Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Howard government is 'recklessly negligent' on climate change

By Catherine Fitzpatrick - posted Wednesday, 28 January 2004


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”.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Catherine Fitzpatrick is a climate and energy specialist at Greenpeace.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Catherine Fitzpatrick
Related Links
Department of the Environment and Heritage
Greenpeace Australia
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy