It seems as though Malcolm Turnbull has finally managed to align the coalition on climate change at least enough for them to stop kicking own goals and bridge their credibility gap with the ALP. With the coalition and ALP now supporting the same conditional emissions reduction target, the public will be hard pressed to distinguish who has the best policy. Of course, the Greens have the best policy – by a long shot. And both of the major parties continue to treat climate change as a political football.
The oft-quoted reality of climate change targets is that you can’t negotiate with the science. And we can’t half solve climate change – its like trying to removing half a cancer. We need to cut emissions based on what the science indicates is necessary to avoid runaway climate change – and 25% for Australia won’t cut it.
Having forgone any moral or scientific credibility, 25% is the absolute bare minimum for Australia to maintain any political credibility in the international negotiations. The European Union are calling for Australia to commit to closer to 40% cuts based on their analysis of equitable contributions. China is similarly calling on Australia and other developed nations to adopt targets of 40% or more.
A rich country like Australia should be committing to 50% cuts in the next decade – and using this opportunity to re-energise our economy for the low carbon future that is coming whether we like it or not.
It is arguably a good thing that the coalition will delay voting for the CPRS until after the Copenhagen meeting. It means that we won’t lock in low targets before the meeting so it leaves some space for a strong global deal to drag Australia upwards. And importantly, it gives time for the poorly designed CPRS to go back to the drawing board. The CPRS is a terrible piece of legislation, designed primarily to entrench the right of the biggest polluters to carry on with business as usual whilst giving the illusion of action.
11 Comments
Unfortunately, you can’t negotiate with the Senate, either.
I know Labor’s isn’t an ideal bill. I know it’s a weak target. But those who are arguing for it to be rejected out of hand, for some better version in the future, don’t provide a pathway for this to happen.
Are the Libs going to come back after Copenhagen and suddenly agree to 40%? Is Fielding? Is Xenophon?
Are we waiting for a double dissolution? Or the next election? Either of which carries a chance that the next Parliament is even less cc friendly than the present one.
It’s like refusing to eat your steak and chips on the off chance someone’s going to arrive at your door with a lobster. Yes, it might happen, but you’re giving up a certainty for a guess.
Criticise the Labor policy all you like and I’ll join you. But when you recommend voting it down, explain how that’s going to result in something better.
The goal of emissions cut of 25% by 2020 is the bare minimum. This must be made clear to the electorate constantly by scientists and all others who understand this. From there we neeto depend on the good sense of the community to at some point over-ride or push parties into adopting it. After all, it’s our world that is goingto suffer and there are more of us than there are politicians.
zoomster wrote:
Are the Libs going to come back after Copenhagen and suddenly agree to 40%?
They will if the rest of the world community threatens sanctions against recalcitrants, which is a possibility. Even the Russians, a country that on the surface would appear to have much to gain from a warmer climate has started to become worried about the wider implications and recognised that CC is already costing it dear:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090526/full/news.2009.506.html
Copenhagen is not a science meeting or even really an environment meeting, it is effectively a trade deal. I recognise that a lot of people see climate change as mostly an environmental problem, but as far as I can tell all the people who run the companies that make the emissions see it as a business issue. All the people who run the countries that make the emissions see it as a trade issue (like tariffs).
Being a good global citizen and have the most ambitious targets in the world is a nice proposal. But its also a good way to get completely screwed at the negotiating table by the US, China, South Africa, Europe, etc…
Once international scheme linkages exist, emissions will occur where they are most highly valued regardless of the quota’s agreed at Copenhagen. Permits/offsets and emissions will cross borders freely. The only question is how much of the global permit revenue pie does Australia (government/business) get.
You’ve observed the Liberals in Parliament, I presume?
They wouldn’t care if the country went to hell in a handbasket.
Any threat of sanctions will have the Libs reviving the ‘noone should be telling us what to do, Labor isn’t standing up for Australia’ arguments.
I can imagine sanctions and the fear of them putting pressure on the Government. I can’t imagine they’d have much affect on the voting patterns of Fieldings, the Nats and the Libs.
But I bet it’ll have a powerful effect on the electorate’s voting patterns.
That said, the performance of the government isn’t much better. They can’t seem to muster a single set of balls between them. The ETS is, IMO, a disaster that will actually send us backward on emissions and make it much harder to get effective policies in the future.
But as a climate change action skeptic I’m not surprised. Whenever humanity has had to choose between the environment or short-term self interest in the past it has consistently chosen the latter. I believe it will again.
Zoomster, my hope is that the threat of sanctions would be the sort of economic/jobs factor that would change the Liberals position.
However given the level of compensation proposed for US trade exposed industries I’m not sure that the US will need to us carbon tariffs.
Whilst I admit that there are cc sceptics on both sides of Parliament, there is no doubt that the greater number sit on the Opposition benches.
CC sceptism, where it exists, can no longer be seen as a rational position. Given the concurrence of the science, the only people who are still sceptics are so because of ideology or a fixed mentality.
In other words, they’re not going to change their opinion because they’re incapable of doing so.
A long way of saying that there is no way the Liberals will change their minds – not without splitting the party.
Zoomster this is why one would hope that global action and threat of sanctions would drag the unbelievers into dealing with the reality. I think there is a broad spectrum of views on both sides of politics, I think there are probably only a few true skeptics, but there are also plenty who hope that someone else will pay the piper (not their marginal electorate).
Once a global deal is reached, punitive sanctions on non-participants (especially developed ones) will make the science (and morality) irrelevant. It becomes a trade issue and you sign on the dotted line because there’s no choice.
“The European Union are calling for Australia to commit to closer to 40% cuts based on their analysis of equitable contributions. China is similarly calling on Australia and other developed nations to adopt targets of 40% or more.”
Since Australia is producing 1% of human carbon dioxide emissions, we could turn out the lights completely and make almost no difference to climate change. Or, we could reduce our emissions by 50% by all going and living in caves, since it would entail turning off all coal fired generators, and taking every vehicle off the road.
But it would please Europe and China?
Give me a break.
Reducing our emissions over time, replacing coal with renewables, reaching for the low hanging fruit through greater efficiencies and smart grids is what we can, and must do. It may not be ideal, (pray tell, what EVER is?) but it’s a course of actions that we can practically achieve, and Labor has at least got a plan, flawed, imperfect, but what alternative is there?
Oh yes, do nothing.
Take your pick.
I think that there will be a DD election before Copenhagen.
Consider the state elections next year: SA, Tas & Vic