Every Australian knows that, if you have two credits cards, it is very bad management to pay off your debt on one of them by racking it up on the other.
Last night’s Budget pulled down the national economic debt, but it continued the process of racking up our ecological debt.
Once again, the funds allocated to renewable energy, public transport and energy efficiency pale into insignificance next to the tens of billions to roads and the military.
The $652 million of new money to renewable energy, saved due to the decision not to even attempt negotiations with the Greens over a carbon pricing system will be welcomed by an industry which has been starved of funds for so long. Even since the Rudd government’s election, the promise of new funding has still been just that – a promise. Virtually none of the Renewable Energy Development Fund has been spent, and the Solar Flagships were only short-listed last night.
Piecemeal subsidies to renewables will only mean we will import technologies from overseas – where they take renewables seriously as an alternative to coal – to supplement a handful of coal fired power plants with some solar power.
We won’t see long-term jobs or manufacturing set up here unless we get a policy framework in place that will actually deliver a transformation – and that does not mean a CPRS which is designed to secure ongoing investment in coal. The Greens will be pushing hard in the Senate and the election campaign for some of those policies – such as a feed-in tariff for all renewable energy, a significant increase in the renewable energy target, loan guarantees for large-scale renewable energy developments and a levy on big polluters.
The missed opportunity is stark, and the cuts to on-the-ground environment programs from Landcare to green car innovation to water tanks will be devastating to thousands of people. But the biggest sting in the tail – the decision which is likely to have the most far-reaching implications – is the government’s decision to incorporate their entire commitment to climate financing for developing nations into existing aid budget promises, instead of making it additional.
You may recall that one of the few rays of hope at last December’s Copenhagen Conference was the commitment by rich nations to allocate some US$30 billion to a fast-start financing program to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate changes already locked in. The understanding at the conference was that this commitment would be additional to existing aid budgets – indeed additional to promised increases under the Millennium Development Goals.
Outgoing Secretary of the UN climate process, Yvo de Boer, has repeatedly warned this year that the key challenge this year is to rebuild trust between developed and developing nations. Just this week, de Boer warned that if developed nations take their climate financing funds out of existing aid budgets it will be seen as “climate washing” and “not conducive” to that vital process of rebuilding trust. For a consummate diplomat like de Boer, this was very strong language.
The Rudd government has allowed domestic climate action to languish with yet another budget failure. But it has delivered an unforgivable blow to international climate negotiations at a time when we desperately need progress.
The Rudd government may think that racking up ecological debt in this way suits their short term political agenda, but it is not wise management for the future and it will not be appreciated by an electorate increasingly concerned about the impact of the climate crisis, extinctions and peak oil on their lives.
By throwing pennies at developing nations, the government tries to buy forgiveness to the future victims of a damaged climate, when we should be spending billions to replace all carbon-based fuels.
For that matter, there is no voice in Parliament that comprehensively condemns coal, oil and gas. The environment desperately needs the Greens to ditch their antinuclear stance and take on a credible voice of climate conscience.
A lot of Greens voters would disagree with you on nuclear Roger. Not sure supporting nuclear would be in the Green’s best interest.
Christine I mostly agree but surely however poor the cprs was it would have been better than nothing. At least it would have said to industry its game on now and the government is puting a price on carbon. I think it would have encouraged more investment in clean energy than there is now. The european union ets started weakly but it was improved over time, it could have been the same in australia.
Hey Roger
I have nothing against nuclear either but I think this debate about nuclear being the only baseload alternative to coal is misleading. Of course the minerals council, media etc have pushed this view but there are a number of reasons why australia doesn’t need it. Firstly Australia has a lot of room for energy efficiency and renewables. Solar could drastically help with peak load in summer when all of those air conditioners are cranked.
Nuclear is not co2 free the concrete involved in building a plant is very c02 intensive and it takes a long time to build. Mining it requires ongoing co2 emmisions and nuclear is also very expensive.
Solar thermal and hot rocks both provide baseload power.
My thoughts are that a debate for or against nuclear is irrelevant because there are so many easy options to start with.
Jeremy’s technical questions can be answered with technical numbers, eg the article and discussion
//uatcdn.crikey.com.au/2010/04/21/time-to-bust-some-myths-about-renewable-energy/
However the Greens also have a more political concern: that prohibition of nuclear energy prohibits nuclear war. In particular they are concerned that reprocessing of used fuel rods (aka “nuclear waste”) may allow diversion of fissile material into a bomb-making process. Correct me if I’m wrong.
However the climate damage is developing into a greater evil. It may become more attractive to Green voters to allow nuclear to replace carbon for the sake of the greater good.
The shift would be then be from prohibition to policing. The IAEA already police the traffic in uranium, including Australian uranium. Australia is also signatory to the GNEP, which restricts reprocessing to nuclear-club countries.