May’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
The true cost of the PM’s climate-change campaign
|
John Howard’s $52.8 million climate change campaign includes eight glossy pages and a letter from the PM . You’d have to assume it’s all going to be printed on recycled paper — otherwise it would amount to a substantial deforestation in order to “inform” eight million Australian households about the Coalition’s climate-change credentials, including, ironically, a deforestation initiative.
But aren’t there better ways to spend the money? Seriously, how many Australians aren’t aware of climate change, and measures they can take personally to make a difference? Last year, the Lowy Institute found 68% of respondents see climate change as a serious threat to Australia over the next 10 years. The Government’s stated objective for its propaganda campaign is to “increase community understanding of climate change”. But Kyoto was signed in 1997, Tim Flannery’s book, The Weathermakers , which has sold over a million copies worldwide, was released in 2005, and most media outlets and business websites are informing their audiences about climate change. Some households will be offered more free water-saving shower heads and energy-efficient globes than they can use, from councils , state government, and power companies. So after all this, if we still need to “understand climate change,” what will be included in the $52.8 million package that isn’t already out there? What else could be done with the money? Surely some of the existing climate change budget could do with a boost:
Or for new initiatives, $52.8 million could help with the following:
We’ll probably just have to make do with some expensive ads. Senate estimates was told that $176,000 had already been spent on market research for the “Climate Clever” campaign. Will the campaign even be carbon-neutral? It won’t be propoganda-neutral, that’s for sure. |
|
|
|











Top Stories

