What do you think the Australian Labor Government should do to tackle climate change?

Question

G'day. Pretty much everyone agrees climate change is one of the biggest issues we're going to face in the next decade.

We'd like to know from you what a Labor Government should be doing to tackle this issue.

- Peter Garrett MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment, Heritage and the Arts

To see my question video go to - http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=248153&cl=3708921&ch=&src=y7news

Answer 1

G'day Peter. I am no expert and maybe some of what I want is idealistic but I think if everybody seriously gets behind cleaning up our act NOTHING is impossible. I DON'T want a nuclear future for Australia and I DON'T want to see uranium mined and sold by Australia. I would love to see a clear, definite and honest statement from the Labor Party that nuclear power and uranium mining will never be an option for Australia.

I would love to see Australia leading the world in the research, development and implementation of alternative power sources that will efficiently service large populations. I would also love to see some serious attempt to develop affordable, reliable and clean transport options, both public transport and private cars, that will meet the needs of commuters in cities.

I would love to see government assistance and regulations that compel business and industry to clean up their operations and I would love to see a community recycling system that is used to its full potential, ie: household and business waste management.

I want to see real government assistance to householders to "green up" their homes. Subsidies and/or real assistance to install water saving systems and solar power in existing homes and projects that make houses more able to take advantage of the natural environment for light and climate control.

We can make a cleaner and healthier world if we want to. It is just a question of how much we want to and what we are prepared to do to achieve it.

Thanks and good luck.

Answer 2

Start rezoning the coastal development to prepare for higher sea levels. If you start now, by the time the seas reach a dangerous level, your cities will be ready. If it never comes, you can have the most amazing coastal parks on the planet. If it does, you'll have the most amazing coastal cities on the planet.

As far as technological changes, you should wait until a valid climate model exists before making changes to the economy and industry. What is a valid climate model? One that can model documented past warming (i.e. wine from grapes grown in England in the early 1000's -- no internal combustion then and far fewer people) and cooling (i.e. the Little Ice Age 1500's to 1800's -- lots more people and much more industrialization), as well as today's changes. So far, I know of no model that can explain those warm-up and cool-down periods, so today's guesses about what's going on are simply that -- guesses.

As for everyone saying it must be the CO2 causing today's global warming -- without a climate model that works backward and forward, it is simply a popular theory, not a fact. Has there every been a time in history where virtually every eminent scientist of the day, as well as politicians, religious leaders, and regular people, ever agreed on an observable phenomenon as proof for a scientific principle, like man-made global warming today? Try right before Galileo invented the telescope and showed that the Sun really didn't revolve around the Earth. There were many observations and written proofs by the brightest people of the day as to why the Sun revolved around the Earth, but then an inconvenient reality was discovered. I'm not claiming to be Galileo -- I'm just pointing out that data that correlates for today and doesn't match with previous climate changes can be a symptom, not a cause, of climate change.

I am an engineer and I've had to diagnose and debug many systems over the years. One thing I've seen over and over is someone else fixing a symptom and not bothering to figure out the real problem. I agree that this is a potentially a major problem for us all, but if we just fix a symptom without truly knowing the real problem, we will be wasting lots of money and, more importantly, time. Oz and the rest of the world should be demanding a valid climate model instead of more CO2 reduction plans and studies.

That isn't today's politically correct suggestion, but what happens if we actually find a way to get together as a planet, reduce our CO2 outputs and then -- nothing changes because we "fixed" the wrong thing or we finally discover that we couldn't "fix" it at all, no matter what? Will anyone believe what the scientists and politicians say we need to do next? Will anyone ever believe the scientists again when our survival truly depends on it? This outcome could be even more hazardous to our long-term survival than global warming.

Answer 3

Consumers would choose themselves whether it was worth it to buy such an expensive thing that damaged the environment so much, whereas we are kind of in the dark at the moment. And if for a simple example, something comes in a ton of packaging, if that's taxed I'm sure it'll be about a nanosecond before companies come up with a far better way of doing it so their product is more cost-competitive. Or if a certain type of food costs a fortune because the pollution involved in transporting it so far is taxed then we'll all eat something else! It's inevitable that the abuse of our ecosystems by capitalists to make money for their own pockets while everyone bears the environmental consequences of their actions becomes illegal - why can't we do it now while we still have a little time?Driving along M4 from city to the western suburbs, 95% of cars that slowly moves with the flow of the traffic are drivers only. If community (the bigger part of it or neighborhood community) encourages car-pulling, we might all be surprised to find that there are more than 3 people in the same vicinity that actually head towards one direction. This will also encourage community mateship and perhaps make our area a much safer place to live in. Let's hit two birds with one stone!

Answer 4

production is an environmental catastrophe. Consumers would choose themselves whether it was worth it to buy such an expensive thing that damaged the environment so much, whereas we are kind of in the dark at the moment. And if for a simple example, something comes in a ton of packaging, if that's taxed I'm sure it'll be about a nanosecond before companies come up with a far better way of doing it so their product is more cost-competitive. Or if a certain type of food costs a fortune because the pollution involved in transporting it so far is taxed then we'll all eat something else! It's inevitable that the abuse of our ecosystems by capitalists to make money for their own pockets while everyone bears the environmental consequences of their actions becomes illegal - why can't we do it now while we still have a little time?Driving along M4 from city to the western suburbs, 95% of cars that slowly moves with the flow of the traffic are drivers only. If community (the bigger part of it or neighborhood community) encourages car-pulling, we might all be surprised to find that there are more than 3 people in the same vicinity that actually head towards one direction. This will also encourage community mateship and perhaps make our area a much safer place to live in. Let's hit two birds with one stone!

Answer 5

That means the prices of certain products would suddenly reflect the fact that their production is an environmental catastrophe. Consumers would choose themselves whether it was worth it to buy such an expensive thing that damaged the environment so much, whereas we are kind of in the dark at the moment. And if for a simple example, something comes in a ton of packaging, if that's taxed I'm sure it'll be about a nanosecond before companies come up with a far better way of doing it so their product is more cost-competitive. Or if a certain type of food costs a fortune because the pollution involved in transporting it so far is taxed then we'll all eat something else! It's inevitable that the abuse of our ecosystems by capitalists to make money for their own pockets while everyone bears the environmental consequences of their actions becomes illegal - why can't we do it now while we still have a little time?Driving along M4 from city to the western suburbs, 95% of cars that slowly moves with the flow of the traffic are drivers only. If community (the bigger part of it or neighborhood community) encourages car-pulling, we might all be surprised to find that there are more than 3 people in the same vicinity that actually head towards one direction. This will also encourage community mateship and perhaps make our area a much safer place to live in. Let's hit two birds with one stone!

Answer 6

I would like to see the argument changed more toward a sustainable planet rather than just climate change. This I believe is much large problem and of course an issue that also encompasses the issue of climate change.

On the issue of climate change I feel that we are very short sighted and that our political system (with new government every 3 to 4 years) is the main cause. Added to this is the fact that we have been causing damage to the environment and climate for many decades; as such it is not something that can be fixed in the short term.

I would support a government that will look at all the viable alternatives (coal, solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, wave etc) and put a plan in place for the next couple of decades; ie provide some long term direction.

Bipartisan support for this plan would be great, although very difficult to achieve. But short sighted governments do not seem to commit to such ideas.

We are clever and resourceful and our carbon emissions are low compared to the rest of the world (we are high when looked at on a per capita basis). We should look at the rest of the world as being a huge market place. I am sure that any technology that we can develop would have vast export potential; with obvious long term potential to offset costs.

Answer 7

a small amount of 1%. Just like Australians are 20 million in a 6 billion people planet. A fraction of a fraction of a fraction. I don’t believe that neither does any difference to the climate change. Especially when the other 6 billion put roles of black smoke due to inefficient combustion into the air and don’t give a … what is the word here?
I am not saying what the labour government should do. But I am afraid of what it can do.
It can wreck the economy with carbon tax that will increase financial burden in the country, introduce unviable and costly energy generation solutions that at the end, will not make any difference to the planet.
Maybe labour should do a serious research about carbon dioxide to find how much difference it really makes to climate change, if any. I was not convinced by that simpsons copycat cartoon in Al Gore’s documentary anyway.

Answer 8

As for everyone saying it must be the CO2 causing today's global warming -- without a climate model that works backward and forward, it is simply a popular theory, not a fact. Has there every been a time in history where virtually every eminent scientist of the day, as well as politicians, religious leaders, and regular people, ever agreed on an observable phenomenon as proof for a scientific principle, like man-made global warming today? Try right before Galileo invented the telescope and showed that the Sun really didn't revolve around the Earth. There were many observations and written proofs by the brightest people of the day as to why the Sun revolved around the Earth, but then an inconvenient reality was discovered. I'm not claiming to be Galileo -- I'm just pointing out that data that correlates for today and doesn't match with previous climate changes can be a symptom, not a cause, of climate change.

Answer 9

Hi Peter.

1. At a reasonably small financial cost, we could implement a series of pumps and channels to get seawater from the gulf in SA up to Lake Eyre. It's already salty, and I think below sea level, but the evaporation has got to make some useful climate change inland, perhaps further than a 100km around the area. This is mostly ideas from the "Bradford scheme", and it went nowhere decades ago because they were worried about the unknown impact it would have on climate change. I think times are different now.

2. My understanding is we can be pretty sure the rainfall in the far north of WA will be the most reliable in the country in the future. Maate, the railway infrastructure need lots more work. Trucking and privatisation used to be too profitable, but fuel costs will change that.

3. Adelaide and Perth have big water problems. I don't know that there are any real solutions other than subsidising rainwater tanks, and some big desalination plant. But it could be worth considering desalination using a BIG black plastic tent, to use solar rather than uranium.

4. I'm in the Adelaide Hills. It's crazy the number of commuters that use cars, driver-only. The reason, there's no commuter trains, the park and rides for the bus are too full, and the feeder bus routes are haphazard. It's time for Labor to build the public infrastructure up in this country again.

5. The artesian basin is suffering, perhaps worse than the Murray. Australia is not a good place for cotton farming and rice. They were profitable, because the environment was wearing the cost.

6. Drop car registrations 500%, but increase tax on petrochemicals. People will then freak at driving that extra km, and might even dust off the pushbike.

I got more ideas, get back to me if these are useful.

Chris Harvey, (Ph 0883391247)

Answer 10

Peter.
On any weekday you can see parent after parent drive past in large family vehicles on the way to work.

Unfortunately because on the weekend people need to take the family to the footy and do some shopping and sometimes go on holidays a small commuter vehicle is out of the question.

Aside from purchase cost the additional insurance and rego makes any savings in less fuel usage a false economy.

What we need is an ability to own two vehicles. One for use when moving the family say on the weekend and a second for when we are travelling to work.

An example.
I once drove a vehicle called a Honda Scamp which had a 360cc motor. (or something similar)
It was more than adequate for commuting but would not service the family.

Could you imagine the savings on the environment if we could replace just half the family cars in peak hour traffic with small commuter cars using 3 or 4 LP100 Km rather than 10 to 12 LP100Km.

Yet its possible with the corporation of the insurance companies and the state governments.

We simply need to be issued with 4 rego plates and an additional ROAD plate.
The vehicle is only permitted on the road if that ROAD plate is with the vehicle.

This way I can have the family car and have a commuter vehicle.

Answer 11

Dear Peter.
First. Not everyone agrees that climate change is the greatest issue of the decade. But in a wonderful society without problems like Australia we had to find something to worry about. “No worries” is actually a big Australian lie.
Second there still doubts that the problem is generated by carbon dioxide. Atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% others. Carbon dioxide is a small amount of 1%. Just like Australians are 20 million in a 6 billion people planet. A fraction of a fraction of a fraction. I don’t believe that neither does any difference to the climate change. Especially when the other 6 billion put roles of black smoke due to inefficient combustion into the air and don’t give a … what is the word here?
I am not saying what the labour government should do. But I am afraid of what it can do.
It can wreck the economy with carbon tax that will increase financial burden in the country, introduce unviable and costly energy generation solutions that at the end, will not make any difference to the planet.
Maybe labour should do a serious research about carbon dioxide to find how much difference it really makes to climate change, if any. I was not convinced by that simpsons copycat cartoon in Al Gore’s documentary anyway.