In a speech stunningly devoid of any description of the impact of climate change on Australia’s environment, cities, agriculture or economic wellbeing, Prime Minister Howard today put off real action for at least another five years.
“John Howard simply doesn’t understand climate change,” Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.
“His comment that it would be ‘foolish indeed’ to ignore the evidence on climate change condemns his own foolishness for the past 11 years in failing to tackle climate change.”
“Far from leaving our children ‘debt-free’, Howard is racking up a debt of more bushfires, more intense droughts, a bleached Great Barrier Reef and no ski-fields for Australia’s children – as if these are no-cost factors.”
“Not once in his entire speech did the Prime Minister talk about what the science demands in response to climate change. He ignored the environment and spoke only of what the coal, aluminium and aviation sectors are prepared to accept,” Greens Climate Change spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne said.
“Climate change is not going to wait for the Liberal party. Keeping global temperature rises to 2C or less requires rigorous action now and it is Prime Minister Howard who has been ‘missing in action’ and who is ‘steeped in recklessness and symbolism’."
“Australia can trust the Greens to face the reality of climate change and to make decisions that will truly give our children hope,” Senator Milne said.
Author: admin
-
Howard ‘foolish indeed’ – Greens
-
Turnbull entraps Tyalgum pensioners
The National Farmers Federation, the World Wildlife Foundation, and The Greens have all damned the proposal as unviable and backwards looking. The considerations encompass many of the same issues that appear to have successfully scuttled the plan to dam the Mary River. A report prepared for 9 Queensland mayors affected by the Traveston Crossing dam, identifies rainwater tanks and local water recycling solutions as the most cost effective way to address South East Queensland’s water issues. “With the [implementation] of these demand side options, there is no need for … additional supply infrastructure.” The report concluded that managing water better would cost less than half building a new dam and the requisite piping, as well as creating far less greenhouse gases and social impact.
“Turnbull has thrown a grenade into this community and walked away,” Bennett told the Ebono Institute.
“If this is an example of how the Federal Government plans to use its proposed water powers, then State Governments should back right off and protect the constitutional rights of their constituents.” Bennett noted that it is supposed to require a referendum to change the constitutional arrangements about State and Federal Powers.
Sources close to the NSW Department of Primary Industry believe that the government knows that the dam is economically unviable, but the proposal will win votes in South East Queensland and put the Labor State governments of NSW and Queensland in the awkward position of having to explain why the dam is impossible to build.
Residents can make submissions to the Traveston Dam Senate Committee through the Secretary of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, known as RRAT for short. Documents should be sent as email attachments to rrat.sen@aph.gov.au. Current submissions and information about the enquiry can be found at The Australian Parliament House website under Senate, Committees, RRAT. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/
The committee is meeting now but submissions will be processed until the end of the week. Earlier submissions will receive preferential treatment.
-
Howard fudges Climate Change report
Prime Minister John Howard says his carbon emissions report will silence critics who claim the Government has not acted on climate change.
The report, by the Commonwealth’s carbon emissions task group, says a trading scheme could be up and running by 2012.
But it does not set a price on carbon or name a specific target for greenhouse gas reductions.
Mr Howard is yet to formally release the report and this morning he would not say whether he would commit to its recommendations.
"This is a hugely burdensome and responsible decision," he said.
"If we get this wrong, if we embrace a target, we’ll do crippling damage to our economy.
"If we embrace a target that will increase electricity prices more than they should go up, then we’ll do enormous damage to Australian households and the broad economy."
-
Ford and Edison
In 1931, Thomas Edison met with Henry Ford, and told him: "I’d put my money on solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
-
Why Iraq’s new oil law won’t last
Because of sabotage by insurgents, Iraqi oil production has been running at less than 2 million barrels per day, down from 2.8 million barrels before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, says Mr. Zainy, now with the Global Center for Energy Studies in London.To Alhajji, the "rush" to approve the draft law reflects the need of the Iraqi government and the Bush administration to show some success – "even if it is as cosmetic as the new oil law."
Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador in Iraq, stated the draft was the "first time since 2003 that all major Iraqi communities have come together on a defining piece of legislation."
Iraq’s government hopes the nation’s 275-member parliament will approve the draft before the end of May.
The legislation will be extremely controversial. Opposition is expected from the powerful Oil Workers Union of Basra. It staged strikes in 2005 objecting to America’s plan to privatize Iraq’s oil industry. A reviving Communist Party will oppose it. Much of the Iraqi press also objects to aspects of the law.
One sensitive provision allows "production sharing agreements" (PSAs) with foreign oil firms. In theory, Iraq would retain ownership and ultimate control of the oil in such a deal. A PSA would merely grant the firm or consortium the right to explore, develop, and sell the oil, while getting a share of the oil extracted. History, however, is full of "unequal" PSAs highly favorable to oil companies and less favorable to oil nations.
Zainy says that details of an oil contract are more important than whether it is called a PSA, a "production and development contract," or a service contract. He fears "corruption, presently rampant in Iraq" could affect contracts, wasting much of the nation’s main resource.
During the 20th century, oil became the fulcrum of politics in the Middle East, with countries nationalizing their oil resources and winning better oil deals. The draft law "reverses everything that has happened in the Middle East since 1901," charges Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University in New York. Implying that American occupiers have had much influence on the measure, Mr. Khalidi asks: "Does [Vice President] Cheney think he can stand against history?"
Khalidi’s latest book, "Resurrecting Empire," spells out the history of foreign exploitation of Iraqi oil, noting that resentment over "insufficient benefits" to Iraqis led to the popularity of the Baath government and nationalization of the oil industry in 1975.
Khalidi doubts the draft law will pass parliament. "It is so manifestly against the interests of Iraq," he says. If it does, though, he doesn’t expect the law to last. Presumably, an Iraq no longer occupied would seek better terms for any deal reached under the proposed law.
Alhajji notes that contracts signed "under duress" are not legally binding. After Iran nationalized its oil industry in the 1950s, British lawyers for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now British Petroleum) contested the action in the International Court in the Hague and lost, despite Britain’s superpower status then.
In the future, Iraqi lawyers could similarly argue that any oil deal signed while Iraq was occupied was done under duress and thus was invalid.
After reading the draft law in Arabic last week, Alhajji says, "It is so broad and loose, it has no significance." Often, he says, nationalism in oil-rich nations rises during and after occupation by foreigners. That "will cause problems."
-
Super funds call for carbon tax
The rest of the panel included ABN AMRO’s director financial markets Craig McBurnie, IAG’s sustainability research manager Elayne Grace, AMP Capital senior analyst Ian Woods and Origin Energy communications and government relations manager Tony Wood.
Along with Mr Hughes they discussed the "opportunities side" of climate change.
Origin Energy’s Mr Wood said emissions trading produced a least-cost pathway for business to reduce their greenhouse output.
Mr Wood presented a package of proposed action that included a long-term emissions target in line with global action, market-based carbon pricing scheme introduced from 2010, funding for research and development of low and zero-emission technologies and more focused support for renewable energy projects.
AMP’s Dr Woods said there was already a significant market for carbon trading, with 374 million tonnes of Co2 traded in 2005 under the Kyoto Protocol, which was about two-thirds of Australia’s annual greenhouse emissions.
"Institutional investors have a unique view on climate change as we are exposed to all aspects of climate change," he said.
Dr Woods said polices would be put in place that would help determine the price of carbon.
He said that when that happens, the price would be determined very quickly, leaving businesses behind that had not prepared themselves for a carbon-constrained economy.
In Europe this week, a research note by investment bank UBS said forward hedging of power production by utilities would push the price of carbon up to 30.00 euros/tonne in 2008.
According to website information service Point Carbon, the price of "phase two" carbon dioxide allowances in the European Union have climbed by 70 per cent since February from a low of 12 euros.
The increases caused UBS to revise upwards its previous carbon price forecast of 20 euros to 30 euros for 2008.
UBS said one reason for the increase was a dearth of credits from clean development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation (JI) projects, allowed under the Kyoto Protocol, which generate carbon credits from greenhouse gas reduction projects.