Simon Butler precisely explains his concerns about the inadequacy of the Greens' climate change amendment proposals ("The good and the bad of the Greens CPRS amendments", GLW #814). However, like the mainstream media, he overlooks some of the Greens' visionary bills on efficiency and renewables-friendly demand management.
Ironically, Butler's oversight comes about because he reasonably concludes that the Greens' amendments are overall insufficient and not worthy of further examination.
On the other hand, the mainstream media's oversight is due to the amendments being too comprehensive and threatening the vested interests it represents.
The Greens' put out a media release,Save the Planet, on October 12. On the same day, the Lowy Institute released its 2009 opinion poll report on Australian attitudes to foreign policy. The poll effectively kneecapped the Greens' release.
The media was all about how less important climate change is to Australians and gave little coverage to the Greens' amendments and efficiency bills.
What did the poll actually say? Of those polled, 56% said foreign policy on climate was very important. Fifty-two percent thought global warming was a critical threat to Australia's vital interests over the next decade.
Finally, 48% thought global warming was a serious and pressing threat and we should begin taking action now, even if it involves significant cost.
In summary, an election-winnable percentage of Australians are worried by, and want real action on, climate change.
So what did the media ignore with their climate change apathy frenzy? The Greens introduced a number of energy efficiency bills, as they explained, because "energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest and easiest way to reduce greenhouse emissions".
The Greens' bills called for an Energy Efficiency Target to run in parallel with the Renewable Energy Target and also called for smart electricity grids that, in conjunction with smart home and commercial appliances, can better match demand with non-intermittent renewable supply like wind.
The thing about efficiency gains and smart grids is that they are economically sensible even without human-induced climate change. They also get more economical as use promotes technological advancement, a bit like has happened with mobile phones.
Family First Senator Steve Fielding can't use his cereal packet science to argue against efficiency. The problem is that such proposals are not only being stymied by vested interests, but seemingly also by the green movement, which only wants to hear about strong and immediate action.
The climate science does call for strong action, however, it is not dismissive of accelerated mitigation via improved technology.
This leads to the question: is there another branch of science that the Greens are ignoring to the peril of the planet? That is political science. Is not the optimal Greens' strategy, taking into account climate and political science, to negotiate a politically palatable step?
On the basis of the Lowy polling, that could be a 15% cut in emissions by 2020, driven by a renewable target, energy efficiency and the CPRS.
The Greens should consider such a strategy. The alternative for them is to stay with their current pure line but cut out from the decision-making process. That may save them from the wrath of their own idealistic supporters, but would it save the planet?
Ilan Salbe,
Lawson, NSW