If the government was really serious about reducing carbon emissions it could just tax the coal industry to death.
Instead it plans to make us pay more for everything by introducing a carbon tax and then compensate us and everyone potentially disadvantaged. The concept has not caught on with the average Australian who is against it.
In an attempt to sway public opinion, Hollywood superstar, Cate Blanchett, is now appearing on television endorsing the tax.
Cate has a lot of style, but does her message have any substance? Have any readers of this blog seen the advert? What exactly is her message?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Cate baby is just doing what she’s always done – peddling fiction
The ALP has never outgrown the Little Pattie-Whitlam-It’s Time whizzbang glitz. If celebrities tell the plebs something, well then, it must be true
There is one clear and repeating message from people like Blanchett and Caton.
You peasants do as we say not as we do, so we can continue to live our lives as we think fit with a carbon foot print as big as we like….after all… our mate Al Gore has been our guiding light and look at what he does.
Just go and check up on the life style of Blanchett and where she came from. MLC girl and all.
Hypocrisy of the highest order …they are crap actors anyway with barely a functioning neurone between them
There is a great parody of this ad – Say YES to an Election – here -http://tiny.cc/lpjux
This is the latest babyish twaddle from our idiot PM and just remember helping her strike the keyboard are Australia’s top scientific brains. ( ????)
Please confirm to me Luke that you too are embarrassed by this embecilic nonsense.
This fool is definitely up there in the worst PM/Govt stocks with darling Gough.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/clime_change_is_real_but_gillards_claims_are_disgracefully_false/#commentsmore
When a national govt needs this sort of mindless “peer” pressure to save their backside yet never allows the other side of the debate to be discussed you just know what shaky ground they are on.
You would think they must realise how it will come back to bite them.
But I suppose that when you’re bankrupt, the name of the game is sheer desperation
Here’s Dr Tim Ball talking to Alan Jones
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005
great interview
I have always wondered what people saw in Blanchett, she has always seamed a pale & wishy washy person, & actress to me.
Bit like the concept that she & the others are pushing for little Julia, really.
These desperados promote Oreskes’ new book debunking scepticism in science and declare that is the way science is now. Criticise it and you’re a denier.
And Haydn Washington’s claim that chimps that carry dead babies are in denial like AGW sceptics.
Puerile logic but good propaganda.
Jen,
It’s a patronising advertisement – reflects their view that since their belief “has to be right” and opposition to it can only be described as childish, and we will therefore treat you, the lumpen proles, accordingly. It’s the same attitude you get from lefties in general, that they are, oh so superior in asthetics and etc, and that if you can’t understand the need for a carbon tax then that is because of some genetic error in our pyschological makeup. They consider themselves the elite, and we the great unwashed. Hence the advertisement portrays this.
Typical conseratives with a selfish view of the world – deny anything that may impose change that looks out for everyone not just you. Again there is irrefutable evidents that points to significant human contribution, but funnily enough you would rather listen to the very small contingent with extremely high stakes in fossil fuels to rule your thoughts or support your selfishness, just to put it simply…..I consider myself middle class if that, but absolutely support the option of sustaining this planet for future generations including my children at a reasonable cost even if it means I have to forego a few luxuries each year.
Punters unamimously back Black Caviar because of her form, in most cases if they back against her it doesn’t destroy their livelihood and importantly the rest of civilisation. Ask yourself the question: Are you happy to take a punt on the survival of our planet and humanity. Conservatives are happy to take a punt against, because they’re only concerned with their world and the here and now, which is obviously the short term. Absolutely selfish. Troy
My 9:15 am comment is still awaiting moderation.
To see a parody of this ad, go to http://tiny.cc/lpjux
It seems that all the money going into advertising is on the side of the pro Carbon (Dioxide) Tax.
We often hear the word ‘Modelling’ these days with respect to Climate Change.
Surely, if the Treasurer is ‘worth his salt’, then they have done modelling on the amount of money that the Government will raise from this iniquitous new impost.
That modelling would be based on differing prices, so somebody should just ask the Treasurer (a) about that modelling, and (b) (selecting, say, the most mooted price of that Garnaut $26 per ton) how much the Government take in total will be, and that’s just the incoming, before any compensation is paid out.
I know full well that the question, once asked, would not be answered, but it’s an easy thing to work out.
Then reply with a very simple ad just showing that total incoming amount for the Government, and then for just the one coal fired power plant, say, er, Bayswater, which burns 8 Million tons of coal a year, thus emitting 23 million tons of CO2 @ Garnaut’s $26, that total coming in at $600 Million, just from that one Plant, Bob and Christine’s and now Labor’s big emitters.
That’s all they need do.
1. Total incoming for the Government.
2. Total from this one plant alone.
3. Mention that the cost will be passed on to consumers in increased charges for electricity.
Simple and effective, because possibly 9 out of 10 average Australian punters just have no concept of the scale involved.
Somebody has to fight fire with fire.
Tony.
TonyfromOz
Have you any numbers on who actually owns the coal fired plants themselves? I suspect it’s the states who have, more or less, sold off the retailing side to private interests.
But if government actually owns the infrastructure, then taxing it becomes an interesting situation economically.
Basically the global elite want to be able to tax our use of air, and it seems they are close to doing it via the CO2 proxy.
The carbon tax add is chock full of lies, surprise, surprise.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_this_ad_tell_such_lies/#commentsmore
Tony, keep talking, if you feel so disposed. You seem to have the info, the maths and right point of attack. People will listen to you.
What the other guys have is Cate’s matronising smirk, which may appeal to the self-congratulators and self-loathers of the Left, but certainly not to the rest of us.
So keep up the talk. You’re our halfback.
I apologise for linking into my own Posts so often, but after more than three years doing this now, I have a pretty big base of information, so even though it looks suspiciously like I’m touting for visits to the site where I contribute Posts, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just that if I already have the info, there’s no point writing it all again if I can just direct you to where it already exists.
As to ownership of the power plants, and incidentally all that associated infrastructure, the ‘up front’ costs were originally so large that only State Governments could afford it. Now that the generators are being sold off, those private owners are realising that the sting in the tail was that those State Government, having made megabucks over the years from the sale of the electricity sold them off, and having already made those megabucks, they had paid for themselves many times over, so, as was the case in NSW especially, they could accept any price they could get, hence they went off cheaply, and most of them are more than 35 years old anyway.
Now that this CO2 tax will kick in, the added extra (huge) costs will be borne by them.
Can you see bean counters now adding up the numbers, deciding maybe that it’s going to be cheaper to close down than bear those extra costs, and closing the Plant, removing huge chunks of electrical power from the grids across the Country.
I’m sure that there will be ‘essential services’ legislation covering that, and that’s why Federal Labor, once it gets introduced must allow those generator owners to pass the cost directly down to consumers.
Governments can now sneakily point at those ‘big polluters’ and say that they are to blame for increasing the price of electricity, which the Government might refer to as being only in the form of a cup of coffee a day, but electricity accounts come in 90 day ‘hits’, so again they are reducing it all to the lowest amount possible to make it look like it’s not really much.
So then, let’s look at the top ‘big polluters’.
At the link, you’ll see a chart listing just the ‘Top 20’ biggest ‘polluters’ in the Country.
14 of them are large scale electrical power generators.
If you click on the image it will open in a new and larger window, and you can navigate back and forth between the pages.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/australian-greens-party-senator-bob-brown-and-his-big-polluters/
Tony.
Tony,
OK confirms my suspicions – when did they start selling off the generators, and who did the selling politically ? My gut feeling is that this was planned from a long time ago, and not some recent ad hoc decision based on climate research that finally came home to roost. Others might be interested in search for this information – just remember that it’s the bureacracies wagging the political tails who are driving this agenda.
Bob Carr initiated the process in 1997, hoping to get $22 Billion. See this link:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/14663
Carr probably had an inkling to the future considering that this was around the time of the original Kyoto Protocol from the UNFCCC, calling for a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 5% lower than 1990 levels.
Carr kept trying, and at Labor conferences, it kept getting voted down.
He left office and Morris Iemma again initiated the process in 2007, losing a huge vote at Conference, (702 to 107) all this at the beginning of the CO2 debate, well, when it began to gain traction anyway.
Iemma resigned and Nathan Rees again tried and failed.
Christina Keneally also kept trying and eventually sold them off in 2010 for, and wait for this, $5 Billion shown at this link:
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/12/14/272275_latest-news.html
Compare the $5 Billion in 2010 dollars to Carr’s original $22 Billion in 1997 dollars.
Now, the State Government was divested of those CO2 emitters forever dispelling the myth of perceived hypocrisy in introducing a tax on CO2 and at the same time, owning and profiting from the big emitters.
Well worth following all this time.
Bob Carr may be Labor, but he had some possible insight into what could have been coming.
Sighs of relief all round.
Now, if this CO2 tax gets up, those big coal fired plants will be all but worthless if owners tried to sell them.
Scylla and Charybdis.
Tony.
Tony
Thanks for this – confirms my initial interpretation.
Now to wait for the thnunder of the silence from the usual suspects.
Kyoto 2 or whatever is all over, what a time for some stupid govt to bring in a co2 tax.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/29/its-all-over-kyoto-protocol-loses-four-big-nations/#more-40723
The Kyoto Protocol was what got me started more than three years back, trying to find out what the ramifications would be for electrical power if we were to add that all important second signature, which Rudd did with a flourish when he got elected.
I was certain there was actually a ‘Sunset’ clause, and that was what the problem was with Copenhagen, and then Cancun, trying to find a replacement when Kyoto expired in 2012.
The problem was that the original Protocol was that UNFCCC split the World into two parts, Annex 1 (DevelopED Countries) and Annex 2. (DevelopING Countries)
There were 40 Countries in Annex1, which was further ‘culled’ to 23 Countries, and yes, you guessed it, Australia was on that list of 23 Countries. These had to implement a CO2 pricing mechanism, and also implement measures to get their emissions back to a level 5% lower than 1990 levels, something which NO country has achieved, and in fact most have doubled them. Those on that list also had to pay all their own costs, and pay ALL costs of Annex 2 Countries.
Annex 2, 152 Developing Countries, well, all they ever had to do was to report their emissions. Full Stop.
The first signature was that you agreed with the intent.
The second signature was that you abided by what the UNFCCC required, and started to do what was required.
The ONLY Country not to supply that vital second signature after Australia signed up is the U.S. incidentally required to lower their emissions to a level 7% lower than 1990 levels.
Now, wait for this bit.
The U.S. did not provide that second signature. This was done under the Clinton Government, with, yes, Al Gore as his VP. The Senate rejected the Protocol, and you may say, well, it was a Republican controlled Senate, but the vote was, wait for this, 95 -0. Not one vote.
So, Copenhagen prior to Cancun, was the UNFCCC big meeting to work out a replacement for Kyoto.
Now, Kyoto was already a legally binding document requiring DevelopING countries to only REPORT their emissions, and DevelopED to pay ALL costs.
So, why would those 152 Countries want anything that was going to water down what Kyoto asked for, and require them to join in with those 23 main payING Countries, especially China and India.
Hence Copenhagen failed comprehensively, as did Cancun, except for the watered down ‘feelgood’ resolutions that had no real teeth.
Now, the UNFCCC has no alternative BUT to try and extend Kyoto, and now, other Countries will start to pull out as has happened.
Oddly, the U.S. has probably dodged a bullet in a way.
The UNFCCC will try everything to do what they can, but Kyoto, unwittingly, is the big problem of itself right now.
Look, I’m sorry to have taken so much space here with this, but Kyoto really provides the crux of this whole thing.
Tony.
A few bon mots from Nils-Axel today, “It hasn’t risen in 50 years”:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Hi Louis,
“Germany ‘Sliding Head Over Heels Into Eco-Dictatorship”
My first thought was, here we go again, didn’t this idea turn out a bit nasty the last time?
I wonder which group of people will be singled out for extermination this time?
Shock! Horreur!
A new study in Science mag says that GW has contributed to a drop in crop yields in Russia, China and India.
Meanwhile get this India:
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/05/bumper-harvest-in-india-too-much-food.html
Put in a nutshell, Kyoto is the brainchild of Maurice Strong, and his connections, and his fellow travellers including Gillard, Rudd, etc. No conspiracy, just a by-passing of national sovereignty using the UN and the various NGO’s. Selling off the power generators was part of the plan, though why Gillard and company need to peddle the view that everyone else is cutting their emissions, etc etc, suggests that either they are totally incompetent, or that they are playing another game.
Louis
The Kennett Govt sold off the LaTrobe brown coal stations in the late ’90’s for a very considerable sum (AGL bought the biggest of them + the associated and captive open cut mine that feeds the power station). FYI, the LaTrobe brown coal deposits, those as yet unmined, are HUGE: > 20m thick and extend along strike for > 100km or so
Kennett also promised the bidders that State price controls on domestic and industrial power would be removed. The black swan here is that shortly after, Kennett lost the election and the incoming Bracks Govt had no intention of honouring that Kennett promise. Now AGL et al are faced with mutually captive brown coal open cut mines and the power stations designed specifically for that brown coal feed, with Brown & Milne trying to shut them down or tax them out of existence, and the Vic State Govt still controlling the retail prices. These stations/mines supply about 80% of Vic’s power
Carr, in the very early 2000’s, sold off PowerCoal (the old Elcom) in NSW – this comprised 8 State-owned coal mines that were specifically supplying coal to the State generators (their operating costs were so high that they were forbidden to bid for export contracts, since that would expose their costs to scrutiny). Carr had decided that he didn’t want the responsibility of running coal mines anymore – too difficult with PS unions, OHS issues and Greenie brickbats. To ensure a reasonable sale price, he forced the State generators to increase the price they paid for raw coal feed so that potential bidders had a reason to consider bidding a politically defensible price, despite the lead weight of unionised over-manning
Some few years later, he tried to sell off the State generators – he had in mind the high price Kennett had achieved plus the forthcoming CO2 global warming storm (even then, foreseeing this was NOT rocket science). As we know, the PS unions (led by the current Leader of the NSW opposition) stopped him and Egan in their tracks because they feared (accurately) job losses from the unionised over-manning. Now, O’Farrell has the problem, and by extension so do the citizens of NSW
I have one simple question and one simple reminder for the current Government.
Question …… Exactly HOW does making EVERYTHING more expensive help the environment and what other countries is introducing this new TAX?
Reminder ….. The Government of Australia works for US (the voters) and is supposed to do what the PEOPLE want – we do not work for the Government and does NOT have the right to DO WHATEVER IT LIKES. It’s called democracy!
I also wonder about the “run it up the flagpole and see how the plebs react” style of Government that seems to be common these days.
Ianl8888
Well, well, it gets curiouser and curiouser – more a case of government trying to fund existing liabilities, apart from the rampant corruption and feather bedding in PS operations.
The problem we face is the corporate state, not so much the CO2 clowns bedevilling us at the moment.
I think a worthwhile innovation will be to market cleaning aids for fans, since alot are going to be in need of intensive cleaning.
I reckon you guys aren’t very smart. Read the comments here – to moderately AGW sympathetic folks I reckon you sound like a bunch of rightist ranters. The archetypal deniers. It’s polarising stuff guys.
If you were smarter you’d be thinking that Cate has evoked a simple value proposition that will reinforce all those good feelings in those who’d you’d like to convert.
Cate’s message is simple – she’s attractive and successful – kind to the planet – you want to believe. So for those who are intimidated (doesn’t matter if it’s irrationally) by the modern world the message is simple and palatable.
Imagine the opposite reaction if Gina Rinehart did an advert for the opposing argument. Wouldn’t work.
And Julia, Swan and Combet are now locked in – it’s either crash through or burn. Regardless of what they really think they’re committed on final approach.
So dudes you really do need to think like your opponents. What will make them change their mind.
And I know that a confrontation with an angry denier won’t change the mind of those doing the right thing against an evil energy empire of destruction.
You’re not articulating an argument except a very angry message to the true dis-believers and you had them anyway.
What’s your compelling value proposition dudes? And who could deliver it?
You’re all a bunch of plankers, Luke.
You and them both:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/05/planking-for-australia
True but that just lost you another 100 votes….
Only arseholes read Quadrant. Surely you know that.
Proof is in the pudding, Luke, we will be the laughing stock of the world.
Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:58 Agence France-Presse
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.
Meanwhile, Germany plans to phase out all nuclear power by 2020, probably working on cold fusion.
I’m sorry guys but Luke has a point. It doesn’t matter that the add has no substance or contains some misinformation. What matters is that it’s a feel-good add and I think the people in it believe what they are saying. Getting all up in arms about it boots nothing, it will influence a lot of people. Making disparaging remarks about Cate Blanchett is also counter productive as it smacks of sour grapes and will likely push undecideds toward the yes case.
The nutters at getup have successfully fired the first shot in the add campaign, we need an answer that will bring people back down to earth without the angry verballing of celebrities.
Any ideas?
Don’t be a plank Luke you know very well the Greens don’t negotiate and as you said yourself Gillard and Co have wedged themselves into crash through or crash, so your comments as usual are worthless.
Jonathon,
My guess the latest group slated for “correction” or r “re-education” will be climate deniers – we are already being described as delusional and with pyschological problems, the next step would be to attribute some moral failure on us, or make us guilty of some contrived environmental sin.
Luke,
We need to think like out opponents? Oh dear, that’s the problem – they don’t know how to think, only what to think.
Idiot.
My initial quote (part thereof):
“If celebrities tell the plebs something, well then, it must be true”
That’s my whole point – facts don’t matter. That’s why (and ONLY why) the Resident Dipstick has a point. This argument was lost 20 years ago; emotional propaganda (“feel the green”) always wins, especially if an attractive, famous celebrity says it. The Resident Dipstick asks what would happen if Gina Hancock tried this – she already did, mate, and of course it didn’t work. She’s not regarded as attractive or popular, so anything she says must self-serving pap, eh?
Another section from my post:
“Carr had decided that he didn’t want the responsibility of running coal mines anymore – too difficult with PS unions, OHS issues and Greenie brickbats”
and …
“Some few years later, he tried to sell off the State generators – he had in mind the high price Kennett had achieved plus the forthcoming CO2 global warming storm (even then, foreseeing this was NOT rocket science)”
Despite the Resident Dipstick’s best efforts at disingenuousness, those statements reflect only reality. Now we will watch the forced transfer of earned wealth as middle and higher income earners are de facto taxed, with lower incomes rebated … Brown et al will regard this as a green victory. I admit this is actually amusing (considering their professed aims), but I have long thought that the general populace deserves it
I feel quite privileged to have lived long enough to witness this over several decades. It really is quite extraordinary, despite the unpredictable consequences. My wife and I regard it as a good, entertaining blood sport. That should provoke the Resident Dipstick but such reactions won’t lessen the entertainment
“Only arseholes read Quadrant. Surely you know that.”
Yeah, but well-informed, erudite arseholes.
Did you read this bit:
“Germany is worth planking too! Under their Green inspired Feed-in-Tariff the cost is running at 1 billion euros each month for solar installations, which are being paid for by Germany’s rate-payers. This crazy scheme only manages to produce 2% of Germany’s electricity. And that’s on a rare, sunshine day.”
You gotta be some sort of planker to cop that.
Some confusion here. We don’t want to win over the few people who believe in CAGW, or unhappily aging teenies who call people “dude”, or those who could sit through Cate’s performance in The Navigator without squirming.
Do I have to say it again? – angry deniers want to destabilise the independents, ditch Turnbull and the green Liberals, bring down the Labor Government and dissolve the Watermelon bureaucracies.
With that lot of fossils gone, we may be able to have new, progressive conservation and energy policies.
You know when you got “friends” like Hewson and Fraser rooting for you, that’s what you get. ROOTED!
For over 35 years Labor have never forgiven Fraser but he has been the gift that keeps on giving.
And ol’ unloseable comes in a close second.
“Only arseholes read Quadrant”
You know I reckon we could front you yourself Luke verballing like this and planking at the same time.
TonyOz and others; in respect of how much this carbon tax will raise; you used the example of Bayswater; well, I looked at the NGER site where all the ‘big’ emitters have to report their emissions and from there it is straightforward to calculate the staggering impost of this tax:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-silent-giant-coal-monster/
Note that I did the calculations based on the greens preferred, at the time, of $45 per tonne; anyone who thinks that is where it will stop is, to quote caton in character, “dreaming”.
I hate actors.
The great leap of faith. The good ol’ balanced ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3230621.htm
If you’ve ever read Hewson’s articles on The Drum or watched him during the Gruen’s election coverage, you would see a pathetic loser trying to fit in with the lefties but not quite making it.
When the carbon tax gets up you will only have yourselves and disgusting rank rightist ranter look that the denier movement is. The ugly Australian in full song !
Well done chumps.
So Luke, what you are trying to say is that it will be OUR fault if the carbon tax (which you yourself don’t agree with but couldn’t bring yourself to attend an anti tax rally)gets up? I think you’re letting the desire to rant feverishly override rational argument.
If it’s anyone’s fault it will be the silent majority of educated people and community leaders who are too afraid to speak up about a tax that they and you know won’t do squat about the climate but don’t want to be seen as deniers.
You know if the banks back anything it’s because there is money to be made and by definition, if the tax had the effect the government claimed the money would dry up pretty quickly.
Just about everything Luke has said above is total nonsense as usual.
Whatever you’re on Luke I think you should give it a rest for a while.
Anyhow just for your chumpy self Luke here is the latest polling, post Turnbulls rant as well.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_sinking_her_tax_wrapped_around_her_ankles/
Gee Juliar’s doing well isn’t she and I think most Aussies will see through the support of Cate , Caton, Fraser, Hewson etc.
Probably go over like a lead balloon, but I’m sure most Aussies have more brains and sense than you give them credit for.
You know it won’t end there, until the science is ‘practically settled’ I’m standing with the agrarian socialists and when Gillard eventually goes to the people we know Labor will be wiped from the political landscape.
This is all your doing comrade, allowing our once glorious party to be destroyed by the delusional Greens.
I just listened to Alan Jones interviewing Tim Ball and noticed that computed human emission of CO2 (3%) of the total is less than the ‘error of estimation’ for the oceans and soils. In other words the ocean-soil estimate variance is greater than what is computed for humans.
This suggests that perhaps the human contribution might be irrelevant? Fascinating.
“When the carbon tax gets up you will only have yourselves….”
Fat Julia hasn’t sung yet, old chap.
Our mate Tony may yet come through for us all [or the horse may talk].
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2011/05/30/windsor-no-closer-to-backing-carbon-tax/
Louis,
That was a good link of Val’s. What you say is right and it makes such a joke of that ABC link I posted at 8.30 pm.
SD
““The Queensland Government announced in November 2010 that the three state-owned electricity generators – Tarong Energy, CS Energy and Stanwell Corporation – would be restructured and merged into two new entities from 1 July 2011.
The restructure announcement followed a review of the government-owned electricity generators.”
So in Luke’s homestate the biggest CO2 polluters, sorry Carbon polluters, is the Government itself, and they want to tax the tax raker itself???????
Interesting when one calculates the percentage of co2 that is due to Australia’s emissions.
In 1750 the percentage of the atmospheric total of co2 was supposedly .03% and today it is .04%, therefore an increase of 0.01% in 261years.
Australia emits 1.3% of that increase therefore 1.3% of 0.01% or 0.00013%.
Now Gillard wants to reduce that amount of 0.00013% by 5% by 2020, so that is 5% of 0.00013 = 0.000007%.
They must be starck raving, barking mad.
Geeezzz if you don’t cry you have to laugh.
Juliar’s telling us the world is acting on reducing emissions, what a sick joke and another blatant lie by Labor, Cate, Flannery, Garnaut, Fraser, Hewson etc, etc.
Here are the latest published emissions for last year from the EIA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower
Of course these emission increases are coming from the developing world and not the developed, so when will our resident fanatics adopt logic and reason instead of their stupid, ignorant, unscientific fantasies.
Everything we’ve been told in the last few weeks by the Gillard liars and all the others is 100% wrong and can’t be altered by our sacrifices and by wrecking our economy.
We shouldn’t be reducing our tiny emissions by a gram because the rest of the world certainly isn’t.
Sorry the above should read IEA not the EIA.
Perhaps I should have pointed out from the article that this substantial record increase in emissions comes during a very bad recession.
So what happens when the world comes out of recession and perhaps starts to boom?
As Bob Carter remarked on the Bolt Report, over the past decade humans have produced more CO2 than anything that has come before and global warming theory is obviously flawed as the world gets cooler.
The hysteria has been ratcheted up a couple of notches ,
Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially “dangerous climate change” – is likely to be just “a nice Utopia”, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.
I anticipate that the carbon tax might be steamrolled through though Curtin FM mentioned that lack of agreement with the Climate Committee might mean it won’t get passed.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-all-hot-air-from-the-jetsetting-eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz1Ns1nCsAG
This neatly puts to rest the bleating from Luke and Derek Smith about value propositions and being nice to Cate.
Also the value proposition for the contras is not listening to the hypcritical nonsense from a media tart,
…its also about not destroying the country for an outcome that cant be measured when the rest of the world isnt following suit,
…and whilst we are all the time exporting the main supposed main culprit ..namely coal… in ship loads,
…and all based upon science that borders on being fraudulent,
The value proposition is not to being so stupid as this Labor Government that has no mandate to do what is being proposed,
… and if it went to an election with this as its platform….. IT WOULD LOSE….
It would be democracy at work… .is there a need to say anymore than that.
Straight out denialist crap El Gordo. Carter wouldn’t survive a serious science panel.
On same video Bolt also did a bald-faced porky – watch the Wong video – doesn’t back up Bolt’s assertion at all (seconds before). Get these players in front of serious commission which is awake up to their tricks. Sliced and diced.
Nicely controlled Bolt format – friendly interview. Almost rehearsed.
This suggests a reason for drastic action.
“The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained. Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed in Cancun.”
Pity I’ll miss all the hubbub for a while.
Gerard Henderson on the hypocrisy and deceit of these giant HIPPOS, like Cate, Flannery, Smith, Gore etc.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-all-hot-air-from-the-jetsetting-eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz1Ns1nCsAG
This argument is so , so, easy to understand using facts, logic and reason yet we’ve talked around and around the same facts, logic and reasoning for years, if not decades.
After all we haven’t suddenly invented some new type of maths that shows that the numbers somehow support the alarmist case to easily fix their problem.
The problem as they see it can’t be fixed by idiotic deceit, lies and hypocrisy this year or this century.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/30/that-wobbly-foundation-peer-reviewed-research/
More about how shonkdemia peddles its wares in a way that allows them to control the outcome in a manner that befits the cespit of academic politics and administrative life
Whoops I thought Malcolm was talking about E&E – silly me.
Why Louis, will you miss the hubbub for a while, are you going drilling?
Jennifer,
Has anyone looked into the fact that Ms Cate Blanchett is an Al Gore trained The Climate Project presenter ?
As seen at the site Mindfood – Climate Change Warriors
http://www.mindfood.com/at-climate-change-warriors-activism-blanchett-green.seo
From that site, you will find that Ms Blanchett and probably her husband have been trained to use material from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” in presentations, since the training course in 2006.
There are ~ 400 Al Gore trained TCP presenters ( or Connectors ) in Australia presenting the Gore message to clubs, organisations and other groups of people. These presenters include people in the public eye such as Indira Nadoo (ex SBS), Sharan Burrow (Ex ACTU President) and Cate Blanchett.
The Australian Conservation Foundation are sponsors and hosts to The Climate Project, as shown in the brochure “Australia’s Inconvenient Truth”, and the web site –
http://www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=193
Cohenite,
Spot on – fly out 1145 WST. Away for 2-3 weeks, I think (No good at prophesy though I am led to believe Christmas is scheduled 25th December again, this year).
Luke,
Just wondering when the Hague Court of International Justice will indict you for genocide – you have a rather large collection dead messengers to your credit.
Actually I should fess up and declare that I would be very happy to pay the Carbon Tax when my standard of living is the same as Cate’s, and my expenses are covered by a commission on Garnauts and Flannery’s fees.
All this is really quite futile really.
This afternoon Ross Garnaut will detail what is possibly the end plan.
In that is the real target, an ETS.
If you thought that placing a ‘price on Carbon’ (Dioxide) was a money making racket, wait until the realisation of what an ETS means really sinks in. The ETS will make the money raised from ‘pricing carbon’ look like a child’s piggy bank.
Whilst ever the ‘environment’ is at the forefront of the debate, the real aim will always be in the background, that being the immense amounts of money to be made from all of this.
There will be talk of ‘compensation’ but the compensation will only be the smallest part of the overall total, and will not last forever.
Because of that, the Science just becomes the means to the end.
That Science is being used as a diversion. Money is then fed (selectively) to the Science so more ‘confirmation’ comes to the fore, and more money then flows if all the right boxes get ticked, eg, if those results say what the source of the money wants to hear.
I understand fully that this sounds cynical of me, but having followed this now for more than three years, I’ve found that no matter what is being done anywhere, those CO2 emissions just keep rising.
They rail against the big source of those emissions, coal fired power plants, and yet the only ones closing are the smaller and older plants close to their use by dates anyway.
Large scale plants are just NOT closing down. Existing coal fired power plants are being tasked to work even harder and longer, as are those Peaking Power Natural gas fired plants which used to run just a few hours a day, and are now working longer. Emissions are rising from the coal fired sector, and especially that Natural Gas fired sector.
Besides no large scale plants shutting down, they are proliferating at the rate of one every 7 days in China, and almost the same in India, so that the people in those 2 Countries can actually have access to ANY electrical power at all.
Renewable plants are being constructed almost at an exponential rate, and where they are being constructed, emissions are still rising, and still no large scale plants are closing down, no matter what we are being told.
If China and India are going ahead exponentially, then nothing can be done to lower those emissions, and remember, Atmospheric CO2 levels are the same in Sydney as they are in London, Beijing, Washington, etc.
They can tell us all they like that this is for the sake of the environment.
It’s a diversionary tactic.
It is now, and has only ever been about the money, and an ETS that Garnaut will mention today is even more horrendous than just this mooted Carbon Tax.
We have been conned, and conned by experts who will keep the debate on the Science so no one sees what the real target is.
I know I concentrate a lot on the electrical power generation sector, but seeing what is happening in that sector, the major emitter, has made me see just how obvious all this debate really is.
Tony.
But Tony is it really about the science? How can it be when you and I and anyone who have factually examined the numbers understand they just don’t make sense?
Sure if there was even a slight chance of world emissions reducing over the next 30 years there might be an argument for pursuing a science based reduction program. ( their argument not mine)
China and India have stated they will do everything possible to bring more of their people out of poverty and will be producing more of their industry from coal, oil and gas every year for decades to come.
Even if the developed world cut back their emissions at unbelievable rates into negative territory it still won’t reduce world emissions at all, because the first world’s emission reductions can’t possibly keep pace with developing world’s increases.
In fact the disparity is such that every 1 million tonnes the developed world emits the developing world will emit 20 million tonnes and for decades to come.
But as to the science have a look again at what Phil Jones conceded in this BBC interview after he was put under pressure following the climategate emails scandal.
No statistically significant warming for 15 years and a slight cooling for 9 years shows that there is a problem with the science narrowly based on co2 increases.
The rates of warming shown from 1860 to the present are also another problem to be overcome.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
I have a long term moso bamboo project which is now coming to fruition, and I’m aware more than most people of how closed minds stifle alternatives and innovation in every walk of life. The amount of mindless, baseless criticism I’ve faced, much of it from those of the Green persuasion, has taught me that reactionaries are numerous and come in all political colours.
What is infuriating in the energy debate is that the “green” alternatives are ineffective, expensive, ugly, wasteful, antiquated and destructive of the land.
And since all these fetish-alternatives will go on being manufactured and supported by coal power, Tony’s explanation can be the only one. What other conclusion can be drawn?
Garnaut tells the truth while Gillard lies. Ultimately Aussie households will pay the full price for this fraud and receive a zero return on their investment as well.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/garnaut_nails_gillards_lie/
If anyone hasn’t voted against our Cate, please do so here:
http://www.theherald.com.au/polls/?page=
cohenite, I looked at it but in all honesty, the way it’s worded, I can’t vote NO.
She has every right to speak on the subject same as we do, but to use her “star” status and standing in the professional acting community to give weight to her opinion is wrong.
Not to mention that she is a Gore ambassador?! (saw it mentioned on an other blog)
Many people don’t bother to find out the details and go with the flow so to speak, if someone they like promotes it, they go with it.
Why do you think advertisers are paying good money to actors instead of me, when I actually DO use and like the product?
Nobody knows me or gives a stuff about me that’s why.
People in general are bloody stupid. This is my opinion.
Mark A; and that is exactly the reaction the fairfax drones who generated the poll wanted from the more discerning reader; yes of course carbon cate has the same rights as the rest of us; but how many of the rest of us have the same disproportionate influence she has or the vast financial backing this despicable ad campaign has.
The question is hypocritical and deceptive and by not voting no you are falling for the deception.
It’s a very devisive issue Mark A and I can’t think of anything in recent political history to upset the people quite as much as this carbon tax.
Within my extended family there are zealots and I assume this is repeated throughout society, so we are in for interesting times.
Thank the gods we have a stable democracy.
OK
I see your point, but not conceding mine re. the wording.
I have an other problem though, I started reading on the CO2 effect and have a few doubts about its mighty powers. I can’t see how the available power which comes from the sun can be sort of accumulated? Some of it retained due to the atmosphere, yes but reinforced?
I’m not sure if there is any truly “independent” scientist or paper you could recommend?
Actually I was wrong previously…I dont give a stuff about that silly woman Cate Blanchett.
If she had any real nous she wouldnt have put herself in the position she is in, with her credibility trashed on the altar of her own hypocritical life style.
I hate these Al Gore trainees, all of whom have half a brain, and always so quick to tell others how they should live.
There is another reason why we just have to save the planet.
This is the only one with both booze and chocolate.
Come to think of it, perhaps thats why Gillard has such a prominent duck butt.
So while you’ve been ranting about Cate you’ve missed the chance to convey your compelling value proposition. But keep ranting guys – don’t do anything useful.
Although if you want to play into the hands of intelligent people try spreading Alan Jones interviewing David Karoly. What an embarrassment for Jones – what a wack job – and civilised people everyone must cringe knowing that you have tools like that trying to represent you.
Well Luke even if Alan made the odd blue it’s nothing to the brainless drivel sprouted by Gillard and cabinet plus dummy Flannery, Brown ( cyclones etc) Gore, Mann, etc.
This goes on and on every day, like we can really make a difference by reducing our 1.3% by 5%. Don’t these outright lies and distortions embarrass your side at all.
Terry McCrann has a very good column and numbers on this idiot tax.
His last couple of sentences are spot on describing these mindless morons perfectly.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/mccrann-carbon-debate-tars-spruikers/story-e6freomx-1226065944634
What about all those solar panels on Cate’s roof? Gawd. I’ve lived with flimsy solar, and those ever-deteriorating batteries. It was better than living with kero lamps, I suppose. Where are those batteries now? Under a golf-course, I hope. Surely Cate, living in a city, wouldn’t be using batteries with those panels. If she is, can you imagine the waste of coal power and other resources that will go into recycling Cate’s batteries?
Today I came in after an enjoyable time in the scrub, and was able to press a button for a cup of tea. No flame, no smell, no noise, no hazard. Clean, strong power from the grid. I want everyone in the world to have that.
My God, I love coal. I just love it.
Mark A says: “I can’t see how the available power which comes from the sun can be sort of accumulated? ”
This is the paradigm of AGW and is expressed in the difference between transient climate sensitivity [TCS] and equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS].
TCS is the so-called immediate response which we apparently see in a temperature response which is less than 1/2 of what it should be based on the predicted 2XCO2 forcing of ~3.2C.
To explain this shortfall, or the missing heat of Trenberth’s cri de coeur, AGW has invented the pipeline or stored heat which is going to come out in a century or 2’s time, or a millenium if you believe anything which comes out of Dr Doolittle’s, Flannery, mouth.
This missing heat is stored in the ocean, allegedly, but there is some confusion about this as a recent post here about Hansen’s recent admission about ocean heat uptake showed that the AGW models had no idea about ocean heat uptake or ocean heat.
David Stockwell is currently looking at this and will show that CO2 can only effect atmospheric temperature, not the much larger and dominating heating of the ocean.
So the message should be: two people – greenie girl that looks like Cate – hunky dirty coal miner – plain grey background – no props.
Voice over with quality deep male voice.
“Meet Jill – Jill is very worried about climate change and has 2 children”. Jill nods approvingly. “Meet Jack – Jack is coal miner and thinks climate change is rubbish”. Jack folds arms nods approvingly. Both eye each other off, fold arms and slightly turn away from each other. “But strangely”says the voice “Jack and Jill have more in common than they think”.
“Being highly intelligent people Jack and Jill know that an Australian carbon tax will do nothing for the world’s climate”. They both turn heads quizzically back to each other and frown in a puzzled fashion.
“In fact Jack and Jill know bad politics when they see it”. Both nod. They shake hands and walk off in opposite directions. (Stage left for Jill of course).
Short simple message text message from “Get out” political activists group.
And as the oceans are cooling, the games up. Natural variability rules over AGW!
Mark A the Argo buoy system says the oceans have cooled slightly, which explains the angst in warmist ranks.
http://climatechange.imva.info/cooling/cooling-oceans
Quite OK Luke, Slight refinement.. “Get wise” political activists group.
Luke you may be right, but I’d just like an Aussie with good clear voice explain the facts about different countries co2 emissions clearly and show with clever props that there is zero we can do to change the climate, period.
A suggestion for an ad.
You have a bloke dressed up like Al Gore in all his finery up at a blackboard with his graphs with voiceover saying..
“Here is a politician talking about science”
Then you can have Julia rabbiting on about carbon pollution in a parliament setting….
“Here is another politician talking about science”
” They’re really talking about money, Your money.
Science can be very lucrative for some. Get wise . Axe the tax”
The Chasers could improve on this but I think most of those guys are part of the great brainwashed.
You guys are starting to let your anger get the better of you and some are becoming uncharacteristically snarky. Calling Cate hypocritical is one thing, suggesting that she is an idiot and can’t act is just ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Name calling is petty.
The real issue is that Getup has created an effective add using propaganda and celebrities (think “It’s time”) that needs an effective counter, not tantrums.
So far (much as it galls me to say so) Luke is the only one offering a decent suggestion.
No – The point is that Cate and her hubby are signed up, sealed up, and trained up Al Gore operatives. She’s doing her duty.
On the contrary, Derek, eco-hypocrisy is a major issue.
When these people are not willing to live the limited existences they wish to impose on others, they are no different to a Borgia pope relaxing with his mistress after a hard day’s piety.
The funniest example is when John Travolta did some eco-preaching in England, and someone published a photo of his Boeing and another jet parked at the front door of his mansion. But Travolta is by no means the worst. Personally, I believe in Boeings for all…except those who preach against air travel. They can paddle canoes.
But why spend money on advertising now, when the fix is in? What’s that for?
As far as coming up with a positive solution, it’s called a Federal election. Sorry to repeat myself, but we need to destabilise the independents to force that election, ditch Turnbull and the doctors’ wives, defeat Labor, crush the Greens as a parliamentary force and dissolve the Watermelon bureaucracies.
How’s that for positive?
Good column by Australia’s most widely read columnist about that idiot ad and the idiot content and lies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_if_the_science_is_sound_why_these_lies/
Guys; some of our “fat friends” here can take a long walk. You know who too.
I took time off yesterday to watch the Garnaut Report on TV over lunch and decided the momentum is still with us Luke. Earlier I had been responding to 4 Corners and promoting Aussi standards as the way forward while trying to shut down that grubby money meat trade. But it seems I’m not quite finished yet and I have to say this blog is way off the pace so I won’t dally.
Being cocky is no fun really cause it’s with some sadness I hear the WHO have fingered mobile phones and say they are NOW suspicious re big C. It’s been two decades since I looked for our Dept at the science of health re radiation from lowed powered RF devices used often in close quarters. Same time, my late mate was helping research with her “live” neurones dendrites etc but it was a difficult time as everything had just started. Nothing then was black and white so I recommended extreme caution round the growing personal comms practice.
My point is the science of hazards is always behind our backs as we go down the path of progress.
Btw our mobile phones at home have been used as little as possible for voice calls. I made the link a long time ago with RF and microwave cooking. In fact I routinely fixed induction heaters used in metallurgical labs to convert samples for gas analysis long before I monitored radio communications. How to avoid frying other matter needs to be a mind set. Unfortunately most won’t have it yet.
Emissions of many kinds were my bread and butter so I hope one or two latch on
“My point is the science of hazards is always behind our backs as we go down the path of progress.”
And y’know gav, yuv been right every time!
But this time, why do you all have to tell such lies and misrepresent facts to set up a “carbon” tax that will do absolutely nothing positive yet so much negative.
Do you really believe that the “German Disease” is the way to go?
Gav this topic is about the co2 tax, so please tell us how this new tax will help Australia and how it will save the planet?
Plus also please tell us how we can save the planet by reducing our co2 emissions ( at 2000 levels) of 1.3% by 5% by 2020, or 100% reduction for that matter?
I can easily understand how it can help China and India etc by taking up our lost industries and jobs, but that’s my point.
Luke has taken years to give a sort of answer and agrees it can’t help and he doesn’t believe in the tax, but please where do you stand and your reasons for your stance?
The point seems to be lost that the Luke Walker sketch for an altenartive advt doesnt require nor specify a celebrity.
All due respect Derek I cant agree with you regarding Cate B.
When she uses her status as leading actress she is using positional power to influence others in a way that the opinion of mere mortals and punters cannot do so.
So the views being expressed by her are not equivalent.
Its no different to a recent experience whereby a VP of an entity was going around asking share holders/members about the competence of a Branch Chairman…not me I might add.
Now if anyone else was asking that question that might be OK but the fact that it was a VP was an act of calculated destabilisation and nothing less.
But never mind, the Bolt article referenced by Neville above sums it all up more than adequately
Interesting take on the co2 tax fantasy from Terry McCrann.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-fantasy-a-30bn-a-year-reality/story-e6frfig6-1226066739448
One thing from the Garnaut Report of yesterday that shows how utterly clueless the man really is.
Note how much from his ‘wealth redistribution’ package he suggests for diversion to Renewable Power.
One Billion Dollars.
That’s enough to buy almost two thirds of ONE Concentrating Solar power plant which will produce 250MW of Power. If they divert the heated compound so it can provide ‘close to’ 24 hours of full time power, that power level drops to 50MW.
Even at that proposed 250 MW, there are NONE of these on the Planet in current operation.
Consider Bayswater at 2640MW.
That being the case, and at Garnaut’s $1 Billion, you’ll be needing 13 of these plants just to replace the ONE Bayswater.
He is absolutely clueless.
And all this from an economist.
You would have thought he at least would have checked something like this first.
It very dramatically points out that this Tax has nothing whatsoever to do with finding a way of lowering those emissions.
ONE Renewable plant. Well almost one anyway.
Tony.
OK, the proposed tax is transparent and that’s most important in it’s focus on energy sources, practices etc.
Also Garnaut is the professional in terms of how we move an economy away from structured exploitation of a finite resource. This imo is THE long term goal given we must not waste this planet period!
Think about it, how expensive it will be to put all that CO2 back where it came from if a linked warming is proven beyond belief.
Undoing our historic oxidation practices just by returning to large self sustaining forests is not an option either after considering our growing numbers. Humanity needs to be restrained by a large french letter first and that won’t happen while your kids can read the likes of Bolt, Evans n Co
“if a linked warming is proven beyond belief.”
???
It already is [almost] beyond belief, gav.
You lefties think that more govt, more taxes, more regulation, more welfare is the only way to go.
When we run out of stuff in the ground to flog to China, what happens to a country that’s full of drones and no one to provide the essentials?
The only good it will do is [maybe] stop the boats.
Alan Jones talking to Prof Carter
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9032
well worth listening to
I’ve never heard Prof Carter so angry
The world is almost empty of people. Resources, known and unknown, are in endless supply. And people are the best resource of all.
Those who preach scarcity judge the capability of the human race by the individuals who gave us the BER, Pink Batts and the Carbon Tax.
I agree that if Gillard, Garnaut and the luvvies were representative, then humanity would indeed grind to a miserable stasis.
But we’re heaps better than that!
Be good if this extra tax improves the weather. The trouble is it’s already cold and wet and the bloody warmers want it colder and wetter.
And I’m already looking at a 6.6% power increase because I didn’t use enough electricity. [mindblowing govt logic]. Put the price up because we’re not using enough. Use more and you get taxed.
What ludicrous, lumbering, looney, [but lucrative], lefty logic.
Darwin had its coldest May on record, but as you are well aware this is just weather.
“The cold has affected every district in the Northern Territory”, Weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke told The Age.
“This is due to persistent south-easterly winds which have been very dry, a result of three major cold fronts across south-eastern Australia in the last three weeks,” Mr Dutschke said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html#ixzz1NzCslO5Y
Thanks for that response Gav if just to show your unreasoning, illogical and totalitarian tendencies.
Gav couldn’t care less that China, India etc have effectively told the rest of the world that they won’t be a party to reducing emissions at all. Ditto prominent members of the G8 are now saying they won’t introduce a co2 tax either.
Your totalitarian leftie self loathes the idea that people should have the truth and facts explained to them in any way. Particularly when Garnaut and Gillard etc are lying to the people and trying to bribe their way through to the next election.
We’ve just had record co2 emissions in the past 12 months during a world recession, so where is evidence that we are not wasting our time, money and sacrificing our jobs and industry for this stupidity.
When Garnaut and Gillard tell us the rest of the world is acting to reduce emissions they are lying through their teeth as the recent emissions above prove beyond any doubt.
Yet silly ol Gav still thinks this is a great idea, but can’t state why without sounding like a gormless fool.
gavin,
just wondering mate.
Where you say:
“Think about it, how expensive it will be to put all that CO2 back where it came from if a linked warming is proven beyond belief.”
ALL that CO2 back where it came from.
Might you, er, explain that for us.
I know you think we’re all pretty stupid, but gee, am I missing something here?
Tony.
Tony,
I don’t think you’re missing something but I think Gav may be missing a few brain cells if he thought he actually made a sensible comment back there?
Maybe he thought he was being ironical?
(????)
He will definitely need to explain that particular comment 🙂
Put all that CO2 back where it came from?
Huh?
I’m at a bit of a loss about the relevance of the cancer producing dangers of mobile phones and microwaves to the carbon tax as well?
Huh?
I would also point out that ‘a massive french letter’ has been tried before and has failed miserably.
Go check your history Gav.
The absolute best way to reduce population growth is to lift living standards and education standards to the same level as ours. We are very quick to have smaller families once that happens.
That has never been done successfully from a centralised bureaucracy.
Haven’t you noticed that yet Gav?
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann did a splendid job on this paper.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7758
Yeah, EG, about as close as they’ll ever get, anyway.
More on the “German Disease”:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8546608/Why-Germany-said-no-to-nuclear-power.html
Very nice spangles and here’s me thinking they had ‘cold fusion’ under wraps, but they are just nuclear nimbys.
‘Most Germans are either unaware of the fact that much of their energy is imported from French, Swiss or Polish nuclear plants, or they just don’t care, as long as the reactors are sited far from their own back yards. Germany has become a nation of nuclear nimbys.’
Here’s something John Cook needs to read:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3987
Maybe try this:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.3987
That doesn’t work either. Just click on the first link and then click “printer friendly”
Angela Merkel’s most recent nuclear action was celebrated about noon with a couple of German stubbies when a client turned host. Nice one hey. His choice was a token recognition that could be repeated by others.
Deb; I don’t need long conversations here except for more evidence of your political campaigns and associations. But don’t get me wrong cause I do value the exchanges such as they are for what they are and I do get so excited when you ask ME questions.
This carbon tax issue is only one of many interests so I flow between and hopefully stay fresh. Yesterday I was explaining complex numbers to my mate after she caught some discussion on ABC radio while monitoring feedback on 4 Corners. I was not surprised when she picked it up easily from the various Argand Diagrams on the web. You see; I can get quite lazy in retirement and just scrape through even a local conversation.
It leaves me free to hammer those I think are paid to listen.
I’ve met a number of German travellers in recent months. For all my admiration of German people, not to mention downright fondness, I’d have to say that they are a perfect example of how rationality and intelligence are two different things. They are, of course, an intelligent race, but that intelligence is too often at the service of a twitchy or depressive emotionalism; and CAGW is an ideal catalyst for their collective loopiness. You don’t even try to discuss climate with a German warmist. It actually produces manifest physical symptoms.
The Guardian cannot be matched for daffy environmental commentary, and the New York Times is the home of smugness. But if you want real hysteria, complete with anxiety over shrinking lebensraum, look no further than Der Spiegel. It’s a real worry.
Didn’t this issue start a civil war back in 1776?
“In his report, Professor Garnaut proposed the establishment of an independent committee to set Australia’s carbon emission reduction levels — a proposal that could break the deadlock preventing Labor from winning Greens’ support for the tax.
“Mr Abbott seized on the proposal, warning it would put the power to set tax rates out of the hands of accountable politicians.”
Story here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-report-an-assault-on-democracy-says-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226066768749
Yoda intones about complex numbers and Argand Diagrams which are used to represent such things; complex numbers are imaginary numbers and once again gav hand delivers an appropriate metaphor for AGW.
EG, record cold in Adelaide too:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/time-to-catch-some-winter-rays/story-fn6bqpju-1226066765590
Carter’s interview was a disgrace. Bring on a climate inquiry and put Jones in the dock too.
What manufactured nosh Jones show is.
Record cold eh Spanglers – ooooooo a datum point. Really are you that desperate. Oh look Perth had a record heat wave earlier this year http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/02/27/perth-setting-new-summer-temperature-records
“Record cold eh Spanglers”
Luke, I’m relieved you agree that it’s all a big beat-up.
Fundamentally, like me, you support the null hypothesis
Thanx spangles.
Elsewhere, on green blogs I’m arguing that regional cooling has begun and draw their attention to North America. This contrarian view of the world naturally produces ridicule and they say this late snow is caused by global warming.
As Bob Carter said, they have deaf ears.
I pose the question that ENSO is climate and we observe it in the form of weather, but they say it’s only weather. No matter that a complete cycle takes around 60 years and can be traced back a million years. It’s all political science to them.
So the enemy of reason is deaf and blind in one eye.
Harmless cherry picking, Luke, your side have been doing it for decades.
And while I think of it, AGW has let go its grip on SWWA and there are good seasons ahead.
It was a worthwhile theory, Luke, but I knew instinctively it didn’t have the legs.
Such dribble. But I guess only arseholes listen to 2GB.
gavin
“Yesterday I was explaining complex numbers to my mate ”
Glad to hear you are pestering others with your drivel.
Could you please extend your circle and give us less attention? please ?
Luke,
Did you hear we just had [nationally] our coldest autumn since 1950?
61 years? couldn’t be climate could it?
NAH! OK, just weather.
“Such dribble. But I guess only arseholes listen to 2GB”
Luke,
What with Quadrant and 2GB, you’re gonna need some deodorant.
1.15c below 1961-1990 average.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20110601.shtml
From the BoM press release that spangles mentioned – the coldest Autunm.
‘With the demise of La Niña, a return to above average temperatures is expected, particularly in southern Australia.’
I say they are wrong, relying on their post modern crystal balls, temperatures are not going to increase markedly.
It’s on the fridge, Luke.
Hi Jennifer,
You need to stabilise population growth from the 1.2 million extra people, we are growing by every 3 years. ( Simply abolish the baby bonus…….from ABS data, our birthrate is double our deathrate and make our emmigration rate…around 70k per year to equal our immigration rate. )
The billions being spent on growth infrastructure ( ie pollution) can then be re-directed to research and development of emerging technologies, health and education.
No need for a carbon tax and stabilisation will solve all the “intractible” problems facing Australia and the World.
Cheers,
Ralph
Full marks for putting it on the fridge ! Some post hoc evaluation is always excellent.
I still have six months up my sleeve for Hunter Valley floods, but hopefully my prediction will prove to be s dud. Since the big flood last century they have gone to a lot of expense to avoid a rerun – mitigation works.
gotta love Barnaby!
2nd June 2011
Media Release
Labor still can’t lie straight in bed
Greg Combet has decided to have a go at me for actually answering a straight question on Lateline last night.
The paradox of course is that Greg won’t answer a straight question. The paradox of course is that when I ask Greg a straight question the answer will be silence.
How much will your Green-Labor-Independent carbon tax, Greg, cool the planet? What will be the reduction in temperature from an $11 billion carbon tax imposed on a country that produces 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions?
You will never hear anyone in the government give a straight answer to this straight question. Until they are upfront with you, you should understand that they are trying to inspire guilt and faux righteousness in proxy for facts?
The fact that they ignore is that a carbon tax on Australians is a gesture. It’s a gesture whose only discernible effect will be to exacerbate the problems so clearly evident in last quarter’s record decline in GDP.
The tax will fall on people who can’t pass on the tax and become poorer as excess cash is taken from their lives. Why should these people be used to assuage the feigned guilt of people who are doing vastly better.
I also note that Greg Combet announces the support of financial market economists for a “carbon” price as some kind of victory.
If I were the prospective trader of carbon credits I would definitely find myself a suite of economists to bestow the beauty of me making squillions from punting paper on a colourless, odourless gas. It would be a splendid idea not because of what it is going to do to the climate but what it would do to change the renovations to my house. It would be a splendid idea because it would make the jacuzzi a real possibility.
So Greg Combet you support the people, and good luck to them, who have seen you coming and are going to make an absolute bucket load, and I’ll support the people who are going to have to pay for it.
And that Question? I think it’s this one:
Carbon tax capers with our local Laugh-In hosts, comedy duo Jonesy and Joycey. Act I – A Straight Answer: (thanks to Tim Blair)
TONY JONES: I’m asking you about what you’d do about it if you got into government, since you’ve promised – well let’s work this out.
BARNABY JOYCE: Well I’ll give you a straight answer.
TONY JONES: No, first of all: how will you …
BARNABY JOYCE: OK, I won’t give you a straight answer.
TONY JONES: OK, well give me a straight answer on that.
BARNABY JOYCE: Straight answer is of course we’ve said from the outset that we would not introduce a tax and we’ll repeal it if it comes in, and of course if you’re repealing the tax, you’re repealing the mechanisms that go with it.
Barnaby is right!
Just remember El Gordo – all those you get right AND all those you get wrong. Then are you better than chance?
POAMA thinks we are going into warm, but the smart money is on neutral to cool.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMonE120.gif
Not concerned about being wrong, I’m traveling well, better than evens.
Good news on the MDB, they finally listened to our plea and will stop the water buyback because of the floods etc.
EG,
Windsor may have been some use on the MDB reassesment. Maybe he can apply some common sense to the carbon tax.
He needs to do something to earn his keep with his constituents.
where’s the common sense in the carbon tax spangled?
Yeah val, good point. I meant, of course, the CT proposal and to apply common sense by voting it out.
Wouldn’t that be a turn-up? Absolute redemption for Windsor.
Have you noticed how much air time this has had? Can’t imagine why not.
Imagine if it was warming instead. All the govt hired guns would be spruiking it up and down the country:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20110601.shtml
Another known unknown:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/dont-look-behind-the-green-curtain/
Like this:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/jun/climate-projections-don%E2%80%99t-accurately-reflect-soil-carbon-release
And beware the green Google monster:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Google_Results_060211.html
Media bias, spangles, not to worry we will win eventually. Just received my regular email from Warren Truss and he says farmers are now squarely in this government’s carbon tax sights. Prof Garnaut’s report says:
‘The proposed date for inclusion of New Zealand agriculture (2015) is a good time for a review of whether circumstances have changed enough for Australia to have full coverage of the land sector.’
‘The Independent Committee should undertake this review in 2015 and examine the barriers to full coverage of the land sectors in the emissions trading scheme. The review should examine experience in measuring and administering offsets for land-based emissions within the Carbon Farming Initiative.’
They don’t trust the government or Greens in this lose coalition and so the farmers will presumably support the miners at the next election.
If the Farming and Grazing area is coming under fire now from placing this ‘price on Carbon’, just you wait and see what the projected end result will bring.
Keep in mind that this is just an interim measure, and the end result will be what they wanted all along, an Emissions Trading Scheme, which has been flagged already.
If they are to go on proposed overseas Legislation, that ETS will place a price on anything up to 16 of those supposed Greenhouse gases.
Each gas will be priced according to its volatility when compared to CO2.
Methane is just the one of those emissions that will directly affect that farming/grazing community as that Methane will be priced at 25 times what CO2 will be priced at.
Some of those gases will be priced as high as 22,800 times what CO2 is.
This ‘price on Carbon’ is just step one of the ‘plan’.
For some insight on how things might go, see this Post of mine on the now failed proposed U.S. legislation.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/kerry-lieberman-the-great-big-april-fools-day-tax-grab/
Tony.
I wouldn’t put too much faith in Mr Windsor sorry to say
but hopefully I’ll be proved wrong
There’s an awful lot of propoganda going round at the moment about the necessity for the carbon dioxide tax – what the rest of the world is or is not doing – my mother heard today that the polar bears were in trouble and I thought that issue was solved 12 months or so ago
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/peer-reviewed-science-polar-bears-of-the-past-survived-warmth/
how much does the populace really absorb of this stuff
From my experience from talking to people a lot of voters have stopped listening to the Gov’t
I got this e mail today: No wonder we’re not listening; what is the Govt saying except ‘look over there’
Instead of self-flagellating for feeling guilty about being irreverent in some messages I posted to ALP Pollies, I decided to punish myself by watching question time http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr020611.pdf 2nd June 2011.
I understood most of the questions but I am still trying to find what the answers were.
You can find the relevant Q&As by the ( time) after the names. ( by the way, I’m cured, I don’t feel anywhere near as guilty for being irreverent now).
Economy
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Treasurer’s floundering performance in selling the budget on 7.30 last night and in question time today, will the Prime Minister confirm her appointment of Ken Henry to her personal staff is an attempt to find an alternative, more credible economic figurehead than this lightweight Treasurer?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:10): To the statement or whatever it was that the member for Mackellar just came and spoke at the dispatch box about, can I say this: the Treasurer is doing a fantastic job selling a budget that is about jobs and opportunity for the nation. Of course we are seeing this reaction by the Liberal Party, because they do not care about jobs, they do not care about a strong economy and they do not care about opportunity.
Interjections.
I was, of course, very conscious when I used the word ‘jobs’ that the opposition would jeer. They just do not care. I knew when I used the word ‘opportunity’ the opposition would jeer. They just do not care. And I knew when I used the words ‘strong economy’ the opposition would jeer, because they do not understand the importance of a strong economy to this nation’s future. So that is exactly what I expected them to do, because in the modern age—and it does pain me to say it because it has not been true of the Liberal and National parties in the past—the only role that they have is to try and wreck, destroy and create fear. They have no policies or plans for the nation’s future.
Let’s just start with the budget and a strong economy. Nothing matters to working families more than keeping the economy strong. The transition our economy is in now requires bringing the budget back to surplus. The Treasurer, working with other members of the economic team, has taken the decisions to get that done. Meanwhile, over there on the opposition front bench, we have had no budget reply and no plan to return the budget to surplus, because they do not have the intellectual capacity or desire to do something in the nation’s interest. This week we have had to watch the absolute shambles of the shadow Treasurer blaming his poor budget reply on the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Goldstein.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker, on a point of order in the light of the new paradigm and direct answers to questions. My question was about the Treasurer and his competence and nothing else.
The SPEAKER: I indicated that, whilst it was debate, I had allowed the argument that was the introduction to the question. As I have said before, that did open very wide the rule of direct relevance to the question. The Prime Minister has the call and she knows that she needs to relate her response directly to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker. I am relating my response very directly to what the member for Mackellar asked. The member for Mackellar should note that in order to act as the leadership of this nation you have to be able to make the tough decisions to keep the economy strong. We have done that in the recent budget. The Treasurer did that, leading the economic team to deliver the budget back to surplus. If anybody in the opposition—anybody—has a plan to return the budget to surplus we have not seen it yet. In the greatest display of economic incompetence that this parliament has ever had to witness, we have seen no budget reply from any member of the opposition.
At the core of the budget are jobs and opportunity. We know that the opposition do not care about jobs. They would have got all the big decisions to support Australian jobs wrong. That is what the budget is about. And it is about opportunity. We know that the opposition do not care anything about opportunity. In government their track record on spreading opportunity was woeful and in opposition all they stand for is cuts to education, apprenticeships, schools and universities—you name it, they want to cut it.
We will keep pursuing this vision. I will do it; the Deputy Prime Minister will do it. Of course we will seek advice from those who have served the Australian nation well. I would have thought, if there were a modicum of interest in the nation’s future from those opposite, they would be happy to see that someone of the capacity of Ken Henry was still available for public service in the interests of the nation. But cheap politics is all they know.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Carbon Pricing
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:20): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to comments by the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency yesterday in which he forecast that the carbon price would escalate in line with international carbon prices. Given that the European carbon price is forecast to rise to up to $80 a tonne by 2020, can the Treasurer confirm that an $80 a tonne carbon price would force household electricity bills up by $900 a year and petrol prices up by 20c a litre?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:21): They are simply making it up, yet again. They are trying to peddle fear. They are making it up because they are so acutely embarrassed by the fact that they have all been exposed as climate change deniers. That is why we are seeing this fear campaign. We are seeing a fear campaign because they do not believe that climate change is a problem for our country. Their leader is now exposed. He has not got the character, he has not got the conviction and he has not got the toughness to actually provide a policy alternative in this House. So what do we see?
Dr Stone: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly the question was about the price increases forecast by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency yesterday. The Treasurer is straying right off into personal invective.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray will resume her seat. The Treasurer should directly relate his material to the question. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: I was directly relating my material to the question. What we have here is a scare campaign because those opposite are so embarrassed by the fact that the Liberal Party and National Party in this House are now run and dominated by climate change deniers. The consequence of that is that they are not up to the
task of putting in place the policies our country needs to secure our prosperity for the future.
What we have is an opposition leader who is simply a hollow man, and he is backed up by a shadow Treasurer who is simply the same. We have a shadow Treasurer over there who once believed in the science of climate change, but no longer. He is so bereft of any conviction that he has to put out a message on Twitter asking people what he should think. That is the lack of conviction of the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition. They have all become climate change deniers.
I notice that the member for Wentworth is sitting there embarrassed at the performance of all of those on the front bench and of the members behind him because he belled the cat on their so-called direct action policy.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will directly relate his remarks and bring his answer to a conclusion.
Mr SWAN: I am bringing my answer to a conclusion—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call. I have given him a direction. He will conclude.
Mr SWAN: This is the same scare campaign that we saw during the global financial crisis. This is what the shadow Treasurer had to say then. Mr Hockey said:
… 300,000 Australians are going to lose their jobs in its first term.
That is what he said about the government during the global financial crisis. Well, what happened? We now have another example of a scare campaign. All this is about is that they no longer believe in the science of climate change and are not up to the task of putting forward an alternative policy for Australia.
Tony, Val & others..I should draw your attention to headlines on the front page of my Canberra Times today.
Apparently some numb head from a septics point of view has been threatening our top climate scientists, so they now work in a cocoon.
This is what happens; although I’m a likely spooks watch in just blogging, death threats to anyone including VIP’s bring in the old AFP. By association we are all being watched now as it’s a necessary part of our democracy. But I regularly tell our pollies what I ‘m thinking and thus make myself an easy target.
Open discussion is good stuff despite the characters we invent on the internet. Some body or people have been doing a bad campaign behind the scene so watch out for the anti terror squad.
gavin I’ve just had a look at the on line version of the Canberra Times but no headline like that
It’ll be okay, Gavin.
Those “top climate scientists” were already in a cocoon. To believe in the Hockey Stick and climate models, you need to be insulated from all common sense and as well as all human history. If these scientists are based in Canberra, they’re in a cocoon within a cocoon. Safe and impenetrable, I assure you.
And you don’t have to worry about anything you read from a Fairfax journalist. They still believe in Gough Whitlam and pixies.
So it’s all good.
Gavin It’s niggling at me but I’ve heard that allegation before; it was the scientists working ‘in a cocoon’ that I remember
I’ve looked on the web but can’t find it
But have an idea it related to the UK
anyway …. a little mystery
Meanwhile it’s all eventually supposed to be about an International carbon market, but the Guardian says the market is just the EU ( 97%) and buggerall for the rest of the world.
Just another reason we would be barking mad to go down this co2 tax to full blown ETS path.
Russia, Canada, Japan, USA won’t have anything to do with a Kyoto 2 or anything like it, yet Labor is stupid enough to sacrifice our economy because they dream that 1.3% can really influence the rest of the world.
Of course we have one of Oz’s top (????) economists in Garnaut who doesn’t seem to be able to even calculate very simple sums requiring just basic primary school maths.
Meanwhile 2010 was the highest year for co2 emissions outstipping even 2008 by about 1.3GTs. Europe of course is faltering and a number of countries are in recession, but China and India power on and definitely won’t even consider a co2 tax or ETS.
So what happens to co2 emissions if the world starts to boom again and there is much stronger demand and trade between China etc and the developed world?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets
Exactly Neville and Tony,
It seems to be more about creating a global ETS that will be primarily funded by taxpayers & industry taxes and will be controlled by bureaucrats.
It seems that climate change and AGW is the EXCUSE to do it.
It is laughable that they’re even pretending that it will be driven by the market.
What market would that be?
A government’s and a bureaucracy’s definition of ‘driven by the market’ is not the one that the real market uses.
Their idea is that they get to control the product and the base price and also where it goes.
Not unlike the NSW State Govt’s idea of ‘privatising’ electricity.
Val; the Canberra Times article in now up on the web
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear-scientists-face-death-threats/2185089.aspx
thanks for that gavin, just for interest I had googled ‘death threats to climate scientists’ and if you do the same you’ll see there’s even been a doc on it by Clive Hamilton and then there’s this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats
here’s more about the 5 part series by Clive Hamilton
http://www.ecoshock.org/labels/Australia.html
a para from that article:
Clive Hamilton is a Professor of Public Ethics, supported by Australian National University and the University of Melbourne. Previously, he founded and ran a progressive think tank called the Australia Institute.
I don’t recall anything coming out of what seems to be numerous allegations
so … a mystery
A chat on radio national about noon today referred to that great ice sheet south and how so much is below current sea level. It is under surveillance now by our guys normally based in Hobart cause it’s going under and needs to be modeled.
We can guess the vastness of this underwater slab with all it’s old fiord’s has become a great interest for climate science despite those dastardly threats. Nature is on the ball here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature10114.html
We can relax about the ice problem.
It’s all taken care of:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/obama-reversed-the-decline-in-sea-ice/
“cause it’s going under and needs to be modeled.”
But will they put the CO2 horse’s arse befort the cart or VV?
Even Josh can’t feel safe these days:
“An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/03/yes-impossibly-stupid-weather-panic-is-the-new-normal/#more-40695
The German Solution.
A proactive transformation into a new sustainable society:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/3/that-german-report.html#comments
Ex Judith Curry, ex Bishop Hill:
“This is very sound advice. Pity the Australian Government has not heeded it!
When did Australian government politicians invite climate skeptics to present the case against AGW? (The US has done so and wisely backed off)
“The marked difference between US and Australia is that the minority Australian Government remains captive to irrational green ideology.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/03/when-scientists-advise-politicians/#more-3458
here’s a weird story
Data for study based on TWO fish sample size: challenges to Australia’s Climate Comission go unanswered
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/study-based-on-two-fish-sample-size-challenges-to-australias-climate-comission-go-unanswered/#more-40677
and check out the comment by
charles nelson says:
June 4, 2011 at 12:30 am
Dear Moderator,
Not absolutely on subject but ABC (aus) Radio News just ran a story about a Climate Scientist at Melbourne Uni who has received death threats, for tirelessly speaking the truth about Climate change. Apparently University authorities have taken steps to upgrade his security. Corollis or something like that was his name…
This smells mighty fishy to me…why should this story arise now. Of course I have a theory.
In the media spin business timing is everything and as the Warmists watch their support dwindle away with every brimming lake, every desert bloom, every fresh fall of snowin the mountains and every extra layer of clothing the Australian population is putting on to contend with the coldest weather in 40 years…is it possible that some clever green media rascal has decided that if you can’t win the argument about the ‘Science’ then why not try to paint ‘Deniers’ as murderous fanatics?
Kind of like the exploding children idea but turned round 180 degrees.
Smacks of desperation. GRrrreat!
spangles, I noticed the Bish is cutting all the Nazi references. All things considered, that is a safe move.
I understand from claims made elsewhere that Combet/Gillard have already signed up to pay the UN 10% of the funds collected from the stupid Carbon Tax.
Is that true?
..and if so, where is the evidence, because I cannot find it in the meagre documentation available.
That’s what it’s all about Malcolm, peer pal approval on the world stage and stuff the proles.
Malcolm, Combet in Cancun promised 10% to the UN.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/billions-of-dollars-sneaks-out-the-door-through-un-committees/
Good column by Abbott, particularly where he states that carbon intensive industries have been farmed out by Europe so their emissions growth at home can level off.
A lot of food for thought in this column, certainly confirmed my view that Gillard’s tax is just a colossal fraud and will help to wreck our economy for zero return.
Oh and of course it won’t change the climate at all.
Sorry I’ll try again, here is that Abbott column.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-is-just-adding-crippling-costs/story-e6frg6zo-1226017292537
Bulldust has an interesting post at Jo Nova’s blog.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/australia%e2%80%99s-invisible-energy-trade-better-than-most-and-getting-even-better/
Thanks El Gordo..I missed that one
What sad-sad story it is as well.
I am beginning to despair for my country…can any Govt possibly be more incompetent than this Gillard shower…
…there is hardly a thing they have done since coming to office that has turned out to have been for our collective best interests either in the short term or long.
I reckon there must be something in the water or coffee in Canberra thats fed to cabinet ministers that turns off the gene for commonsense…..I blame Global Warming.
It seems to have somehow entered our political psyche that in order for Australia to become a good GLOBAL citizen, Australia must expose Australian Industries to stupid and unnecessary risks.
Both sides of parliament (very unfortunately) have signed Australia up to ‘International Treaties’ that are using the emotional and moral EXCUSE of the environment and man’s influence on climate phenomena to centralise political and economic power.
We all argue about the veracity of ‘the science’ and so we should, but don’t we also need to be aware of the ‘WHY’ factor?
Are they really doing it to reduce emissions and save the environment?
When we examine the ‘science’ against the stated goals and the stated justifications for charging taxes and confiscating productive resources, it simply doesn’t add up.
Punishing Australian industries in this manner can’t possibly have any positive GLOBAL effect on climate or environment. It is very likely it won’t even have any positive LOCAL effect on climate and environment.
The only positive outcome (for anyone) is extra buckets of taxpayer money for federal bureaucracies and extra power for them, as they will have the power to redistribute this money.
There appears to be no positive outcome for Australian Industry, Australian Climate or Australian Environment. (Unless they can justify getting federal government grants ?????)
It looks to me as if our federal parliament has completely lost the plot. (????)
But maybe that isn’t it?
Maybe we don’t fully understand the WHY factor?
Are we perhaps dealing with a political philosophy rather than climate and the environment?
I’m not sure, but I am sure that the stated goals are unlikely to be achieved by the advocated actions.
But Debbie I’d just like to see the stated goals that would be derived from our actions and a full cost benifit analysis before we proceed.
Ditto of course for the NBN, but it’s an unbelievable scandal we haven’t had a proper CB analysis for spending mind bogling amounts of money decades into the future for either of these two schemes.
Will we really get better useful and competitive B/Band for an outlay of perhaps $50+ billions and how much will the planet’s temp etc be changed by Oz reducing our 1.3% emissions by 5% by 2020? Of course as we proceed those emission percentages must be increased every year to achieve that 5% reduction and everyone knows this is an impossible task.
Because the developing world are increasing emissions of co2 at such a pace we know every tonne saved in the first world will be swamped by 20 tonnes newly emitted by China, Idia etc.
This is a sick joke played out by Juliar, Garnaut and their supporters on the Oz electorate and can only defeat us and waste billions $ decades into the future.
But what is their purpose and how can they be so stupid? It’s got to be something else.
I’ve just put this comment on another blog but you guys are bright too and I’m confused
here’s the disclaimer to the most recent Climate Change Report
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.pdf
This publication is produced for general
information only and does not represent a
statement of the policy of the Commonwealth
of Australia or indicate a commitment to
a particular policy or course of action. The
views expressed in this paper are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Commonwealth of Australia. The
Commonwealth of Australia and all persons
acting for the Commonwealth of Australia
preparing this publication accept no liability for
the accuracy, completeness or reliability of or
inferences from the material contained in this
publication, or for any action as a result of any
person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this
material. Before any action or decision is taken
on the basis of this material the reader should
obtain appropriate independent advice.
If you had gone to a doctor for a birth control pill at the time thalidomide was on the market you would have expected medical advice if the product was not safe – and because it was not there were later class actions; same applied in the case of breast implants
How come we so brainwashed (present company excepted) that we accept the contents of this latest Climate Change report when no one is prepared to accept responsibility for it?
Why are not Governments and their employees responsible for damages for policies they initiate when in the case of other professions Govt’s insist on accepted responsibility?
Question for the brighter than I am
Neville,
And the stupid tax will also limit the R&D that it is supposed to promote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359141720640306.html
I remember reading the original charter for the IPPC and it was never designed to find out WHETHER mankind influenced climate but by HOW MUCH.
Right from the start it was a political ideological instrument designed to tax western govts. and redistribute wealth to third world countries and to promote the aim of World Government, and consequently through free trade equalize labour costs. A World Currency is part of the aim, and with the deliberate devaluation of the American Dollar this is becoming more of a possibility within a few years.
Watch out for the US dollar being replaced as the international currency by a basket of currencies designated by the IMF, just this last week China was selling off short term US Treasuries in a big way, and are now the worlds biggest gold buyers.
When Oil is traded by alternative currencies instead of US Dollars look out for retaliation by the US if the Industrial/Military is in control, or a push for an International Currency if the radical left are in control, IMHO
“How come we so brainwashed (present company excepted) that we accept the contents of this latest Climate Change report when no one is prepared to accept responsibility for it?”
Good question val but there are lots of brainwashed out there:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235955.htm
As Julian says the ideology has been around for a long time simply looking for somewhere to go.
Particularly since 1990 and the collapse of USSR.
Now it considers it has struck gold.
What’s a little tax here or there?
Plus that other mad, failed ideology of the 20th century:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/eu_germany0660_06_01.asp
Interesting times ahead.
Nev “But what is their purpose and how can they be so stupid? It’s got to be something else”
It is simply a plan to make a process adjustment by moving some extra money around and if you listened to our ABC more, you would have noted recent discussions on how that money is derived in various schemes and which sector of an economy carries the major burden up front
Val; Garnaut is not Government but is part of an academic institution studying policy and economics.
Julian; you must put you finger on something asap so close your eyes for a mo then strike
SD; I see you are wallowing in it with out looking up those sources
Gav I think we all understand that it’s about moving money around.
Trouble is it has nothing to do with AGW and providing a fix for the climate, I know by now we all understand this, even though most won’t acknoweledge the fact.
Interesting post by the Bolter on the cowardice of the CAGW brigade and possibly pig ignorant rudeness to be shown to a strong hero who stood up to the totalitarianism of the mad left.
Anyway I’m sure his logic and reason will shine through when Vaclav Klaus visits next month.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_gillard_terrified_to_meet_a_sceptic/
Of course if they could overcome the simple maths they would be demanding time on Bolt’s show wouldn’t they?
What an easy opportunity to make a fool of the countries number one sceptic and prove him wrong, plus deliver a knockout blow.
Trouble is they know that the simple maths would leave them with eggs dripping all over their silly faces.
Silly Timmy tried but won’t come back and his “several hundred years/possibly a thousand years” revelation was very handy ammunition for the rational, reasoned side of thge argument.
BTW I’m not necessarily endorsing silly Timmy’s assessment but it just enlightens us to the quality of numbskull we have as HEAD of the govt’s campaign.
Gavin I accept what you say about Garnett but there is this sentence in the disclaimer which clearly extends it to the Govt
The Commonwealth of Australia and all persons
acting for the Commonwealth of Australia
preparing this publication accept no liability for
the accuracy, completeness or reliability of or
inferences from the material contained in this
publication, or for any action as a result of any
person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this
material.
A new carbon tax Galaxy poll shows that 58% are opposed and 28% are in favour, remainder undecided.
Two thirds want Juliar to call an early election before a tax is introduced and 75% believe it will leave then worse off and deliver little for the environment.
Importantly only 24% think Juliar has a mandate to introduce the tax. GeeeZZZZ what a surprise, Carbon Cate and crew have sunk like a lead balloon.
Probably one of the most deceitful ads in Australian history, bit of a problem for HIPPO Cate and her like minded friends.
http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=621774&vId=2461070&cId=National
Get off it Val – let’s randomly pick a Fed document http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares99010546/Aust_Dairy_2011_REPORT.pdf
Oh look – moo cows….
See what the front page says as a disclaimer. Basically they’re not going to be set up by skanky lawyers running bogus legal claims.
It’s been common practice for years.
Quote of the Week:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”–Thomas Jefferson
Paul Howe [AWU] “This problem [AGW] is not going away.”
You don’t even know if it is a problem
so Luke you’re in favour of the Fed Govt and/or its agents abrogating responsibility
should I or should I not be surprised