And so it came to pass that John Howard turned out to be the high water mark — pun intended — of the Coalition’s willingness to address global warming.
Some commenters thought I was overstating the case declaring that the Coalition was sliding into greenhouse denialism a couple of weeks ago. But bit by bit, day by day since then, they’ve retreated. First it was petrol, then it trade-exposed industries, then it was delaying emissions trading until the Howard Government’s preferred date of 2012. Now Brendan Nelson’s latest position, that Australia won’t act before India and China, means Australia won’t act at all, or at least not for a decade.
Instead, we’ll sit here and bake and whinge about petrol prices and “doing it tough”. Still, at least we can blame it all on foreigners, as we happily flog our coal to them.
Nelson calls an emission trading scheme “suicide”. Maybe he should talk to people living in low-lying Pacific island states, who really face the possibility of national extinction. Or talk to Bangladeshis, nearly half of whom live within 30 feet of sea level.
Still, not much Australia can do, right? We’re such tiny emitters in the scheme of things.
Since the one thing we all agree on is that India and China need to participate in efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and preferably via an emissions trading scheme that will enable international trading of carbon permits to ensure our exporters are not disadvantaged, what should Australia do? Sit back and declare “we’re doing nothing until you do something”? Or develop a world’s best practice trading scheme that shows they can work without causing massive economic dislocation and in fact benefit emerging technologies?
Which, one wonders, would maximise the chances of large developing country emitters agreeing to do something?
And then there’s the fact that, as the Prime Minister points out in The Australian today, our largest two-way trading partner, Europe, is already trading emissions. At least Kevin Rudd is now consistently saying emissions trading will impose costs on the community, which has been reluctant to do that until recently. But both he and his ministers appear to be content to let the rentseekers set the agenda in the debate for the moment.
If the Prime Minister wants to remain above it all, at least Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Wayne Swan should be getting stuck into those sectors who want to neuter the trading scheme. At the moment it’s Ross Garnaut versus the rest, although the prof is handling himself reasonably well. What a shame Michael Costa, invited to debate Garnaut, dogged it.
Garnaut’s draft report doesn’t say much beyond what a bunch of Treasury officials could have come up with. But it comes with at least notional independence, and being external to Government has automatically garnered a lot more attention and credibility than an internal Government document. It has also shifted the debate onto the operation of the trading scheme.
Accordingly, Nelson’s stance has enormous risks. By essentially declaring opposition to an emissions trading scheme per se, the Coalition is dealing itself out of the debate. There also seems to be a growing sense that people — regardless of how seriously they take climate change – are sick of politicians talking about it and want them to do something. Nelson’s crass populism might have saved his own leadership for five minutes, but might also rebound on the Coalition.
The debate over emissions trading is at a tipping point, and next week’s Green Paper will be decisive. Some smart compensation and transitional options, coupled with effective prosecution of the case for moving quickly to a scheme, could set the debate up favourably for the government, and leave Brendan Nelson looking out-of-date. But poor presentation and options that can be portrayed negatively will provide more ammunition for the Coalition’s scare campaign.
He was a vomitologist?
Where have you been Venise? We were on a gallic rather than an iberian theme but nonetheless your equine suggestion is superfluous. I admitted to nought, rien, nada……. and in answer to your second post: no!
Oui! l’alcool incite des vomis comme votre homonyme réputé!
Nelson is a clown and should listen to the people. This morning something really important happened on local Adelaide radio 891. A resident on the lower lakes announced that the river Murray people are going to work together from one end of the river to the other to sort out the problems rather than let the Chapman’s get their own way to flood Goolwa and the surrounds with salt water to prop up his marina.
Now bear in mind that the Chapman’s were told by all and sundry that their marina on Hindmarsh Island would destroy the natural environment, lower the river, create swamps and kill the district – and not only by the aboriginal people. Another testament to the stupidity of the Liberal state government of the day to walk all over the aboriginal people who know the area and the scientists who predicted the results.
If this area is flooded with salt water it will be forever rooned, as Goolwa Beach itself is with holiday homes that should be bulldozed (I spent about 8 years roaming all over the town). The salt will permeate the soils for years on end and will be irredeemable for centuries.
Nelson and his gang of thugs will vote to murder Iraqis, to lock up babies at great financial and health costs, to impose serfchoices but they will simply deny that our environment and climate cannot survive them.
Knowing Penny Wong though and Garretts passion, not to mention that boring Kevin Rudd keeping his word, a strange thing in Australian politics that the MSM just don’t get, I don’t think they will back down and Nelson will be an even bigger fool.
In India, Bangladesh, China, Canada and even Indonesia they have all increased the price of petrol to slow demand. So what does Brenda Brenda decide? That the 3% of the weekly budget spent by “motorists” whoever they are must be made lower.
I don’t have any idea why he thinks this is the case but maybe to protect the morons and the Toorak tractors.
having been an observer of rainfall patterns and climatic changes for many years, especially the rainfall within the murray-darling basin i can readily say that it seems to me, in my humble opinion that us human beings have had significant effect on our world ~ my dear ma and pa agree with me as do thousands of scientists worldwide who aren’t on the payroll of some of the world’s largest fossil fuel emitting companies ~ just the other day i was talking to ma & pa about the funny front groups set up by exxon mobil to deny climate change, my ma & pa would have agreed with me but unfortunately for some reason they had left the room. sigh i said to myself, surely they are as interested in climate change as I am, especially the rainfall over the moors. suffice to say my passion for rainfall seems to be my own yet sometimes a man like Ray will write his opinion about how humans aren’t affecting the climate or more importantly the rainfall tho everywhere we look we see polluting industries, forests being cut down willy nilly, methinks that Ray has been partaking in too much black pudding for his own good as it ruins your thinking faculties and makes you come out with such ludicrous tripe as the stuff he wrote just a few lines up. anyway i’m off to monitor the rainfall, have a lovely day.