What I saw on my trip to Canberra: self interest and infighting
|
On Monday the 16th November, as Senate sittings commenced for the last time this year, 35 volunteers from the Australian Conservation Foundation and GetUp came together to talk to Members of Parliament about the woefully inadequate CPRS targets, the lack of Australian leadership on climate change and the huge amount of taxpayer dollars going to big polluters in the form of free permits to pollute. My name is Georgia Lowe and as a fresh HSC graduate from Newcastle, I was invited by GetUp to give MPs from NSW some insight into youth sentiments on climate change. In my experience, the questions young people have raised are largely uniform. They know about the science and they understand the urgency and broad implications of this issue. But the one question I am always thrown is: Why isn’t anyone in Australia doing anything to stop this? I had one girl quietly point out that I must have made a mistake on my Youth Decide posters when I quoted Rudd’s current “ambitious target of 5% reductions in carbon dioxide parts per million by 2020”. She politely informed me that I had probably missed a three or four in front of that number. So I went to Canberra and asked where the leadership is on this issue. I asked why we are dedicating more money to free permits for polluters than to action on climate change, given that corporate welfare for Australia’s biggest polluting companies has blown out to $16.4 billion under the revamped emissions trading legislation and yet the Budget allocates the “total investment in climate change related initiatives and programs to over $15 billion”. I asked why the government plans to water down already abysmally low targets in negotiations with the coalition, and what it would take for a worthwhile CPRS with a 30% to 40% target to be achieved. The answer: politics. While every Liberal and Labor MP I spoke to (bar Malcolm Turnbull’s hostile adviser) understood or at least acknowledged the implications and immediacy of this unprecedented issue, they all said that they must “follow community sentiment” in their electorates, and they simply cannot act strongly on climate change without their electorates showing strong support. One Labor MP said: “It’s my job to get re-elected and to get my party re-elected. We can’t upset our electorates by taking strong action in the CPRS. I have to do what my electorate is asking me to do because I am supposed to represent them and I haven’t seen a wave of people demanding this from me.” Although I am certain that the feelings of the electorates haven’t been taken into account in the past with GST, for one example, but one thing is clear: not only do MPs understand that the CPRS is weak, but also that their job is not primarily to serve in the best interest of the people, but to get themselves — and their party — re-elected. This nervous self-interest was evident in all of my discussions with Labor, Liberals and Independents, with Nick Xenophon being the single exception within those three groups. The prevailing attitude in the Labor and Liberal parties reminds me of a story I once heard of a French leader who sees his people running by and says to his adviser: “Find out where my people are going so that I may lead them.” However, in 20 years’ time, no one will thank the government for following fluctuating community sentiment and therefore taking a conservative approach to this unparalleled issue. Climate change is certainly the principal issue that young people care about and probably the issue that they will vote on in the coming federal election. Support for 40% reduction targets by 2020 will only continue to increase, as Australians witness more climate-related disasters such as the Victorian bushfires and dust-storms, unprecedented heat waves and increasingly unreliable agricultural seasons. There is no political future in weak action on climate-change. But even with the release of a Galaxy poll last week, which showed that 54% of people support at least an unconditional 25% reduction in emissions by 2020, politicians are acting on climate change at a glacial pace — though given the increasingly rapid movement of glaciers in the real world, I should say, “at a pre-industrial era glacial pace”. Apart from self-interest and the consequential inertia, the only other barrier to strong action appears to be the Senate. Labor MPs explained the following options:
Due to the limited timeframe, negotiating with the Liberals shouldn’t be an option because it would guarantee failure on an issue in which we cannot afford to fail. The Liberals I met on Monday told me they were still negotiating within their own party. There is little chance that this rushed CPRS legislation will be met successfully by a tense and divided Liberal party. To pass a strong CPRS, the Labor government requires all of the Greens’ votes plus the two Independents, and given Senator Fielding’s persistent denialism, the outlook’s not so good. So, assuming no Liberals have the moral backbone to cross the floor on climate change, a double-dissolution election would occur. Labor MPs said this was highly undesirable, and one admitted why. A double dissolution means that it takes half as many votes to elect a candidate and that would translate to a lot more Greens being voted in, as well as perhaps a couple of radically conservative Independents. The outcome may then be that the Senate would not pass Labor’s weak CPRS and it would hopefully be back to the drawing board with some worthwhile legislation that utilises this closing window of opportunity humans have to decide wether or not climate change will be catastrophic. In short, the government is planning to fail on this paradigm-shifting issue because of self-interest and, ironically, a fear of failure. This is a sad feature of party politics today, but we citizens are partly to blame. It is up to us to educate ourselves so that we truly understand the dire economic impacts of inaction and it is up to us to demand that our elected representatives protect our lives and livelihoods by making 25% the minimum target in the CPRS. I can tell you from my first-hand experience, if you stopped traffic for a day in Sydney’s CBD or if you sat outside your local MP’s office with enough people, these politicians will follow you. We are the leaders. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
Georgina
You have had a very valuable lesson in the duplicity of politicians as well as the stupidity of those who elect them. The reality is your expectation politicians is much too high. Politics is a grubby business where survival is the only objective. Politicians will lie, cheat and misrepresent for their own ends and their deviousness is only exceeded by the stupidity of those who elect them.
Nobody, including the chattering classes, wants their standard of living to fall. Like the hypocrites who throws five dollars in the collection plate for the poor and then go home to a fat Sunday dinner, the electorate likes to have its ego massaged. This is the one thing the politicians do very well because it is the essence of being re-elected. As a politician you tell the community what they want to hear, and when you get into power you do what you want to do. To cover the gap between undertakings and actual delivery is essential to lie.
As a consequence we have a CPRS which does not reduce carbon pollution, and the so-called commitment to humanity by relaxation of border controls now sees refugees locked up on the same basis as the previous government.
You will get a better understanding of political behaviour if you do some research in the area of game theory. You need to have a full understanding of the “prisoner’s dilemma” in terms of getting a better understanding of political behaviour.
Greg - I think Georgia (not Georgina as you called her) demonstrated an excellent grasp of political behaviour.
Read William Nordhous. Prominant economist from Yale who believes we should use a “climate policy on-ramp” advocating “modest rates of emissions reductions in the near term, followed by sharp reductions in the medium and long term.”
He advocates this based on the assumption that future cash flows are not worth as much as current cash flows (which is the prevailing theory in Finance). Both Garnaut and Stern used extremely low discount factors when calculating the future costs of climate change…
Nordhous responded to the stern report saying,
“The large damages from global warming [as forecast by Stern] reflect large and speculative damages in the far-distant future; the impacts now, as in today, are small; and … the 20 percent cut in consumption from global warming might be reduced by an order of magnitude if alternative assumptions about discounting are used”
This is the best response to climate change in my opinion.
Georgia,
Well observed and particularly well put. I like the focus on meaning which results from minimal use of names.
Although, cynicism in one as young as you is a little sad.
Surely these cretins in Canberra must have children/grandchildren. How on Earth are they going to explain their inexplicable actions or inaction on something as dire as climate change.
A carbon tax is what is called for pure and simple and no pussy footing around with carbon credits for the coal industry. Give me a break.
I vote Green every time and hopefully we’ll have a lot more representation after the next Federal election. The major parties have passed there use by date a lopng time back.
Georgina - my recollection of the french revolutionary’s quote is “I must follow the mob, I am their leader.”
The mob/worm always turns when it realises that reality will be uncomfortable, running into the arms of nanny (cf UK 1979 Mrsw T) who’ll kiss the skinned knee and make the world go away.
What an outbreak of honesty there might be in the land if we all decided our jobs were expendible. Certainly the public service would never be the same. It makes it less forgivable given that both Rudd and Turbull are wealthy and they really can afford to lose their jobs in any rational monetary sense - they just can’t take the blow to their egos. We are paying these guys peanuts in real dollar terms, but gazillions in cheap agrandisement.
Let me understand Gorgia’s point. MPs of all persuasions want to get re-elected and will follow the “will of the mob” but 54% of people want at least an unconditional 25% reduction by 2020. Hmmmm…..
Maybe Galaxy did not poll voters.
Maybe MPs are completely out of touch with their electorates.
Maybe Gorgia, in her enthusiasm for radical change to everybody’s lives through large early CO2 reductions has not done enough research about what people think.
Pick one.
Don’t Worry there want be any problem who said global temperature is two high go to historical correspondents 5000 years ago. And be happy this is all business worlds. Please see the below chart. Don’t allocate lots of money for no reason. A global temperature going high that does true no need arguments somewhere something wrong in space. Not only carbon emission Good that if all can control carbon emission. By year 2012 august month everything scientifically will be back to scintillate. Ocean warm to getting floods this is normal cycle. If all love your planet good. Do always good. It will become good.
“their job is not primarily to serve in the best interest of the people, but to get themselves — and their party — re-elected”
Georgia, you can’t govern from opposition, ergo you need to get yourself elected and your party into government.
To do that you say and do absolutely anything.
After that, you say and do the opposite.
Welcome to politics in a parliamentary democracy.
I can’t stand politicians, but I realise that they are the price of democracy.
Douglas… drunk or just illiterate? Your contribution is so unintelligible that it is meaningless.
Something to do with rejection of the scientists re climate change?
Perhaps a moderator will remove your post and this one, in order to protect your self esteem.
This, of course, does not surprise me, but rather confirms a sad realisation which drives me to action. I am grateful, Georgia.
It hasn’t been that long since I lost faith in the system. Perhaps not long after Rudd got elected. I voted for him - and then I got tired of hearing him talk a whole lot but say practically nothing. Now he’s flat out going back on his word. Turnbull, while I have emailed him a couple of times and garnered a personal response - I was pleased - I realised each of these corporations works on a 12-hour news cycle. A key phrase here and there, repeat ad nauseum, wave hands about and get cronies behind to sycophantically nod their heads.
I vote no confidence each time I am asked now. If more of us scribbled something to invalidate the polling form then they would get the message. Now that would be something. They’re not listening to us. So why did they ask in the first place?
The political system is out-dated and flawed. Apparently the politicians have small salaries but there is big money behind them. They call the shots and continue with systematically bankrupting the state. As the pollies and their assistants leave office they continue with profound self-interest, passing through the revolving door to become consultants and advisors and cash in on the paybacks. Many industry people are on the inside anyway, the people that wrote the so-called discussion papers to begin with.
I don’t just protest vote. My life’s work is to undermine the system by simply pointing out its flaws. Now that’s all I can see, staring back at me. I voted and went along with it before, but never again.
@DavidsonL,
Voting is not, of itself, going to fix everything. However, it is better than voting informally or inducing others to do likewise.
I am sure that every elector who cares enough to consciously decide to vote informally has the nounce to decide which of the available on offer is the least worst, if not the best.
I cannot agree with informal voting, because that is n ot the act of a rational person when faced with a decision.
Even more, I really wish that you didn’t ask others to do so.
John Bennetts, I am working come out for a good solution of carbon emissions. Really we are applied and success fully we are contributed to the environments not to the persons. All of your hands need to cut down or reduce the carbon emission I can’t do along my self I need your full support to do so. I did lots of changes LED savings & water servings, applied where needed and saved planet per a month 450 Kg of carbon emissions. We arrange some competition to make the person understanding how to contribute to the planet not for me. Sorry that I have given a date 2012 August at least seen this article we will achieved on said date it is not a big issue no need to allocate money large scale use your general physic knowledge to apply where ever we go. What we all finely need better environmental. That it’s my scope of work and task. John Bennetts thank you we should be to getter have a nice day good luck.
David Hand: “pick one”
How about… none of them.
It’s perfectly possible that a majority of people want strong unilateral action (a.k.a. international moral leadership) on climate change, yet only a minority is prepared to vote against their preferred party on non-climate issues.
This is because climate change is only one issue among many for voters (and - mistakenly in my view - it seems to be well down their list of priorities)
I’d speculate that it is also beacuse the factors that drive voting (impulse, emotion, and the effects of media coverage and perceptions in the lead-up to the poll) might well differ from the factors that determine opinions on particular issues outside of election-time (where perhaps people are more reflective).
At any rate, I felt obliged to point out your logical error, in large part because your comment was delivered with such snark.
Also, thank you to Georgia for a great article. I particularly liked this point: “There is no political future in weak action on climate-change”. I think youth environmental movements could do worse than to remind those Australians who are benefitting from continued inaction that there will inevitably come a time when the crowd bays for their blood (metaphorically, I hope). Fear is a weapon, and although Rudd is not yet in fear of the very real possibility of being hated and despised throughout his retirement, he ought to be.