Political Expediency Pollutes CPRS

Kevin Rudd's CPRS - Carbon Pollution reduction Scheme - was to be one of his great environmental stamps. It was to involve a carbon cap-and-trade system; higher electricity prices, which would encourage more consumers to use renewable energy; some compensation for high energy use industries; and an environmental halo for Mr Rudd.

It was beset by difficulties:

1. The Greens thought it didn't set sufficient targets for the reduction in carbon pollution
2. The Copenhagen Conference on climate change achieved little, as many predicted, and countries have not committed to any reduction in carbon emissions
3. The Coalition - Liberal and National Parties - are running a policy of denying climate change, protecting the short-term interests of big business. They, and the Greens, defeated teh CPRS Bill in the Senate, biut for the different reasons outlined above.

The NSW, and other states, electricity price regulator, approved large price rises for electricity. In NSW there were 2 reasons for this: preparation for the carbon trading scheme, and the desire of the NSW Labor government to privatise electricity generation and sale, for its own short-term political reasons.

Voter backlash against the price rises, and manipulation of that anger by teh Coalition parties before this year's election have led to Prime Minister Rudd shelving the CPRS until at least 2012.

The shelving has nothing to do with the merits, or otherwise, of the CPRS. It has everything to do with political expediency.

John

Nuclear Poll Reporting

TOday's media are reporting on a Herald/AC Nielson poll about nuclear power. Headlines scream with "More Aussies back nuclear power: Poll" (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/more-aussies-back-nuclear-power-poll-20091013-gu7r.html), "People open to nuclear power: Carr" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/13/2712317.htm?site=news), and "Australians embracing vision for fission" (http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=382271)

The stories go on to report that 49% of (surveyed) Australians "said nuclear power should be considered for Australia's future energy needs, while 43 per cent were completely opposed" (SMH) Former NSW Premier Bob Carr was reported by the ABC as saying "There is a shift. People are more open to it again because they can see the damage that carbon dioxide is doing".

There are some problems with reporting on surveys, on-line polls, and market research. Foremost among them is that the media do NOT report that the numbers aren't definitive: they come with an error margin eg ± 3%, or ±5%. The second is that some people who volunteer, or are asked for, comment might have an agenda that is unreported. Bob Carr, for example, is paid by a company that invests in infrastructure. That company might have an interest in building a future nuclear power plant. There is no suggestion that Mr Carr was acting for any other entity when making his comments. Rather, the reporting illustrates that the interests and agendas of commentators are rarely reported. Thirdly, were respondents aware that the best places to put nuclear power plants in Australia is in coastal areas where there is an abundance of seawater for cooling; and close to existing transmission lines? Perhaps Bob Carr is happy to have a nuclear plant near Maroubra? ooooh, (shudder), I can feel the rage in the NIMBY response! In reality, parts of the less inhabited coastlines of SA and WA are more likely places.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was quick to dismiss the building of nuclear power plants in Australia, saying it was, and is still, ALP policy. He then passed the parcel, challenging the Opposition to have a position, reminding everyone that former PM John Howard wanted Australia to have nuclear power plants. It really was a political "hospital pass", knowing that the Liberal party is deeply divided on environmental and climate issues.

Be a bit wary of reports on polls and surveys: the numbers are not definitive, as implied in the reports, and some commentators might have hidden interests. With news, as with advertizing, it pays to be "buyer beware"!

John

Australian Farming Audit

Last week, Opposition Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, agreed that an audit of farming land would not be a bad thing. He said this in response to a direct question.

The Federal Government's (junior) Parliamentary Secretary for the environment, John Cobb, immediately responded by trying to "shoot the messenger", saying that Garrett was "the grim reaper" of farmers. Such a response contributes nothing to the discussion. It's a discussion teh Government does not want to have. There has been a number of media stories and editorials supporting John Howard's plan to provide more assistance to farmers.

Much of Australia has been in drought for more than 6 years, the average temperature has been higher than in other droughts, possible due to climate change, and rain events that have occurred have been less common and more extreme. Add to this, the mix of high-water use irrigated crops such as cotton and rice planted in the very dry Murray-Darling Basin, and there would seem to be a good case for a national audit of what we produce on farms, where it's produced, what water is needed to produce it, and whether some areas currently farmed are viable. Some years years ago, both the manufacturing, sugar and dairy industries were restructured, and the Federal Government encouraged some farmers to leave the industry: there might be other areas where this is appropriate, with suitable financial inducements.

A national audit of farming land, production and water use is a worthwhile response to the effects of climate change/"shift" on our farmland, drought and our farmers and their families.

The question is not whether our politicians have the "ticker" to do it; the question is, are we willing to insist on action for Australia's benefit.

John