Before a brief note on the pending death of the emissions trading system (ETS) in the Australian Senate, and the implications of that as well as the change in leadership of the opposition in Australia, I first want to provide an update on the climate change fraud post. It is noted today that the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has stepped down over the issue of the leaked emails. Good, but let’s hope the authorities continue to pursue any issue of lawbreaking as a result of that affair to the full extent of the law. For those on my side, it does not help our scientific case to take action if we harbour liars, cheats or those who encourage others to such behaviour. This is a particularly pertinent point when debate needs to begin again now toward another election in Australia that will depend largely on winning an argument in the public sphere with a Coalition that is now led by its vocal minority which believes that anthropogenic climate change does not exist.
Despite her hard work, I see the failure to pass a CPRS largely as a result of the failure by the Minister For Climate Change (Penny Wong) in being able to advocate and articulate the issue to the public at large, who would then pressure their elected representatives to take action on the issue, followed by the Greens failure in making the perfect the enemy of the good, as I have discussed in detail previously.
I also see it as a failure on the part of people like me, who have taken the effort over the last 15 years to understand the issue of anthropogenic climate change, decide a position on it, and know some of the solutions, but have failed to lobby hard enough at every opportunity to achieve the goal. This record of my thoughts was begun recently as one means to try to address that failure, in an educational manner. So, I encourage those on any side of the issue to ask me any specific questions and debate me on the merits of your arguments and solutions (if you see a problem).
While we have the science and popular opinion (hearts) on our side, what we need to begin effective action is the minds of the population. We need to detail specifically what an ETS or a simplified carbon tax will cost, and who will pay for it. Because this change isn’t free, and by choice or by coercion, eventually we are going to have to require everyone, as individuals or through their companies, to pay up if we are to address anthropogenic climate change. It is a challenge on the scale of the largest human society has faced, but one I am convinced we could meet, if we so choose. It reminds me of the words of John F Kennedy in 1962.
“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
Almost 50 years later, there are hopefully enough of us left to look past our own short term self interest and do something hard.
#1 by Chairman on December 3rd, 2009
Perhaps by design, I feel that the Rudd government overlooked the gap between voters’ desire for action on climate change and wholesale endorsement of an ETS. While voter support for an ETS can be strengthened if the concept is better communicated, I doubt current MPs/Senators opposing to the ETS can ever be convinced to change their position on the issue. Now that we’re mostly over the global financial crisis, we need an election purely based on the climate change issue to solve it once and for all. I reckon K Rudd should use the double dissolution to call for an early election, have a referendum on the issue if feasible, use the result to shut the effing muppets up.
I’d like to see a Work Choices styled advertising champaign for the ETS just before the election. The Howard government spent 121 millions on Work Choices after all.
#2 by Sgt Hulka on December 4th, 2009
I am going to give the government the benefit of the doubt, and assume there was no intent to fail to provide enough information about how the ETS will work to the public. Actually, I think the public at large is concerned, but fickle, and elected a government to “solve” the problem without being particularly interested in the details, until those details involve them having to pay more for electricity.
In my opinion, the government will likely hold onto its double dissolution trigger well into next year to use as a tool to force the rest of its program of legislation through, and will only call an early election no sooner than October. If they are smart, they will also “sell” their position on the ETS the way you suggest, but with all the giveaways in cash to get the negotiations to this point, that risks some possibility of backfire.
It is also important to point out that while I think his positions are dead wrong on most things, we need to take Tony Abbott seriously. He is a Rhodes Scholar after all. His position on achieving the reductions of CO2 emissions with efficiency improvements and nuclear power are not sound, as they alone will not do it. But the core of what he is saying with regard to energy efficiency is correct, as boring old efficiency technology that already exists is the key to achieving the lower targets.