Because climate change is seriously uncool.

Australian climate policy paralysis

As an Australian I am not proud to write this but I thought you should know.

Politics in Australia this week have been a little CRAZY! This is because of a little thing called the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), the Government’s proposed ETS (emissions trading scheme). The passage, or non-passage of this legislation will set some of the parameters within which our negotiating team at Copenhagen will operate.

Where should I start? I am sure you are all familiar with some of the charades from the past few weeks…I will do my best to summarise the situation as I see it.

From bad to worse.
The bad. I have blogged about the CPRS before. This is Australia’s proposed climate change legislation which has targets that are too low and hands out billions of dollars in compensation to polluting industries….namely Australia’s coal fired power generators, which have been identified among the most polluting in the world.

Now… to cut a long story short, over the past few weeks there has been a to and fro between the Government and the opposition around ‘amendments’ to this scheme. Finally this week, the Government announced that it would adopt most of the Opposition’s amendments.

The worse. You probably guessed it. The amendments which have now been built into the proposed legislation weaken it even further. Over the course of the proposed scheme coal power stations get an extra $4 billion, coal mines an extra $750 million and agriculture (which contributes around 15% of Australia’s emissions) is exempt. If this bill is passed I will explore the consequences of these amendments further in a future blog.

But for now, this legislation is yet to be passed because….

Scepticism comes out of the woodwork.
Believe it or not many Australian politicians do not believe human kind is causing climate change. So despite the acceptance of these appalling amendments, many people in the Coalition (and let’s not forget our quirky uncle, Steve Fielding) do not want to see any scheme that would mean Australia would reduce its emissions at all. Full stop.
At this point I would like to run through some of the senior Coalition politicians that hold this perspective… but I cannot, it’s just too distressing.

Did they miss the memo?
Unfortunately no.
Many of them know the arguments. They have had consultations with brilliant Australian scientists (many of whom are lead IPCC authors and have been awarded the Noble prize) and they are not convinced. And it now appears as if these people may take over the leadership of the Coalition. Reason, logic, rationalism has all but drifted out their parliamentary windows into the atmosphere, along with Australia’s ever increasing greenhouse gas pollution.

Representative democracy?
I’m confused…. I really am.
I am sure that Australia, on paper is a representative democracy. However, I am not sure who our politicians that express climate scepticism are actually representing. A recent Lowy Institute poll found that 76 percent of Australians rate climate change as one of the major issues facing Australia. In addition, the recent ‘Youth Decide’ poll of over 37,000 Australian youth found that 97.5% want Australia’s emissions targets to be higher than current proposed legislation.

Some of our politicians are going even further and forcing their agenda on the population. For example, Barnaby Joyce, the leader of the National Party (part of the Coalition) in the senate has been touring around rural Australia seeding doubt about the science of climate change and cultivating fear around the costs of action. I find the Senator’s pet project troubling in the strongest terms.

Its not all bad
Despite this relatively depressing political context, let us not be too discouraged. The CPRS is pretty bad anyway. If there is a coup d’etat in the Coalition over the next few days and the party is conquered by its sceptics who refuse to pass the ETS, all is not lost.

Perhaps at the next election (which is before the CPRS would come into effect anyway) Australians will democratically pass judgement on climate change deniers and inadequate legislation alike?
Perhaps the Government will model new scenarios and make new legislation that will include targets of 40% that could contribute to a safe future climate?
Perhaps.

As we say bon voyage to our negotiating team with high expectations, spare a thought (and perhaps shed a tear) for the political context in our increasingly sunburnt country.

Tags: Australia, CPRS, ETS, Kevin, Rudd, barcelona, change, climate, copenhagen, global, More…sustainability, warming

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of A Climate For Change to add comments!

Join A Climate For Change

Comment by Jessica Xu on November 28, 2009 at 15:56: Thanks for clearing some things up. I've got to say I'm happy that they're talking about it at least. Our voices are being heard; Malcolm Turnbull was on TV's Sunrise on Tuesday and said 'the Australian people want action on climate change'... That's a start.

In this situation, I don't know what's better - a passed legislation with life-threateningly low targets or no legislation at all. From which situation would there be more success in pushing for targets of 40% or more?

If they decide & implement a scheme that benefits the big polluters & has ineffective targets, I'm afraid that they will never amend it. When we ask for more climate action, they, being the polluters, politicians and sceptics, may say they have already done enough.

On the other hand, if they keep delaying, a scheme may not ever be put in place. The habit of procrastinating may never break.

I'm 16. I know that the action leaders of today decide to take will determine my fate. They need to realise the enormity of this situation. They need to understand the risk of weak attempts. They need to know that it's either nothing or everything. They need to be reminded that they are representing the people, not themselves.

I have hope. Either way, I will fight. I hope we, the people of humankind, will fight for our futures & the right to live.

Comment by Cara on November 27, 2009 at 16:53: Thanks for the update Phil. It’s been a mad week in Canberra!!
But you’re right Ronnie, what is the maddest thing about all of this, whether the CPRS, the ETS, the Liberal Party falling apart, or the air time that climate deniers still get, is that we are quite literally gambling with people’s lives. The latest report from the Global Humanitarian Forum showed that at least 300, 000 people are already dying each year due to climate change. (Check out the report here: http://www.ghfgeneva.org/Portals/0/pdfs/human_impact_report.pdf) What will it take for the world to wake up!?!??!
Come on Rudd, get serious about tackling climate change.

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 27, 2009 at 13:06: And perhaps it will snow in hell as well! Sorry for the sarcasm; I just couldn’t help myself.

The Australian government, like the government in the United States, are not going to take the action necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. Why? It’s all about money (greed) of course. Australians and Americans alike are all for taking action so long as it doesn’t affect their lifestyle. They all want someone else to make the cuts.

When I read about this in Australian newspapers the argument is all “if we cut back this much it will cost this amount” or “if we cut back by that much it will cost us that amount”. I never see “if we cut back by this much we will save the lives of this many innocent men women and children that don’t even own a light bulb let alone a car”.

For Australians and Americans alike it’s all about their own greed. If you want to see the real problems just look in a mirror.

Nothing will happen on the climate change issue so long as we keep putting our greed over our need. Our whole way of life has got to change. Until that happens we will just go on killing poor people with our emissions. If you ask me it’s a crime against humanity.

It’s time we change.

Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

Comment by Andrew Mudie on November 27, 2009 at 8:08: "If there's going to be
a forty-day flood, you either build an ark or you learn to breathe
underwater. Building half an ark is not a useful option."

So wrote Gwynne Dyer (description) in April this year when describing the "pragmatic" offer made by US President Barack Obama to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

It seems in the light of the further weakening of an already weak Australian CPRS bill, that our politicians are content to build somewhat less than half an ark!

I'm thinking of posting a blog on what this means to me when I've finished celebrating Thanksgiving with family here in the US; where the President has just had his spin doctors amend the US position from "reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020" to "..cut emissions by a number "in the range of" 17% from 2005 levels". A quick search of the 2005 statistics reveals that US emissions increased "in the range of" 15 - 17% from 1990. So we're spinning wheels quite impressively over here too!