Baillieu dumps emissions targets

Ted Baillieu is starting to do the right things. The other day he moved to expand brown coal mining and now he is scrapping Victoria’s equivalent of China’s five-year plan.

A PLAN to cut Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the  next decade is set to be dumped by the Baillieu government on the basis that it  would merely lighten the load imposed on other states.

An independent review of the state’s key climate change laws, to be released  today, has found ‘‘no compelling case’’ to keep the target following the  introduction of the Commonwealth’s minimum target to cut emissions by 5 per  cent, to be mainly achieved through Labor’s carbon tax.

It said keeping the larger state target operating with a smaller national  target would put a disproportionately large burden on Victoria, with no benefit  to the environment because other states would do less.

This is an argument that can be applied federally; that restrictions on emissions and hence economic activity will merely export production and the associated jobs offshore. We’re giving China a free pass.

With Earth Hour approaching, the theme of symbolic action on climate change has come around, as Andrew Bolt discovers.

The Age’s designated warming evangelist, Adam Morton, is upset:

FOR anyone concerned about man-made climate change, the symbolism will be galling.

Woe! Bad symbolism, as opposed to the good symbolism of a target you were never going to reach, and which wouldn’t do a scrap of good if you ever did.

As for the practical realities behind the Government’s decision, Morton grudgingly concedes:

This is technically accurate.

It’s all about feeling good about yourself, and appeasing your guilty conscience. It doesn’t matter if those that can’t afford this luxury are going to suffer when they lose their jobs. It’s all about the symbolism.


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s