Reporting a comment

 

Here's the comment you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Shaun Lambert
Posted on 17 Nov 2009 10:27 pm

A couple of points on Warren Truss's speech:

"There is no emissions trading scheme planned anywhere in the world that includes agriculture" This is not the case, our near neighbour New Zealand is considering its conclusion in its proposed legislation.

You talk about increased costs from the proposed CPRS from cheaper imports due to the lack of a carbon price in foreign and international markets. The evident momentum globally for a carbon price or regulation otherwise to reduce GHG emissions makes this unlikely, but there is an alternative in the form of a big stick. Despite the Coalition's previous enthusiasm for American policy on this issue, you do not seek the alternative sought in the US, that of possible tarrifs on imports from nations that have no equivalent regulation.

"Because Australia signed the Kyoto accord, Australian farmers cannot get credits for the carbon abatement activities that they undertake...This is the nonsense of Labors CPRS" Strange how one can blame a treaty that the Coalition itself designed for it's own interests, allowing for a 108% increase in emmisions in Australia due to its special situation and now you can blame a Labor bill for a problem not of its own making? The ability of farmers to gain credits or offsets that can be sold on international markets is determined by international regulations and scientific reality of their measurement.

Farmers should certainly be recognised, like all sectors that emit GHG for their potential to be constructive in this regard. Which brings us on to your next point, in which you bring up the tired old myth about baseload power. While I welcome a debate on the merits of all sources of energy, nuclear included, the potential of renewables should not be debased in favour of the status quo. To prove this, simply take a look at Spain, where just last Monday (9.11.09) 53% of demand was catered for through wind power alone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-nati...), equivalent to apparently 11 nuclear power plants or 11.4 Gigawatts, which was only a fraction of their potential, 18 gw and many other countries in which renewables play a vital role.

I would also like to recognise your party's support for voluntary reductions of emissions that can be factored in to the national cap, just as the greens have yet the government has not.


Why should this comment be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the comment breaks them.