The National Party has no environmental credibility whatsoever, so why do they act like they are the sole arbitrator of the process?
“For us to succeed as a party in the future, we need a credible policy on emissions reduction and broader environmental issues to engage with younger voters,” Darren Chester told Guardian Australia.
You might recall that Barnaby Joyce sacked Darren Chester when he recaptured the Leadership of the National Party. Chester is known throughout his seat of Gippsland for being a stoic sensible man who has won a Ministry portfolio a couple of times only to lose it as quickly on principle.
It seems sensible, and the National Party don’t mix. Why did Joyce sack him? Well, the Victorian National told Guardian Australia he supported the commitment by the National Farmers Federation to an economy-wide target of net carbon zero by 2050.
“… madness for regional communities and the agricultural sector to rule itself out of a [net zero] conversation prematurely when there could be opportunities for increasing sustainability by being part of the solution.”
With an equal dose of fault-finding, the former leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack warned that a flat “no” to net-zero could threaten Australia’s trade relationships and export income.
The reader might recall that after spending some time in the sin bin of failed leaders for misconduct, Barnaby Joyce again agitated for his party’s leadership. Having attained authority over the party, he warned followers of the Nat’s that he was “unlikely to sign onto a net-zero commitment ahead of Glasgow.”
The mad hatters of the party were now satisfied that Joyce wouldn’t go against them. After all, he was one of them. And some of his most potent internal supporters oppose a net-zero commitment.
Is his position softening?
However, on Friday, 24 September, the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, in a speech to a peak industry group, warned that Australia would pay an economic cost if it does not match other significant nations in reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050.
“Australia has a lot at stake. We cannot run the risk that markets falsely assume we are not transitioning in line with the rest of the world.”
He argues that we greatly rely on imported capital to fuel the economy. So there lays the answer to why the conservatives might yet agree to a net-zero target by 2050, and they have suddenly realised it’s about money – capitalism, in other words.
“Reduced access to these capital markets would increase borrowing costs impacting everything from interest rates on home loans and small business loans, to the financial viability of large-scale infrastructure projects.”
So, there we have it, folks. Australia will probably join the rest of the sane world, who are committing to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.
The problem with reaching this decision is that we are yet to meet our Kyoto Protocol agreement (despite what Morrison says about reaching our targets in a canter) and deciding what to do about 2030. So, where is the credibility with any decision we arrive at the COP26 summit in Glasgow?
What Frydenberg’s speech does disclose is a truth hitherto unmentioned but well known. The Conservative’s reason for reducing our carbon emissions is that it might harm our economy and has nothing to do with saving the planet.
Think about this. All over the world, Mother Nature is venting her anger at our human stupidity. But those we have elected in Australia to respond to her call do so with all the self-interest of inept politicians.
What fools the Australian electorate has been that they would so consistently re-elect these moronic people of such little intelligence.
Some of the Deputy Prime Minister’s most fervent supporters are climate change deniers, and they have told him that any decision on a net-zero future was a National Party one and not a captain’s call. Fancy leaving a decision such as this to the likes of Christensen and Cavanagh.
Even the hapless former leader Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack warned last week that a flat “no” to net-zero could threaten Australia’s trade relationships and export income.
With the so-called Liberal Party becoming more frequently dictated to by the National Party, Morrison should remind them that they are the junior party in the alliance.
The Nats should also realise that they get roughly half the votes as the Greens in a national election. If there is a surprise in the forthcoming one, they will suffer most so they should think carefully about it.
In a survey by the ABC before the last election more than 60% of Australians agreed that:
“Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. They also believed that we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant cost.”
And while a self-selecting sample, those filling out the ABC’s Vote Compass survey consistently emphasised climate change as a crucial issue also realise that they get roughly half the votes as the Greens.
The issue had escalated in terms of importance from 9% in 2016 to 29% in 2019. We all thought that 2019 would be the breakout year for the subject, and it is fair to hope that next year will be the one based on public opinion.
With as much knowledge as Tony Abbott in 2013, I began to write about this subject in earnest. I have quoted myself from it a few times since in my anger. Here are a few paragraphs from it. In all fairness, I have endured the lies and beliefs of people with crazed minds, sick thoughts and capitalistic yearnings. My trust is with science, and that’s precisely where it should be.
For my life, I cannot understand people who accept science in fact and use it every day (even for vaccines) somehow become brain-dead when it comes to climate science. However, laypeople like me who believe in climate change cannot honestly claim to know the integrity of the science for ourselves but are happy to delegate this task to climate scientists. Laypeople do not have the knowledge to adjudicate on the issue.
On the other hand, those who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science sceptics with obscure qualifications or, worse, right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training whatsoever.
These people (like you and me) have no way of evaluating the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions. One of the most outspoken sceptics (Andrew Bolt) has been found guilty of deceptive lying in that he defamed some white-skinned aboriginals. One has to wonder how many he has told when writing about his favourite topic, climate change.
If I do not support the 95% of scientists, every major scientific institution, and the constant peer evaluation
I am obliged to accept the alternative.
That is that I should take seriously the likes of Andrew Bolt (A journalist) Alan Jones, (I’m not sure how you would describe his contribution to society), Lord Monckton (A discredited something who was once a lobbyist for the tobacco companies) Nick Minchin, and Tony Abbott. (Both politicians).
Minchin is on the record as saying that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy to replace communism. None of these people has a background or expertise in climate science.
Now that’s not to say that they should not have a view, and that view should be respected, as should any laypersons if they are of that ilk.
But surely, we must respect the science otherwise; you put into question all science.
My thought for the day
All over the world, Mother Nature is venting her anger at our human stupidity. But those we have elected to respond to her call do so with all the self-interest of inept politicians.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!