Saturday, March 30, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Australia is getting on with life

Avatar photo
We’ve been in Australia and the difference between the countries regarding their reaction to climate change is marked.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

In New Zealand climate change dominates the headlines and the political agenda. In Australia it is largely irrelevant.

I’d suggest we’re obsessed, they’re not.

For a start their global footprint is far bigger than ours. They fly at whim, burn coal, export coal, mine extensively and drive greater distances than we do.

That aside I get the distinct impression they won’t compromise anything while we’re trying to save the planet.

In Australia they’re making the resource consent process easier if you want to mine coal.

In NZ I can’t see a resource consent being granted.

In Australia they’re exporting coal to China and they’re looking at exporting to India. Coal is worth A$25 billion annually to the Australian economy.

Is any of that likely to save the planet?

The old and inefficient Liddell coal-fired power plant’s life has been extended over concerns of power shortages and other coal-fired generators are enjoying the same support. 

The South Australian renewable energy policy has been blamed for the power shut-down in 2016 when the wind farms failed, plunging the state into darkness.

The commentary on the failure suggested it would not have occurred if coal-fired generators had stayed in place.

Air travel has a massive carbon footprint. In Australia that won’t be compromised because they “don’t want to return to the 1920s”.

Whereas we’re all fired up about electric cars to the extent they’re subsidised by both the taxpayer and road users the commentary in Australia is exactly the opposite.

“Wealthy motorists who can afford electric cars are unfairly using roads for free at the expense of poorer drivers,” was one quote.

That comment could equally apply in NZ.

Oil and gas exploration, halted in NZ, is all go across the Tasman.

On being elected in NZ the coalition Government immediately stopped support for irrigation. 

Irrigation is a sensible, cost-effective and reliable way of reducing the effects of climate change.

It also fulfills part of the Paris Accord that says food producers should be supported to find ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Australia has built six new, large irrigation schemes in the last decade and the federal government is investing over A$600m in five new water storage schemes.

The total cost of the new water storage is A$1.6b.

An editorial in the prestigious Australian strongly argued for more irrigation dams.

There was also a push to build a large, 500-hectare solar scheme on land marked for irrigation. Solar lost to irrigation.

In NZ we’re blanket planting good farmland with pine trees to supposedly help the planet. In Queensland they’re cutting pines to restore native. Something is drastically wrong somewhere.

Whereas we have a Zero Carbon Bill that is going to kick the tripe out of farming and the dairy industry Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants A$A100b worth of farmgate milk products by 2030 and that’s just over 10 years away.

The price of petrol is a dollar a litre cheaper in Australia.

My issue is that we have one problem, climate change, and two countries with vastly different approaches. 

We want to save the planet and Australia wants prosperity first. Saving the planet seems an optional extra for them.

And if you’re wondering if Australia could give a fig about what anyone else thinks of their climate change priorities then the Pacific Forum should convince you otherwise.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern achieved major notoriety in Australia for saying Australia has to answer to the Pacific on climate change. A fair point.

The cries of righteous indignation from the Ockers were cacophonic.

Aussie talk back host Alan Jones suggested Scott Morrison shove a sock down her throat for having the temerity to suggest Australia answered to the Pacific received considerable coverage and reinforced to me that Australian talk back is lowest common denominator.

He was only outdone in the stupidity stakes by Greenpeace NZ head Russell Norman suggesting Morrison would be about as welcome at the forum as diarrhoea in a wet suit.

Having worn a wet suit often and never suffered the Russell Norman affliction I have to take his word for it but the comment was totally inappropriate and almost lunatic fringe, like most Greenpeace statements.

Australian Deputy Prime Minister McCormack didn’t cover himself with glory either by suggesting Pacific people will survive climate change by picking Aussie fruit.

The prestigious Australian newspaper had the heading, Hypocrisy and greed are suddenly rife amongst our friends in the Pacific.  

The final word from the forum went to Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga who made the point Australia is concerned with saving its economy while the Pacific is fighting to save its people. 

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading