Other groups agree. "events like the recent floods are likely to become more severe and frequent with the impacts of climate change" said Matthew Warren of the Clean Energy Council. "Cutting funding for clean energy projects that will ultimately mitigate this impact is as bizarre as it is counterproductive."
"We do need to rebuild and recover swiftly after the floods, but cutting programs that reduce pollution is not the answer" said Tony Mohr of the ACF. "This summer’s floods are an example of the extreme weather events climate scientists have warned will be more frequent and more severe with climate change."
Don Henry added that funding should come from "cutting subsidies and tax breaks that promote fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution". He suggested Australia should "take a leaf out of Obama’s book" by ending these polluting subsidies.
Senator Christine Milne was also astounded by the announcement. "It beggars belief that the government would choose to cut climate change programs like Solar Flagships, energy efficiency and the solar hot water rebate to fund disaster relief when such disasters will be made worse by climate change."
Sign the online petition here.
2 comments:
Yes the government's decision makes no sense to me. I particularly like Christine Milne's statement- a straightforward summary of the situation- how can people (especially the government) not get this??!!
Wow. That hits a new low in government thinking. Once again, it is all about immediate band-aid solutions. Maybe governments feel that if they don't worry about the future it won't exist...so ironic, it's embarrassing.
Post a Comment