Now I see why our CO2 Emissions Reduction Target is so low
Fri 27 Nov 2009Initially, I wondered why our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd set Australia’s CO2 emissions reduction target so low.
After all, 5% is the bare minimum — even deposed Liberal Prime Minister John Howard could see that. I guess a higher target would have galvanised the Liberal-National opposition.
But now, as Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull faces unprecedented challenges to his leadership and his front-bench come out one by one as climate change sceptics, I can see just how clever Kevin Rudd has been.
CPRS = Coalition Party Reduction Scheme
The “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” currently before the Parliament is driving a wedge through the opposition. Sadly, it has a long way to go before it does anything to actually combat climate change.
Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown quite rightly calls it the “Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme”. He says, “The Rudd Government’s targets have failure written all over them. Yet the ETS legislation will lock them in until 2020 since any increase will trigger compensation claims worth billions of dollars.”
November 27th, 2009 at 7:33
[…] Now I see why our CO2 Emissions Reduction Target is so low « MikeFitz with overflow bit set… mike.brisgeek.com/2009/11/27/why-our-emissions-reduction-target-is-so-low – view page – cached Initially, I wondered why our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd set Australia’s COemissions reduction target so low. […]
November 27th, 2009 at 8:18
Interesting stuff. I wonder what the further fallout from this politically is going to look like around the world. Surely we won’t be the only country with partisan ideas about climate change?
November 27th, 2009 at 16:07
Yes, Geordie, I’m sure every country has its climate change sceptics. It’s just that we’ve let ours get some air and senior Liberals have started believing their own propaganda e-mails.
The crazies don’t have the same sway everywhere, eg
BRITAIN’S new high commissioner, Baroness Valerie Amos, has expressed surprise that Australians are still debating whether humans cause climate change and says other nations have long since ”moved on”.
— The Age, Nov 14
November 29th, 2009 at 14:18
ha
But using your terminology a higher CPRS figure would result in a greater reduction to coalition numbers!
November 29th, 2009 at 22:51
Hi David,
As I see it, if the target had been 15% or 20%, there would be “No further questions, Your Honour.” The COALition would oppose it to a man.
But down around 5%, it divides the coalition into two distinct groups: reasonable people vs climate change deniers. The Liberal Party is now seriously thinking about dumping its leader. Now that’s divisive!
December 24th, 2009 at 22:05
[…] at Mike Fitsmmon’s site Share and […]