|
May 24, 2011
Have you noticed how the opponents to climate change reform are now singing from the same hymn sheet in that their talking points are the same. They hide their climate change denialism, behind the public policy talking point that Australia must guard against moving too far ahead in carbon abatement and risking economic hardship for no environmental gain. So they appear to grant that the science has it right without explicitly saying so.
Behind these words is the position that doing nothing is best. Since China has no intention of reducing its greenhouse emissions it's madness to sacrifice ourselves for nothing.
What is most important is a prosperous economy and working to break up the Labor/Green alliance. The latter provides the opening for the culture war waged by the anti-science 'angries' in the denial-o-sphere.
The core argument is that any carbon policy has to maintain economic growth, international competitiveness and a viable electricity sector. It is then self-evident that Australia should act in tandem with international action, not ahead of it. Specifically and further, policy should ensure that the advantages arising from our relatively cost-competitive energy industry (ie., coal) are not diminished without commensurate environmental benefits. In this context, only significant and ongoing reductions by major emitting nations would over time materially reduce the risks of environmental damage to Australia.
The Business Council of Australia, for instance, has stated that it would support policies to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions where the environmental benefit was clear; the competitiveness of Australia's exporters was not diminished; and the transition to less emissions-intensive electricity followed a planned approach that did not prematurely close plants without adequate compensation, and the risk of generators breaching their debt covenants was removed.
The bottom line is that Australia should act in tandem with international action, not ahead of it. The inference is that the proposed 5 per cent cut in emissions would be utterly pointless in "environmental terms" since it would reduce global emissions by a miniscule amount whilst China alone would increase global emissions by hundreds of times that if not thousands of times. Australia acting alone will shut down Australia as a modern industrialised economy say the trolls.
Behind the rhetoric of being in favour of addressing greenhouse emissions is resistance in the form of a fear campaign that ignores Europe’s six-year-old emissions trading scheme; China’s pledge to cut emissions; and the UK’s decision to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2025 (which it is already half way towards). Australia is not acting alone. Other nations are leaving the dirty old economy behind and are starting to build a stable, sustainable green economy.
So what we have from those opposing reform is a claim that they believe in climate change and that doing little or nothing about it is a sufficient response. So the opponents do not really believe that continual greenhouse emission is a bad that harms the public good; nor that economic prosperity can come from green growth--ie., shifting to a low carbon economy. The opponents cannot even bring themselves to advocate for an investment bank that is able to use its power to create a clean, green economy; nor to reform our reforming our national energy market to properly reward future clean energy.
|
The Victorian Government is a classic example of inaction.