Life often throws up fascinating
conundrums.
 |
| Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. |
The latest arose when reading the “Ministerial Foreword” of
the Emissions Reduction Fund green paper put out by our Federal Government on
which public comment has been invited.
Nothing is more critical than preparing Australians to deal
with the unfolding dilemma of climate change and so the content and intent of
the Green Paper makes it the most important document in our country’s history.
Written with a sense of intergenerational responsibility,
the Green Paper, which has at its heart the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan for
the control of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, could make Australia a leader
in climate change mitigation. It won’t though.
The final paragraph his Ministerial Forward, Australia’s
Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, wrote: “Our goal is to conserve our
natural environment while ensuring strong economic growth”.
Mr Hunt is celebrated in many quarters as a remarkably
intelligent, quick thinking fellow, making it curious that he fails to
understand that such an observation is contradictory.
Strong economic growth and preservation of the natural
environment are diametrically opposed.
The first is about the creation of high entropy goods
resulting in obscene waste that is offensive, and ultimately destructive, to
the latter, the natural environment.
The irony of the document arrives in the “Executive Summary”
where is says: “The Australian Government acknowledges the science of climate
change and supports national and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions”. It clearly doesn’t.
That is a cleverly worded statement as acknowledgement of
and resultant action because of that recognition are decidedly different things
and nothing our relatively new Tony Abbott-led Government has done yet suggests
it actually understands the seriousness of the science.
Australia is considered a mature civilization and in
claiming such a lofty position, the responsible men ought to take the time to
read the thoughts of Melbourne-based philosopher, John Armstrong who wrote, “In Search of Civilization: Remaking a tarnished idea”.
He said:
“Civilization is seen as a rigorous artifice, designed to save us from
ourselves. Life is regarded as a mess that needs to be cleaned up.
“We need to
subordinate our wayward desires to law or rationality or justice; ideas that
carry a prohibition, that deny our wishes,” he wrote.
So here we
face another conundrum – are we or are we not civilized? Should we opt for the
latter then there is nothing else we can do but demand that our Federal
Government act in a way that illustrates deep concern for those yet unborn and
so without a vote or influence.
A target of
five per cent drop in carbon emissions by 2020 is pitifully inadequate and if
the world is to have any understandable chance of avoiding catastrophic change
we need 80 per cent this decade.
