How can that be ?

ALPs policies are like peas in a pod compared to Liberals ?

They have significantly different policies on climate change.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 3:58pm:

They have significantly different policies on climate change.

Yes.  But they will change them anyway so who knows what they are.

I don't think Howard will change his. He has only begrudgingly agreed to do anything and it is unlikely he will go beyond that, which pretty much means no real action.

Unfortunately Labor are going to wait for a report on the economics etc, but I guess that is better than choosing the wrong strategy.

freediver - i thought liberals had a goal of ... what was it, a 15% reduction or something and ALP was a 20 % reduction as a goal.

Was that the difference ?

I think the Liberal goal of 15% is an MRET goal which is a far less useful way to reduce emissions than a mandatory emissions reduction target.

i have no idea of MRET .
As far as goals go, not much difference between 15 and 20. In any way, they are goals only.
No ideas of ho w to get there. it's just a figure plucked from the sky.

libs should up their hope to 37%, sounds precise to me. :-)

MRET = Mandatory renewable energy target. Under liberal this would include 'clean coal' which is still dirtier than gas, and probably gas also. You could achieve the 15% target while still increasing overall emissions. Given that MRETs tend to result in the average rather than the marginal price being passed on to consumers, this is likely.

I could not see coal or gas as being renewable.

MRETS appeal to me much more so than reduction in emissions. MRETS would be much more measurable ? also a target to aim for. ie 100% renewable.

So, anyway, the diff between labor and libs on climate  is pretty negligable, if that.

Until Labor specify how they are going to achieve their stated targets, it all pie in the sky as Sprint has suggested.

You are penny pinching if you think that there will be any difference whatsoever in the major parties when it comes to reduction of GHG. If you were to base your vote on solely that alone then you should vote for the incumbent party as a change of govt would likely add much more to Australia's ecological footprint than anything decided by either of them.

Sadly ideologies and symbolism at any cost seems to be the order of the day.  ::)

MRETS appeal to me much more so than reduction in emissions.

More what?

MRETS would be much more measurable ?

You can measure both well enough. You shouldn't go for an inferior tool because it's easier for the bureaucrats to measure.

So, anyway, the diff between labor and libs on climate  is pretty negligable, if that.

No it isn't negligible. You are basing that on ignorance of their policies. Here is a good place to start:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/climate-change-policy.html

Until Labor specify how they are going to achieve their stated targets, it all pie in the sky as Sprint has suggested.

As far as the climate is concerned, it is the outcome that matters, not the method.

a change of govt would likely add much more to Australia's ecological footprint

Care to elaborate?

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 6:21pm:

I don't think Howard will change his. He has only begrudgingly agreed to do anything and it is unlikely he will go beyond that, which pretty much means no real action. Unfortunately Labor are going to wait for a report on the economics etc, but I guess that is better than choosing the wrong strategy.

No I dont believe Howard will change either. Hes had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the climate change debate- I think Labor will make changes as soon as they are able and will be very proactive in this area.

As far as the climate is concerned, it is the outcome that matters, not the method.

Rubbish- the method will determine the outcome and the outcome will be insignificant in the bigger picture

Care to elaborate?

You need to see the waste involved in the changing of names of a govt dept- ie stationary, remodelling etc let alone a change of govt

The method will not determine the outcome because the outcomes are largely predetermined. It is true that some methods like taxes may give you faster changes than whatever targets are set, but we are likely to end up just meeting whatever fixed targets are set.

I don't really understand that posting FD.

imho, targets are pretty much meaningless by themselves.  
Add to targets/start with a method of getting somewhere and there is a possibility of doing it.
No reason for us to meet targets just cause they are set.

imho - the higher % of renewable power we have the sooner the better.
I tend to see things in a simplistic way

This is disregarding what the other 99.8 % of the world does.  :-)

imho, targets are pretty much meaningless by themselves

That's why you put the word 'mandatory' in front of them.

Add to targets/start with a method of getting somewhere and there is a possibility of doing it.

There is a plethora of methods already available. That is not what is holding this up.

imho - the higher % of renewable power we have the sooner the better

The problem with MRETs is that renewable energy is only a small part of our options for reducing emissions. At the moment they are also the more expensive options. You could achieve the same emissions reductions at far less cost to the economy with better tools that direct change at the 'low hanging fruit'.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html#low-hanging-fruit

Hi FD,

Took me a while to refind this subject !

You mean reduce emmissions by things like turning tv/computers off, efficient lighting, use less A/C etc etc ??
Yes, good ideas.

Not sure, I still tend to think targets without a method is just wishful thinking. Even if called manditory or not.

You mean reduce emmissions by things like turning tv/computers off, efficient lighting, use less A/C etc etc ??

That's part of it. A bigger part is improvements in efficiency in industrial uses of electricity.

I still tend to think targets without a method is just wishful thinking. Even if called manditory or not.

The fact that it is mandatory implies a method of enforcement. It usually implies a cap and trade scheme.

Peter Garrett said last night that the coalition's schemes were expected to result in an increase in GHG emissions of 27% by 2020.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-has-longterm-view-on-climate-change/2007/11/22/1195321940096.html

Mr Howard's policies received a less than ringing endorsement from the independent Climate Institute, which gave the coalition a score of 30 per cent.

By comparison, the institute gave Labor 60 per cent in its final report card ahead of Saturday's election, mainly because of a pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and setting a 20 per cent by 2020 renewable energy target.

The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats both scored 90 per cent and Family First 57 per cent.

"The coalition had started to gain momentum before the campaign with its commitment to a (emissions) trading scheme and a clean-energy target," institute chief executive John Connor told reporters in Canberra.

"Unfortunately, they seem to have stalled with no new significant announcements."

"When we do the assessment, the ALP does have the better suite of climate policies than the coalition."

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) this week gave similar gradings for the major parties - 58 per cent for Labor and 22 for the coalition.

A report released by the ACF said unchecked climate change would produce price shocks every two to four years instead of the usual once a decade.

In the current drought, grocery prices have increased by 12 per cent since September 2005 and fruit and vegetables respectively have soared by 43 and 33 per cent, the ACF said.

"Dangerous climate change would mean more droughts - as much as 40 per cent more in eastern Australia by 2070 if we don't act - and for Australian consumers would mean price spikes more often," report author Professor John Quiggin said.

"We could go beyond the ability of some sectors to adapt, meaning retail food consumers would suffer permanently higher prices," said Prof Quiggin, an economist at the University of Queensland.

see also: Labor ahead under WWF climate standards

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1194562483/3#3

---

Climate change 'may lead to famine, war'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Climate-change-may-lead-to-famine-war/2007/11/22/1195321941432.html

Global warming is one of the most significant threats facing humankind, researchers warned, as they unveiled a study showing how climate changes have led to famine, wars and population declines in the past.

A report last week said climate change will put half the world's countries at risk of conflict or serious political instability.

International Alert, a London-based conflict resolution group, identified 46 countries - home to 2.7 billion people - where it said the effects of climate change would create a high risk of violent conflict. It identified another 56 states where there was a risk of political instability.

"I would expect to see some pretty serious conflicts that are clearly linked to climate change on the international scene by 2020," International Alert secretary general Dan Smith told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Near the top of the list are west and central Africa, with clashes already reported in northern Ghana between herders and farmers as agricultural patterns change.

Bangladesh could also see dangerous changes, while the visible decline in levels of the River Ganges in India, on which 400 million people depend, could spark new tensions there.

Water shortages would make solving tensions in the already volatile Middle East even harder, Smith said, while currently peaceful Latin American states could be destabilised by unrest following changes in the melting of glaciers affecting rivers.

Unless communities and governments began discussing the issues in advance, he said, there was a risk that climate shift could be the spark that relights wars such as those in Liberia and Sierra Leone in west Africa or the Caucasus on Russia's borders.

Now who is running scare tactics?

At least these have a basis in reality. You know something serious is going on when it is the scientists not the politicians doing the warning.

Come in sucker  ::)

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2007 at 9:09pm:

At least these have a basis in reality. You know something serious is going on when it is the scientists not the politicians doing the warning.

Nothing serious is going on.  In fact if we believed a scientist every time he tried to secure himself a job with a scare story like the latest bullshit about climate change we would still think the globe was cooling.  After all that was their story 30 years ago.  They've found a new tactic to get funds now - the pagan belief that we can control the heavens so we had better employ a lot of scientists to have meetings.

Deepthought this is not an individual scientist after a grant.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2007 at 7:26am:

Deepthought this is not an individual scientist after a grant.

Quite.  Which is why I said "so we had better employ a lot of scientists to have meetings".

These dudes have used their scary monster tactics heaps of times to get funds.  Everyone (but you) knows that.

The only precedent to this is the Ozone hole.