Latest News• Add My News • Search Old News Gippsland › Latest news › Howard S. EmanuelQuestioning the National Party's Approach to Energy - (Howard S. Emanuel)Pardon me for being a little confused with the approach to energy production in Australia and Victoria by the National Party at present, but it seems to me that the policy just does not fit with the professed mandate.... QUESTIONING THE NATIONAL PARTY’S APPROACH TO ENERGY Pardon me for being a little confused with the approach to energy production in The professed mandate of course being that the Nationals are the intrinsic voice of rural If this is the case and personally I don’t think it is, but if it were, why then do the Nationals not support more fully a policy of embracing alternative energy sources to satisfy the energy needs of the nation. Currently the federal government of which the Nationals are a coalition partner refuse to increase the capacity of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets (MRET) scheme, thereby slowing if not altogether blocking a move toward the embracement of energy sources such as Solar, Wind, Wave and Tidal energy to name a few. The current MRET agreement suggests that just 2% of So the move or shift toward energy sources other than fossil fuels cannot in one sense happen. Not very progressive when you consider the global shift that is occurring away from burning fossil fuels to create energy. But even more damming is this intransigence, when one considers the implications of climate change for And where are the effects of this current drought being felt most severely, in rural And we are told that some of the main causes of climate change are greenhouse emission from motor vehicles, industry and the like. One of the major sources of greenhouse emissions in So what are we doing to change this situation, why are we not moving away from a reliance on coal for our energy needs? Well partly it is to do with economics and partly to do with politics. Economically it is far simpler to continue to produce energy from coal because most of The political reasons for leaving all as is are simple. The community has not in one sense been in a position to embrace the knowledge that underpins alternative energy sources and is therefore want to believe what they are told. And right now there are a great many who are telling the community a whole range of explanations to do with alternative energy sources, some accurate, some anything but. So the community is wondering just why it is that we need to go to all the fuss and bother of changing over our system of coal fired energy production to other means or methods. So it entails that the majority view seems to be, "well we should just leave as is and don’t bother us with all this fuss about wind energy and solar power". More than this when proposals are put up to develop alternative energy facilities across Victoria and Australia, local communities look at some of the localised impacts of these facilities and they don’t like what they see. They see large industrial infrastructure, dominating what were quite pristine local scapes up until this point in time. They see the impacts of what are essentially industrial facilities on the value of their real estate holdings, whether they be houses or hobby farms or farms. It seems and rightly so that no- one wants to wake up one morning and see themselves staring at 30metre plus towers and all other manner of things. So what is going on here and indeed what is going wrong here? If we can just take a look specifically here at the wind industry at present as it is this industry which is beginning to grow faster than other alternatives at present, we can see that the current state planning guidelines for example are not only a mess but are in one sense of a very retrograde nature from a social viewpoint. Little or no concern has been given to the regards of people living within close proximity to one of these proposed development sites. Little or no concern it seems has been given to the values of local amenity and indeed the "bank-ability" of this amenity when one considers that tourism flourishes in areas that have natural assets in abundance. Conversely tourists, often from the developed urban centres are not likely to be too interested in seeing more development by the way of major industrial faculties plonked fair in the middle of pristine views; may as well go elsewhere they reason, and they do and the local economy suffers and so do the local citizens. To buttress this situation we need proper planning controls that alleviate impacts on communities, we need developmental caveats that protect communities and individuals from severe impacts. But we don’t have this at present so it is natural for local people to get upset, in fact to be distraught when they see years of work that has gone into establishing a haven for themselves, blitzed in one fell swoop by some pretty shoddy state planning controls. The net effect of all this is of course to make alternative energy proposals very unpopular in the areas in which they are to be placed. With wind in The whole thing is an utter mess. An extremely worthy cause such as the move away from coal fired energy to more passive alternatives is being stymied because our governments are lazy and riven by ideology. Too lazy to do the work first, to lock-in caveats that protect both the environment and communities, to ensure that passive energy production is embraced by the broader community not rejected, as is currently the case. The ideological bent of course is that the current federal government it seems is wanting to embrace the "Nuclear Option" and is bent it seems on ensuring that as time goes by and the need to change wholesale increases, it will only be nuclear that can fill the void and meet the needs of the nations energy requirements, quickly. (Never mind the immense cost that will surely be passed onto consumers). The other obvious political considerations are of course, given that most proposals for wind energy facilities are in rural areas, it is local National Party members who are feeling the heat from an electorate not happy to be the dumping ground for massive infrastructure projects, dumped willy-nilly it seems without due consideration for any thing or anybody. So at the state level the local National Party members are telling the community what they want to hear, they are railing against the state Labor administrations, being very specific in the science they produce to underpin their arguments, condemning as a total violation any alternative energy proposal that falls within their bailiwick and frankly doing little if any thing else. Their own policy work in this area seems to have taken a very distant second place to the bellicose, bale-full and demonstrative rhetoric that is the common fare of their contribution at many a local community meeting, organised to discuss the matter at hand. Populism it seems rides roughshod over policy. At a National Level they too are feeling the heat and what they do here is once again by stealth via the oversubscribed MRET scheme, block any capacity or opportunity for alternative energy facilities to flourish and tell their communities that alternatives are not viable, that they are evil in manifest ways and that not to worry, it is better to stick with coal for now rather than be confronted by all the challenges of something new. And when the new is eventually needed, the Nationals as they do at present in If the federal Nationals don’t use this approach they do as was recently done at Bald Hills in South Gippsland; they create an utter debacle and call in the federal minister in charge of this policy area and encourage him to use federal powers to veto state planning controls, thereby attempting to derail the project. Sounds pretty much like populism to me, pretty much like all they really care about is protecting the local coalition member and ensuring their policy reflects the will of the community. No thought it seems as to whether the view of the community is either fully informed or morally right, just say what the people want you to say and worry about the current electoral cycle. The difficult questions? Well they can wait for some time in the future. Only trouble with this approach is it seems that the future is suddenly very much upon us and we are still engaging in politics instead of progress. So just where does the community think that the impacts of climate change driven by greenhouse emissions are going to be felt most severe. In the rural sector of course, in rural And the Nats just don’t get it. They tell us they are the voice of rural For those of us that used to think that climate change was a furphy, that myth has now been well and truly debunked. The next mistruth that needs to be exposed is the mythology that insists that the National Party has what it takes to support rural Wake up rural Australia, your being conned, wake up and lets begin the battle to underpin our future viability, wake up and demand that those who represent you understand the issues at hand an posses the courage to execute the necessary actions. Crass and rank populism have prevailed for too long, indeed inaction and a wringing of hands has been the approach of the Nationals as they cow-tow to their senior coalition partners and watch the rural sector decline into the shame that it is today. It is only going to get worse and as this little essay shows you, the Nationals are about the past, at best about the present, but in no way it seems, about the future. And it is the future that is looking very challenging for this nation indeed. In the final wash-up, its your choice, and it will be your fate. Regards, Howard S. Emanuel E-mail: howard@howardemanuel.com
Source: http://gippsland.com/ Published by: howard-emanuel@hotmail.com Related Articles
|
|