Age
Monday 1/6/2009 Page:6
OPPOSITION Leader Malcolm Turnbull says Australia could have an emissions trading scheme as early as January despite members of the Coalition still being opposed to the idea. And in a message to members of the Coalition reluctant to back emissions trading, Mr Turnbull said the "politics" of climate change would have to be considered when voting on a scheme in the Senate if it presented as a double dissolution election trigger.
Last week the Coalition announced it would support the Government's 2020 emissions reduction target but would seek a delay on voting for the legislation until after international climate change negotiations in December in Copenhagen.
"What we are putting up is a sensible approach which is to defer the vote on the scheme, not for six years, not for a year literally for about six months until after Copenhagen," Mr Turnbull told the ABC yesterday. "We could come back straight after (Copenhagen). We could come back, you know, in early January."
Liberal sources said yesterday Mr Turnbull would likely let the Nationals split on an emissions trading vote, but it is understood that only about half of all Liberal MPs currently want to deal with the Government to put to bed the emissions trading issue. The Opposition's proposed deferral led Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to indicate yesterday that the Government would "more closely" negotiate with the cross-bench parties on emissions trading.
The Greens, Family First senator Steve Fielding and independent senator NIck Xenophon have all indicated they will vote down the scheme when it comes to a Senate vote later this month unless there are radical changes. The legislation will be debated in the House of Representatives this week.
1 comments:
To politicians throughout the world like Fielding and on climate change, renewable energy and energy efficiency
Politicians in western countries like Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Canada and some European countries are taking actions to not support carbon trading and renewable energy targets. These actions by supposedly deferring and/ or reducing the level of these targets will place future increased costs on the taxpayer and consumer. Along with this your decision not to support carbon trading and renewable energy targets will dramatically affect the viability of the business models of renewable energy and energy efficiency firms. The decision not to support the legislation in carbon trading and renewable energy targets will take away from businesses and households the right to reduce their carbon footprint.
Can you please answer the following questions?
1. Why as a politician do you believe the evidence for climate change is a conspiracy? That the evidence provided by the Government Scientists is not factual? What criteria have you based your decision on regarding climate change?
2. Have you visited in your own country and elsewhere Government Agencies and Universities who do research on climate change and renewable energy? Are you aware that the US Pentagon of any government agency in the world spends the most on renewable energy and energy efficiency?
3. What is the current value in your country of carbon trading and renewable energy targets in employment and sales?
4. In the 12 months what is the anticipated number of jobs that have been lost due to your decision of deference to this industry?
Post a Comment