Labor Annihilation in Queensland Will Not be Repeated Federally, Because
Posted by jennifer, March 24th, 2012 - under Good Causes, Information.
Tags: Carbon Trading
I live in Queensland, a very large, resource rich northern state. For too many years we’ve had Labor governments that have run with very populist themes and policies. And we’ve had Chief Scientists that have actively ignored evidence to implement Labor politics. [1]
Tonight Queensland Labor was annihilated at the ballot box and will likely be left with just seven seats in the 89-seat parliament. Yes. Annihilated.
Like many Queenslanders I was so excited about voting today. I was so pleased to be a part of a democracy and to know that ordinary people voting together could and would change the government and decisively. And yes we did.
Next year there is a federal election. If only federal Labor government would learn from this Queensland Labor defeat and start reversing its most inane and ignorant policies now… like the carbon tax.
There has been comment that federal Labor is in for as convincing a defeat. But a big difference is that the federal Opposition doesn’t have clear alternative policies or a popular leader.
Indeed on the big issues that matter to me, like climate change and the Murray Darling, the Australian Liberal party has policy that is as embarrassing and ignorant as that of the current federal Labor party.
I may have been excited about voting in Queensland today for Campbell Newman. But unless Tony Abbot, as the alternative Prime Minister, starts articulating sensible alternative policies on the issues that really matter federally he won’t be getting my vote next year.
And on the issue of the carbon tax…
There may not have been many people at the no carbon tax rally in Canberra last Thursday, but weren’t the penguin costumes great. [2]
What this and so many related issues need at the federal level is an articulate and committed opposition. But go to the federal Liberal home page and click on the environment policy and this is what you get: “Tony Abbott and the Liberals stand for real action to tackle the complex challenges of climate change, energy security and water scarcity.”
There is no water scarcity: the drought broke with flooding rains about 18 months ago. We need a federal government that acknowledges the need to plan for natural climate variability. We don’t need subsidies for businesses that want to sequest carbon as proposed by Mr Abbot.
Read more and it gets worst. http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx
**********
1. Deceit in the Name of Conservation
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Review55-1DeceitinNameConservation.pdf
2. Much thanks to Jim S. for the photograph and for being there.
That’s right Robert and Deb. I try to raise wildlife and native trees these days. Been doing it for the last twenty-odd years and not asking for subs but even with super carbon sequestration through mulching and lack of grazing in rich, high rainfall country, carbon emissions via bushfires is always going to beat me. In “dry” country you’ve got Buckley’s. That’s the nature of Australia.
And locking up big areas this way is crazy.
In the sort of country that RMW Co is “carbon farming”, you will reduce emissions by actually grazing because grazing WILL help prevent bushfires in that country.
Correct stocking rates would, in the long run, show a more positive carbon accounting budget than no stocking.
If only this could be accurately measured. It would show up these dumb carbon schemes for the junk they are.
See Luke, the known unknowns work both ways.
SD, the fires that will eventually follow the boom years we are now in will be on a terrifying scale, with he scaling back of grazing and other rural pursuits that bring a measure of hazard reduction and supervision. The longer the fire stays out of an area, the worse the result when it finally comes. The indifference of climate bodies and theorists on this subject – and they are truly indifferent – is one of the most compelling proofs that none of the kerfuffle is about CO2. If it were, we’d be pouring billions into fire control measures, and guarding our bushland with an army. Lately, I saw some deceptive advertising about how carbon was wasted when a tree was harvested. We’re supposed to be that dumb that we think the carbon is no longer “captured” because the tree was “killed” like Bambi.
Try a couple of good fire-seasons, with Spring westerlies, when the climate turns about again. Then look out, Bambi, and hello, CO2!
But imagine being able to do extremely well paid, extremely dumb things and be beyond reproach. Who does it remind you of:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/24/where-theres-a-need-for-immunity-theres-a-crime-green-climate-fund-looking-to-un-for-diplomatic-immunity-protection-from-lawsuits/
Barnaby Joyce wants to run for Maranoa and he already has the ear of the future PM. There have been complaints from some Liberal MPs that Tony gives too much time to the Agrarian Socialist.
With the deputy’s job in the pocket there is certainty that the Coalition will overturn the CC scam.
EG, a lot of country people around here can see right through Windsor’s gruff-good-bloke act and Katter’s poofter-bashing yokelism. They don’t mind Abbott and they really like Barnaby.
Sorry Robert, I missed your post. Yes the coming fire problems are serious yet no one [incl local RFBs, I tell 'em to give me the box of matches but they wont] don’t seem to be worrying. As you say, it can’t be about CO2.
EG, d’ya think Windsor will run again after Saturday? OOH! the blood, the blood!
My rep was Aiden McLindon who replaced a retiring National Party Kev Lingard in Beaudesert and when they wouldn’t make him [as a rookie] the LNP chief, he spat the dummy and went independent, later to chum up with Katter. In spite of getting support from the close the gaters I always knew there were enough farmers left to wipe him out.
Fascinating how the old scores get settled. Wish they could get the carbon accounting books to balance like that.
After having a meeting with Windsor re the MDBP, I agree Robert.
He is really only interested in the politics and short term political gains, not in gaining sensible long term practical results.
Farmers have no time for that sort of behaviour.
Debs Debs Debs – if you knew about climate the sector wouldn’t have had billions in drought aid over 30 years.
So pick one of two options – (a) you’re climate clueless or (b) climate change might be happening and it’s outside your experience. Which is it?
Perhaps a bit of both ?
(and INCREDIBLY there’s still a few dots in EC – wow ! – http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/ec – is it an ironic twist/joke that the lower Murray is still declared?)
Only billions over 30 years? Man, those Yanks and Japs are killing us! As for the Europeans…they must really be clueless about climate.
What we need is a bureaucracy to tell us what the climate is going to do. Oz agriculture could be scientifically modelled – love that word! – along the lines of Nikita Krushchev’s agrarian policies for the Ukraine. If either the climate or peasants are disobedient, there can be a remodelling of the population, and re-education of reactionary elements. Those elements can be addressed initially with affectionate and patronising terms such as “Debs, Debs Debs”. Mind you, if they hear “SIGH”, they’ll know it’s time to knuckle under, ’cause there’ll no more Mr. Nice Nikita.
Hi Robert,
We have the bureaucracy and you are right.
And Bob Brown, the New World Order and agenda 21 want to take care of us all:
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/03/23/aun-handbook-for-world-domination/
More evidence that it was people and not climate change that killed the giants:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-get-to-the-bottom-of-what-wiped-out-australias-ancient-gentle-giants-20120323-1vnrk.html
Lukey Lukey,
If you knew about climate we wouldn’t have need of the countless billions being spent on trying to pretend we do know about climate and creating policy and protocol that will solve nothing and cost us even more billions.
We could actually spend the money on sensible, practical projects like better access to health services and education and upgrading tired infrastructure and and and……
So pick one of two options 1) You don’t uderstand climate enough to create a workable, practical policy or 2) Climate change might be happening and we can only come up with useless impractical reports that do nothing other than waste ever more amounts tax payers money. Which is it?
Your ability to miss the point is absolutely incredible Luke.
The climate is no more your friend than it is mine. You may or may not know more or less than I do about climate and weather….and I couldn’t give a toss either way.
And you are STILL ignoring the main point about Agriculture and GDP.
If we weren’t returning positive there would not be money available to assist individual areas or to pay for the programs you have highlighted….how fiscally illiterate can you get?
NO ONE has ever claimed we are not vulnerable to extreme weather events. What’s currently on the table and costing BILLIONS does VIRTUALLY NOTHING practical to deal with that….repeat VIRTUALLY NOTHING!!!!!!
Farmers and all small business people are results orientated people Luke. They judge the success or failure of any enterprise on measureable RESULTS, not on flowery reports and political PR spin.
It appears from the latest election results in QLD that a significant portion of the electorate is the same.
Multi-year drought isn’t weather.
So which is it (a) after 200 years does the rural sector not understand it’s climate risk (b) just want to be subsidised – in which case the taxpayer wants to know if you’re using the best science and techniques for managing that risk – and with your cynicism obviously you’re not and just want a free handout.
It’s the old agrarian socialism of personally capitalising gains and socialising any losses.
Good rort if you can swing it.
(and gee wouldn’t be worth spending money on education – imagine if the little dears want to do science – you don’t believe in it – they might grow and produce (choke) glossy reports and papers)
ROFL
You have adroitly missed it again.
But that’s OK, I wasn’t expecting anything else.
No…multi year drought isn’t weather…it’s a multi year drought!!!
What on earth did you think you were proving by stating that????
A 2 year run of floods isn’t weather either….it’s a 2 year run of floods!!!
And despite the very loud PR claims otherwise, they have both happened before and right next to each other as well.
Got nothing against USEFUL glossy reports and papers Luke….you are very good at missing the point…I will give you that.
And also: a)After 200 years the URBAN and particularly the URBAN bureaucratic, legislative sector does not understand its climate risk or its financial risk or its poor planning risks &
b) just wants to be subsidised- in which case the PRODUCERS want to know you’re INVESTING WISELY in the best available PRACTICAL science and engineering to plan for that risk WITH SOME PROPER LONG TERM PLANNING AND LONG TERM VISION.
It’s the old city socialised habit of failing to invest in infrastructure and then blaming the ‘other side’ for the problem and then pretending it has something to do with the MUCH MUCH SMALLER amount of PERIODIC subsidising of PRODUCTIVE industries….you know…the ones who put the roof over our heads, supply food for our tables, 24/7 power to our homes, massive export dollars for Australia, countless thousands of tax paying jobs etc….
A good rort if you can swing it…especially if your whole income is based on that massive public purse.
I also have nothing against science Luke….what possessed you to say that?
As always…and this has never ever changed….I severely object to the ‘political agenda’ that has attached itself to one particular branch of science and actually hijacked the science…making exaggerated claims about its veracity, quoting the ubsubstantiated outer limits of the ‘best guess’ ranges and then attaching stupid impractical policy to it and a mindlessly expensive political PR campaign.
It seems the wider electorate is also noticing this problem and it has probably played a part in the recent NSW and more recent QLD electoral result and the recent polling Federally.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the opposition will be most successful if it just stays quiet and doesn’t provide good alternative policy…..let’s hope they are at least hearing the message.