Rudd does too little on climate change

Rudd's response to the hecklers said it all - he ignored them. He knows he's bending reality to suit politics.

The question for me is - how to get more people protesting to close down the (dirty) coal industry, as Al Gore and James Hanson have asked?

I just watched the whole of the ABC broadcast of Rudd announcing the policy at the Canberra Press, and I think you are rather half baked on this.
The vital issue here is how to get as many of the major polluters, both local and overseas, as possible on board. That is far more important than some futile heroic gesture.

Unlike internet censorship or treatment of detainees this is not an issue where reality can be changed overnight by government edict.

Many billions of dollars of investment are needed both by industry and households. Industry in particular has to build a lot of new heavy plant with lead times of years. Whole new industries need to be created. If the government attempts to reduce emissions too fast, energy prices will rocket it will damage the economy and the other mob who are firmly committed to doing nothing will be back in power!

What is need is to set out a future which gives industry and households incentives to invest in energy efficiency and renewables and to do that as soon as possible. The opposition just want to delay and do nothing.

A 25% headline target will do nothing on its own, the detail of the mechanisms are far more important. You only need to look at the stuff up in Europe to see that.

Finally, the government says it is committed to work internationally to achieve bigger reductions. To do this, it needs a negotiating position. If it commits to everything possible up front, it has nothing to talk about. It needs to commit enough to show willing, but have enough in reserve to give more to encourage others.

It is a delicate balancing act and only time will tell if the government has got it right, but the evidence is that they have worked on this very hard. This is not John Howard policy on the run.

I just glad that it is not my decision.

Hi I am of the view that this is a difficult issue. Aside from the naysayers that say that climate change is bunkum and that to drastically cut back carbon emmissions would give our competitors the edge (they say,what if it's all scientifically incorrect),my feelings are that we need to convert as much of the domestic environment to renewable energy as possible and IMMEDIATELY.Billions of dollars in handouts should, not could,be directed to doing such with the inevitable flow to the labour market. a total furphy to give $8000.00 for a solar power grant if it is matched when, for a start, $4000.00 maybe less would supply a solar hot water system to every household with no contribution from the recipient. We do have to accept the pain to achieve the gain but I agree with Bill Northcott, it is a difficult issue, one that requires the balance of a tightrope walker if we are not to descend into commercial oblivion.

re Bill Northcott's comment, I reluctantly have to agree. Mr Rudd has not put a foot wrong so far, and although I consider the initial suggestion (of 5% reduction) is too small, it does leave room for manoeuvre. A great deal of persuasion is necessary for large businesses to realise that the whole matter is superior to their economic concerns. How to persuade them...
Cheers

The problem is that every nation will be thinking the same thing. The result will be a tragedy of the commons, with everyone doing less than they need. The result - a disaster. So Rudd is not being motivated by reasons of ecology, but by political reasons, and nature doesn't care.

Why didn't they talk about nuclear power stations instead of filthy coal, we should be forcing the government down this path?.

Instead of the recent 'stimulus package' being handed out for everyone to go and buy HD TVs and Blu-Ray players for Christmas, the government should have directed that money towards the environment.

Like a post above said, they could have bought a new solar hot water system for every low and middle income earner, or put insulation into their roof or put in some rainwater tanks or something. Or they could have saved that Australian solar panel manufacturing plant (was it BP?).

Seems to me they missed an opportunity to kill two birds with the one stone.

Bill N, your comments were valid & John S Wilkins - I agree also - that if 5% is as far as rest of world goes, then maybe not enough will ever happen at this late stage. Despite wanting higher targets, after reading the discussion I am at least glad the process of making committments has begun.

Agreed - it is a difficult decision, but to spend millions (or is that billions??) of dollars subsidising the polluter so that they can continue to pollute despite introducing legislation and targets designed to curtail pollution seems rather pointless to me (if not down right foolish). Perhaps instead of giving the money to the CO2 emitting power generating industries - give the money to energy consumers - that way the coal fired power stations can pass on all the price increases inherent in a carbon tax, and the consumer can afford to continue buying it, .... IF they want to. At least then the choice lies with the consumer (and citizen / tax payer), and the renewable energy sector is not punished for not polluting (and thus not being able to demand "protection" from leglislation designed to put a price on pollution) .

If we do continue to subsidise the polluter, why should they change? The writing has been on the wall for all to see for many years now. Several years down the track, when the subsidy timetable runs out, the coal industries will be back in Canberra demanding more "protection" and threatening job losses if they don't get it - just like they (and the american car industry in Washington) are doing right now. All we will have achieved is a loss of time, money, and opportunity.

And finally then there is the fact that many of the industry lobby groups currently in Canberra demanding "compensation" and "protection" (read: threatening job losses) have spent millions of dollars in recent years subsidising "research" by "climate change skeptics" and generally trying to cast doubt on concerns about climate change (simillar to the antics of the tobacco industries years ago muddying the waters of the public debate about the link between smoking and cancer by subsidising and promoting the views of those people prepared to dispute the connection between smoking and cancer ). Why should we (the taxpayer / citizen / living human resident of planet earth entirely dependant upon climatic perameters staying within very narrow ranges for our continued existence) give them (the polluting industries / abstract corporate social structures entirely dependant upon the survival of the human species for their continued existence) their money back?

Well,
when I heard about this on the radio today,I thought of Jared Diamond's "Collapse",and the reasons civilizations survive--or not....
This sets a terrible precedent for other countries,embarrasses Australia,and will contribute to mankind destroying the planet.

Kevin Howard has been in too long
VOTE GREEN

I've just been back to Melbourne for a week and was utterly shocked at the spectacular waste of energy exhibited in that city. Even the Anglican Cathedral, St Paul's, had banks of spotlights on the ceiling, permanently on all day, notwithstanding the stained glass windows and the fact that it's summer. New skyscrapers are being built - how much energy will be used by the lifts? By the lighting? By the air conditioning? Every shop was squirting electricity through tis system - refrigeration in the supermarkets without lids being but one obvious example. I chanced to read that Melburnians average 336 hours a year commuting in their cars - that's two months' extra work per year. Not only Rudd, but everyone, has to grasp that this profligacy can only lead to planetary collapse, and then where does the economy go?

it was really a chance for this government to make a real difference.... that chance may well be lost. very dissapointed... Howard made more of an effort than Rudd on this issue...

All I can say Kevo is if its too complicated for you and you feel like you are turning the Queen Mary around, then give the job to me and I'll fix it for you quick smart. In my experience, 'complicated' = we're lying, and 'too hard' = we don't want to or we might anger our buddies in big business! Now if you guys here fell for that poli-speak yesterday I pity you. It was all slimy lies. Massive public action is now needed...again.

I don't think Rudd is pandering to big business - as someone said, he won't get their vote anyway. I think he's pandering to big unions: especially those in the mining and power generation industry. The ALP always allows the unions sectarian interests to overtake the national interests, just as the conservatives always allow industry to do so. It's for that reason I am now considering the Greens as the only outlet for my vote and support.

I think the same thing will happen in the US under Obama.

When is Kevin Howard going to realise that Climate Change/carbon reduction targets are not just left wing greenie issues but very much mainstream/middle Australian concerns. His broken election commitment has cost him my vote for one. Bring on the next election.

Hi All,
The Age poll today is on 'is the 5% emissions target enough?'

you can vote at:

theage.com.au/polls/form.html

cb

I completely agree with Green Change, that the government could have instigated a green economic stimulus package, so that many of us could start to retro fit our homes with energy efficient and renewable power. BTW, there is no rebate for solar hot water in Qld, how wacky is that? Come on Rudd!! The people have spoken on this vital issue! If government is about leadership then I don't want to be led like a rat following the Pied Piper into a very bleak-looking future indeed.

Green Change

Like a post above said, they could have bought a new solar hot water system for every low and middle income earner

I lived in South Melbourne for a year in 2006, in a newly-renovated cottage. My mind started boggling very soon after arrival in Oz that after cycling home in 35 �C and sunshine, I would promptly head for the shower, and hear the gas boiler fire up as I turned on the tap. Even back home in the North-West of England, we are planning to install solar thermal on our roof. In the end it annoyed my green sensibilities so much, I abandoned using hot water in the shower (in hot weather, anyway!).

Even back home in the NW of England, we are planning to install solar thermal panels on our roof. If it works here, then absolutely, every Aussie house should get one. And a proper low-flow shower head, and a front-loading washing machine to replace the old-fashioned but ubiquitous (and wasteful) front-loaders.

PS. I second John's "vote Green" sentiment (I would have if I could). I I also think that every Australian household should get a free copy of "Collapse". It was prominently on display in the Albert Park Bookstore, and after reading it, I soon understood why.

Sorry but for every person you get to sign that little missive, there's ten more out there that either:

A) Don't believe climate change is happening

B) Believe it's happening but that we're not the ones causing it

C) Believe it's happening and want to do something about it in theory - until it actually effects their income directly, then watch them scream

D) Flat-out do not care.

This isn't about a failure of leadership or a failure of any particular side of the political spectrum. This is a falure of capitalist democracy all together. Capitalism is a system designed to only thrive when consumption and waste are at their highest, while 3 year terms for politicians mean that the vast majority of our 'leaders' are only looking to the next 3 years at most, certainly not the next 30.

The reason these pollies keep returning to these glorified half measures and token gestures - and will continue to do so regardless of their promises or political flavour - is because to actually do what needs to be done would cripple the country economically and lose them the next election.

Put those elements together and you have a recipe for nothing actually changing until we're in the middle of a Day-After Tomorrow-style weather apocolypse - and of course at that point it's far too late.

Like the myth of Atlantis on a planetary scale, our tribal selfishness and hubris will end up destroying our species. Sounds pretty karmic to me.