I can’t work out whether ‘the environment’ is more or less important as an issue in Australia this federal election.
Both the Coalition and ALP have agreed to allow a pulp mill to be built in Tasmania, both are hell bent on buying back water licences in the Murray Darling Basin and both are ignoring the difficult issue of tree clearing in our rangelands. So there is not the polarisation and heated debate, for example on forestry or how much water is needed for the Murray River, that has so characterised previous federal elections.
The focus has changed since the last federal election from almost exclusively rural issues – where most of the Australian environment is – to what happens in our cities.
Climate change is certainly top of the agenda. The Coalition is suggesting we meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions including through a national emissions trading scheme and developing low emissions technology including solar power, geosequestration, clean coal and even possibly nuclear.
The ALP is dealing with climate change and ‘water’ as one issue and is promising to sign Kyoto, provide rebates for the installation of rainwater tanks, loans to families that invest in solar energy and stop the building of nuclear reactors.
Apart from the issue of Kyoto – which is almost a non-issue given the Coalition plans to endorse an emissions trading scheme – nuclear seems to be the standout defining environmental issue between the major parties.
So what would it mean for Australia to go nuclear as the Coalition more-or-less propose, versus significantly cutting carbon emissions without the development of a nuclear industry as proposed by the ALP?
—————–
Liberal and Coaltion polices can found here: http://www.liberal.org.au/
ALP policies here: http://www.kevin07.com.au/fresh-ideas/climate-change-water/climate-change-water.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer: Voters have difficulty choosing their environment focus from the mainstream candidates this time round. We can’t build our own nuclear industry from the people we’ve got. We don’t have enough up to date technical types to build and run that pulp mill.
Traditionally engineers not scientists or policy makers built our greatest processing enterprises. Policy down the mainstream is purely rhetoric. Good manufacturing business has drifted overseas for decades. That leaves us very short of dynamic experience at the grass roots.
Sure; we can import people and stuff but it leaves us in debt to whoever is at the cutting edge of new developments like defence and aerospace technology. City folk have to consider spin off from the cold war in coal oil and gas supply before we go nuclear.
Farmers in the MDB probably need to go underground for things other than mushrooms. Maintaining fertility in this country is going to be big biz given the critical water situation.
Carbon trading as envisaged won’t save the day. The only short term remedy for AGW is drastic cuts in consumer demand. Politicians here wont step off the platform edge on that issue.
Best election prospect is a return to a dynamic Senate and making both houses work.
I think that voters are becoming wary of activists who cant do simple maths.
I see new Qld premier Anna Bligh is going to introduce legislation making nuclear illegal in Qld. Of course the Feds could override I guess.
You could have solar, clean coal and nuclear – does the mix have to be exclusive?
Regardless of the right or wrongs of nuclear – Jen do you think you could sell it to the public. I reckon it would be immensely unpopular and people are irrationally scared.
NIMBY syndrome to the max.
Economics?
Some are more worried about the climate change than the nukes. Personally I’m up for a some modern reactors but not just anywhere and not any old technology. However I don’t have any inherent in principle objections.
Frankly I would rather we use the fuel than get it back in a warhead some day.
On the other issue of clearing in woodlands for grazing. Would be good to think this would be rationalised much better for all concerned. Including sustainable grazing, new functional andscapes, mixed use, biodiversity conservation and carbon rights. Perhaps bring Motty in from the cold as negotiator – may need to suit him up though for our protection. http://i20.ebayimg.com/03/s/000/77/44/3691_1.JPG
But alas no votes of importance in rangelands I guess.
P.S. On Kyoto we should remember that it is 108% of 1990. NOT LESS !! However I doubt the AGO’s land clearing numbers are right. Reckon we may have done better than they assert. But they only ever wanted 25MTs regardless of what’s there. You could also make something on woodland thickening if you got into the rate of increase calcs.
Will it make any difference to the climate – nuh ! But that’s not the point.
Not much traction in “I think that voters are becoming wary of activists who cant do simple maths” so by moving on we can get into practical policy evolution to deal with this basic observation, most Australians I meet cant re sharpen a high speed twist drill bit.
Also; many contractors don’t have a good grip on technology at any level. Thousands of rainwater tanks can’t be plumbed in and hundreds of communications towers like wind farms can’t be rigged for many seasons to come.
Luke: This severely limits our chances of building up say a nuclear future as an alternative in the energy stakes. Every second man and woman needs to be hands on if we are going to survive.
Minding an aging population is currently no one’s business. Can you depend on your kids after you start to loose it?
I agree with Gavin, no point building nuclear from scratch. Let the Japanese and French do that, thats their strength. In terms of generation we should be looking at solar thermal, geothermal and dare I say it… ‘clean coal’.
However no party has any Big energy efficiency plans which is a massive gap. To supply your typical kW costs around $3000 (generation and distribution infrastructure). There are many many efficiency improvements that can be made for less than this per kW
No point spending billions on Nukes when we have people buying rubbish inefficient fridges and air-conditioners cos they are trying to save a few hundred dollars at point of sale.
Of course you spend the money on the nuclear power stations – then you can have any fridge you want, or heaven forbid – two fridges! Maybe even an aircon? What kind of society have we got when a city (Adelaide) asks its residents to turn off the aircon ‘cos we havn’t got the power to run the place when it gets hot?? When was the last time SA built a new power station – apart from the gas one near the city? DECADES! Build a nuclear one, turn on the aircon, and while your at it, plug in a desal plant so everyone can water the garden… sounds ok to me. Might cost a bit more for your energy and water, but most would happily pay. No greenhoax gasses either.
NSW have orderd new gas powered buses and found that the roof mounted fuel pod weighs 1.4 tonnes reducing the number of passengers by 15 – a $115M stuff up
Well one-liner negative Rog & Pat – Brissy has gas buses and they seem to work just fine.
Mick, I think you are referring to ETSA oad shedding trials. This is actualy a very effective and inexpensive way of managing peak demand without adversely affecting the performance of the air-con. Participants in the trials have been saying they don’t even notice what is happening.