the financial crisis took hold, but it continues to apply. And Kevin Rudd’s positioning on climate change all along has been to portray his government as between what he characterises as the sceptics and deniers of the Coalition and the Green fundamentalists who would destroy jobs.
Both characterisations are incorrect, although the one about the Coalition is closer to the mark.
Apart from the occasional leak about what Penny Wong’s appearance at the Press Club on Monday will produce, the Government has kept quiet about its emissions target, content to let its opponents do the talking. And they’ve obliged. Green groups have hammered the Government for not leading the charge at Poznan. Speculation that the Government will opt for a soft target have prompted calls from scientists and some businesses for the Government to commit to big emission cuts.
And on the other side, the Coalition has been hardening its position. Andrew Robb said today an ETS should “probably” start in 2012 but not until businesses had got over the financial crisis. Robb comes across as an arch-sceptic, although Coalition sources say he has “come a long way” on the issue. Barnaby Joyce is saying flat-out he won’t support an ETS for the time being. And Ron Boswell thinks we need a global cooling policy.
All of which perfectly suits the Government. Without saying a word, it has reinforced the impression it is in the middle of the debate, not being irresponsible, but not ignoring climate change either.
And it must be licking its lips at the prospect of driving further wedges into the Coalition in the Senate on this issue. Particularly given there’s a view within the Nationals that Malcolm Turnbull has been too much of a small target and needs to start standing up to the Government. You’d have to bet the ETS will be the sort of issue the Nats want a real fight on. The impact on agriculture, even though it won’t initially be included in the ETS, will be a big issue for them.
For those who would complain about the Government looking for political advantage on such an important issue, don’t forget for a moment we’re dealing here with politicians — and politicians worried about what a recession could do to their electoral chances. 2009 is shaping up as a terrible year economically for the Government. Labor will not let any opportunity go to hurt the Opposition, even on an issue as important as this.
The Government has also allowed the impression to build that it is considering going for a target even softer than that advocated by Ross Garnaut. When Ross Garnaut released his report, there was plenty of criticism from environmental groups about his lack of ambition. Now, suddenly, just sticking to the Garnaut formulae will be seen as a modest win for the planet, particularly if the Government commits to 25% reductions in the context of a comprehensive international agreement. It could commit to 40% or 50%, really, for all the difference it will make — there won’t be a comprehensive international agreement next year.
The Government is probably banking on a modest international agreement among developed countries next year, with China coming on board down the track — and not necessarily through an ETS framework, but through a variety of carbon abatement measures that will muddy the waters somewhat about how much everyone is doing. India and other developing countries will eventually take action through regional and maybe even bilateral agreements. This cobbled-together framework will be late, insufficient and prone to cheating, but it will be better than nothing and enough for Australia to eventually pursue serious emissions cuts.
Funny thing is, we all — politicians, environmentalists, business, journalists — still act like we can decide whether Australia will suffer from climate change or not. We can’t. The rest of the world holds our fate in its hands. The question shouldn’t be whether Australia leads the rest of the world, but how hard we beg for action. And we should be begging very hard indeed.
It is growing more and more obvious that we will miss the boat on climate change. although the science is clear and we can destroy our world we are generally non believers in science. Look at the way we do not support it and we do not encourage people to study it. It looks to me that we will leave to our descendants a world that is unlivable in for our species and the species that inhabit it with us. What do you expect from a species that developed the hydrogen bomb and persecuted those that opposed it.
I must be getting senile. It was an English scientist who wrote into Crikey-because Andrew Bolt wouldn’t answer his letters-. Trust me!
As mentioned on the string yesterday, quoting Monica Oliphant of International Solar Energy Society, Sydney Conference, Australia like 193 other countries has 1.22% or less of global emissions. These 194 constitute fully 30% of global emissions.
On the other hand 15 countries emit more than Australia making 70% of global emissions.
To my way of looking at things that’s 193 countries that will be influenced by the approach of middle of the road Australia. The Howard mean and tricky approach, or the love and kindness to all People approach.
Australia can accept it’s role as a pivotal small to middle ranking power and face up to our historical responsibilities. The Global Financial Crisis is actually a useful opportunity to kick start the retooling of our energy economy from a comparatively lower base compared to a few months back, with much less distractions about boom windfall profits.
Calling this present disaster ‘Climate Change’ immediately gave the hired help (Rupert Murdoch being the hirer)
room to manoeuvre; twisting facts and trampling over anyone elses’ opinions. One Andrew Bolt-about a year ago-received, via Crikey, a plea that Bolt had taken his thesis, and turned it completely around and used these altered facts as proof that Climate Change was a non-event. Andrew Bolt was, quite simply, devastated. I don’t think!
A much easier way of selling this idea is to call it for what it is. POPULATION EXPLOSION. This is much meatier. And a wonderful mine-field.
“reforming centre” my arse – the government are fence-sitting do-nothings.
Michael T is right when he says it’s either the end of the world and something dramatic must be done … or it isn’t. Craven Rudd needs to choose a side and either get serious about trying to avert the climate catastrophe, or he needs to have the decency to tell the electorate that he misled us and that he has no intention of doing what is necessary to save our children.
If he doesn’t, the current government will be remembered by history, if there is a society to remember, as worse than those who tried to appease Hitler prior to WW2.