Comments on: Obama shows up Aussie counterparts on climate challenge

By: M.James

M.James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Paul, your statement “As the US has little in the way of domestic coal / oil reserves ” is completely offbase. The US has giant coal reserves (and significant oil reserves) and “the roughly 600 coal-fired power plants in the United States are responsible for almost one-third of the country’s total carbon emissions” (cited from Is America Ready to Quit Coal? By MELANIE WARNER, February 14, 2009, The New York Times). So they face very similar problems as we do, except that we have even cheaper (and cleaner) coal.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think the true difference between the two countries' approach to emission reduction is the manner in hich it is sold to the voters.
As the US has little in the way of domestic coal / oil reserves Obama has the luxury of pitching any climate actions as 'matters of national security' (i.e. protect Americans from the those pesky oil rich arabian nations). It would be difficult to argue against this and not sound unpatriotic and a card-carrying terrorism supporter.
Unfortunately, the scenario within Australia is that we have plenty of the dirty stuff and two federal parties with close ties to industry. Thus we are fed a convoluted, unconvincing and contradictory narrative which has plenty of wiggle room for both sceptics and vested interests.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yeah, fair call M. James - that was pretty sloppy of me.

Still I would argue that the narrative employed by Obama could be a more effective one than the one favoured by the Rudd government. A position that focusses upon domestic fears of the US reliance of foreign oil may lessen the impact of the 'why should we do anything when other heavy emitting nations aren't?' strategy.

A strategy which unfortunately is too often heard here in Australia.