There are many points of policy on which I disagree with Tony Abbott, the leader of the coalesced opposition in the Australian Federal Parliament. One such point is that, if indeed reducing carbon-dioxide and equivalent emissions is the goal, should those entities accountable for the largest percentages of these emissions be held to binding targets.
Mr. Abbott argues that direct action will be equally effective and decidedly more straight forward than the (now deposed) Kevin Rudd Government’s proposed market-based Emissions Trading Scheme. It is difficult to argue against direct action being more straightforward but as for the likely effectiveness of a direct action approach I am unconvinced. The incentive to emitting entities and businesses to reduce their emissions under a direct action plan needs to be clearly defined. The carrot’s buddy the stick only emerges when there is a net growth in emissions above business as usual, the definition of which seeming weakly designed, at best.
However, where Tony Abbott and the opposition have my absolute support is in their inclusion of agriculture in any solution. Not only in the context of the climate debate but in that of economic opportunity broadly, the thought has often burdened me how a sector with such a colossal geographical footprint has so hastily been ignored. Not least of the reasons why we should, is when we consider the industries representing the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, agriculture sits pretty atop the list.
There are a myriad exceptions but generally farmers have struggled with accepting the need for diversity and innovation. The agriculture industry is not immune to competition and its exponents must adapt to change, like all businesses. So here is my call: farmers everywhere get on board.
Back to Archive