Tony Abbott will rally a “green army” to save the environment. But his anointed generals say it will be powerless in the face of climate change inaction.
The Opposition leader wants to boost the numbers of the long-running Green Corps program — rebadged “Green Job Corps” by the Rudd government — to put up to 15,000 volunteers and jobless to work on tree-planting and environmental management projects. Abbott made it a centrepiece of an environmental pitch to the Sydney Institute last night.
“Over the next few months … I will be talking to organisations such as Conservation Volunteers Australia and Greening Australia — the bodies that formulated and subsequently ran the original Green Corps — about the potential for a much larger and more capable national conservation corps,” Abbott said.
That’s all well and good, says Greening Australia. But David Freudenberger, the group’s director of science, told Crikey “it will be a waste of time, talent and energy if it isn’t integrated with a mechanism to reduce emissions”.
Freudenberger is staying out of the political debate and the merits of the government’s emissions trading scheme. But he is clear on the need for a wholesale environmental management program that includes carbon management.
“A 15,000 strong environmental workforce will only be effective if it works in partnership with environmental scientists, industry and farmers to ensure land repair is resilient to climate change, provides tangible benefits to biodiversity, improves river health and supports community well being,” he says.
“The challenge of both sides of government is how do we work out a mechanism so that we start paying the true cost of production. We’re not challenging the right to pollute the environment. Two centuries of environmental subsidy has to end because the environment is losing patience.”
History shows direct investment by governments in the environment is inefficient in itself, Freudenberger asserts. “If you give the right signals with industry, rapid change can occur,” he says. “Fifteen thousand hard-working land repairers will be a drop in the ocean and the atmosphere without [economic reform].”
In attempting to recast the environment as a “good conservative principle” for the Liberal Party in an election year, Abbott admitted Green Corps has had “intermittent attention” and “largely failed to make a difference”. But he says the Rudd government has turned the scheme into a “virtual work-for-the-dole program” and he wants it boosted to include short-term trainees.
“It would be Australia’s first deployment of large numbers of people on behalf of the environment and the first time that we have approached environmental remediation with the same seriousness and level of organisation that we have brought, say, to dealing with bushfires or other local and regional emergencies,” he said last night.
“A concern to protect the environment should mean much more than voting Green or joining Greenpeace. It should mean preferring those trying to do good rather than merely to look good on this issue.”
But doing good, Greenpeace’s John Hepburn hits back, must go beyond “a 15,000-strong army doing battle with feral animals and noxious weeds for the sake of our planet”. He told Crikey:
That’s not to say that all of his proposals were wrong-headed. I have no doubt that a green army could do a lot of good work on reforestation projects and making our cities more liveable. Rehabilitating creeks and rivers is particularly important and nobody has any doubt that we need an urgent solution to solve the Murray-Darling crisis.
He is also right about something else: Kevin Rudd is full of hot air on climate change and the CPRS is indeed a dog of a policy.
If Tony Abbot was serious about obtaining Green preferences, there are many policies that he could announce in the coming weeks as part of his ‘direct action’ agenda: a ban on new coal power stations, cutting the billions of dollars of subsidies poured into the fossil fuel industry, adopting a serious industry policy for large-scale clean energy through a national feed-in-tariff.
Abbott revealed nothing of the coalition’s plans to reduce carbon levels, saying Rudd is obsessed with the issue and ignoring issues such as the plight of the Murray-Darling river system, which he called “Australia’s biggest environmental problem”. A coalition government will renew the “invitation” to the states to refer its power over water management of the system to the Commonwealth.
The revived takeover plans have little support among irrigators, according to NSW Irrigators Council CEO Andrew Gregson. “A few simple telephone calls would have told Mr Abbott that the irrigation industry across the basin and those that rely on it oppose a federal takeover and have consistently made a case against it,” he said.
My comment just now on Cubby opinion piece in the SMH reacting to same news:
1. TA references on 7.30 last night to outdoorsy interests is recreation not conservation. So first fallacy.
2. There is nothing practical – Howard or TA – in woodchipping mature wet forests 1996 to present. Shameful, wildfire promoting landuse policy.
3. TA is seeking a reverse wedge just as Howard did on 1996 $1B Telstra sale heritage trust fund. It worked on ACF and TWS sitting on their hands back then.
4. ALP wedged back in 2007 using climate, which also worked. But now Coalition has more to play with like business friendly WWF at peak level, to offset ACF and TWS. [ALP has annexed Garrett and ACF despite protestations.]
5. Both Coalition and ALP are wrong footed by Hansen/NASA, IMF, McKibbon etc calling for a carbon tax, not cap and trade. Only Greens have the intellectual framework right so far as science bears down us all.
6. Greens and indy senators Troeth and Boyce can make glorious changes if Rudd shifts ground towards Greens for a majority vote on climate. Ironic.
7. Abbott’s green corp 1998 was always about pre empting the ‘Jabiluka express’ phenomenon where hundreds of the cream of Oz youth [bused up from SE Aust and] blocked a U mine in NT in alliance with traditional owner Yvonne Margarula. And similar forest blockades of the 90ies [which helped changed state govt in NSW in 1995].
The gambit was to harvest and re-direct youth. Cynical? Soon after Jabiluka infusion to society up there, NT state referendum defeated, ALP elected first time in 30 years in NT. Ouch. No wonder he wants a youth busy painting rocks.
Oh a couple more things after a closer read:
a. In holiday mode pollies talk about green stuff, so it has to be read down a bit, just as press run a natural history story every Monday because folks have been out and about. It’s trade work rather than sincerity as such.
b. Hepburn is right but he got active after Jabiluka above, if memory serves. Freudenberg too, though recall WWF were very pragmatic when Howard exploited their ambition in 1996 to step up into the peak level of national affairs, preface to current oil industry refugee leader now. (Head of Greening Australia (nsw?, previously national?) was ex WWF CEO in 1996.)
c. Never forget only 10% or so of farmers were card carrying members of Landcare pioneered late 80ies by National Farmers (umbrella group to state bodies) and ACF (again more umbrella than numbers?). Sincerity is very limited in our society when it comes to sustainability.
d. note similarly Rural Fires Service in NSW claims some 60K vollies but a captain said to a public meeting last year really about 15K or so! Ouch!
e. Ironic that TA is virtually parading the Turnbull agenda – irrigator efficiency in MD basin, confronting his own side of politics about the environmental policy framework. On a live blogging by TA on SDT I wrote but was omitted, “Saul, what’s it going to take for you to fight for your planet?” referencing to Paul/Damscus, but also Rural Fire Service tv adverts last month for bushfires ‘what will it take for you to fight?”.
“…Abbott revealed nothing of the coalition’s plans to reduce carbon levels…”
Did you even read his speech?
“…In the next few weeks, I will outline the Coalition’s thinking on how to foster environmental improvements that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions…”
He makes his plan pretty clear.
Should he have asked you first?
Hepburn’s Bullets and Barns approach is bogus and yet again underscores why the Green lunatics remain on the outer fringes of any debate around the environment.
Much like they are politically.
Its appropriate to mention these points from todays comments, corrections etc
Pete Wilson-Jones writes: A summary of Tony Abbott’s speech to the Sydney Institute 14 January 2009: 35 paragraphs in order of volume:
• 13 paragraphs talking about Kevin Rudd and Labor
• 10 paragraphs talking about feral weeds/animals, and how Aussies need to volunteer en-masse to wander the country cleaning it up like good Boy/Girl Scouts
• 5 paragraphs talking up the ‘little g’ Green credentials nobody knew he had
• 3 paragraphs gushing about how he will successfully resurrect Howard’s failed offer to splash $10b to take over the Murray/Darling system from the States and save it for sure
• 1 paragraph each:
– Claiming shared ownership of environmental issues with the Left
– Begging Green voters to believe him and ‘Vote 1 Abbott’ at the next election
– An end paragraph full of meaningless hyperbole….
That sums up Mr Abbott perfectly.
Lastly, I noticed TA on 7.30 biblical reference to ‘not hiding his bushell’. So is he Tony or Saul? Every year the Green Party vote trends up by 1% just as the rate of change in sea level goes up (on a J curve).