Given the nonsense served up by Julia Gillard on climate change during the election campaign — a citizens’ assembly, “bans” on new coal-fired power stations that won’t stop them being built and a vague commitment to a carbon price some years hence — and the risible Direct Action policy of Tony “climate science is crap” Abbott, it’s apt that, suddenly, serious action on climate change is forcing its way onto the political agenda.
While Marius Kloppers, the foreign head of the foreign mining giant BHP, hardly has a proud record of supporting genuine reform in Australia, his call for a carbon price sooner rather than later — albeit one laden with the sorts of handouts that crippled Labor’s CPRS — will provide more momentum for political action. This afternoon, Greens Senator Christine Milne will meet with new Climate Change Minister Greg Combet (given Penny Wong’s refusal to countenance discussions with the Greens on the CPRS, that in itself speaks volumes) to discuss the establishment of a parliamentary-expert committee to drive a consensus on a carbon price.
The independents Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie have all pushed the issue back onto the political agenda as well.
It is important that business be engaged in the new Parliamentary committee process. Australian business is expert at issuing demands for reforms, but fairly poor at providing any support for politicians who take their calls seriously, and involvement in the committee process will lock in at least some buy-in beyond the usual rhetoric from our corporate leaders.
The committee will only serve its purpose, however, if it is able to work quickly and achieve a broad consensus, perhaps around a carbon tax model that can evolve into an emissions trading scheme in the event — seemingly remote at this point — that we and the rest of the world grow up enough to put in place an international framework for capping emissions.
And Julia Gillard should understand that whatever the outcome of the committee, at some point she will need to show some guts on climate change, for as long as the Opposition is led by a man who thinks the planet is cooling.
The problem is highlighted in the final sentence ie: the bit about showing some guts. It’s been too long since a PM displayed some backbone – probably Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generation was the most recent example. But that was done when he was fresh in the job and still enjoying a sustained wave of public and party popularity.
Politicians don’t have to throw money at voters in an effort to impress – they just need to demonstrate they’ve got guts. Rare in Canberra these days.
History shows that general populations NEVER willingly accept a lower standard of living. This is the pivot around which all these bogus so-called politicians dance vis-a-vis climate change policy.
Look after yourself and your family. Participate in communites with wise and honest leaders. Think ahead and think for yourself – and act for goodness sake for your own welfare. Expecting help from government in this regard is simply idiotic…. they can’t even get little things like school building projects done right – you reckon they can manage this situation???
“Expecting help from government in this regard is simply idiotic…. they can’t even get little things like school building projects done right – you reckon they can manage this situation???”
What did they get wrong with the school buildings project? Can you point to a reliable source showing why this program was a ‘failure’?
Is a 97.3% satisfaction rating among the customers of this program (the schools) not good enough for you? Care to point out any other government or private program/good/service, that gets that kind of satisfaction rating?
And as to this:
“History shows that general populations NEVER willingly accept a lower standard of living. ”
Assuming that switching to a carbon neutral energy system lowers the standard of living. Not a given. Western Europe uses a lot energy (per capita) that the USA does, and Europeans seem to enjoy a pretty nice standard of living, certainly no worse than Americans.
Should read:
Western Europe uses a lot less energy…
Hi Just Me – with regarsd to the school building project, i’m talking about inefficiency, overspending, etc. – the hallmarks of most if not all government projects. Also, this required little analysis, just assume that schools need another building and build one. Hooray.
My opinion is that government, always tripped up in acting for the long-term benefit of the populace by its need to win the next election and fairly hopeless at clear decicive and efficient action almost by definition anyway, is, in the case of changing climate patterns exremely unlikely to be able to act in the public good because a) it doesnt really know what’s going on in broad terms with climate change and how to ‘fix’ that, bearing in mind that what is being sought is a return to a status quo in terms of climate that simply doesnt exist, b) it cannot know how changing climate patterns will affect local areas, and c) the time between analysis (which is a developing field with a long way to go) and execution is so long that by the time government gets around to enacting and acting, the analysis will have changed radically.
Therefore I say this situation is one for personal responsibility.
Europe’s much higher population density makes the cost impact of going green less.