Comments on: Get Up! going nowhere on climate

By: Pertina

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

Thank you Clive Hamilton. It is comforting to see that it’s not only me who thinks that GetUp is increasingly losing the plot.

By: Graemel

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

Jonathan Green’s concerns about the credibility and indeed the lack of integrity of journalists, commentators and bloggers are personified in Clive Hamilton. But I suppose it really does take some intelligence to write such garbage.

By: Mike M

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

Agree…I find their approach a bit confusing and counter-productive.

They need to work out what they are about. I’ve cancelled my monthly donation to them.

By: John

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

I think Richard is right. Getup can always refine their message, but as Clive would know they have already been campaigning on the weakness of the target and as I recall their add also mentioned that. I think Clive is underestimating the fury that people feel that their small individual efforts will just be making it easier for big polluters to ease off while keeping their hand out for the gravy the govt is ladelling to them. Keeping political motivation high and public by rewarding voluntary effort can be done at the same time as focussing on policy and collective action politics. Getup is better positioned to do this than many-refine the message? Sure- but I don’t see it as some kind of epic mistake the way Clive puts it. And the Canberra point is well made-because of the barriers to voluntary or outside strict ETS constraints effort progressive moves by any state simply reward the bludgers-and that can include very significant cuts-eg potentially around landclearing which represents millions of tonnes per annum. Nice spray Clive but point your hose toward the government not Getup.

By: Darren

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

If Get-Up are wanting their ‘members’ to do more than send an email they are in trouble - I recall they could only get 5-6 people out to Bennelong for the last election - how many thousands of ‘members’ do they claim?

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Nice one Graemel. I have a piece coming out in today’s Crikey just for you.

By: richard

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

It is surprising how determined some are to keep the climate change debate as simple as possible. The targets are obviously too low, and I don't remember GetUp suggesting otherwise. The fact that they have helped draw attention to another of the scheme's flaws is hardly evidence that they don't understand climate change.

There are a number of good reasons to highlight the fact that, once the CPRS comes in, individual efforts to reduce emissions will have no impact on Australia's emissions.

1) It is true. The Climate Change Minister has raised obfuscation to a high art. If the Minister is proud of this 'design feature' of the scheme she should just admit that's how it works. If she isn't proud, she should fix it. But she should stop asking well meaning families to spend tens of thousands of dollars on rooftop solar systems that the Government knows won't reduce emissions.

2) Voluntary effort does not just mean individual effort. The ACT Government has proposed a 30% emission reduction target by 2020. Unless the CPRS is modified the result of achieving this target would simply be a transfer of permits to other states. Similarly, any subsequnt investments in Sydney or Melbourne's public transport system will have no effect on emissions.

3) Motivation matters. For those interested solely in the marginal abatement cost the worst thing that could happen is for households to lose their current desire to reduce emissions. The idea that price alone is what discourages people to leave their airconditioners off is not based on empirical evidence.

The problem with this sort of attack on GetUp is the attempt to create a false distinction between pursuing strong targets and ensuring that those targets become more ambitious if individuals, or governments, demonstrate a willingness to go further.

Surely we should pursue the best of both worlds. And surely Clive should be spending more time attacking the government rather than the tactics of like minded groups.

By: george

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

Spot on.

By: Andrew

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

Looks as if “Get-Up” is transforming into a “Let-Down” organization, but then the entire race between those who propose to do little and those who propose to do nothing is as meaningless as administering 5% of the required dose of antibiotic to a pneumonia patient, if not aspirin to a cancer patient.