Comments on: Milne’s speech has given us all fair warning

By: Kathryn McCallum

Kathryn McCallum — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:41:27 +0000

No Joel B1, it’s 1.5 percent, or 3 if you count our coal exports. This is roughly to similar to a whole bunch of other countries. Should France not be bothered? Should Italy not be bothered? Should the UK not be bothered?

And no, Joel B1, you are not like most Australians. Most Australians support climate action.

By: Joel B1

Joel B1 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:33:53 +0000

When you can be bothered to moderate my previous comment…

And what about cattle, those methane farting buggers. Is it true that methane (a far more potent GHGas) far outweighs CO2 in Australia?

And is it true that Kim Booth (Greens) who just today was calling for King Island Beefery to propped up by the Tas Government really doesn’t care about AGW? But just, like most Greens his own seat?

And what about the 922,000,000 litres of raw sewerage the North Shore Greenies pump into the clean ocean every day?

By: Joel B1

Joel B1 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:25:08 +0000

Sorry, please correct me if I’m wrong but does Australia currently produce 0.0% of the Earth’s greenhouse gasses?

Actually, unless it’s in the order of 10% or so I just can’t be bothered, much like most Australians.

By: richard3109

richard3109 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:19:29 +0000

An excellent article, even though in places it is idealistic and somewhat unrealistic given the current political attitudes and landscape.

I really agree that a 25-40% target is absolutely nessasary in order for us to properly tackle Climate Change. Its just this (and all of the Liberal and Labor Governments) continue to listen to big business over ordinary Australians.

In twenty years time when Australia will have had a much drier and hotter climate – I have no hesitation in predicting that the worse-case scenario of NOT acting on Climate Change will be eventuating much furthur (as it already is), and people will look back and wonder why they did not give more support to the brave parliamentarians who did their best to stand up for the issue.

By: Tony Kevin

Tony Kevin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:52:52 +0000

Thanks for these commrnts. Yes, I was painting an idealistic scenario here.

Nevertheless, consider what a political gamechanger it could still be if Rudd leapt to a visionary 25-40% international target package for Australia, without stating impossible-to-meet preconditions. He would certainly get the Greens and Xenophon on board. If a surge of public opinion welcomed the policy change – and I believe it would – even the erratic Fielding might come around.

It really comes back to Rudd; new possibilities would open up fpr him if he could win back the trust of Australia’s growing environmental movement whuch he has pretty much sacrificed in his appeasement of the coal lobbies. Kevin Rudd has until August now, thanks to Nick Xenophon, to think outside the envelope he has put himself in.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:35:23 +0000

Yes, but what I’m pointing out is that the premise of this article is that Rudd should get something through the Senate now and that this can be done with Fielding’s support.

This is pure fantasy and demonstrates the weakness in the argument that a higher target can be achieved given the present make up of the Senate.

You’d be better off choosing a Coalition Senator to target – there’d be a better chance (still Buckleys and none) of one of them voting with the govt on this than Fielding.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:14:48 +0000

Lets look at Senator Fielding. Yes Senator Fielding may have a background in engineering but he is also has one in marketing. And this is what we are seeing a marketer at work. At the end of the day he is a person who received an Australian Senate seat by 1.8% (Go Victoria) of the vote how he got into the Senate makes interesting reading on Anthony Green’s Seat Profile http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendVIC.htm
His voting pattern includes the following “With some backbenchers being willing to cross the floor, Fielding’s vote has been important on some of the Howard government’s more controversial legislation. His vote ensured the passage of Voluntary student unionism,[3] the overturning of civil unions legislation in the Australian Capital Territory,[4] and changes to media ownership laws.[5] Conversely, his intention to vote “no” ensured the defeat of the Howard government’s proposed tightening of asylum seeker laws.[6]” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fielding
So like a good politician with such a marginal seat he likes stunts, with the following observations, “Steve Fielding is renowned for his publicity stunts.[11][12] Fielding joined protesting pensioners in May 2008, who brought traffic to a standstill in the Melbourne CBD, when he and others took their tops off in the style of the successful cab drivers who successfully stripped for increased cab security, to demand an increase in the Pension from the government, of an extra $70 to $100 a week.[13][14]” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fielding
With Rudd want an early election with a double dissolution Fielding is making sure he is out in front of the public mind!!! Senator Fielding like a good engineer needs to remember politics and the even more complex issues of climate change the devil is in the detail.

By: kdkd

kdkd — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:29:57 +0000

If the greens can get their act together and mount a good enough campaign to get a big of a slice of the balance of power, then a DD would probably be a good thing in terms of getting a half decent CPRS.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:56:41 +0000

Fielding isn’t going to budge. Honestly. He’s not.

If he was going to budge, it wouldn’t be to support a higher target (the man thinks Heartland is a credible source, FCS!!)

So where does that leave us??

Instead of fantasizing about what might happen if certain Senators suddenly did a complete about face, I’m still looking for a realistic scenario for the Government to follow.

A ‘brave’ ETS (which is what I would like) is not going to get through the Senate. Neither is a middle of the road one. Neither is a wimpy one.

So what CAN the government do, other than the risky option of a DD?