Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Is the Kyoto Protocol just a cop out?

By Bernie Masters - posted Monday, 13 November 2006


I suspect that, because of the lack of information about what people can do, they see the Kyoto protocol as an easy cop out: a way for government to be seen to be doing something without the people really having to bother to get involved. Sadly, the reality is different.

If a carbon tax is inevitable (as I believe it is), then consumers will end up paying most if not all of it. Food prices will be higher; electricity and fuel prices will go up; no part of our economy will escape the financial impacts of a carbon tax, except one: energy efficiency. The more you reduce your energy usage, the more money you save. It seems a pretty obvious message, but no one has been seriously pushing it since the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

Finally, with regard to the UK government’s Stern report, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, believes it’s a seriously flawed document - (see On Line Opinion). But whether this article is an accurate summary of present day and next century costs or not, there are so many things that the Howard Government can do that will make a worthwhile difference in the medium to long term.

Advertisement

For example, a compulsory annual improvement in motor vehicle fuel efficiencies of, say, 1 per cent a year would make economic as well as environmental sense. A rebate of GST on solar hot water systems and roof insulation for existing dwellings would stimulate both industries and reduce energy consumption in the home.

If 90 per cent of Australians really want the federal government to act on the GHG emission issue, they should walk the walk, even if its costs them a little more money in the short term. We can all make a difference if we choose to get involved, but making us feel guilty about our per capita GHG emissions will be self-defeating and make no difference in the longer term.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bernie Masters was the Liberal MP for Vasse from 1996 to 2005 and the shadow minister for science and the environment from 2001 to 2004.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bernie Masters

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Bernie Masters
Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy