The Wong Plan

Lazy title, I know, but Labor have really dropped the ball with their climate change plan, released Monday.
As Tim Colebatch, Economics Editor of The Age, said: "AFTER all that, we are more or less back where we started. The Rudd model for tackling climate change now looks remarkably similar to the Howard model from 2007."
Lame, Kevin, lame. And I told him, and Penny Wong and Peter Garrett, so:

Dear Mr Rudd (et al)

This is a very quick bit of feedback about your Government's climate change plan.

Basically - it's lame. REAL lame.

People didn't vote for you to get a lite version of Johnny Howard (actually some may have, but they're lame, too). Climate change represents a real crisis, and some people (preferably the high-polluters) may need to experience some hurt now, so that a whole swag of people don't feel it later.

The climate change plan should encourage real change in attitudes and energy usage and production. It seems that your Government's plan simply redistributes wealth, with a bit of "how's it goin'" on the side. In particular, the cent-for-cent reduction in petrol excise is simply bad policy - and very close to bad Liberal policy at that. If petrol causes global warming - and it does - then the price should go up (and, in fact, it's now a lot lower than it was when the Green Paper was first introduced, anyway). Simple.

I ask that you reconsider this plan, in particular the hand-outs to the big polluters. They must change - and if some of them are dinosaurs, then we (especially the taxpayers) should allow them pass away, so that the new generation of energy users and producers can take their place.

Yours faithfully

Riley Jones

If you also want to get involved, maybe check out the Australian Conservation Foundation's website.
And, seriously: “$4.4 billion will be spent to cut petrol taxes by as much as emissions trading raises fuel prices.”
Mental.