Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



May 12, 2010

Senator Milne: A few stings in the tail of the boring budget

Once again, the funds allocated to renewable energy, public transport and energy efficiency pale into insignificance next to the tens of billions to roads and the military writes Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne.

User login status :


Every Australian knows that, if you have two credits cards, it is very bad management to pay off your debt on one of them by racking it up on the other.

Last night’s Budget pulled down the national economic debt, but it continued the process of racking up our ecological debt.

Once again, the funds allocated to renewable energy, public transport and energy efficiency pale into insignificance next to the tens of billions to roads and the military.

The $652 million of new money to renewable energy, saved due to the decision not to even attempt negotiations with the Greens over a carbon pricing system will be welcomed by an industry which has been starved of funds for so long. Even since the Rudd government’s election, the promise of new funding has still been just that – a promise. Virtually none of the Renewable Energy Development Fund has been spent, and the Solar Flagships were only short-listed last night.

Piecemeal subsidies to renewables will only mean we will import technologies from overseas – where they take renewables seriously as an alternative to coal – to supplement a handful of coal fired power plants with some solar power.

We won’t see long-term jobs or manufacturing set up here unless we get a policy framework in place that will actually deliver a transformation – and that does not mean a CPRS which is designed to secure ongoing investment in coal. The Greens will be pushing hard in the Senate and the election campaign for some of those policies – such as a feed-in tariff for all renewable energy, a significant increase in the renewable energy target, loan guarantees for large-scale renewable energy developments and a levy on big polluters.

The missed opportunity is stark, and the cuts to on-the-ground environment programs from Landcare to green car innovation to water tanks will be devastating to thousands of people. But the biggest sting in the tail – the decision which is likely to have the most far-reaching implications – is the government’s decision to incorporate their entire commitment to climate financing for developing nations into existing aid budget promises, instead of making it additional.

You may recall that one of the few rays of hope at last December’s Copenhagen Conference was the commitment by rich nations to allocate some US$30 billion to a fast-start financing program to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate changes already locked in. The understanding at the conference was that this commitment would be additional to existing aid budgets – indeed additional to promised increases under the Millennium Development Goals.

Outgoing Secretary of the UN climate process, Yvo de Boer, has repeatedly warned this year that the key challenge this year is to rebuild trust between developed and developing nations. Just this week, de Boer warned that if developed nations take their climate financing funds out of existing aid budgets it will be seen as “climate washing” and “not conducive” to that vital process of rebuilding trust. For a consummate diplomat like de Boer, this was very strong language.

The Rudd government has allowed domestic climate action to languish with yet another budget failure. But it has delivered an unforgivable blow to international climate negotiations at a time when we desperately need progress.

The Rudd government may think that racking up ecological debt in this way suits their short term political agenda, but it is not wise management for the future and it will not be appreciated by an electorate increasingly concerned about the impact of the climate crisis, extinctions and peak oil on their lives.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Crikey


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

13 thoughts on “Senator Milne: A few stings in the tail of the boring budget

  1. jenauthor

    At the time of the CPRS I begged the Greens to consider that the small steps gained by passing it would be better than nothing. Then it could be beefed up as the economy adapted and the rest of the world came online.

    Now the Greens want to absolve themselves for part of the responsibility that that decision entailed. Which was NOTHING HAPPENED! What the govt did last night was small steps — something you people refused to take!

    The coal industry might be the pollution demon in your eyes but your unrealistic attitude accomplished nothing. And you gave the coalition and it’s lapdogs at the mainstream press the opportunity to blame the government for THEIR backflip.

    Coal has to be encouraged to clean itself up — not destroyed outright over night because that is unrealistic to the extreme.

    I understand your principles. In a perfect world, they’d be great and I’d applaud them.

    But we don’t live in a perfect world … we need to adapt what we have, changing it over time, rather than cutting off hands that feed too many in this country. Right now coal is integral — like it or not — and gradual adaptation is the most sensible course of action. (And no, I have absolutely no involvement in the coal industry — so I am not speaking from vested interest.)

    Thanks to your lack of common sense, you’re are now facing the possibility that the coalitions crackpot climate deniers might even grab power again! I’d like to see the members of the Greens sitting and explaining the extra 5 or 10 years of delay to their grandchildren and how their refusal to compromise delivered inaction so long that our country was doomed to become an ecological wasteland.

    Now you want to bag the govt for the few initiatives they did make? How about you look into your own backyard — the Greens do not have the responsibility of actual govt and never will have — so it is easy to pitch stones. If you were in the govt’s position and knew the actual logistics what would you REALLY do? You’d be as hamstrung by minor parties and lack of funding as the govt currently is. You;d compromise like the rest of them — and then you’d make small steps — forward.

  2. Roger Clifton

    Jeremy’s technical questions can be answered with technical numbers, eg the article and discussion

    However the Greens also have a more political concern: that prohibition of nuclear energy prohibits nuclear war. In particular they are concerned that reprocessing of used fuel rods (aka “nuclear waste”) may allow diversion of fissile material into a bomb-making process. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    However the climate damage is developing into a greater evil. It may become more attractive to Green voters to allow nuclear to replace carbon for the sake of the greater good.

    The shift would be then be from prohibition to policing. The IAEA already police the traffic in uranium, including Australian uranium. Australia is also signatory to the GNEP, which restricts reprocessing to nuclear-club countries.

Leave a comment