Greens and climate change … welcome back to the real world
|
So with a great (self-trumpeted) fanfare, the Greens have returned to the climate-change debate — and about bloody time. Many on the left, including some of the deepest green, had been shocked and dismayed at their intransigence during the past year, and in particular at its chaotic conclusion. From the very beginning Senators Bob Brown, Christine Milne and their three colleagues rejected the government’s agenda out of hand. It was, they insisted, a worthless travesty of what was really required — a pusillanimous and inadequate response to a worldwide crisis. Well, from a rigorous scientific point of view, they may well have been right; but politics has never been a rigorous, scientific business. It is the art of the possible, about least worst solutions achieved through compromise, a word that the Greens have always considered obscene to the point of blasphemy. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s approach was a long way from perfect, but it was a start, an attempt to ease the nation into a new and often unpleasant way of life. His calculation, reinforced by the best research available, was that the public simply would not accept the radical tactics favoured by the Greens, or even the more-considered measures suggested by his own chief adviser, Ross Garnaut. He wanted to achieve at least a rough consensus, not only among the voters, but among the major stakeholders. That meant bringing everyone, including the polluting industries, inside the tent. Of course, there would always be recalcitrants, but as long as they could be portrayed as a perverse or self-seeking minority, there was a good chance of progress. Above all, he wanted political bipartisanship, which was why his final Bill was very similar to the outline John Howard had taken to the electorate in 2007. And he very nearly succeeded; right up until the last gasp it appeared that Malcolm Turnbull could deliver enough senators to pass his Emissions Trading Scheme and thus lock the foundations for real change into place. But the Greens wanted no part of it. They now say they were always open to negotiation, but their starting point was a target that would have strained the limits of many in the Labor Party, much less the coalition. And in any case, the hard fact was that the Greens could not offer Rudd what he needed; the numbers to get the Bill — any Bill — passed. There were only five of them; Rudd needed seven. Any formula that would satisfy the Greens was bound to be opposed by the Liberals, even under Turnbull, and the National were already off the planet. Thus Rudd would have needed both independents. Conceivably Nick Xenophon might have been open to persuasion, but Steve Fielding was a hopeless case. Rudd’s only hope was the Liberals, which meant more compromise, not more bravado. Ironically, even after Turnbull was rolled, the Greens could still have saved the day: two Liberals were prepared to cross the floor, and if the Greens had seized the moment, as many of their supporters urged, a flawed but basic ETS would have become law; the foundation for more determined action would be in place. But the Greens preferred to preserve their ideological impregnability, and delivered precisely nothing. As Gough Whitlam was fond of remarking, the impotent are always pure — and, he might have added, frequently vice versa. But it now seems that Brown and Milne have had a Damascene conversion to reality: they are now proposing what they describe as an interim scheme to break the deadlock. The idea is a two-year price on carbon of $20 per tonne, with the proceeds spent on incentives for alternative energy and on compensating low-income households — but not the polluting industries, who would receive free permits under the government scheme. This is in line with the original Garnaut Report, and therefore has a certain credibility. But it is undeniably a compromise — even the Greens don’t claim it would do much to reduce the actual rate of emissions. The best they predict is that at least it might stop them from increasing, and perhaps, just perhaps, bring them down by a percentage point or two. This is a long way behind the government’s own minimum target of 5% reductions, about which they have been so contemptuous. But it would, as they say, be a start. Unfortunately all the old political constraints still apply; in the present senate a Labor-Greens alliance is still two votes short of a majority. Tony Abbott has totally rejected the idea of any form of tax or levy on carbon, but interestingly he did not dismiss the idea immediately. And given that it now appears that even the January 31 deadline for emissions targets set at Copenhagen is not to be taken seriously, the Green proposal is just about the only concrete proposal for action on the table. So thanks, Senators Brown and Milne — and welcome back to the real world. Who knows, you might even like it here. Apart from the fact that he appears to have lost his chin in an unfortunate breeding accident, Prince William seems a pleasant enough young man; and since (for once) we are not paying for his royal flash-through, there is no reason to be unkind about him. But equally, there seems no reason to cringe, grovel, kowtow or otherwise abase ourselves, which the media have done in a particularly unedifying fashion. His personable appearance is utterly irrelevant to the republic debate: if he were a slithering, gibbering, bug-eyed monster he would still be second in line to become our head of state, and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it. And that’s the point. Like any other form of autocracy, the system of monarchy is only as good as the worst person who can become monarch. On January 26, India celebrates Republic Day. We celebrate becoming a British penal colony. Guess who wins? |
|
|
|
14 Comments
So, Senators Milne and Brown, welcome back to the real world. Now which “real” world would that be Mungo, your own little Aussie/Disney fantasy that you appear to live in, or the one where climate change happens to be an emergency.
It is to be hoped the Greens and Labor now get together and show the country some unity for the good of the country. I thought that was what we put politicians in Canberra for.
Mr Abbott please note.
I understand it was the Govt which refused to talk to the Greens, not the other way around. After the next election it is probable Labor will need to deal with the Greens to get anything through the Senate if the coalition don’t support it. I expect the Libs will take their cue from the Republicans in the US Senate - block everything just for the sake of it.
So the Greens were wrong (or ‘out of touch with reality’) in resisting a CPRS that was a massive subsidy to polluters and somehow are inconsistent now in accepting a still watered down CPRS that is being used to finance alternative energy. I must have missed something.
Greens and climate change … welcome back to the real world
by Mungo MacCallum 25 Jan 10
There are a number of things on the Green political agenda that I personally don’t agree with - which may reflect my bias rather than informed opinion.
However, on Climate Change I am with them 100% - and that is informed opinion, having studied the science and the politics of both Climate Change and Peak Oil at some depth over the last 5 or 6 years. Not long by most environmentalist standards, but long enough to grasp the essentials.
So, on this issue Mungo, I disagree with you at a fundamental level.
Your approach to the subject is at the political level and that’s a mistake.
Mother Nature does not negotiate, she simply responds without pity or remorse to whatever levels of CO2 pollution we send her.
The science is very clear and consensual – despite the fear, uncertainty and doubt (F.U.D.) with which the fossil fuel industry tries hard to confuse the public.
They have also managed to exploit the media’s belief that all news must be ‘balanced’ by opposing views – regardless whether the opposing views carry the same weight of qualified scientific opinion or consensus.
Despite such sabotage of informed public opinion, the Greens have consistently recommended what science has told us we need to do to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate consequences.
It’s not hard.
Just stop burning fossil fuels to generate our electricity and fuel our transport.
If we focused just on achieving those two objectives in the science recommended timeframe, the problem goes away - just like the hole in the ozone.
Once the public fully understand that’s 95% of we have to do to save their grandchildren from a future they would not wish on them, they will vote in whoever will guarantee to put the necessary legislation in place.
So don’t attack the Greens for communicating what the science is saying (they are the only political party that consistently tells us the truth. for God’s sake), stay focused on what Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton have written about and the ABC has documented in their 4 Corners documentary, ‘The Greenhouse Mafia’.
These document clearly who are the vested interests, who have infiltrated, manipulated and corrupted the democratic process in this country and the USA, to the point where climate change and energy legislation, such as the CPRS, is written to protect their financial interests – regardless of the disastrous consequences for our (only) planet.
Or have they got to you too now?
Rossco and Chris..
Thanks excellent comments.
Thanks, Mungo. It’s really useful to hear exactly what the ALP is thinking - straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak…
And glad to see the hoary old lines are not actually convincing anybody. Cheers for the positive and insightful comments, folks!
Professor James Hansen says cap and trade is rubbish, like handing out indulgences by the church in the middle ages. Better to scrap it and make a different model says Professor Hansen.
Mungo is living in a pre 1996 phase of Australian politics when the ALP said to the green movement they had to support Keating with ashphelt in his veins. The green movement told Keating to go and get f*cked after what he green lighted for Tas and other ancient forests 10,000 year provenance.
The Gunns pulp mill is as much Keating’s as it is Howard in 2010, following the junking of the Resource Assessment Commission, and so called Regional Forest ‘Agreements’. You know the ones to log locally rare koala habitat on the NSW South Coast. As if.
Same with climate - the ALP are as shallow as laminex. As grasping as a spiv used car dealer on Parramatta Rd. Same with the Republic bunyip aristocracy.
The halcyon days of Labor are over. A profound political force no doubt but those days are never going to return as surely as PM Rudd is desperately paddling under the water to keep his popularity polls high because that’s the only loyalty he’s got. There is a price to pay and a slowing growing Green Party year on year is the price, including when they are the majority government.
Rudd will be deposed after Labor wins the next election. His 20% party support base is now at under 10%..and we haven’t heard yet about what has been his greatest blunder in office.
Unfortunately he’ll be replaced by the equally disappointing Gillard, who reminds me of Howard …believe in nothing, devote 90% of your energy to the marginals, jettison core values when necessary & do whatever it takes to stay in power.
So this is Oz politics early in the 21st century. Hopefully, somewhere on the back bench in both major parties lay the future of this great country’s political system.
Chris you made some excellent points and I basically agree that mother nature does what it does. But the problem is that as it stands there is no price on carbon and while this is the case the fossil fuel lobby will be as loud as ever with this constant ridiculous discussion about whether or not humans are the cause will go on.
Once there is a price on carbon I’m hoping that the debate will change to whats the best way forward rather than whether or not it(anthropegenic global warming) is happening.
That raving fundi greenie Garnaut said the CPRS was worse than useless. Anyone with a $5 calculator could see that the only green effect it would have had was on the Banks & Brokers. The only sane, fair, transparent & .. wot’s the word … EFFECTIVE legislation is a straight energy tax, at source. This cost will pass to every other product & activity in life so everyone will be able to know what their lifestyle is costing them and the planet. Use less energy, live more cheaply, not to mention a great deal longer, more healthily and pleasantly.
I have responded to this article here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/01/27/id-rather-be-in-the-greens-reality-than-mungos/
It is interesting how the Greens are always painted as extremists on climate change, an urgent issue of scientific fact, whilst taxpayers’ money is lavished on visits by ex-Hitlerjugend religious fundamentalists, and both main political parties are dominated by leaders who expound moral views derived from fairytales propagated by such deluded mediaeval throwbacks, yet our political leaders are never criticised in the Australian media for their irrational, fundamentalist and, yes, extremist beliefs. The only politicians with any consistency and integrity on climate change, let alone grasp of the science behind it, are the Greens. Bravi!
Mungo says: “And in any case, the hard fact was that the Greens could not offer Rudd what he needed; the numbers…” In the final analysis, neither could the coalition.
Mungo just asserts without any supporting argument that setting out to negotiate a genuine emissions reduction scheme with Greens senators was out of the question. If you accept his assertion, then the Rudd/Wong strategy of attempting to make a deal with the Coalition makes some limited sense; but to then turn around and criticise the Greens for not supporting the broken outcome of that approach is hardly reasonable, particularly when the Coalition turned their noses up at it too.
Rudd and Wong’s flaw (assuming the ALP ever actually wanted an emissions scheme to get up) was that he didn’t keep both options alive. By dismissing the scientists, the economists, and the Greens, he chose a high risk strategy which has proved to be a debacle, just like the Copenhagen talks.
And naturally Rudd and Wong now want to try to shift the blame onto whoever happens to be handy. Maybe Mungo isn’t a part of that plan, but…