csiro contradicts pm, page-4

CSIRO says greenhouse cuts are affordable and so do many others ... not to say the new industries that would be created. It's more evidence Howard has been faking greenhouse among other things, just add it to the list, and further suggests this out of touch government will dismiss any view not inline with its own and if it's from their own science department. Egg on face Johnny. eyes roll.

Costello has picked up the greenhouse mud bucket too.

Costello backs PM's greenhouse warnings
PM - Tuesday, 24 April , 2007 18:13:08
Reporter: Gillian Bradford

MARK COLVIN: The Treasurer Peter Costello stepped into the greenhouse gas debate today, with full backing for the Prime Minister's warnings about the potential consequences of Labor's targets.

The Opposition has set itself the target of a cut in emissions of 60 per cent by 2050.

The Greens went even further today with a call for an 80 per cent cut by the middle of the century.

The Government's waiting for a report from its emissions task group before making a decision about a carbon trading scheme, but it has hinted that any target it might set any target will be moderate and guided by the impact on jobs.

From Canberra, Gillian Bradford reports.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Just years ago the debate about greenhouse gas emissions was all about the environment. But these days the arguments are far more complex, and are more likely to involve the economy and jobs.

JOHN HOWARD: I think it is crazy and irresponsible of any political party in this country to commit to a target when you don't know the impact of the target.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The Prime Minister is called a climate change sceptic by the Opposition, but he prefers to cast himself as an economic realist.

Mr Howard says Labor's target of reducing emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, and the Greens 80 per cent cut, would rip the hearts out of coal towns and be potentially catastrophic for other industries.

JOHN HOWARD: You work out the consequences of particular action before you take that action. Mr Rudd has done it the other way round, and Mr Rudd and Senator Brown are pees in a pod on this issue - 60 per cent, 80 per cent - what there's a 20 per cent difference. But they are in the same ballpark. And both of them have made the mistake of committing to targets which… the consequences of which are unknown.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: But Labor is feeling on safe political ground, especially after the report by the respected British economist Sir Nicholas Stern.

Sir Nicholas' central theme was the costs of not acting to cut emissions would be far greater than forcing change.

Labor's treasury spokesman is Wayne Swan:

WAYNE SWAN: Well if John Howard would let the Treasury study the impact on the economy and perform, as Labor has suggested, the equivalent of a Stern report for Australia, we would have a detailed road map of all of these issues.

You see, John Howard still doesn't get it. He's at heart a climate change denier. And his failure to put in place a range of initiatives endangers our future prosperity because there are substantial costs here, and substantial costs to jobs and growth through inaction on climate change.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The Greens' Christine Milne is also taking up the theme of the costs of not acting.

CHRISTINE MILNE: We also have a tourism industry that is totally dependent on our natural environment. If we lose the Great Barrier Reef, we lose over $5 billion every year in terms of tourism, not to mention saltwater incursion and losses in Kakadu.

What is the cost that the Prime Minister is putting on the loss of coastal properties and property prices along Australia, where so many people have invested millions in their homes?

The Prime Minister is refusing to look at the costs of not acting, and that is where he is being really irresponsible.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The Treasurer though is insisting the Government is right to wait for the advice of its emissions task group before setting any targets. That panel includes the head of Treasury, Ken Henry, as well as the CEOs of some of the country's major emitters like BHP.

And the clear hint from Mr Costello is the Government is not intending to set an emissions target anywhere as ambitious as Labor or the Greens.

PETER COSTELLO: People who have draconian targets over short time frames have draconian costs in mind. The people who have more realistic targets over longer time frames have more realistic costs in mind.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: But the Australian of the Year Tim Flannery says the targets set by the Greens and Labor are needed to stop the globe warming to dangerous levels.

TIM FLANNERY: Well either of those targets will bring us in, we hope, relatively close to that dangerous threshold - haven't done the full sums on that yet. But I suspect that either of those will bring us in reasonable close. They may need to be tweaked in future years, but they're a good start.

Well the Prime Minister needs to explain to us where he thinks the threshold of dangerous climate change lies, and he then needs to explain how his policies will bring us in under that threshold.

MARK COLVIN: Tim Flannery ending Gillian Bradford's report.