Search this site

Partner Login

Comparing NSW party positions on climate change PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 15 March 2007 06:27
VCPAAGsml.jpgVote Climate has done a side-by-side comparison of the platforms of the various parties vying for power in the NSW election. It does a pretty good job, though could be improved (see below). Its noticeable how similar, and how poor both Liberals and Labors policies are. This was born out at the recent candidates meeting, where local candidates Don Page (Nationals, sitting); Melanie Dorien (Labor) and John Bailey (Greens) told us their policies. John was excellent as should be expected from the Greens, Don clearly knows a fair bit about the issue, but of course it should be pointed out that the National Party doesn't share his understanding, nor is it likely to come out with what Don is advocating, and Don votes with the party. Don also refused to be drawn on actual targets prior to their (late) announcement by the shadow environment minister. Labor's policies were similar, which is really poor since you would - if you hadn't experienced many years of their government - expect them to be siding with people rather than profits. I was particularly disappointed in Labors dismal targets and Melanie's lack of understanding of the need for targets that drive policy. I addressed the meeting on both the need for strong targets that will solve the problem (20% by 2020 is basically heading us for runaway climate change), and for a stable playing field that ensures businesses can invest in energy & carbon-saving measures on the expectation of decent Minimum Renewable Energy Targets (MRETs) and even better a carbon tax. There were three ways I think this comparison could be extended ...
  1. Add the Nationals as distinct from Liberals, though they vote as a team in parliament.
  2. Uranium as far as I know only has two significant uses - nuclear power, and nuclear bombs. Since labor supports expanded mining, but opposes nuclear power one is left wondering whether they would like to see the uranium used in bombs?
  3. It needs the specific numbers on targets, and also shorter (end of the parliamentary term) and longer term (2050) targets both for emission reductions and MRETs.
  4. It needs to draw attention that both Coalition and Labor support privatisation of the electricity industry, a disastrous move as it removes many of the opportunities to push non-financial outcomes. Selling off a massive publicly owned infrastructure is certainly something that should be a question for voters, not the subject of backroom deals.
See the full table at