Jun 28, 2010

Gillard doesn’t get climate change

Julia Gillard doesn't get climate change, and those hoping the Labor Government will make a marked policy shift will once more face disappointment.

Julia Gillard doesn’t get climate change, and those hoping the Labor Government will make a marked policy shift will once more face disappointment.

Over the weekend, the new Prime Minister spoke of her commitment to “build a consensus” before acting. As there’s already strong support across the community for an emissions trading system, it’s not apparent whose consensus she will seek.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

95 thoughts on “Gillard doesn’t get climate change

  1. Tom

    Who is more bonkers Bolt or Hamilton?
    Who would you want to have dinner with? – Neither
    Who ‘cherry picks’ only data that support their argument? – Both
    Who is ‘self appointed’ and glibly speaks for us all? – Both
    Who lends more to the argument? – Neither
    Who wishes both of them would shut up and bugger off? – Me for one!

  2. Mack the Knife

    Couldn’t agree more Tom.

    No matter how much she loves an ETS its impossible to get one through in the present legislative environment and eliminating coal production is easier to demand than implement.

    Who is this Clive Hamilton anyway?

  3. Sancho

    Got to agree, Tom. I’m usually sympathetic to commentators speaking from a progressive, pro-environment position, but I really have no time for Hamilton. It’s a shame he’s so sanctimonious, because he’s quite a talented performer otherwise.

  4. Syd Walker

    @ Clive

    >>> “As there’s already strong support across the community for an emissions trading system, it’s not apparent whose consensus she will seek.”

    There is, I believe, strong majority support for effective action on reducing emissions.

    That support should not be conflated with specific support for an ETS.

    As Clive Hamilton is well aware, there are other approaches to reducing emissions that are widely supported and do not entail a market in emissions permits.

    He may favour an ETS, but should not pretend the ETS proposal has more widespread support than is actually the case.

    There is also more than a touch of blatant arrogance in the statement:

    >>>”since when did accepting a body of scientific fact become a matter of “belief”?”

    Why not answer your own question, Dr Hamilton?

    Was it since the era of the Ptolemaic system?

    Or before?

  5. Bellistner

    unless, with the balance of power in the Senate, the Greens can force the Gillard Government to go much further than it intends.

    Which is why we must still vote The Greens first in both The Senate and House of Reps. Betting that the Labs will now go with a ‘greener’ ETS (insofar as the CPRS was in any way Green, rather than a Taxpayer-funded excuse to pollute), just because Rudd is on the outer, is a fools gamble, for my money.

  6. Michael James

    Ah, poor Clive, still lamenting that the Gillard Government and the electorate live in the real world, rather than his utopian fantasy where his concerns are the most important item on the global agenda.

    Sorry Clive, the adults are busy trying to repair a damaged global economy, deal with a couple of major diplomatic flashpoints, fix the boat people siise and get re-elected.

    Once they are fixed they might turn their attention to other matters. Until then, don’t call them, they will call you.

  7. Fran Barlow

    I believe the best proposal we could put know on a price on co2 emissions would have the following elements:

    1. Define dirty energy by reference to the average CO2 intensity of anthracite coal (stationary) and CO2/BTU of petrodiesel (transport)
    2. Allow tax deductibility for the proportion of cost saving in relation to dirty energy. Thus,if the energy mix one paid for was 75% of the intensity of “dirty energy”, one would get 25% of it tax deductible
    3. Withdraw subsidies for all dirty energy usage
    4. Hypothecate funds clawed back under 2 and 3 to pay means tested assistance in tax-free and welfare exempt cash or service (eg public housing, food bank) to those in the bottom 60% of income earners — so it is revenue neutral.

    The advantage of this is that it would effectively make dirt energy an after tax expense,whereas clean energy would be before tax. It would make energy saving and efficiency cost-rational. It would stimulate demand for energy saving and clean energy development

    It would also be administratively simpler, since you would not have to do much more than audit claimed clean energy usage, thus simplifying compliance. Payments to low income earners go through an existing system. All businesses would pay and there would be little scope to game the system. Different arms of the bureaucracy would not be pulling in opposite directions — (subsidising and then taxing/limiting)

    Politically, it can’t be called a “Great Big New Tax” and the presenting feature would be low income and low middle income earners being paid or getting services. The Liberals, who on paper oppose subsidies would be hard pressed to oppose it. A regulatory regime limiting emissions could still be progressively imposed.

    Being a regulatory measure, it also wouldn’t require senate approval, since it could be implemented at the minister’s discretion, though it would be worth putting to the senate. The government could implement it early — perhaps as early as January 1 — as an amendment to the budget.

  8. DodgyKnees

    The “strong support” comes mainly from Australians, like Clive Hamilton, who have an understanding of the science.

    Unfortunately there’s a too significant fraction of voters with “fragile support” who are spooked by irresponsible politicians shouting Great Big Tax, Absolute Crap and cherry picking scientific opinion from nutters on the short end of the bell curve.

    Abbott, Bernardi and Co. should be Hamilton’s target. Attacking Gillard simply exposes his primary motive of getting the odd extra seat for the Greens.

  9. Liz45

    At my age(21 and some months) I don’t get conned any more. I’ll still give my first vote to The Greens, as I agree with all their policies, not just on climate change. It should be noted, that while the majority of people want action, they don’t want to pay (more) for it! Even though I’m only on a pension, I don’t mind contributing by higher energy costs, as long as I’m assured, that the money is used for the benefit of my grand kid’s future, and everyone elses’ as well!

    I pay some towards my energy bills each fortnight – only way to manage. I don’t know how pensioners and others cope if they have to pay market value rents – I’m lucky to be in public housing, and I’m most fortunate re position and type of unit – a villa? (best kept secret in the area?)Some pensioners are forced to pay 80% of their income on rent (heard this during discussion prior to last Sept’s increase)- I don’t know how they survive – particularly if they don’t have family to support them!They should be subsidised by the more affluent in my view.

    I believe what the scientists assert. I just want the govt/s to get on with it!

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details