You are hereContent / Rudd raises white flag of surrender on climate change
Rudd raises white flag of surrender on climate change
Greens campaign for 40% target
The Australian Greens will campaign for a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.
"Prime Minister Rudd's 5% target is a global embarrassment and a recipe for global catastrophe," Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.
"The Rudd target of 5 per cent will anger voters. It is exactly where John Howard would have placed Australia in 2009 - a spoiler as the Copenhagen conference on climate change reaches for a much higher goal," Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.
"Kevin Rudd has made climate change the big parliamentary challenge of 2009. The Greens will initiate a Senate inquiry. If the Opposition remains coal-captured the question is: will the government accept the Greens' amendments to improve its climate change legislation?" Senator Brown asked.
Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change spokesperson Christine Milne said today said, "Kevin Rudd's White Paper has raised the white flag of surrender on climate change."
"Scientists agree that developed countries need to reduce their emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Australia's high per capita emissions and our relatively cheap emissions reduction potential means we need to be at the top of that range, not doing less than everyone else.
"Only three per cent of funds will actually go to reducing emissions. Half of all the money raised by auctioning permits will go to big polluters. Not a single cent will be spent on helping householders reduce their energy use and emissions.
"If polluters aren't paying somebody else has to; Kevin Rudd has ensured that the Australian people will foot the bill for the big polluters," Senator Milne said.
"Kevin Rudd has put the coal industry ahead of Australia's children and grandchildren. It will be much more expensive to rectify this historic mistake in the decades ahead. The 2010 federal election is shaping up as a referendum on tackling climate change," Senator Milne said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Ebony Bennett
Media Advisor
Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
e: ebony.bennett@aph.gov.au
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185
w: www.bobbrown.org.au <http://www.bobbrown.org.au/>
- Login or register to post comments
- Send to friend
After 30 years of voting ALP, with the occasional tactical vote for the Greens or Democrats, this is the last straw. From now on The Greens will be getting by No 1 vote.
When they have massive support from the electorate for real change on climate issues, renewnable energy, emissions control etc, the ALP still feels it has to compromise heavily with the big end of town. So, apparently they really don't understand the non-negotiable impact of climate change, nor the electorate's willingness to accept the necessary change.
While 5% may seem weak, it needs to be seen in context with the rest of the developed world. Our target is greater on a per capita basis - the only basis that makes sense - than the EU or US. Don't be conned into thinking the EU is leading on climate change, it is mostly being symbolic rather than doing anything particularly significant.
Your entitled to an opinion sjl, however, I think it is wrong. We have one of the highest per capita green house gas emission rates in the world. If the rest of the world were to catch up to our per capita emission rates then we'd have an inhospitable planet.
Kevin Rudd made the comments that if Europe were to drop to our per capita rates then they would be looking at a 30% reduction, well the EU target is around a 30% reduction so he was uninformed. The government made the per capita argument to try and sell one of the worst policies I've ever seen. This white paper is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Increasing our population should not be an excuse for industry to polute more. How much of this "per capita" pollution actually comes from each individual? I certainly try and keep my own fossil fuel consumption down, why should individuals and non polluting industries be subsidising industries that are destroying our future? I'd much rather have my carbon tax dollars go towards developing sustainable technologies and renewable energy where there are far more opportunities for especially for job growth and we might actually develop a first world economy if we get into the market.
The fraction of CO2 entering the atmosphere has to be reduced. If we can get away with per capita is the argument for reductions, we might as well give up because any country with a growing population will claim exemption.
You aren't one of the people by any chance who argue against the position that Australia is a major emitter on a per capita basis?
To save the Great Barrier Reef requires a worldwide target of at least 25% reduction. Starting from a much weaker position rather than starting there and pushing the rest of the world to comply amounts to writing off the reef.
Also, it makes little sense to me to make energy more expensive to cut consmption, then compensate most consumers for the extra expense. This is economic lunacy.
Philip Machanick