Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I've had many arguments with people on here about the power hungry, self righteous Greens party.
Once again, they refuse to support legislation which will give confidence to businesses to move towards renewables. The greens are ideological and therefore unrealistic, they need to learn one thing: "Don't let good be the enemy of perfect."
The Greens will pass good legislation in a heartbeat. This is not good legislation.
Isn't LEAN literally Labour Environmental Action Lobby. Sounds like Labour group says the Greens will ruin Labput if they disagree with Labour. Seems a bit self serving and biased of Labour. Basically just more of the same crap we had with the liberals lies and spin.
The one clear mandate from this election is climate action. Business had its chance for a smooth transition to renewables but they lobbied and gaslit and made sure that didn’t happen and now shits underwater or on fire.
Labor made a big song and dance about how they won’t be making concessions to the Greens, knowing full well that the Greens would likely hold the balance in the senate. So if they really want to keep chasing the LNP to the right they can get the LNP to wave their legislation through like Labor for the LNP when they were the “opposition”.
Like words, targets mean very little: it's action and implementation that actually achieves something and targets are rarely met anyway.
Is the government effectively saying "we'll only implement to a target" and not actually do anything constructive in the meanwhile?
It's not as though the target identifies what needs to happen in practical terms and that is the important thing missing from the discussion.
last time labor were in government they cut emissions by nearly 15%, starting before they had legislated a target
Yeah it’s like the Copenhagen COP
No. This whole matter is confused by exactly the concern you identify, but Labor have come up a program that should get down to 43% and insisted they'll follow it regardless of whether a 43% policy is legislated or no policy is legislated. The only thing not passing the 43% target affects is whether a subsequent government is required to follow the 43% policy or not. Obviously if parliament passes a higher target the government will have to change their compromises to match that instead; likewise, if some opportunity arises that makes 50% viable the government would be able to adopt that instead of 43%.
In my view it's a no-brainer. The target should be passed and those who are interested in more cuts now should identify extra steps the government could take. Once those extra steps are identified, there is the opportunity to enhance the target. Refusing to lock in the gains that are available now because you want double-or-nothing isn't good politics. And it's much easier to convince the public that a specific compromise the government has made is a bad compromise, than to haggle over numbers. The more concrete it gets the more progress gets made.
Labor's targets are shit and should be sunk. Great work by the Greens; make Labor implement real fucking targets that will actually save us. Labor is just giving people a false sense of hope while condemning them to a horrible future.
Hate to smack you with reality but nothing Australia can do will 'save us'.
\We are inconsequential in the global schema. There is a country 9000 kilometers away that pumps out Australia's entire CO2 emissions every 16 days (and that number is shrinking by the day). The atmosphere does not recognise borders. It is one system, not a system of different countries atmospheres.
Please don't come at me with the 'per capita' response. It's totally irrelevant, the atmosphere only cares about total output. It doesn't care how many people are or are not making those emissions.
But the question is if it is achievable in a practical way that won't impact the lives australians so much that they get voted out anyway.
I am concerned there is simply not enough lithium production to supply the goals of the greens. The price of lithium would probably soar after they enacted their plan, making it harder to afford. Nationalising a few lithium mines would barely work either. Nationalising all mining would destroy million's of working class australian's lives because miners and business would leave the country, resulting in an Australian great depression.
Albanese needs an excuse not to pass climate legislation and this is what he'll go with. No disrespect to the Greens though, if not this he'd look for something else to use as an excuse. The ALP cannot risk their precious mining and coal industry donations
So why did they pass it last time? Plus a amining tax on top?
Fuck I’m so sick of the Greens and this shit. This is exactly what they did last time.
If you let people proceed within an elected mandate - there can be an uneasy consensus between left and right. (Ie: what the greens destroyed by opposing the CPRS in 2009).
If, instead you force a government to go beyond their mandate (as the Greens did to Gillard in 2011), suddenly climate change stops becoming an environmental issue and becomes and trust/integrity issue. And you’ve fucked any momentum and goodwill you once had. Many liberals accept climate change action, what they won’t accept is people lying in an election to get it and that’s what the greens forced Gillard to do in 2011, and now apparently want Albanese to do again.
Greens did exactly this in 2009 to Rudd and fucked the moment. Anyone who disagrees can read my post here
Greens did the right thing in 2009. It was terrible policy and it was widely seen as more harmful than helpful by experts.
Your linked comment criticises the greens for making Gillard "break a promise", which is kind of ridiculous because it implies that you think the greens shouldn't exert any political power at all and just let Labor do what they want because promises to THEIR voters are more important.
Greens got more than 33% of the votes Labor got. They represent a significant part of Australia and they shouldn't back down.
The greens are doing what they are mandated to. There are other groups the government can negotiate with. The greens should not just do whatever the government want, they should do what their voters want, which is what they’re doing.
EDIT: If you think it's electoral suicide to not side with the government then you don't remember the democrats. Every decision you make in politics will lose you some voters. Every decision you make will also win you some voters. Even if both choices are a net loss of voters you choose the one that loses you the least. And getting something out of Labor here will lose fewer votes.
I don't accept that Gillard lied, but let's go with she did. How did the Greens force her to lie? Waterboarding? Took her puppies hostage? If she lied, she did so voluntarily to suit her own needs and benefit.
Ranked by Size