A Democracy at Work: Australia Votes on Climate Change*
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 11.25.07
Australia has a new government. This Saturday past, the country elected the Labor Party and its leader, Kevin Rudd, (“I am determined to make Australia part of the global climate change solution, not just part of the global climate change problem”) to serve for the next three years. One of their first priorities is to sign the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
This is in stark contrast to the outgoing Liberal/National coalition government, led by John Howard, who refused to sign and who, according to many observers only ‘discovered’ climate change this year when polls showed it was a looming election issue.
The freshly chosen Labor government is yet to announce their environment minister, and one wonders if it will be Peter Garrett, who held the position whilst in opposition. Ex-frontman for the rock band Midnight Oil, and past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Peter has been muzzled since joining parliament. Probably to give the then incumbent government less opportunity to label him a ‘radical environmentalist.’
But there is no doubt that the Australian population have (finally) embraced the concept (and reality) of climate change and are looking for positive action.
Outside of the two major parties, the Greens are now Australia’s third political force. With almost 80% of the electorate counted, (at time of writing) the Greens have picked up just shy of 8% of the vote. And while this doesn’t seem overly significant, Australia has both a compulsory and a preferential voting system. In this election, for example, the Greens encouraged voters to mark ballot papers Green 1 and Labor 2, so if they (the Greens) didn’t win their seat, votes flowed to the next preference on the ballot.
And it appears likely that later this year the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate, meaning the new government will require the vote of the Green senators to get their legislation passed into law.
How all this will pan out is anyone’s guess. Politicians rarely deliver on election promises. And it is likely being in office will involve more compromises than lofty visions. But Australia now has a government at least willing to act on climate change, and a third force prepared to keep nudging them to remain focussed on that goal.
That this same new Labor government has also expressed its support for ‘clean coal’ (pledging as much taxpayer funded support for this, as they are for renewable energy), and a new mega paper pulp mill, suggests that environment groups will not be hanging up their boxing gloves just yet.
* Early exit polling indicated that climate change was in the top four reasons why people voted Labor, or Greens.
Update: Forgot to include this related link: We Win! Australia: The World's Best Carbon Emitters
Aussie citizens with a green conscience can finally rejoice. That is we hope we can rejoice.
The Green vote has been gathering momentum here for a while and as stated with the preferrential system, Labour has benefitted greatly from the "green vote". I think this time we will see a government that will be significantly influenced by the Green party, at least on environmental issues.
This is really a good news for the world.
That's all well and nice, and I agree with most of what has been said in this post, but I think some of the facts aren't properly being shown, which has led most Australians to not seeing the whole picture.
I am Australian and I support Rudd and Labour, and wish them the best. My main thoughts towards my voting were climate change and then the workplace relations laws that the Howard government brought in the past couple of years. And while I believe that Labour has a better green stance than the Liberal/National coalition, I still think it's not enough. And the Greens, while I support them and hold them in second, have some really dumb non-environmental positions and this hurts them.
First, the signing of the Kyoto Protocol is only symbolic - Australia will meet the requirements anyway, and is doing better than a lot of other places (in comparison to ourselves only, I know we are horrible, polluting pigs). However, even thought Rudd is signing the protocol he has almost the exact viewpoint that Howard had; that we would not sign it unless developing nations such as India and China have similar targets as developed nations.
THAT is the reason that Howard didn't sign the protocol, and if Rudd shares a similar vision, he is only signing it now to appease the population. Much like Howard, he is not embracing the green side of politics as much as he should.
Now, the 8% vote for Greens is a huge deal, more than double the last election, and it should send a clear message to the incoming government - the people of Australia recognise that climate change and other environmental issues are important not just for Australia, but for the world, and we want action.
Finally, finally, finally. Now there will only be ONE country that hasn't signed Kyoto! The pressure is on for the USA.
p.s. I'm surprised it took Treehugger this long to report this news, considering the global importance.
OMG we are talking about the Labor party here. Surely the least green of all of our options. Ratifying Kyoto will achieve very little. As will funding renewable energy sources which have already been funded to the eyeballs without any results. Nuclear power is by far the greenest energy option available and the Liberal party were headed down that road. If we continue to ignore this fact things are only gonna get worse. The only positive impact the Labor government will have on the enviroment in Australia is the potential closing down of many of our major manufacturers like Holden, Ford and Mitsubushi due to them winding back work choices!
I don't care why Rudd signs Kyoto, as long as he does sign it. It'd be nice to be a purist and hope that he only takes green action from lofty motives, but honestly, as long as he takes any green action at all it'll be easier to get him to commit to more further down the track.
As for saying that the Liberals are the best for the environment, Macca, don't make me laugh. There are so many other options for Australia besides becoming the world's nuclear waste dump. Holden and Ford managed to cope before Workchoices, they won't die when it goes away. Plus, it looks like Toyota will be opening up a manufacturing plant because Rudd will be encouraging them to make an Australian green vehicle, so we don't have to import them.
Macca, the last thing drought-stricken Australia needs is a water-intensive, dangerous and hideously expensive power generation source like nuclear.
Don't believe the Howard spin, which was nothing more than desperation politics from a government who clearly never believed climate change exists.
What a sad day for the Aussies....they'll likely see nothing but higher taxes and greater restrictions on their freedoms as a result of t his misguided election.
Ah well--one can hope. At least there will be some advancement in alternative energy....
The thing that really struck me during the election campaign here in Oz, was that one leader was talking abut the future and the other was tlaking about the past and fear. The one talking about the past talked about their record in supporting a strong economy, the opposition's record with economic management. Fortunately, the one talking about the future got elected. Whilst I would agree that the wishlist wasn't fulfilled, there are some great intiatives:
* 20% reewable target by 2020
* Phasing out of electric hot water systems in new homes by 2010, and existing homes by 2012 with low interest loans and solar hot water rebates.
* $AUD489 million for solar in schools
* 60% by 2050 target, with the 'Garnaut review' due to report in April, which will feed in interim targets.
More details:
http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php#climate_change_&_environment
At least there is some hope!