The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Independent moves to find alternatives to Kyoto > Comments

Independent moves to find alternatives to Kyoto : Comments

By Judy Cannon, published 14/4/2005

Judy Cannon discusses the state premiers' plan to establish a carbon trading system and considers other alternatives.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I doubt whether any of the expensive options will be implemented other than in token form. For example quota based systems (CO2 caps, tree cover) might be set up in principle but the key players will lose their nerve when it starts to hurt. Similarly an outback gas fired power station might be able to use geosequestration as a demo project, but not a coal fired station on the eastern seaboard. Cost saving conservation might work to some extent because we seem to be hard wired for short term thinking. With energy costs already rising some wrong decisions are likely, such as cutting petrol excise. Countries like China that boost nuclear will get an advantage, causing more debate and policy dithering in Australia. Reluctantly I'm inclined to think that real greenhouse reductions will come about as a result of recession and conflict, not systematic programs.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 15 April 2005 8:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a good article and full of interesting ideas, but I heartily disagree with the conclusion in the final two sentences.

“Basically, the heart of the country is willing. What is still needed is strong national leadership.”

John Howard is a symbol of ‘business as usual’ with respect to environmental matters. He has steadfastly refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and considers it a positive aspect of his leadership. The Labour Party defined itself as much more environmentally friendly than the Liberals and said they would ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the last election, and they got flogged. One reason is that the ‘heart of the country’ does not view climate change as a big issue. John Howard has proven that he knows exactly what is and what isn’t critical to the voters of Australia. He doesn’t think a big effort is required on greenhouse and the ‘heart of the country’ agrees.

It is too easy for environmentalists to simply blame John Howard, when they can’t get government action for their proposals. It’s time for environmentalists to admit:

a) that we haven’t worked hard enough to make our ideas understood by the ‘heart of the country,’
b) that our proposals are often confusing and sometimes don’t consider the impacts on specific groups like farmers,
c) that we have not been as clever as the pro-growth, pro business-as-usual forces in getting our ideas across and accepted by the general population.

When the ‘heart of the country’ starts to view climate change as important, the national leadership will start following recommendations like the ones outlined in this article.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 15 April 2005 8:23:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 3 points Ericc has raised are very true, however, it is also true that until the big market economy starts to be hurt by environmental pollution and destruction the status quo will remain - business as usual. Taswegian is correct with his/her point.

Responsible environmental policies need to come from government, business as well as 'the heart of the country', else; divided we fall.
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 15 April 2005 8:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And maybe the people of this country aren't silly enough to be hoodwinked by a mountain of propaganda which blames every variable weather phenomenon on the climate change boogie man.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Monday, 18 April 2005 12:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do need national leadership. The primary skill required to manage a threatening and unique situation is leadership. We elect and fund Governments to assess, to provide, to review and to act with the aid of understands beyond everyday understandings.

My taxes employ people to identify the way forward for Australia on thousands of issues. Not for a moment do I expect the heart of the country to know exactly how to manage climate change or Chinese foreign policy or biotechnology R&D policy.

But I do know the heart of the country believes in justice and wants a prosperous future for their grandchildren. And I do know that they work hard to maintain their families and their country via their Government who they expect to advance these principles and ideas on their behalf.

Leadership is a key criteria of the Government’s job description. In the case of climate change, and a few other issues, the Howard Government has abdicated their obligation to lead. The Government still will not act to restrict the continued rise of our already world record emissions. That’s the thing about leadership; its absence is often not recognized until it is too late.

According to the polls the vast majority of the heart of the country are very concerned about climate change. This and the mountain of evidence of the multi-threats to Australia posed by climate change (evidence that has convinced the world’s scientists) really should be enough to prompt the Howard Government to find some courage.
Posted by martin callinan, Sunday, 24 April 2005 8:26:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article Judy and it hits the spot pretty accurately. Martin Callinan argues the case that the government, whose main purpose is to ensure the safety, security and well-being of the populace of this country, is not doing enough in providing leadership in tackling the clear and present danger of climate change. He is absolutely right!

The government actually is suppressing the findings of the scientific community and the policy being written by advisers to the government is in fact being written by the energy lobby group.

For a better look on how our government is determined not to upset the fossil fuel lobby groups see The Australian Institute address by Clive Hamilton on the link below:

http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/cleanenergyfore-forum-17.html

Entitled : 'The Political Economy of Climate Exchange

So, its not the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians that need changing, many are already taking action where this government has not, it's the politicians that need educating - and no better place for it than at the ballot box.

Phil Bramley
Posted by Philby2, Thursday, 27 July 2006 11:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy