Federal Labor this week commemorated a dubious anniversary – a decade of climate policy failure. And it pointed the finger of blame squarely at the Greens.
Labor claimed that had the Greens not voted against its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2009, Australia’s carbon emissions would be more than 200 million tonnes lower and electricity would be more affordable.
Labor MP Pat Conroy said the Coalition and the Greens “bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that, a decade later, Australia still does not have an effective policy to tackle climate change by reducing emissions”.
But one moment in 2009 is not the root cause of ongoing parliamentary disagreement over climate action. And the Greens cannot be blamed for what came afterwards.
The main lesson from that time is that cynical parliamentary strategies and weak reforms from the major parties are at the heart of climate policy failure.
Sydney is currently experiencing its worst air pollution on record. A spate of bushfires across the state has left the city shrouded in a dense layer of smoke and many Sydneysiders are rightly worried about their health. Here's what you need to know.
To understand what played out in Parliament in 2009, it is useful to briefly refresh our memories on the couple of years that led up to it.
Labor’s proposed CPRS followed then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s famous call to act on the “great moral challenge” of climate change. The policy was a “cap and trade” emissions trading scheme (ETS) which in theory would have limited greenhouse gas pollution from industry.
Public concern about climate change at the time had peaked and Labor won the 2007 election partly on the strength of its climate policies.
The CPRS legislation followed the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Ross Garnaut, a prominent economist, proposed emissions targets that environmentalists considered inadequate. Meanwhile industry, which would have incurred costs under the scheme, was unhappy with the limited compensation proposed.
I drive a lot of different vehicles when I need to get around, but I'm always a little worried when it's time to fill them up. Will something happen if I use 91 instead of 95, or vice versa? This thread at StackExchange answers the question.
Most people know not to feed chocolate to dogs. But did you know many other common foods in your fridge and larder are equally poisonous to canines? Everything from orange peel to toothpaste has the potential to make your dog seriously ill — in the wrong circumstances, it could even kill them. With that in mind, here are 25 everyday foodstuffs and other consumables that you should avoid feeding to your dog at all costs.