Fifty BREAZE volunteers spent last weekend distributing a scorecard to 10,000 homes around Ballarat. It rated the climate policies of the three major parties and its message was clear. If you don’t like the climate policies of the party you vote for, don’t vote for them.

Image courtesy of The Courier  

At this election the issue of how to tackle climate change seems to have just disappeared.

A definitive report from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association released last month showed that the climate is tracking towards the International Panel on Climate Change’s most severe predictions of temperature rise. For the driest continent on earth, this is terrible news.

The fact that this report hasn’t rated a single mention in this election campaign shows how far the major parties are removed from the issues most central to Australia’s future.

Despite all we know about the dangers climate change poses to our economy and the environmental health of our region, emissions will continue to rise no matter which party forms government. And while countries across the world are shifting rapidly towards a clean energy future our economy will remain hopelessly dependent on polluting fossil fuels.

India has introduced a tax on coal that funds investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. China has closed a colossal 70,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation to meet tough pollution targets.

Yet in Australia neither party will introduce a price on carbon in their next term. Julia Gillard trumpets the idea but refuses to make a commitment to actually do it. With the Greens likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate from July 2011, the numbers will be there to legislate it if she has the will.

The idea that we need a deeper political consensus through a Citizen’s Assembly process is nonsense. If an economic reform as fundamental as a carbon price was introduced, the howls of protest from industry would be deafening if any opposition proposed to dismantle it.

On the other side, Tony Abbott pretends there’s no need to act now, against all the evidence from economists like Sir Nicholas Stern that costs to our economy will increase steeply the longer we delay action.

This is the primary reason why The Climate Institute's Pollute-o-meter shows that emissions to 2020 will increase by 19% under the ALP and 8% under the coalition. Both parties have committed to a paltry target of 5% cuts by 2020, but neither has the policies to achieve it.

Catherine King admitted this at a candidates forum held in Ballarat last week. But at least she was committed enough to her constituents to turn up. The Liberal candidate, Mark Banwell, a climate sceptic, didn’t turn up or bother to submit answers to questions we provided beforehand.

On other issues, both the ALP and coalition will actively support the expansion of coal-fired power in Australia, with no firm plans to close down Hazelwood power station, our oldest and most inefficient coal-fired station.

The Rudd government can claim some credit for its 20% by 2020 renewable energy target but Labor’s ongoing commitment to crucial large-scale renewables must be in doubt with Julia Gillard raiding the Solar Flagships Program to pay for silly and ineffective ideas like the Cash for Clunkers scheme.

BREAZE members are a mixed bunch. They are united in trying to make their lives more sustainable but politically they look to parties across the political spectrum to deliver strong climate policies.

Why should we reward these parties with our vote when they so manifestly fail to lead on an issue so central to our future?

References:

• http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1446331 - Twenty-six Chinese provinces have agreed to close down outdated coal-fired power stations. The plan will cut CO2 emissions by 164 million tonnes annually, about 3.2 per cent of 2005 levels. China’s plan is to close 70 million kilowatts (=70,000 MW) of outdated thermal power station capacity over the 2006-2010 period, equal to the total capacity of British power stations. Until now, 64.17 million kilowatts have been taken offline. 70,000 MW is a massive reduction- in contrast, the campaign to replace Hazelwood (one of Australia's largest power stations) would remove 2000 MW.
• The Climate Institute's Pollute-o-meter