The crux of Rudd’s 7.30 Report “crack up” was Kerry’s suggestion that he’d squibbed it on climate change:
“Penny Wong and I sat up for three days and three nights with 20 leaders from around the world to try and frame a global agreement.
“Now it might be easy for you to sit in 7:30 Report land and say that was easy to do. Let me tell you, mate, it wasn’t.
“We are fundamentally committed to climate change. We could not get the accord that we wanted. As a consequence we need to do further work on the global front, further work on the national front because I am absolutely passionate about acting on climate change.”
Rudd cited two “realities” he says have derailed the government’s proposed ETS. One comes in the form of Tony Abbott. The other is “the progress on global action has been slower than any of us would like.”
Let’s take a turn around the globe, shall we?
This week the new Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition announced their key pollution reduction elements (on top of the EU ETS). Measures include the establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters, the creation of a green investment bank, the provision of a floor price for carbon (as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits) and the establishment of a high-speed rail network.
In the US, Washington witnessed the release of the Kerry-Lieberman draft “American Power Act“:
“It is time for Democrats, Republicans and independents to come together to pass legislation that will create American jobs and achieve energy security, while reducing carbon pollution by 17% in 2020 and by over 80% in 2050.”
Meanwhile, as Dr Peter J. Wood writes in Crikey today:
“… it is becoming increasingly likely that China will introduce a price on greenhouse gas emissions before Australia does. China Daily is reporting that China is likely to be levied between 2011 and 2015.”
Back here, in 7.30 Report land and beyond, we’re stuck with a PM who’s shrugged off the main plank of his 2007 election platform and an opposition leader who tells children it was warmer in Jesus’ time.
And that’s the reality, mate.
You are being slightly disengenous. None of the examples you have given have actually happened and are unlikely to become law anytime soon. I would be surprised if the Kerry/Leiberman draft ever becomes law to be frank, given the state of American politial system and the up coming mid-term elections, where the republicans may well gegain control of the house.
So nothing has changed since Rudd made his statement has it?
More than disingenuous. There is the other reality that Rudd mentioned, which involves this thing called the Senate. If the ALP had an extra couple of seats there, or the Greens did, then a better scheme would have been passed. Because the negotiated deal with the Libs fell through when the Libs knifed Turnbull, Rudd couldn’t get that deal through, because the Greens refused to vote for it. You can’t blame Rudd for that, however much you want to.
Just who is being disingenuous? Well-informed people know that there are plenty of things a Government can do NOW to show that they are stll committed to climate change. If as Rudd claims we are dealing with the greatest moral question of our time then introducing a tax on carbon, boosting spending on renewable energy both at the family level and at the business level, and an indication that subsidies for coal will be phased out starting now, can all be done NOW to prove he is in fact fair dinkum. PLease do NOT try and tell me that there is nothing that can be done to reduce carbon-based energy use while the Upper House and the rest of the world gets it self in order. As for overseas aid – we can afford to increase our aid to the extent promised at Copenhagen to assist developing countries to move on without more carbon pollution – such expenditure will in time come back to our benefit.
Mr Hunwick, the problem is that to enact a law so you can do something NOW requires the Senate’s agreement. While the Libs and the Greens refuse to pass anything acceptable to the other, the Government is unable to get legislation on climate change through.
Ross
I agree with Rob.
How can the Labor Party enact a law to reduce carbon based energy when the Upper House refuse to allow the passing of the bill.
Fair crack of the wip Crickey. Take a balanced view of the situation as you normally do. Give them a go.