Greens climate dilemma

phill Parsons
Currently we are viewing this debate at the end of an especially hot period in south eastern Australia where deaths in the city of churches, caused by the hot conditions, rose to an equivalent of half the rate in Europe’s last heat wave, where public transport in Melbourne failed, imposing an estimated cost of $100M on the Victorian economy and on top of that infrastructure failed, requiring greater investment to shore up the system against such failures in a hotter future. This month the circus will return to Canberra and you can be sure that climate will be heated as the K Rudd government stalks around its pre-election promise to Australia about carbon pollution reduction, trying to put a brave face on a flop, avoid being embarrassed by the new man in the White House or a strong carbon pollution reduction agreement in Copenhagen at the end of the year. Now with different green cloaks to choose from the Greens have to look at how black each heart is and how long it will remain so.

I must first mention that the President of the Czech Republic does not believe there is clear evidence that carbon pollution is the cause of climate instability. How dare someone suggest Czechs miss out on their time in the capitalist sun having lived under the carbon cloud of the Soviet era.

The Greens have to decide between the old parties, or no party, when recommending their preferences at the next Federal election due late in 2010.

So too do the old parties have to make a decision about the Greens and each other.

The wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, the economy, has come into play as a stark reminder that borrowing against the future is a recipe for disaster if the repayments cannot be made.

This has brought into relief the choices about future investment and about how the costs of restructuring to a low carbon economy are distributed.

Currently the government is committed to taking a path equivalent to a carbon tax, their goal for carbon emission reductions of 5% by 2020 unlikely to make significant changes in the way energy is produced and consumed in Australia but likely to impose costs on lower income earners and small business.

If the Copenhagen Round of negotiations achieves a strong reduction target for the rest of the world and the government commits to its 15% backup target, which it indicated it would, that may bring the Greens closer to supporting their position.

But using such an increased target as big stick to encourage China India and Brazil in the hope they will commit to serious but unspecified targets and Australia will then commit to a 15% cut, has the long bow at full stretch .

Of course the country responsible for 1.5% of emissions having flashed in the pan at Bali in 2007 is going to make a big difference in the thoughts of these developing countries as they wrestle with meeting the needs of their people without collapsing the environment upon which those needs are met when it makes a 5% commitment and promises to do better if they do too.

And then there is the US, which under an Obama administration is likely to make a commitment to some sort of action, and follow the example of California and some of the original 13 states, and reduce emissions more significantly than Australia’s current 5% commitment.

On the other side of the ledger the coalition is in a pickle, having to strike a balance between the dinosaurs who fail to see the need for any action and the young turks who see the need, but cannot bring a position where a cost is imposed on industry.

So here we have a party talking about continuing with a carbon based economy but reducing emissions by a range of measures that exclude carbon trading but reach the bottom of the Greens preferred target range of 25% by 2020. How they get beyond that is left to the imagination

Currently we are viewing this debate at the end of an especially hot period in south eastern Australia where deaths in the city of churches, caused by the hot conditions, rose to an equivalent of half the rate in Europe’s last heat wave, where public transport in Melbourne failed, imposing an estimated cost of $100M on the Victorian economy and on top of that infrastructure failed, requiring greater investment to shore up the system against such failures in a hotter future.

Whilst there is some time to go until late 2010, when an election is required, the Greens will have to consider if changing their usual recommendation from Labor to the Liberal Party under Turnbull, currently on the surface the party with the highest emission reduction target, will result in actual reductions in Carbon emissions by 2020 and beyond or if he will be another Howard, all talk and business as usual, dissembling at each election.

Of course many of those who vote Green have come from a longstanding belief in an old party and their loyalty to the Green preference recommendation appears to be slim if it goes against their previous allegiance.

And then there is the important Senate election, where the quota system can effect the outcome of the sixth seat. The Senate could fill with an odd collection of Independents if, for example, Labor does not prefer the Greens, making negotiation of any government legislation a nightmare as each Independent looks to their own special deal for their own State to ensure their survival in the Senate making double dissolutions more likely if the old party opposition is intransigent.

Such a measure is open to the Rudd government and, on a high note of popularity in an economy performing exceptionally well, government may have considered such a move if it cannot get its emissions trading legislation through in an acceptable form.

If it could not convince the Greens, Xenephon and Fielding about 5% it had the choice of trying to convince the Turnbull Liberals [minus the Nationals], except now Turnbull is positioning the Liberals to deny emissions trading, picking up on its unpopularity with industry rather then its popularity with a few industry leaders dealing directly with government. Wedging in the best traditions.

This month the circus will return to Canberra and you can be sure that climate will be heated as the K Rudd government stalks around its pre-election promise to Australia about carbon pollution reduction, trying to put a brave face on a flop, avoid being embarrassed by the new man in the White House or a strong carbon pollution reduction agreement in Copenhagen at the end of the year.

Now with different green cloaks to choose from the Greens have to look at how black each heart is and how long it will remain so.

phill Parsons