Expenditure priorities: AUKUS subs versus climate
In her article Elizabeth Boulton says: “It is surreal to imagine that the ONI report could predict anything [climatically] worse than what scientific reports already tell us” Quite so, but the non-release of the ONI report may have much less to do with the revelation of climate horrors as with the non-availability of sufficient funds to address the problems that it reveals because of prior AUKUS commitments.
Within 24 hours of Morrison announcing his ill-conceived and enormously expensive AUKUS submarine deal it was embraced unqualified by Albanese and his inner sanctum. One of the criticisms mounted against the AUKUS deal is that it will distract and divert money from us adequately addressing global heating. This could well be a factor in the Albanese government determination to hide the report by the Office of National Intelligence into the security threat posed by climate change. This report will very probably advocate multi-billion dollar expenditure on climate mitigation, adaptation and measures to deal with hordes of climate refugees and domestic unrest.
Labor may now realize Australia cannot afford to pay for both the subs and the sort of expenditure required to implement the recommendations of the ONI report.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
