Milne: A defeat of climate hypocrisy and a moment for hope
|
It appears likely, although not certain, that the elevation of Tony Abbott to the leadership of the Liberal Party today rings the death knell for the Rudd Government’s failure of an emissions trading scheme. The Government and its backers will no doubt attempt to brand this as a victory for climate scepticism. But I see it equally as a defeat of climate hypocrisy and a moment of hope that we may now be able to have a sensible debate about climate policy in Australia – a debate that has been stunningly absent in recent months. Tony Abbott in his press conference today distanced himself from climate scepticism. He noted that climate change is real, that we humans play a role in it, and that the debate is over the mechanism we choose to deal with it. We can, of course, safely assume that any mechanism Mr Abbott eventually proposes will be unacceptably weak on the science and will unfairly allocate the burden of action to the community instead of the polluters. But that is the ground on which this debate should be being fought – not action vs inaction, but what kind of action. The “will they won’t they” politics of the CPRS prevents that debate from being heard. Let’s reflect briefly once again on the CPRS itself. The Government has always been keen to frame this as a question of action vs inaction on climate change, but even they, in their now almost certainly defunct negotiations with the Liberal Party, agreed that there comes a point when action is so weak that it becomes functionally equivalent to inaction. The Greens and the majority of environmentalists in Australia believe that that point was passed long ago. But this scheme goes beyond weak – it will actually take Australia in the wrong direction. As Citi Investment Research director Elaine Prior told ABC Inside Business on Sunday: “One of the things that the package has done is provided more surety for the coal-fired generators to keep generating until roughly 2020 or beyond. So one might say in that sense that it’s on the one hand created more stability in the electricity market, but perhaps reduced the urgency for people to look at change.” Between the woefully weak targets and the handouts and free permit allocation overwhelmingly skewed towards sandbagging existing industry, the scheme as designed would have undermined our ability to negotiate a meaningful deal in Copenhagen, and unleash a bonanza of investment in coal. The CPRS would have been the national equivalent of a person changing a couple of lightglobes at home while cranking the air conditioner. The small action might make them feel good, but the overwhelming impact is still negative. We have the opportunity to reject that choice today by voting down the CPRS. Once we get that flawed proposition off the table, it gives us the opportunity to put the debate back where it belongs – on the fundamental question of how we address the climate crisis. The Greens relish that opportunity. We are ready to give our all to that end. |
|
|
|
18 Comments
Dear Ms Milne,
I have just read your oped in Crikey and once again I am left stunned by your sociopathic behaviour.
Your utterly self serving actions are right up there with Ralph Nader in 2000. And yes I do know how the US voting system works.
I will make it my personal responsibility in the months ahead to explain to every center left voter that the Greens stand for nothing but political opportunism of the worst kind.
And that YOU personally worked hand in hand with the likes of Nick and Tony and Barnie and Stevie and all the other nutters to vote down this bill. God you must so proud to stand with men like that.
You do not represent the views of mainstream Australia on this issue. You stand shoulder to shoulder with the worst Torries of our country and you say this is a great day for Australia and getting climate change right.
That is utter garbage and you have put climate change action in Australia back years.
The Greens are the Pauline Hanson of the left and should be ignored as the party of enviro-fascists who have nothing to offer but the empty rhetoric of moral superiority.
You clearly have never had to work for anything in your life and have always assumed you get to fourth base by standing still demanding that the mountain come to you.
The only reason you are opposing this bill is in the hope of forcing Rudd to a double dissolution.
The Greens will come out of this with even less Senators than now and you will be sent to the scrap heap of the failed left where you so deservedly belong.
Go hang your head in shame along with the rest of your pathetic little group of white, middle class, lazy thinkers.
Seriously, what have any of the Green Five ever done in life but talk.
yours sincerely,
Simon Mansfield
Citizen
Australia
I hope you’ve got a jumper on, must be cold up there.
Yes: the lame legislation will be blocked (by an even lamer Liberal party) but at least it will be blocked - even if for all the wrong reasons.
Only an election and the Greens with the full balance of power in their own right is out hope now. Then the Labor party might actually negotiate with them for a package, rather than try negotiating with the Liberals.
What you Greens do not understand is that the vast majority do not want their lifestyle seriously affected although they want to feel good about climate change.
What Rudd is doing is having a bet each way. He wants to appear environmentally conscious by bringing in his CPRS but on the other hand does want to upset any voters by asking them to cut back significantly on their lifestyle.
Accordingly we have a CPRS which does not reduce carbon dioxide outputsignificantly. It is no use blaming the big polluters like electricity suppliers coalminers and cement producers, because we all want to consume their products. So the Greens can run around feeling good and get their rocks of by complaining, and without doing anything significant to persuade the broad community to take the painful standard of living cuts necessary to save the planet.
It is classic prisoners dilemma. Nobody wants to be the first to move so nobody will. If the politicians tell the truth about the impact of reduction in carbon dioxide output, the voters will chuck them out because the impact is far off in the future.
The reality is that we will not address the impact of climate change until we are forced to do so, and the impact will be felt outside the lifetimes of most individuals.
While Rudd can continue to run around giving the impression he’s doing something while not offending anybod’s sensibilities by actually asking them to consume less everybody will be happy. Even the Greens will be happy because they can run around with a permanent agenda of complaint safe in the knowledge that pragmatic politicians will provide them with a permanent platform for protest without the feeling the necessary painful cuts.
Your opening line is probably right Greg, but I’d like some more honesty (from others, not you necessarily) about what this means to individuals.
The main change will be electricity prices. Up 30% for some people. For me, that’s an extra $300 a year, or $6 a week. Split all those numbers in half to account for my working partner.
I don’t consider this legislation will seriously affect my lifestyle. It’ll hardly put a dent in it.
Senator Milne
thank you for your work during this week. I don’t know if you are alone but I found that I agreed with your position and your points during question time. Good to see somebody concerned with getting the legislation correct and effective as oppossed to dictating to their party or to the country or simply winning.
Bravo
Is my understanding that to reduce carbon dioxide output significantly means cuts of more than 50% from current levels of output. The impact of this would be so severe on the standard of living that no politician would be courageous enough to do it. The 5% cut inherent in Rudd’s scheme is fiddling around the edges, with no significant impact. China and India have no intention of cutting back as they aspire to our standard of living which is unsustainable in environmental terms. Like maggots on a dead sheep we will “munch on” environmentally until the the world’s resources are consumed or the environment is completely destroyed.
The reason why the legislation will hardly affect your lifestyle is that it is not intended to. Politicians realise this. That’s why we have tokenism with no significant effect. Fossil fuel underwrites every aspect of our life including food transport and housing. We have entered into a Faustian bargain with the fossil fuel devilsince we discovered that we could use carbon as a fuel source to smelt metals. After destroying forests for charcoal, we subsequently turned to coal,which is the primary fuel of industry. Liquid hydrocarbons mainly oil and now gas fuel our transport systems which enable us to move food thousands of kilometres from the point of production to consumption. Until the 20th century the energy required to produce food and and transport it to market was sustainable through the use of animals fed by renewable fuel namely grasses.
Increasing the cost of fuel will diminish our capacity to transport food and will significantly disrupted not destroy a lot of the existing relationships between food production and consumption. Politicians are unwilling or unable to confront the community with the cost of saving the planet, in terms of the impact on standard of living, so despite all the rhetoric nothing significant will happen. Tokenism will be the order of the day.
What a load of crap Simon Mansfield. Good luck getting anyone to listen to your mouth foaming diatribe.
Simon Mansfield, there is a real world out there, try living in it.
Dearest Simon, I agree with Arlen & Nzhou, you are pure poison mate, no one will listen to your rantings. I felt quite ill after reading your comments.
Poor Simon Mansfield. He recognises the train wreck his extreme side of politics is headed for and will be wondering what backed over him when the Greens increase their numbers at the next election.
I’m not a Greens voter but it is pretty clear they will be the biggest winners out of all this. The far left and the environmentally motivated members of the electorate who have been voting Labor because not having the Coalition win was more important than any disagreements they had with Labor’s policies, now no-longer have to worry about the Coalition being any threat of forming government for the foreseeable future and can conscience vote at the next election.
Thanks Christine for your steady and sensible arguments against the current ineffectual and lobbyist-driven CPRS. I’m hoping this catharsis will enable the Greens to gain some leverage in the upcoming debate about how we will effectively achieve progress to a carbon-neutral world.
I agree, a lot more needs to be done to help the planet (start with ZPG measures), but turning the Titanic on such a short track won’t work. We as a species are too fixed in our habits to do an about face on the way we’re spending the planet, with the sort of aplomb that could rival Abbott’s on so many other “non-core” issues.
We need a place at the table on international climate change politics and this may be the ticket, starting somewhere, getting the ball rolling, acclimatising the electorate “at home”.
The best thing these “Coal-ition” moderates can do to get even with “Minch-kins A-bot”, would be to vote down the legislation, and force an election on that front - to do otherwise would clear, the decks for other matters, and limit losses under his watch.
But one thing I can’t get over is the thinking of some of the Greens, that somehow the Coal-ition is open to overtures to modify and accommodate anything the Greens put forward, if they’re not under electoral duress.
Yes, yes. Get that annoying Penny Wong to come back with a truly meaningful scheme. People won’t mind half as much paying extra for power, fuel etc if it is free of distortions and doesn’t just tax average joe blows in order to give massive handouts to big business and encourage them to go on polluting. Hit where we need to hit for real carbon reduction results.
Simon Mansfield, you have a problem.
Sometimes I wonder what planet the Greens live on. It seems they’re on the same tracks that wrecked the dumacrats. Rightwing self interest has also derailed the coalition again.. It’s the right in the party in Queensland that keeps them from winning a Senate seat here. It’s also the reason I left the party. At a time when environmental issues are at the forefront, the Greens are going backwards and will do at the next election because of their all or nothing policy naivety. Aussies voters will never give them the balance of power in the Senate, it’s just too dangerous.
Good luck with your dreams of a ‘.. sensible debate.. ’ . I don’t think I can ever remember such activity in Australian politics. Unless there’s some apocolyptic event that demands immediate conversion, the inevitable divide has opened up with accusations of world government and myriad conspiracies. Bottom line is - you need the numbers and warm feelings about the human condition and the triumph of sensibleness ain’t going anywhere. You may relish the challenge and indeed ‘give it your all’ - more tea Vicar ? - but your track record to date isn’t encouraging, and sticking the boots into the only party than actually can get the numbers is too holier-than-thou.
Gloating is all you have to show Ms Milne you silly self important twerp
As a right-wing liberal, a sometime skeptic, and not much of a fan of either the Bob Browns or the Kevin Rudds of this world, let me say good on you Christine, you talk sense here and I’m glad there isn’t just one party in the Senate.