Thursday, 5 September 2013

The ACF's Senate scorecard on the environment. Choose carefully - the Land of Oz needs your thought and care.


Do you want to see all parties’ environment policies compared?

ACF has released a Senate scorecard, rating the commitments of the main Senate players – and potential key players, like Clive Palmer and Bob Katter – on environmental issues that will require laws to be passed by the Senate.

We've done a full independent assessment of the parties’ environment policies. The decisions of the next Senate will be crucial for Australia’s environment. So how do the main Senate contenders stack up?

Read the policy comparison now.

You can see our Senate scorecard at a glance. Want detail? Dig deeper, and you’ll find plenty. Just click through to explore the summary of our full analysis. Parties were consulted and given a chance to respond to our issues. Chances are some parties won’t be happy with our assessment. But you expect us to assess how policies will impact on the environment. Then it’s up to you to make your call.

Will the new Senate work for the environment? They will have the power to make decisions about laws to price pollution, invest in clean energy, protect the places we love, and to keep our amazing ocean reserves.
All Australians who care about the environment should carefully consider their Senate vote.

You care, so get informed then share this on.
Your environment, your call.
Don

Don Henry
CEO

PS. We’re also shouting out for Tasmanian forests with a full page ad in tomorrow’s Australian. AND we’re running an online ad campaign that's already given more than a million people the chance to see our Senate scorecard before Saturday. Will you help us? 100,000 ACF supporters are reading this message. Together, your networks are huge. Will you FORWARD or SHARE this message.

Read the scorecard
Australian Conservation Foundation

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.

Total Pageviews