With the Australian election called for 7 September, where do the two parties stand on climate change policy?
Twitter broke the story. The Australian election will be held on Saturday 7 September, the first September election since 1946.
The 2013 election will be fought on many issues, most centrally the economy and jobs. Despite the media's obsession with refugees and asylum seekers, in the marginal seats the issue gets relatively little traction.
There is no pressing policy challenge that will impact on jobs and the economy than climate change. The Garnaut Review, commissioned by Kevin Rudd in 2007, makes clear that the costs of inaction far exceed the costs of action. The economic costs of run away climate change, through sea level rise, increased incidence and severity of bush fires, tropical cyclones, floods and other extreme weather events, as well as the health impacts of heat-waves and tropical disease spreading south, make a compelling case for action. What's more, Australia could become a "clean energy super power" (PDF link).
Where do the two parties stand?
Tony Abbott, leader of the Opposition Liberal-National Party, is a climate skeptic. Although his party is committed to the same 5% reduction in carbon emissions that the Government has announced, his policy of "Direct Action" is little more than a fig-leaf for the climate denialists within his party's ranks.
Abbott's policy consists of:
· Build more dams: the 100 dams policy would actually contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions.
· Create a "Green Army": a group of volunteers who would plant trees and pick up rubbish, but which has had its funding cut.
· Support for "soil carbon abatement": A speculative policy whose carbon impact is questioned by the CSIRO.
· A promise to plant more trees: in order to achieve any real carbon abatement a tree field the size of Melbourne would need to be planted, according to a Monash University researcher.
· Some industry hand outs to incentivise retrofits.
· Abolition of the carbon price.
These policies will not only fail to get a 5% carbon reduction, but may raise Australia's carbon emissions.
The Government's policy, as I noted, has the same 5% carbon emissions reduction target. To achieve this, Labor has created the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, established a Renewable Energy Target, and introduced the carbon price (which will become a floating rather than fixed price next year).
There is already evidence that these policies are having their desired impact. Carbon emissions have been reduced by 12 million tonnes and clean energy production has increased by 30%.
The biggest policy change that Labor has announced on the climate change front is moving to the floating carbon price a year early. Because Australia's carbon price is tied to Europe's, this means that when it floats, the price is likely to drop from the fixed price of around $24 to between $3-4.
What is concerning to me however is the numerous well-meaning greenies (both small g and capital G) who have announced, on blogs and Twitter, their intention to vote for the Liberals above Labor on climate grounds, because, "at least he will plant some trees". (The Greens party of course would get their first preference.)
It's hardly surprising that many greenies may think that Abbott's direct action policy could be better than Rudd's floating carbon price. When Kevin Rudd announced the floating price, Greens political party leader Christine Milne denounced the Prime Minister as "a fake on climate".
This is despite the fact that she, and the other Greens party politicians, voting for the Clean Energy Future Act, which would see a floating price in 2015. The only substantive difference being the floating price moving forward a year earlier.
Any attempt to paint the current Labor Government as worse than Abbott, or even only marginally better, is intellectually bankrupt. This Labor government, under Penny Wong and Greg Combet, have taken Australia from being a climate pariah under the Howard era, to a nation that is leading the world on climate action.
The likes of Greens party senator Christine Milne calling Rudd a "fake" on climate change is just posturing at best, and an attempt at electoral sabotage at worst.
Of course, I and many other environmentalists, would like to see bolder, faster action. A carbon reduction target of at least 30% and a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030 would be fantastic. Labor's own Climate Change Authority recently had a report leaked calling for the reduction target to be 15% by 2020.
At the start of the election campaign, and seventy days from September 7, the choice on climate change is clear. I hope the campaign will see more announcements on climate policy. Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.
Twitter broke the story. The Australian election will be held on Saturday 7 September, the first September election since 1946.
The 2013 election will be fought on many issues, most centrally the economy and jobs. Despite the media's obsession with refugees and asylum seekers, in the marginal seats the issue gets relatively little traction.
There is no pressing policy challenge that will impact on jobs and the economy than climate change. The Garnaut Review, commissioned by Kevin Rudd in 2007, makes clear that the costs of inaction far exceed the costs of action. The economic costs of run away climate change, through sea level rise, increased incidence and severity of bush fires, tropical cyclones, floods and other extreme weather events, as well as the health impacts of heat-waves and tropical disease spreading south, make a compelling case for action. What's more, Australia could become a "clean energy super power" (PDF link).
Where do the two parties stand?
Tony Abbott, leader of the Opposition Liberal-National Party, is a climate skeptic. Although his party is committed to the same 5% reduction in carbon emissions that the Government has announced, his policy of "Direct Action" is little more than a fig-leaf for the climate denialists within his party's ranks.
Abbott's policy consists of:
· Build more dams: the 100 dams policy would actually contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions.
· Create a "Green Army": a group of volunteers who would plant trees and pick up rubbish, but which has had its funding cut.
· Support for "soil carbon abatement": A speculative policy whose carbon impact is questioned by the CSIRO.
· A promise to plant more trees: in order to achieve any real carbon abatement a tree field the size of Melbourne would need to be planted, according to a Monash University researcher.
· Some industry hand outs to incentivise retrofits.
· Abolition of the carbon price.
These policies will not only fail to get a 5% carbon reduction, but may raise Australia's carbon emissions.
The Government's policy, as I noted, has the same 5% carbon emissions reduction target. To achieve this, Labor has created the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, established a Renewable Energy Target, and introduced the carbon price (which will become a floating rather than fixed price next year).
There is already evidence that these policies are having their desired impact. Carbon emissions have been reduced by 12 million tonnes and clean energy production has increased by 30%.
The biggest policy change that Labor has announced on the climate change front is moving to the floating carbon price a year early. Because Australia's carbon price is tied to Europe's, this means that when it floats, the price is likely to drop from the fixed price of around $24 to between $3-4.
What is concerning to me however is the numerous well-meaning greenies (both small g and capital G) who have announced, on blogs and Twitter, their intention to vote for the Liberals above Labor on climate grounds, because, "at least he will plant some trees". (The Greens party of course would get their first preference.)
It's hardly surprising that many greenies may think that Abbott's direct action policy could be better than Rudd's floating carbon price. When Kevin Rudd announced the floating price, Greens political party leader Christine Milne denounced the Prime Minister as "a fake on climate".
This is despite the fact that she, and the other Greens party politicians, voting for the Clean Energy Future Act, which would see a floating price in 2015. The only substantive difference being the floating price moving forward a year earlier.
Any attempt to paint the current Labor Government as worse than Abbott, or even only marginally better, is intellectually bankrupt. This Labor government, under Penny Wong and Greg Combet, have taken Australia from being a climate pariah under the Howard era, to a nation that is leading the world on climate action.
The likes of Greens party senator Christine Milne calling Rudd a "fake" on climate change is just posturing at best, and an attempt at electoral sabotage at worst.
Of course, I and many other environmentalists, would like to see bolder, faster action. A carbon reduction target of at least 30% and a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030 would be fantastic. Labor's own Climate Change Authority recently had a report leaked calling for the reduction target to be 15% by 2020.
At the start of the election campaign, and seventy days from September 7, the choice on climate change is clear. I hope the campaign will see more announcements on climate policy. Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.