climate change
7 May 2009
Why The ACF Is Behind Rudd On Emissions Trading
The Australian Conservation Foundation has been criticised for its support of the revised emissions trading scheme. President Ian Lowe explains why he backs the plan
I understand that many committed environmentalists do not agree with the Australian Conservation Foundation's call to give qualified support to the revised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme proposal announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Monday.However, far from being "rusted-on supporters" of the ALP — or any other political party — as David Spratt argued on newmatilda.com on Monday, ACF is strictly non-aligned. Our charitable status would be imperilled by any action that could be interpreted by a hostile government as being party-oriented. We continue to urge all parties to commit to stronger action on climate in this crucial year to ensure Australia contributes to achieving desperately needed action at Copenhagen.
Contrary to Spratt's allegation, ACF does not support the oxymoronic notion of "clean coal". I have published articles (including one on this very website) and spoken at conferences urging the phasing out of coal. I also proposed to the 2020 summit a complete moratorium on coal-fired power; a handful of coal industry representatives blocked consensus. I am happy to cop criticism about ACF's actual position, but not prepared to see these fictions propagated.
ACF views the shift by the Government from a target of 15 per cent to 25 per cent as a step forward. We remain critical of the handouts to big polluters, the delayed start date and other flaws that need to be fixed. ACF views the revised target for cutting greenhouse pollution to 25 per cent in the context of a global agreement as an acceptable starting point. This is the start of a parliamentary process during which there may well be further amendments, good and bad, but it is an important foundation for further progress.
The stronger target of 25 per cent moves Australia from an international climate laggard into a reasonable position to help negotiate a successful outcome at the critical UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December. ACF remains optimistic that a global agreement to stabilise C02 levels at 450 parts per million is feasible and is worth fighting for. There is momentum building internationally and it is vital that Australia does not hold up the prospects of success.
Of course, ACF rejects the Government's 5 per cent unconditional domestic target for reducing emissions. It is important to focus on international negotiations. The 5 per cent target will only happen if the UN talks fail and there is no global agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol. If there is a global agreement to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at 450ppm, Australia will have a 25 per cent target. ACF continues to campaign for global agreement on 450ppm or lower. In our view, the Government's 5 per cent target is hypothetical, and assumes failure to get any global agreement.
ACF does not support the Government's one year delay to the start of the emissions trading scheme, and strongly opposes the proposed increased payments to big polluters and the reduced starting price of carbon from $40 to $10 per tonne. We will continue to push strongly for improvements to the legislation at every step.
ACF remains committed to achieving a target of at least 30 per cent greenhouse pollution reduction in Australia by 2020, and at least 40 per cent if other developed countries do the same through an international agreement, and will continue to push for it.
ACF will also continue to argue for the phase out of coal and a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations at whatever opportunity arises.
So it is simply untrue to portray ACF's position — that the Rudd Government's revised package is one that could lead to better outcomes — as mindless support for a flawed position. The basic issue is whether the new proposals are so bad we would be better off with no target. Obviously, we believe it is better to have the strongest possible targets in place for the international negotiations in Copenhagen.
I hope we can continue to focus on what has to be the main objective: a serious global agreement to avoid dangerous climate change.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
The debate about the position of ACF reflects one of the key questions facing all environmentalists, and potentially the Green Senators - namely, whether the final version of the emissions trading legislation is better or worse than having nothing at all.
We can all point to ways it should be stronger so there is the best chance of meeting the necessary grenhouse emission reduction targets, but eventually the Senate will have to say either yes or no to a final offer, and then it just boils down to whether that offer is better or worse than nothing.
Of course, given that Fielding and Xenohpon are unlikely to both say yes to anything on offer, this would make the Green’s position academic - which in a sense would free them to oppose it, knowing it won’t get up any way.
But effectively saying no way in advance of that final offer makes the whole key question void, and we will end with nothing. This may be better than what’s on offer at the moment - I haven’t examined it close enough to have a final opinion - but it does free up all sides just to focus on strategic political posturing, rather than determine where the tipping point where flawed legislation still becomes better than no legislation.
Although I’m starting to feel the whole thing is such a mess, we may as well just sit back and hope Copenhagen delivers very strong targets and then we’ll just have to legislate to meet them
Apparently the only part of the government’s revised legislation the ACF* supports is the upper-level highly conditional target. Why didn’t you just say that? Why did you come out with a timed statement specifically designed by the government to look as though it had the environmental movement on its side?
If you support the new targets but disagree with everything else (as appears to be the case) you should have put out your own press release instead of this "Southern Cross Climate Coalition" nonsense. You allowed the name and reputation of the ACF to be used by the government to play wedge politics on an extremely important issue.
*Interesting that you didn’t respond to suggestions that yourself and Don Henry acted independently without consulting either the board or council of the ACF. Is the ACF a democratic organisation? If the reports about the council deciding to actually strengthen its position against the ETS are correct then you and Don Henry should resign immediately.
Well, if I understand you Ian, the actual press release from ACF reads "We support a 25% target while recognising that it is inadequate and will fight to get it higher". Full stop. Instead you provided political cover for Rudd, just as you guys did (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/136571/Surprise.html) for Howard in that walk in the forest of 1996 (how did that work out for the environment Ian?) so you may not be party political, but you sure seem to have a role in giving conservative Labor and Liberal governments cover. And even taking what you say at face value, do you seriously think 25% is an actual target even hypothetically for these people? And do you really think 450ppm is all you need to aim at? Ben Eltham on this blog is well worth reading Ian, as is http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/08/2564133.htm. You might like to have a look and put out that new press release.
And Andrew Bartlett. Andrew Bartlett. Your anti-Green prejudices are showing mate. Climate change doesn’t recognise good intentions. Or future hypotheticals. So why would anyone who understands the issue settle for the grotesquely flawed CPRS? Once this was in place that wouldn’t be the beginning of a journey down the yellow brick road to proper targets and policies, but the end of the affair. Hey, we passed legislation, what more do you extremists want? Remember the Republic referendum Andrew?
I know i’m not really immersed in this stuff but is the ACF really that relevant in this debate? I am getting tired of government, industry and organisations alike taking some sort of half-arsed middle ground approach to something that actually is a crisis, and maybe ought to be treated as such.
Its not politics any more, nor is it commerce. The likely future if we don’t change our ways gives us the most powerful mandate of all, which is the ongoing sustainability of the species. In this light the ACF has weakened its advocacy to the point of irrelevance.
Ian Lowe clearly feels you have to be in it to win it. I would prefer more organisations to shout from the sidelines than be implicated in this sort of climate change horse trading which will deliver too little, too late.
I’m a bit like Dr Dog. And as well as that, I’m developing an ill-informed antipathy to the ACF. It seems to me that it’s an organisation which has served as a career ladder for a few well known people, who have headed the ACF and then gone on into politics or jobs representing timber industry interests.
Old growth is being cut as I write, kids trying to save our Tasmanian bush are being assaulted by logging contractors and charged with assault by the cops, who appear to be acting as goons for redneck logging inc.
Ok, I’m not cutting edge informed on the national scene, just feel bitter when I see past ACF people supporting the TCA, and Gunns Ltd.
Yes, Ian, I do reckon you and others in the environment, social welfare and union movement fell for one of Rudd’s Wedges! Always the micro-manager, always the opportunist, he saw way back a way to divide and conquer the organisations railing against his pi**- weak CPRS (although the union movement is utterly compromised, with so many members in the Mining/Coal industry, and seeming unable to think beyond the lengths of their noses). How the Hell did you guys fall for it??? That 25% reduction target is totally inadequate, as is the 450 ppm. , but at the same time is never intended to be actually pursued by Rudd and Co. The 5% as a base set up by Rudd will actually allow Australian carbon to increase!
And I support the Green position, Andrew! Why give ANY support for a total dog’s breakfast of proposed legislation, which does everything it should NOT do for a sustainable result. Unless it is changed considerably, and NOT according to the Opposition, I would definitely say, forget it! But I imagine that Turnbull and Co. will be forced into some sort of unsatisfactory compromise eventually….and I do mean eventually. The longer they can procrastinate, the better their dumb Big Business mates seem to like it.
What is utterly scary is that Rudd and Wong and Combet (and I would imagine Martin Ferguson has a lot of input here - he is an absolute horror!) really do seem to have thought that their versions (earlier and latest) actually had/have some credibility. At a time when Free Market Capitalism is in it’s death throes world-wide, handing billions of taxpayers dollars to these Big Multinational Corporations to keep on killing us by the billions in years too close for comfort seems utterly insane, and exposes Rudd and Co. to dereliction of Duty of Care charges, surely.
Also effectively putting back any implementation of reductions for another three years, in an effort to further sweeten Big Business, and the Opposition desperately trying to hold to Howard’s Legacy of a Bloody Mess, is, to me, utterly criminal! As well as being another broken election promise by Rudd. How is his credibility? Slipping somewhat? Sincerely hope so! Perhaps badly slipping polls may be the only thing to convince him to do something essential.
We are in desperate straits. If Rudd and Co will do nothing, if Obama does not convince them to come to his party (if indeed he can keep to his good promises and convince his own Party), where do we go? Just lay back and enjoy being exterminated?
Right Wing Politics and Politicians have always failed us, and will continue to fail us. How many think beyond the next election for mouths in the Public trough? Except perhaps if the Greens by some incredible awakening of the Dumb Australian Public were to be elected to control both Houses in Australia, then we may see some Cats among the Corporate Pigeons. However, both Labor and the Coalition would work assiduously to ensure that this never happens, by fair means and foul (mainly foul, as they have proved many times before).
I keep on being assured that at least some Corporates out there can see the writing on the wall, know that Global Warming is both an immense threat and also an immense promise of avenues for making profits from sustainable energy, etc., but they all seem to be represented by Troglodyte Organisations, which will never get beyond their Liberal Party/Right Wing affiliations, and die unto the trenches pushing their insane agendas. How about some of these Corporations, Businesses forming other organisations which can properly represent them, and putting some alternate views and pressure to Rudd/Wong/Combet/Ferguson. Dazza.
Ian
I think you should reverse your position ASAP to limit the damage to yourself and ACF. We all make mistakes and it would be good if you could admit it and move on. I think you will win further respect that way. Bob Brown did so quickly on Howard’s Telstra sale environment fund wedge and came out better for it.
There are issues above which you may also need to address. One which you’ve touched on is the threat to your tax exempt status. Bite the bullet, bite the hand that feeds and take the consequences. It’s the only way to go, unless you want ACF to end in utter irrelevancy. Pussy footing by thinking you will remain apolitical is simply silly.
David Horton made great points and Andrew Bartlett is slipping badly. When will the ex-Dems get over it? Recycling the lame old conservative argument that the Greens are only posturing because they know they won’t be decision makers is pathetic Andrew and you should know it.
Kevin McCready
http://kmccready.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/maoa/
Ian,
Thank you for being such a strong and coherent voice of reason in this increasingly shrill debate.
The revised ETS is a dishonest, flawed con-job involving selling licences to pollute to major polluters via a rigged auction system that would be illegal in other contexts - and then returning most of the revenue to major polluters (what is known in biochemistry as a "futile cycle" involving simultaneously generating and destroying something).
The ACF has disgraced itself and shot itself in the foot by supporting this dangerous fraud on the intellectually moribund basis that "something is better than nothing".
Further, the revised ETS is based on the dangerous, flawed, anti-science premise of continuing to INCREASE GHG pollution to circa 450 ppm CO2 and over 2C temperature rise - whereas the physical and biological scientists (from atmospheric physicists to coral reef biologists) tell us that we must urgently REDUCE the dangerous and damaging current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 387 ppm CO2 ( corresponding to about 450 ppm CO2-equivalent with other GHGs included) to 300-350 ppm.
Indeed the dishonesty and cynicism of the Labor ETS is revealed by sensible analysis of US Energy Information Administration data as summarized below - the ETS means pathetically low decrease in Australia’s world leading "annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution" that is currently about 20 times greater than India’s annual per capita GHG pollution.
So much for the "fair dinkum Aussie Aussie Ausssie fair go" - what a load of the proverbial.
Using data from the US Energy Information Administration one can readily calculate that under Rudd Labor Australia’s "annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution" is currently 54 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year (as compared to 2.2 for India). However under the Australian Government’s proposed "5-25% off 2020 value of Domestic GHG pollution by 2020" the estimated "annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution" will only fall to 44-49 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year by 2020 (see "Climate criminal Australia threatens Planet . Australia’s pro-coal Emissions Trading Scheme ": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/30391/42/ ).
The only things that will bring climate criminal Australia (including complicit companies and organizations such as the ACF and the Climate Institute) to heel will be international sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, climate criminal prosecutions, climate genocide prosecutions and reparations demands from damaged nations (e.g. India, Bangladesh, mega delta states, and Indian Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Island States).
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
The CPRS is worse than useless. The environment movement has tried and failed to run a reasoned argument for tough climate action, not necesarily through any fault of their own.
The next step is for the environment movement is to focus on how the ongoing financial collapse opens up huge opportunities to relocalise the economy and reduce energy-intensive activities. Because of Peak Oil, it is a permanent decline*. Peak Oil will lead to Peak Coal in due course.
Campaign for an end to all subsidies for Big Coal and the doomed growthist industries eg cars and housing. The Government revenue pie is already as over-allocated as the Murray Darling. This will be clearer and clearer as times passes, so win the debate by saying it first.
I am inclined to forget the CPRS, and not worry too much about international negotiations. Focus on eliminating coal-fired electricity (including the clean coal delusion). Transport pollution will be dealt with by Peak Oil, as declining oil production will soon resume falling faster than economic activity.
* There is an outside chance that miracle zero-emssions technologies like http://focusfusion.org and http://blacklightpower.com will come to the rescue.
Ian, thanks for taking the time to let New Matilda’s readers know your position. Can I ask a couple of questions?
Ian, Laura Tingle reported today that the ACF held a national phone hook-up to deal with the fall-out from irate members displeased at Don Henry’s press conference. Can I ask if Don Henry still enjoys the confidence of the ACF Board?
Secondly, would you concede that the ACF’s opposition to the 5% target has been thoroughly overshadowed by the decision to support the revised 25% target?
Finally, 450ppm is still too high isn’t it?
Major polluters can only pollute if we use their services.
It is the panic merchants and spin meisters lying to us all and refusing to simply say "base load power cannot be stored, cut back 25% in your home and you cut back 25% base load production".
For heaven’s sake, coal people didn’t sit around 250 years ago and concoct some giant conspiracy to poison the world and make the people in the 21st century suffer for it.
They wanted heat and light. And the world has become rich on that heat and light.
Softly, soflty catches more monkeys than smashing people with 2,000 pound bunker busters.
I have my carbon emissions listed on my power bills. Less than 3 tonne per annum compared to the national average of 27 tonne per annum and I don’t live in the dark and feast on mushrooms.
Sheesh, it’s not that hard to force the pace when 21 million people do the job instead of whining about guv’mint fixing things.
Guv’mint can only legislate. They can’t turn off your lights, stop you driving to the shop for milk, stop you using aluminium foil (which I never use because I don’t like the way it is made), all those things are what will reduce emissions.
Not this perpetual whining.
Is not the ultimate problem in this whole debate that noone seems to recognise that there has to be a cost to all of us who pollute the planet. It doesn’t matter if you’re a coal company or a defence force or a school kid being driven to school in a suburban tank vehicle. The "economy" does not exist (just like any other god !!!), and the truth is that we must start drastically contracting consumption, and shareholders and CEOs have to now act on that.
Ian … you apparently applaud the escalated target. Please don’t give them tacit approval for the other stuff in their policy.
Good. Glad to hear the ACF position is only to support the govt. on the change to a 25% target not the other, still unhelpful, parts of the bill.
Prof Lowe, I saw your discussion with Sandy McCutcheon at the Ideas Festival, was very impressed. I wish the ACF’s significant reservations about this scheme had been pushed as hard as its support.
Maryj: You think your entire energy expenditure is catalogued in your power bill?
David Horton - succinctly put.
The same can’t be said for Ian -
AND maybe Brett Robertson saw some logic in this article that I completely missed. [Can this be the same Brett who wrote ‘Only a Recession can save us’ for NM only 14 months ago??]
I read the article David read, and I also ask the questions Ben Eltham has asked of Ian.
Cheers, Christopher
The ACF obviously just don’t get it. I don’t understand how such an established organisation with experienced leaders can be so naive.
They have been used by Labor and big business.
Not only are their climate policies not based on science, they provide cover for Labor and allow the media to portray a split in the environment movement.
We need to build a movement for political change to survive climate change. The ACF’s pattern of incrementalism and compromise just doesn’t work when faced with the climate science.
What a disgrace they have become. Ian Lowe should be ashamed, they are failing their duty of care and I hope they lose a lot of members.
What was that again Ian: [the] ACF is strictly non-aligned….Oh come on, please stop, it’s hurting to laugh so much!
The ACF has drifted very far from its scientific ideals when it was formed in the 60’s. Today it is little more than a self appointed publicly funded organisation which has more to do with political ideology than any science based environmental cause. Although not as overt politically as it’s bed fellows (NCC, WS etc) Ratcliffe would be turning in his grave at the lack of scientific rigour in the ACF’s policies and pronouncements!
Besides, I thought Lowe spat the dummy and was not going to contribute any more to Matilda?
Ian Lowe has been conned by the number 25%. We all know Rudd needs to commit to 40% or more. Ian should hold the line on nothing under 40% as our position for Copenhagen. He seems to know nothing about bargaining. Why accept 25% when you know in your own heart (and you know the science also says this) Australia must go much further. Rudd is "low balling" again just as he did with the 5% to 15%.
Ian, try "high balling" at 40 to 65% next time you offer an opinion.
David Booth
Bywong NSW
It’s disappointing to read such a staunch and bright intellect for the environment, indeed one of my heroes, get suckered by the Wong Rudd PR machine. All they cared about were a few picture images on the nightly news of sufficient weight or cred to offset the other weighty howls of criticism.
Not logic, not rationale. And ACF and Climate Institute and of course ACTU and possibly ACOSS, and WWF all delivered the offset to break their election promise.
Having shared offices with the national office of TWS in Sydney 92-94, as a NSW Campaign Coordinator state branch, I’ve seen much the same previously. Back then it was only ACF and TWS that really mattered in the PR tv nightly news crunch viewed by most of the public and which the press take their cue for publication next day.
Now WWF have been attached to the Big Govt electrodes a good 10 years now, and the odd favoured think tank eg Climate Institute in this context.
Categorically the ACF have always been identified on the crunch issues that can really hurt a federal Party as in the ALP camp. Every time.
Except … that walk in the forest in 1996 in the Dandenongs. And that was in context of Keating monstering then env. minister Faulkner’s "Deferred Forest Areas". A total sellout of natural heritage by an arrogant PM with asphalt in his veins - a stone cold fop.
Then rep - what’s his name? - for ACF bailed out then to … Bartlett’s Democrats actually but failed to land a taxpayer funded perch .. as best I recall.
Further Bartlett is showing patchy analytical ability. To bracket Xenophon with Fielding’s values is - to borrow a quote from the latter - "just crazy": X landed a big deal on the Murray. He’s often progressive. Sure he’s an indy opportunist but like Clover Moore or indy Richard Torbay on the NSW scene he’s got a green instinct in the mix. Fielding on the other hand goes as far as container deposits (I think) but like the Assembly of God church in Orbost would generally damn greenies as heathen idolators, animists, Gaia fetishist. In my case I prefer to call it a zoology degree in evolutionary ecology from ANU, just down science road from the logger factory aka Forestry School.
The AD were counting on The Greens failing to present a sophisticated face on the Senate cross bench. Didn’t happen - so why? The Greens are real and tough and up for it. The AD were the imploders.
Fact is the Democrats ran a derivative agenda of keeping other players/agendas honest which sort of contracts out the need to commit to their own distinct policy agenda apart from honest process (I know that’s simplistic of their policy agenda but it’s a perception thing.) In the Greens case they have a distinct 4 principles and grassroots activist grunt. The AD were lazy middle class snobs I reckon. The Greens at their best are about "Making the Bastards Honest" not contracting out policy to parties that were never honest to begin with let alone to keep honest.
And the GST was always regressive - you could call the recent stimulus 1 and 2 the BBGR - Beazley’s Belated GST Rollback. Yeah. Like it. Though I never got one. And one in the eye to the AD for that reason.
(By the way a big plane just took off from Richmond RAAF airbase - go figure.)
Ian, the problem with ACF’s rather effuse endorsement of the revised CPRS is that neither 15% nor 25% are targets. They are the maximum reduction levels that Rudd will commit Australia to negotiating to. On this you and ACF seem confused.
The only committed target at present is 5%.
The Bali negotiating range the Australian Government endorsed was 25% to 40%.
So our maximum negotiating position is precisely the minumum for Copenhagen, which is quite clearly unacceptable.
And the most recent science indicates we should be reducing emissions by 40% or more by 2020 for a safe climate future.
The revised CPRS is half a step forward (25%) and two steps back (10% emission cap and 1 year delay to start).
The ACF is no longer representing their membership. They are now just playing politics.
Since Plimer appeared a week or so ago the apparatus geared up - no doubt these hollow men and women of government and industry enjoyed a few beers last night to celebrate a job well done.
Sharon Beder’s book ‘Global Spin: The corporate assault on environmentalism’ is worthwhile reading for anyone who gives a rats about the planet and wants to know what they are up against:
"Dealing with Uncooperative Environmentalists
Not all environmentalists are so willing to capitulate to corporate agendas; it is usually the more conservative groups that will cooperate. In dealing with activists, public relations firms generally employ a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy which exploits differences in the environment movement between moderates and radicals. Various public relations experts have attempted to categorize environmentalists in order to devise a strategy to deal with them.
Lesly divides activists into five personality classifications:
* advocates who argue for what they believe in
* dissidents who are against many things because of their character
* activists who want to get something done or changed
* zealots who are overridingly singleminded, and
* fanatics who are "zealots with their stabilizers removed.
He suggests that reasonable people can be dealt with using reason, but zealots and fanatics have to be dealt with by withering away their power base and support.
Ronald Duchin, from the PR firm Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin, categorizes activists as either radicals, opportunists, idealists or realists:
"[The] activists we are concerned about here are the ones who want to change the way your industry does business - either for good or bad reasons: environmentalists, churches, Public Interest Research Groups, campus organizations, civic groups, teachers unions, and ‘Naderites’."
…Duchin’s formula is therefore to isolate the radicals, turn the idealists into realists, co-opt the realists to support industry solutions and the opportunists will go along with the final agreement. The radicals, he says, need the support of the idealists and realists to have credibility. Without them they are marginalized and "seen to be shallow and self-serving"."
David Horton says "Andrew Bartlett. Your anti-Green prejudices are showing mate. Climate change doesn’t recognise good intentions. Or future hypotheticals."
WTF? Who says I have anti-Green prejudices? My only comment on the Green Senators is that at some stage they will have to vote yes or no on a piece of legislation, and I think they should assess then whether it would make things better or worse in the fight against climate change - as opposed to whether it is the best it could hypothetically be. It’s pretty simple - if you want to turn everything into a party partisan stoush, then you’re just playing into Rudd’s hands.
Kmccready said "When will the ex-Dems get over it? Recycling the lame old conservative argument that the Greens are only posturing because they know they won’t be decision makers is pathetic Andrew and you should know it."
I said nothing of the sort. I said if the Green’s votes end up not counting then it frees up everyone to just focus on political posturing and positioning. I’m sorry you can’t see the difference, but I am sure the Green Senators can. When will you Dem haters get over it - the kneejerk assumption that any ex-Democrat must be anti-Green is both tiresome and puerile.
Tom McLoghlin said "Further Bartlett is showing patchy analytical ability. To bracket Xenophon with Fielding’s values is - to borrow a quote from the latter - "just crazy":"
Again, I said nothing of the sort. I simply said "Fielding and Xenohpon are unlikely to both say yes to anything on offer" - a fairly unremarkable statement I would have thought. Both can say no for different reasons, and one might say yes while the other says. It’s very unlikely - based on ample comments on the public record - that both will say yes. Extrapolating from that to saying I have "equated Fielding and Xenophon’s values" makes as much sense as the rest of your rather confused comments about the Democrats’ past actions.
As for the ACF’s decision, my feeling is they have taken a big risk with little chance of it having a positive outcome - obviously Rudd will mostly use this as political cover, just as Howard did with the ACF and TWS before the 1996 election, without being seriously commited to achieving the outcomes the environment groups are wanting.
But I expect most of the people involved know that, and were judging the likelihood of any CPRS legislation passing was getting close to zero and felt it was a risk worth taking, given the immense seriousness of the issue, if it increased the chances of legislation which moves things as least partially in the right direction being passed. It is a strategic decision, not a policy or values one. I suspect it will faily, and I doubt I would have agreed to it in the context in which it has occured, but it is worth at least looking at what their rationale might be and what strategies have the best chance of getting at least some positive movement, given how dire things currently look.
I tend to feel the chances in Australia or so low, we will just have to hope Obama can change the global dynamic, and Australia will be pulled along at the tail.
Isn’t one of the reasons we are talking about ex rather that current democrats because they felt free to focus on ‘political posturing and positioning’? And that was when their vote actually counted. I doubt the Greens could do worse with a fresh mandate and some positive policy directions.
"Isn’t one of the reasons we are talking about ex rather that current democrats because they felt free to focus on ‘political posturing and positioning’? "
There are a few reasons why the Democrats are now dead, but I can’t see how that’s one of them. But the fact that you and others seem to want to turn my comments on this issue into some sort of retro Demcrats vs Greens thing highlights part of the problem with the way many people want to engage with this issue.
Maximising the chances of making positive progress on climate change is about ten zillion times more important than what’s best politically for the Greens or Labor or Liberal. Or what’s best for the supporter bases of ACF, WWF, TWS, Greenpeace, etc etc.
I’m interested in whether legislation can be passed that will move things forward - albeit not as fast as desirable.
I write things elsewhere about why the Democrats are now "ex", but I am not interested in polluting a discussion about the best tactics on climate change with petty party political partisanship.
So Andrew "would make the Green’s position academic - which in a sense would free them to oppose it, knowing it won’t get up any way" wasn’t sniping?
I agree with you that this matter is far too serious to indulge in sniping.
But your comment "but it does free up all sides just to focus on strategic political posturing (still not sniping?), rather than determine where the tipping point where flawed legislation still becomes better than no legislation" takes us back to the ACF etc. This is essentially the decision they have made - something better than nothing - and that is what I (and others) are arguing against. Faced with a world in peril "something" isn’t better than nothing - we have to get back to 350ppm. This isn’t the normal political compromise argument where he truth lies somewhere in the middle, and all stakeholders get a bit. Rudd doesn’t see this, and nor apparently does the ACF. Or you.
Methinks Bartlett is the one who is "confused":
Confused for instance specifically on the interplay between policy on domestic population levels and the role of hyper immigration. He often talks about virtually unlimited immigration profoundly ignorant of the dynamics in Sydney that is decidedly full.
But that’s a thread for another story/time.
On the string here I stand by the apparent attempt to bracket Senator X and Fielding as wrong. ‘Unlikely to both vote yes’. They are quite different and should be seen as independent factors. Actually X most recently was highly critical of Fielding for not supporting alcopops tax. Which suggests X is very pragmatic.
As for AD history on the GST, most serious people know your then Dear Leader Senator What’s Name Meg - argued it was the membership ballot, not the Senators that endorsed a deal with Howard on the GST. But everyone knows that it was still a regressive tax and if it had been put that way to the membership - like the Greens leadership argued - the AD would be a viable force today.
Let’s be clear, I’m not a member or barracker for any party as such, but I am one for good transparent policy.
This comment has been edited.
Sorry Andrew, I was after all responding to a comment of yours. I do think it is relevant to the point that I had posted earlier about what I considered to be ‘horse trading’ on the part of the ACF.
In that context the policy posturing of the Democrats around, say the GST, is worth discussion. I am advocating for staunch consistancy from the conservation bodies and Greens rather than trying to negotiate their way to adequate carbon reduction.
I say this not for the political benifit of the Greens or any organisation but because I think we need more tension pulling toward bigger targets and sweeping change. Every step an organisation like the ACF takes in the direction of the government softens this tension and weakens their advocacy.
Right on, Dr. Dog!
Rudd and his minders I am sure have read all the books on Wedging, and Media Control. Rudd read them 20 years or more ago, and is an expert. If there is any way of weakening the message, dividing the constituency, Rudd and Co. will use it, have been using it for yonks. Rudd is a power and control freak!
Far too many ex-journalists (probably a lot of them ex Murdoch) are now PR flacks, Spin Merchants working for every Labor Member.
And unfortunately, any sign of the old spat between Greens and Democrats (and it was sure there, so was I, trying to fight it, as being utterly stupid) is only going to play into Rudd’s hands. Peace, folks! Dazza.
It’s probably more accurate to say that ACF peeps are rusted-on-supporters of the corporate model, which aligns them to the false democracy of the Liberal-cum-Labor party, who are rusted-on-supporters of aggregate-growth capitalism, and thus rusted-on-supporters of runaway climate change.
http://gardenofselfdefence.blogspot.com/
David Horton said:
"So Andrew "would make the Green’s position academic - which in a sense would free them to oppose it, knowing it won’t get up any way" wasn’t sniping?"
You’re right David, it wasn’t sniping. It’s a simple statement of fact. I’m glad you have now recognised it as such. When a party or a politician’s vote is not pivotal to whether or not a piece of legislation passes, they have much more scope to take political considerations into account in deciding how to vote on it.
In such circumstances, a vote has more symbolic and indicative importance, rather than immediate functional impact. It frees up the party/politician to take a stance that is "purer" (in the non-sniping, not-in-any-way-criticising-anyone-just-describing-reality-way) and reflective of what they believe would be an ideal outcome.
If your vote will actually make the difference between something becoming law or not, then there is (I believe) a greater responsibilty to consider whether it is better or worse for the legislation, however flawed it may be, to be passed or rejected.
As for Tom, you can stand your view about my alleged attempt to bracket Fielding and Xenophon all you like - you’re still wrong as to both my intent and my statement. You can also go on about GST all you like - it is totally irrelevant to my comments and the issue under discussion, which is why I didn’t mention it. As I said, your comments are confused - the equally irrelevant nonsense regarding immigration that you felt some need to bring up simply reinforces that.
Dr Dog - I understand what you’re saying. But it is a discussion about strategy/tactics, not policy. I did not say I agree with the ACF’s position - my gut feeling is that they have made a wrong call, but one driven by extreme concern that the current political/policy dynamic on greenhouse was so dire that they needed to take a big risk to try to shift it forward. Examining why they have felt the need to take this stance - even if one disagrees with it - is much more useful than just saying they are sellouts, etc. I have seen no sign that they (or WWF or Climate Institute) are any less concerned about climate change or committed to addressing it than any other environment group.
Apology accepted Andrew.
But do you really think that their backing of the CPRS is not a "sign that they (or WWF or Climate Institute) are any less concerned about climate change or committed to addressing it than any other environment group"? Or are they just naive and ineffectual? I can’t think of any other alternative explanations.