The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has been rating the policy announcements of all federal political parties on the issues of water and climate change.
ABC News: Govt told to ‘pull up socks’ on environment
Thanks to Luke Walker for the link.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The reference concludes with:
“There’s quite a bit Labor can still do in climate and water as well that we really need for the country.”
Such as …..I wonder.
1. More desal plants
2. Take less out of the MDB and compensate those who will lose allocations
3. Take a wholistic approach to managing the MDB a la the Howard $10 bn intiative, now screwed over by the brumbytorians for politcal reasons.
4. Raise the price of water.
5. Stop wasting water on flood irrigation for low value crops.
etc
Plenty of options but no specifics. We will just have to await the arrival of the great bone head himself to change it all anyway.
What does the Australian ENVIRONMENT Foundation have to say on the matter?
Or will the ACF be allowed to get all the publicity?
MY GOD – what a shock!
Greenies rating Labor well ahead of the Coalition!
Who’d have thunk it?
OTOH , I don’t think the Coalition will lose a lot of sleep ( or votes ) over it.
Still no mention of the N word I see…….
The comment by the ACF that “The Coalition’s climate score is very low. We’d like to see them really pull up their socks, it’s important for the future of the country,” shows just how out of touch this so called environmental lobby group has become.
If scoring on Climate is based on reducing Greenhouse Gas then just consider these numbers from the Australian Greenhouse office.
When Howard was elected, Tasmania the wood chip capital of the world (according to the greens) was emitting 5.7 Mt of CO2 equivalents due to Land use, Land use change, and forestry. In 2005 the last published figures this had dropped to 2.9 Mt CO2 e, a whopping 49% DECREASE.
Yet the ACF refuses to acknowledge the Coalitions implementation of the RFA process that was part of the ALP initiated National Forest Policy Statement. Instead they rate highly a party (the greens), that has sworn to tear up the RFA if they hold the balance of power in the Senate.
This dramatic decrease in GHG due to forestry and land use is despite exporting woodchips at record levels exceeding the 4 million tonnes of woodchips needed for the value adding pulp mill. A mill that will save over a million tonnes of GHG by cutting shipping by a quarter.
Yet the ACF campaigner Lindsay Hesketh claimed that conditions for the pulp mill “do not stop Tasmania’s old-growth forests being logged to feed the mill, with the accompanying destruction of biodiversity and the release of around 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gas polling carbon dioxide each year,”
Instead of just blatantly promoting the greens the ACF should take the time to find out the facts, no old growth forest will be used as feedstock to the pulp mill, and as reported by the AGO, forestry is Greenhouse positive in Tasmania and the mill will save GHG.
Any one who supports the pulp mill and forestry should get 10 of 10 on a score card; those that oppose it care more about political power than climate change!
John posted:
What does the Australian ENVIRONMENT Foundation have to say on the matter?
Or will the ACF be allowed to get all the publicity?
This is not the sort of publicity that AEF seeks. ACF seeks reductions in GGE to mitigate ‘dangerous’ climate change but opposes sustainable native forestry as practiced in Australia so that we have to import more timber from unsustainable harvesting overseas. ACF will not even DISCUSS baseload nuclear power generation but gives a pass to a political party that has committed a future Labor government [and the country and the economy] to a 60% reduction in GGE with absolutely no idea on how that may be achieved.
AEF is in the business of speaking facts not floss.
Max Rheese Executive Director, Australian Environment Foundation