From the pen of Des Moore. Climate Change Policy. Dear All, Today’s lead article in The Australian, apparently based on information provided by the Abbott Government, confirms important features of the climate change policy of that government and also appears to confirm a modest shift in the editorial attitude of The Australian. It follows the article by John Howard, published last week in The Spectator (reflecting an address made in London to the climate sceptics organisation run there by former UK Chancellor, Nigel Lawson), acknowledging that climate policy decisions under his government should have involved a more questioning analysis. Important points to note from today’s article include: 1/. It appears to confirm that Environment Minister Hunt will not have a role in attending international environment conferences, let alone in negotiating any attempt at securing an international agreement. Given the Minister’s apparent unquestioning attitude towards the “science”, this is helpful; 2/. It seems likely that the Climate Change Ambassador who will attend the imminent Warsaw conference will have riding instructions consistent with policies apparently decided by Cabinet, including no additional spending on climate change programs and no purchases of permits issued by other countries; 3/. The article is written by leading foreign affairs journalist, Greg Sheridan, not by an environmental one; 4/. The publication of the lead letter in Saturday’s Australian by Bob Carter (former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University) pointing to the existence of alternative views by qualified climate scientists, suggests some increase in editorial preparedness to accept letters from important sceptical scientists. This runs counter to the policy of outright rejection of such letters adopted by some other major papers, but “competition” in this area within the media may help to bring into the open more of the defects in the existing science (sic). We are still left, however, with the Abbott Government’s policy of aiming to achieve a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 through the so-called direct action policy and through a policy of achieving 20% of electricity from sources other than coal, oil or gas. Despite its significant potential to reduce efficiency, the latter part of the policy seems to have been ignored in the article, presumably because there is no separate funding provision for it. This overlooks the potential for regulatory arrangements restricting usage of fossil fuels. Recipients of this message will already have received the message I circulated last week on my involvement with a group sending a Petition to the House of Representatives to adopt a motion asking the Government to have a comprehensive inquiry on the costs and benefits from programs designed to achieve the 5% reduction in emissions. If you have not “signed up”, please do so asap. - Des Moore
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:40:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015