Matthew Lambourne, Mullumbimby
If this is the climate-change election then the performances of most politicians and the media show why we have a climate emergency.
The coalition have tried to avoid the issue and Labor have offered a Clayton’s policy with almost no mention of anything after 2030.
Apart from a brief flirtation with electric cars, most of the media coverage has been the coalition questioning the cost of Labor’s climate policy.
I haven’t heard anyone asking about the cost of the coalition’s climate policy, probably because they don’t appear to have one. They have, though, said they are committed to the Paris Agreement and its target of keeping global warming to well below 2°c.
The IPCC have shown that this means reducing emissions to net zero by about 2050.
The coalition may be lying when they say they are committed to the Paris Agreement, but if they are not lying then their policy must be for net zero by 2050, the same as Labor is claiming to aim for.
The difference is that the coalition are doing very little at the moment (emissions are actually rising) and their target for 2030 is a reduction of 26–28 per cent.
This means that the coalition will have to reduce emissions much faster after 2030, which will be far more expensive than taking real action now.
Economists have been warning of this for decades but I haven’t heard a single question to the prime minister or anyone else on this.
Anyone concerned about the cost of acting on climate change should vote for parties advocating the fastest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
In Richmond, that means the Greens, with Labor a distant second.