When the MRET was introduced by the Prime Minister in 1997, Mr Howard stated that the MRET “will accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based electricity and provide a larger base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy”.
But this goal cannot be achieved with a “business-as-usual” target.
Throughout the review period, the Panel was told by state governments, industry and the community that a significant increase in the target could be met, would create thousands of new jobs in regional Australia and would put us on track to develop a self-sustaining renewable energy industry. Submissions show that a 10 per cent target would create about 14,000 new jobs in Australia and attract billions of dollars in investment.
Advertisement
They heard evidence that a “business-as-usual” target would mean the clean energy industry would stall, sending these jobs and investment dollars off-shore.
The Panel acknowledged that the community was calling for a higher clean energy target. A Newspoll showed that an overwhelming 83 per cent of Australians would be willing to pay more for electricity if it meant we could reach a 10 per cent target.
This makes their recommendation all the more incomprehensible.
So where does this leave the government?
Mr Howard has committed Australian funds to George Bush’s missile defence shield with little evidence that Australia is under threat, strong doubts about the shield’s effectiveness and concerns that it could lead to a new arms race.
On the other hand, Mr Howard has acknowledged the direct threat of climate change – he even warns of its dangers. There is ample evidence that, if we act now to replace fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of energy, we can prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
Advertisement
The Prime Minister now has a unique but important challenge – he must reject the MRET Panel’s target recommendation, adopt a target of 10 per cent new clean energy by 2010 and set out a comprehensive approach to reducing Australia’s greenhouse pollution.
Any other course of action would indeed be “recklessly negligent”.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.