THE Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Greg Hunt MP, was in Brisbane yesterday explaining the Coalition’s plan to tackle climate change post September 14, 2013. You can download the manifesto as presented at the seminar here:
The Coalition’s Direct Action Plan, 29 April 2013 (9.8MB)
Clearly the Coalition has no intention of showing leadership on this issue with Mr Hunt explaining that:
“We agree with the Government on the science of climate change, we agree on the targets to reduce emissions and we agree on using markets as the best mechanism.”
But I can’t see how this “Direct Action Plan” can possibly work as detailed, in particular the economics of revegetation for carbon sequestration and soil carbon sequestration don’t add-up. Yet Mr Hunt claims:
“The fund will not only reduce our emissions, it will improve Australia’s environment through a range of measures including revegetation, better land management and enhanced soil quality.”
But hang on. Mr Hunt is claiming the price of carbon will climb to $350 per tonne by 2050. Ha! Hasn’t anyone told Mr Hunt that the carbon market recently collapsed in Europe? Only a fool or a politician could write:
“This simple, straightforward approach is a vastly better way to tackle climate change than the blunt instrument that is the Carbon Tax, which has already inflicted economy-wide pain and will continue to do so as it climbs to its own predicted price of $350 per tonne of C02 by 2050. That is why we will repeal the Carbon Tax and replace it with a classic reverse auction system, based on incentive and innovation.”
What a crock!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
There are two key words which mark out leftist these days, one of them borrowed from the conservative side. Those words are “market” and “mechanism”. Progressives like Hunt understand the dynamic of free enterprise, but not the ferment and uncertainty which make it possible. They want things tidy. They want buttons and levers and consoles. They want scientism with its safely gang-reviewed sign-offs, its facile solutions in place of science. “Markets” must not form an unsightly, fermenting mush but must be “created” and “fostered” selectively by government. No wonder these people believe in “tackling climate change”: it’s the ultimate in bailouts! The climate is too big to fail.
The carbon market is merely the craziest button on the control panel. Even Abbott, though a closet climate skeptic, thinks he can forge a desirable bourgeoisie by lavish parental pay. Great idea to create more aspirationals to annoy the Fairfax readership and be the butt of lame ABC satire – but that much free money is going to lead to unpredictable social changes and ingenious manipulation. Obviously! Free money does that to people, large amounts do it large.
Let’s make sure the local sandwich shop can afford to give a kid a holiday job. Let’s make sure it can afford its refrigeration and power. Don’t tell me that’s too simple. In fact, it’s currently proving much too hard for the deep thinkers who are guiding our destinies.
Use logic and reason, first get rid of the Co2 tax and then the rest can be more easily dropped down the track.
Of course if you want to butt your head against a brick wall go ahead and vote for Labor and the greens.
The Coalition’s preference is a disgrace but you won’t change them before September. At least put Labor and the Greens stone motherless last or you’re heading for big trouble.
Robert, YES
Neville, I suspect that the public may, yet again not trust either lot enough to elect them outright.
It is a long way yet until September and every day our, conservative State Loonies are pushing voters away. They learned nothing in opposition at all.
This link is to the audio of an RN program , sorry no transcript there.
What Bob Hatton says at the end about today’s politicians is priceless
( And relates to this discussion )
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/practical-christianity/4630066
Ian the polls don’t show that the new coalition govts are in trouble across OZ. Even Vic vote has quickly picked up to 50/50 after the change over to Napthine.
Napthine also leads Andrews by a large margin as preferred premier. Last poll on Qld showed Campbell on about 60/40 or about the same as election.
About the same in NSW.
WA just elected coalition with a record majority and Labor is well behind inTassie and SA.
I watched Costello on their ABC 7.30 last night and he was brilliant. Just makes me sick to see the mess Labor has made of the budget since 2007.
Also the illegal immigrant con is a mess tailor made by the clueless Rudd and Gillard govts. Abbott is definitely a sceptic and hopefully will use the excuse of the budget mess to finish off much of the Labor/ Green fraudulent spending on so called CAGW.
Hunt should be sacked, he’s an ignorant pissant.
Robert is probably correct, which leaves me in dispair.
eg, I don’t despair of an effective Abbott government. More likely it will be just barely okay, but just-okay is brilliant, when you think about it. Much hinges on whether Abbott can be sufficiently ruthless in victory, while remaining polite and approachable so he doesn’t do a Kennett.
The big worry is if Labor manages to change riders in the coming months. Gillard is a phenomenal survivor, which means she can keep out Rudd, who is not sane. A new Labor leader who is briefly popular, able to tilt Qld, and who is not sane…there’s something to worry about.
Abbott can’t afford to rock the boat too much in this modern era of mindless entitlement.
I see Scrotical Science is promoting this stupidity. They could check their own backyard where they don’t need a model to tell them the highest cyclone surge was 80 years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/on-holland-and-bruyere-2013-recent-intense-hurricane-response-to-global-climate-change/#more-85325
More model wankery on Antarctic sea ice and alibis from Susan Soloman:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-paper-finds-ipcc-models-predicted.html
Greg Hunt is an idiot – that’s why Abbott made put him in charge of the environment. Anyone with any clue might want to do something more practical and sensible. Lets see what happens after the election.
Its been warm in Oz, I blame the jet stream.
‘Australia’s run of exceptionally warm weather has extended into May, giving the country its second-hottest start to the year on record.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/summer-of-record-heat-extends-into-may-20130501-2irue.html#ixzz2S2A1nUsc
‘Lets see what happens after the election.’
Yep he may reshuffle his front bench, particularly if a double D is required, then Abbott could raise the bar significantly.
The prudent approach would be to sack Flannery and climate commissioners, replacing them with sceptics and denialati who will shock the nation when they say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
Pigs can fly.
Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) says the UK science advisers should be sacked.
http://www.thegwpf.org/andrew-montford-fire-governments-scientific-advisers/
Sounds like a good idea and I sincerely hope Abbott notices.
Re. Abbott and specially Hunt,
Brace yourselves for a bitter disappointment, that way at least you won’t be surprised.
I’d rather stick with someone ruining us based on a conviction, then someone doing it on false pretenses.
Pox on both of their houses!
Froth froth froth. Old denialist codgers having a whinge. Sigh …..
Luke
“Old denialist codgers”
denialist? sort of but Old and a codger? speak for yourself Luke
Hunt is a true believer and a deceitful hypocrite; he has had numerous presentations of overwhelming evidence against AGW which cogency he has acknowledged but his response every time is that everyone is entitled to their belief about AGW.
I hope Abbott is merely biding his time and will give full expression to his views after the election; but he will have his hands full with the likes of Hunt.
Hunt is a lost cause and his ‘mind’ is closed on this subject; he deserves sustained public ridicule and humiliation.
To be fair though, if they plan to repeal the carbon tax, it doesn’t matter what the carbon price will be in 2050 and at present Treasury and Labor HAVE NOT adjusted their forecast price even though the Coalition have said they should. Until they do, he really can’t change that line except to add (but based on current European carbon prices it’s not likely to be as high as $350 per tonne). But who knows? If the legislation is in place it could be anything.
The good thing, and there is only one, about the Coalition’s direct action plan, is that it doesn’t involve buying carbon credits from overseas. Now that is just an exercise in boxing up and shipping out a pile of money for nothing!
To be fair though, what would you do if you were Greg Hunt? Government relies on the advice of those paid to provide advice. I know we’ve discussed this before, but I do not find fault with either Labor or Coalition for developing policy response to climate change. On balance, the advice of the major organisations and individuals doing the science is that CO2 is driving climate change.
I would hope that in the case of something so potentially adverse to our society, government would act on their advice and not on personal whims after reading a few blogs. You can’t expect ministers to research to deep detail on every matter that comes before them. Geez, I’ve been following this stuff for years and I am still only about 70/30 in favour of a sceptical view.
I think we can criticise the policy responses based on objective criteria, but I really don’t think you should fault the fact that there ARE policy responses. That is why we elect governments.
Graeme..your comments are reasonble, but contain some flaws.
It assumes that the public servants providing the advice are doing so with complete impartiality. That would have to be highly questionable..Just to mention one name from another country… Hansen
It assumes that the scientific processes from funding, to assessment and ranking, and including the managment of the Govt institutions are competent. Almost certainly a complete fail. For example PR is flawed to hell.ARC funding mechanisms are biased and inefficient, and most research institutions such as Hansens’ NASA unit, the our CSIRO, and UK equivalents cannot be trusted on the subject of climate. Further the universities are not trusted by the public on this topic, being nothing more than outlets for leftist agendas, rather than scientific truths.
It also assumes that the relevant professional bodies such as the RS and Institutes of Physics ( using yet another O/S analogy), are not also in the thrall of agenda driven activists. It would be highly unlikely that the equivalent institutions in this country are not also tarred with the same brush.
If I was in Hunt shoes, I would privately be treating all advice from with and without, with deepest suspicion..but hedge my bets until the very latest, and once in Govt bore right in on the fundamentals by including the many well rounded academics sceptics ..you know those retired Chief Scientists et al, who have strong records of achievment and public duty, but who dont go along with the mantra. The very same people a respondent above likes to disparage, and any other comment that may be sceptical of the b/s peddled by the climatariat activists.
We need to value the findings of scientists highly, but their recommendations less. They are great at science (hence “scientists”) but not so great at thinking. In that, they are often a touch below average, because they are too prone to mechanistic and sequential thought processes when situations are too complex and knowledge is too scarce to justify such. What I am saying is: technology great, technocracy terrible. We can’t repeat Ike’s final warning often enough, the warning he gave after the bit about the military/industrial complex:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Poor old Ike must be spinning in his grave.
Statesmanship is now just used as a facade by US leaders and is not the priority of either major lot in Canberra.
They are all falling over each other to sell as many of our assets into foreign control as they can.
They call this “foreign investment in Australia ”
They race each other to do unfavourable, ( to us ) trade deals with US ,China, etc.
Meanwhile the people, whose work and dedication to their Country built the assets, can’t afford to cook their food or heat their homes.
Now, with that off my chest, back O/T . If I was given the job Mr Hunt has , I wouldn’t have any day to day Govt tweaking of the climate to watch over and I could only attend so many cocktail parties.
I could only spend so much time lobbying for a good job after politics and worrying where to invest my obscene superannuation.
Therefore I would certainly have time to look out the window at the weather and read a few independent papers on the subject.
That WOULD, after all, be my actual job.
Nope , he is there to blur the field until after the election, when climate slides into history.
The worry there is if the Libs through some slip up by Tony , stick Malcolm in charge.
He has an agenda and there is money in it .
Graeme I think you’re confused. I’m not a sceptic of some warming from a doubling of co2 emissions.
I accept we may see as much as 1c extra warming if we increase co2 to 560ppmv in the atmosphere. But I accept that feedbacks will be negative, so zip to worry about anyhow.
But there is no debate about what we can do about it. The answer is nothing. If Kyota had worked perfectly until 2100 we would have postponed warming by just 4 years, effectively zero.
Perfectly would mean that all of the OECD rich countries would meet all their targets until 2100 and the non OECD would not increase emissions at all.
It was always BS and so far the USA is more on target than anyone and they actually refused to sign the stupid treaty.
BTW the Bolter has Sports bet latest prices on the election for a bet of $1. Labor is $7 for a win and Coalition is $1.09.
This is effectively a two horse race so I don’t think the Coalition could be a firmer favourite. That’s unless you think Palmer or Katter have heaps more support than I do.
But I’m sure Katter will win a senate seat in Qld and an even chance in NSW. Two senste seats could make a big difference in the senate numbers.
Don’t forget Katter and Palmer are very hostile towards the co2 tax and they’ll certainly get my preference way before Labor and the Greens.
All rational comments, but as a member of the denialati I am convinced that global cooling is fast approaching and our politicians have their collective heads in a bucket of sand.
Graeme if I was Greg Hunt I would shock the world by telling the simple truth … ‘It now appears that CO2 is not a pollutant, as the PM would have us believe, but is in fact a harmless trace gas.’
Bob Carter should become Climate Commissioner and Hunt could discuss Plan B.
This may have a political impact if they get it off the ground…Tropher Field is making a vid and seeks donations.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change
Wonder if Greg Hunt knows that applying Fourier Analysis its going to get cool very quickly.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fourier-analysis-reveals-six-natural-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/
This cooling regime could have a dramatic impact on world food production.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1383061-crop-progress-only-5-of-corn-crop-planted?source=google_news
Does Greg Hunt know? Should someone tell him?
“Does Greg Hunt know? Should someone tell him?”
He is our local member.
Nobody can tell him anything unless it’s something he wants to hear.
He is the worst kind of politician, cock sure of himself, a legend in his own mind.
Don’t know if any of you remember the controversy about the Point Nepean development proposal some years back now.
I was still a member of the libs then and a group of us acted as his ears listening to radio stations,
and reporting back to him.
We had supplied him very good info of what activist would be asking, did he listen?
No, and they creamed him at the public meeting.
Stubborn moron.
‘Nobody can tell him anything unless it’s something he wants to hear.’
Hunt has a tin ear, just like joolya.
JW, I think you have summed Hunt up well.
I have watched him on Q&A a few times; he is a natural fit.
‘Only hear what they want to hear’ looks to be a chronic disorder accross a large section of the public service from my experience.
As an example, water authorities and senior bureacrats are busy informing the politicians that most people are happy with the MDBP and water policy at local, state and federal level.
As Jen often writes. . . HA!
‘The evidence from Europe is of course that the Carbon Tax doesn’t actually reduce emissions. We had one of the leading investment houses there make the point that between now and 2020, they don’t expect the European Carbon Tax equivalent to reduce one tonne of emissions.
‘What it is, is a licence to actually emit. In Australia, the things which will reduce emissions are the Renewable Energy Target and practical incentives to actually clean up a waste coal mine gas facility, a waste landfill gas facility, to clean up a power station, to engage in energy efficiency.
‘Things which directly target the solution, they’re the things which reduce emissions.’
Greg Hunt
I’m loath to link to Bolt but this time I think it’s relevant as el gordo commented on the effectiveness of the carbon tax.
“Rose teaches how to tackle climate change with interpretive dance: ”
Anna Rose is a lecturer at the ANU, and her answer to climate change is
“interpretive dance”
PS. she is the wife of aspiring senate candidate S Sheikh
I warrant even Luke would be appalled by this farce.
We are the dumbest people on earth to let them get away with this.
JW why are you loath to link to Bolt? Just asking.
The Bolter is a good source and he’s on Watts blog roll… Andrew is with us on climate change. Thanx for the tip J.
Neville, I didn’t want to give fuel for derision by the resident warmists.
The Bolter is regarded as somewhat of a pariah by many,
sometimes for good reason by being either
too belligerent and repetitive or conversely, too nice to those not deserving.
He wants to be liked by all sides and I’m afraid life ain’t like that.
Overall he is OK in my book. Don’t agree with everything he said!
I’m sorry Johnathon but Bolt actually doesn’t give a stuff who he offends. If he sees a sign of BS or hypocrisy he’ll say so straight away and go in hard.
He has forensic journo skills that are uncanny. Over the years he has been the first to pick a dud or con or taxpayer funded fraud before anyone.
Of course some journos wouldn’t wake up if a country outhouse fell on them. But basically he is honest to a fault and doesn’t mind being the only one on the outer and he is nearly always politically incorrect.
The Chaser team even gloated a few years ago that he was the only sceptic left in OZ, but they were wrong. There were plenty of us all over OZ.
In fact he was the only journo speaking out publicly about the mitigation fraud. Again the fact is Bolt has always believed in some warming but he knows for sure that mitigation is a waste of time and money.
I don’t agree with Bolt on so called free trade economics because I know a lot of it is BS. But I do agree with him on most social issues and I would trust his judgement before that of any other journo in OZ.
Fair enough Neville, you must follow him more closely than I do.
I mainly listen to him on the radio on 2GB
The Bolter is running this today…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2013_v5.5.png
And he’s talking about the Russian prediction that a mini ice age will begin next year…. Andrew Bolt is an outstanding journalist.
Has Greg Hunt spoken to BoM about our slide into a Dalton?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0161.jpg
Its a disgrace!
On second thoughts it might be premature, it turns out to be a nasty curve fit.
Bolt is currently the best journo in Australia.
But as a species journos are creeps so it isn’t much of a compliment.
“But as a species journos are creeps so it isn’t much of a compliment.”
Ditto, I just wasn’t game enough to add it to my comment seeing the admiration of him here.
I said and I mean it, he is OK but please be more critical, I listen to his radio show and watch his Sunday programme. Unintentionally he lets little tidbits of opinions slip he may not have wanted to, everyone does that from time to time, if you listen carefully, you get to know them better.
“Bolt is currently the best journo in Australia.”
Yep you read it here folks. Wankedy wank. Bolt – red neck sheer negativity for the over 50s disaffected males. Let’s all get really angry and have a rabid froth.
Cohers and Johnathon I tend to agree about journos but I still admire Bolt for his stand alone attitude and not having a fear of being politically incorrect.
His politically incorrect attitude is the reason he is hated with such venom by the stupid chattering classes and why he enjoys such a large following from average non PC starved Aussies.
But Jennifer has an unbending attitude against some popular delusional causes as well . Although Jennifer is a scientist first she has a very good non PC record as a writer exposing some of the chattering classes silly popular causes.
Here’s a new, good ad from the Libs. Very clever use of 30 secs or so to confirm already held
beliefs. ( I think) I reckon the chook house and the chaos from the many liars and characters is very apt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/headless_chooks/
El Gordo – shows the sheer dishonesty of the Watts site – with his little truncated graph. Are you drongos that intellectually bereft.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0161.jpg
Of course the bloggians here have been rabbitting about bone crushing ice ages for some time. Have another cone guys. Or perhaps 6 Vic Bitters for old codgers.
Ya gotta laugh. Good to hear from one of the more wimpy members of the chattering class. This bloke will fight in the gutter to defend his CAGW faith, but can’t tell us of any benefits provided by the billions $ wasted on mitigation.
Of course there isn’t any impacts at all except the criminal waste of money. Just ask one of the iconic heroes of the chattering classes one Tim Flannery.
Interesting post by Monckton at WUWT. Is the understanding of this AR4 graph wrong or not?
Monckton is an expert AR5 reviewer so I think he has the right to ask for a correction.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#more-85549
So Luke,
was there something wrong with the methodology used in that particular graph?
Did they misuse/misrepresent the sunspot/solar cycle data? It’s truncated and you have just linked the graph.
I really don’t think that any of these projective graphs are conclusively wrong or right.
Time and real time data will be the judge.
At this stage it does appear that variability rules and there isn’t a solid trend to be our friend.
Mark me down as a cooling skeptic, for the same reason as I’m a warming skeptic. The notions of cycle and what-goes-up etc are slightly more plausible than CAGW, but we remain in broad ignorance of climate. The very idea that very rough observation sets like ENSO and PDO are treated as mechanisms shows the depth of that ignorance and the desperation to speculate in the barbarous age of Publish-or-Perish. (Please, nobody act all surprised if, right in the middle of our present “cool PDO”, Eastern Oz cops a withering drought – since that is what happened between the late 50s and late 60s. Yes, there’s a PDO, but its tidy little title is the only tidy thing about it.)
We have checked out a few percent of the oceans, are in ignorance of the vast plasticky hot mass beneath us, and are merely speculating about atmosphere, orbits, solar behaviour etc. Drought remains our principle scourge in Oz, as it was for the First Fleet, and new drought is already taking shape in Western Vic and SA. Mind you, some serious vulcanism (Laki or Tambora levels?) combined with some cyclical cooling could be the sharpest lesson we cop in the short term. We might regret every cent we gave to Lew and Timmy, as we wait for our “renewables” to keep humans warm and food supplies cool.
Already, and completely without cause, food is perishing and people are shivering in modern, developed, temperate Eastern Australia. Right now. Put an end to this shame. Fund science, not the crude religion of Scientism, with its nagging, canting hipster priesthood.
I’m afraid my confidence in the coalition for any significant change to the paradigm of climate change, carbon dioxide as a pollutant, carbon (dioxide) sequestration
Shadow Minister Hunt’s record goes to at least to Dec 2009 on an ABC interview with Leigh Sales on Lateline, where Leigh Sales speaks of Greg Hunt’s advocation of action on climate change for about 20 years.
Through to The Age, 16 Aug 2012 where Shadow Minister tells the interviewer that the Co-alition has give “in principle support” for Kyoto 2
Business Spectator reports 19/4/2013, Coalition eyeing lift to emissions reduction target. Abbott to push China, US to sign up for a climate change deal.
Joanne Nova’s excellent post, April 23, 2013 “Australian conservatives going Labor lite – pandering to the “green vote” or just confused?
There are other articles, but the abovementioned are what I have in my folder for this topic.
Also posted across a wide range of sites, Graham Williamson’s March 2013 revised edition, – “Agenda 21: Politicians shutting the debate down”
Response by the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage to Agenda 21.
As we realise that the Rio Earth Summit, 1992 is responsible for the formation of Agenda 21, with climate change as one of it’s reasons for implementation, Mr Hunt’s responses to Graham Williamson’s requests are not suprising.
This report has many links, requiring considerable time to examine.
Missing text above:
I’m afraid my confidence in the coalition for any significant change to the pardigm of climate change, carbon dioxide as a pollutant, carbon (dioxide) sequestration is cooling like the climate.
(damn laptop key boards)
Debbie if you don’t what it’s bunk just put another load of washing on.
“Monckton is an expert AR5 reviewer ” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – anyone can be a reviewer upon application – what utter nosh – do go on.
Of course Neville you’ve only loaded one side of the cost equation. An incredibly myopic view that sees nothing of energy security, efficiency gains or downside from a more energetic atmosphere with a society highly geared to the status quo. You just have to laugh at Tropher’s amateurish little wank project.
“downside from a more energetic atmosphere”
Sorry Luke but I have to call you out on this, I know you visit WUWT secretly but to refresh you memory
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/tornadoes-drop-to-new-record-alltime-low/
And as you may have guessed I’m equally dismayed (polite) by BS from both sides, but some facts you can’t ignore.
Well Luke let’s be clear about your point. The OECD will nearly flatline emissions until 2035 and Non OECD will have soaring co2 emissions.
That’s 6% increase compared to 73% and Non OECD starting from much higher levels.
So your argument is that you want to make a difference to reduce emissions, so therefore you must concentrate on China, India etc.
That’s the only way to have any impact by 2035, so jump on a plane and go and protest over there.
Otherwise you’re just wasting your time here protesting about an increase that adds up to zip.
Or can’t you add up at the level of a kindy kiddie. Seems you’ll never understand. But even if you convinced China, India etc you still wouldn’t make zip difference to the climate or temp for hundreds of years or perhaps thousands.
Just ask your hero GAIA brain Timmy. I repeat what is it you don’t understand about simple kindy maths? BTW Monckton’s correct title concerning AR5 is an expert reviewer whether you like it or not.
Well yes Luke,
There is an alarming amount of bunk out there.
As JW says, it’s all rather dismaying and coming from all directions.
Well Jefft I guess if the clueless co2 tax doesn’t bother you or budget blowouts or govt debt or illegals pouring into OZ or wasting billions $ on unwanted school halls or pink batts or OZ credit rating sinking below AAA etc, etc, then you should vote for anyone but the Coalition.
As I’ve said a while back I’ll be voting below the line in the senate ( again) and the coalition will be close to the top of my preference, but I think I’ll vote first for a minor party just like I did last election.
But rest assured Labor and the Greens will be close to last when I vote. In the H of Reps I’ll probably vote for a minor party again , but the Coalition will receive my preference well before Labor and the Greens.
We’ve only got one vote each and we must put a number beside every candidate in our electorate, therefore the choice is yours.
If you want a continuation of the co2 tax just vote for Labor and the Greens. Very simple logic and reason.
@Neville
I committed to being a National after the Kevin07/Penny Wong CPRS disaster 2009 – these people must go!
I am a supporter of our local preselected candidate (National), with time and some financial indirectly. Also I have spoken to some National Senators about CO2 tax and it’s elimination. (Barnaby Joyce is VERY specific about “it must go”)
I have seen Tony Abbott speak on the removal of Labor’s carbon tax at a private function, and I believe that is his goal ASAP.
–
But I have also watched the influence of Shadow Minister Greg Hunt. His thesis in 1990 was on making the polluter pay, OK if the pollution is a toxic gas or substance such as industrial or chemical waste, but CO2 should not apply.
http://www.petermartin.com.au/2011/03/why-we-need-carbon-tax-by-coalitions.html
From the article in Business spectator 19/4/13 Greg Hunt is talking about CO2, his confidence in the possibility that a future coalition government’s willingness to consider raising emissions reduction target as early as 2015.
The coalitions Direct Action plan focuses on storing carbon in soil and vegetation (isn’t that done already in normal farming practice?)( large greenhouses – the real ones – use CO2 generators powered by gas, to enhance growth)
Greg Hunt also expects China, India and the US to come on board, along with the EU, which with a carbon tax has increased emission levels.
–
So the coalition should and most probably will rescind the carbon tax. But what about the balance of the 18 carbon tax related bills that were passed in the same passage of legislation?
One Senator I spoke to briefly said that the RET and related legislation should go as well, but this is not being mentioned.
–
There is not a chance in hell I would vote Greens, Labor or for an Independent such as our present member Rob Oakeshott, these politicians being the main reason we now have a carbon tax.
–
There in lies the my problem, as I don’t believe in informal voting. Normally I research preferences and affiliations.
From what I am seeing on the web, there are many others that see a weaknesses in the coalition, which may cost votes.
Jefft I think I owe you an apology, I can see now that you definitely think about your vote and its consequences.
I can almost guarantee that Abbott is a sceptic at least of CAGW and so are many of the Coalition.
But Hunt and others are a disgrace and that is the reason I won’t vote for them as a first preference choice.
Oakeshott is a hopeless case and I would put him third last if he or Labor and the Greens were standing in my electorate.
But perhaps there may be another anti co2 tax candidate standing for you come September?
While some more reasonable alarmists did not claim an anthro component in the US tornado spike a couple of years back, many, of course, did just that. It was worse than we thought etc. None other than Kevin Trenberth thought it would be irresponsible not to mention climate change in the context of the tornadoes of 2010-11.
The last twelve months have seen the lowest number of EF1 and stronger tornadoes since the record began in 1954. I don’t know if Trenberth has a comment on that, and I wouldn’t listen if he did.
I make nothing of the extended winter in the US, or of the quietest tornado season on record. Soon it will all be in the past, and subject to adjustment, oblivion or, if necessary, abolition. Till then…shhhh.
Does Greg Hunt know that the models, predicting climate catastrophe, have failed miserably?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0025.jpg
How on earth are we to get it through his thick head that the game is over and that he should tell the electorate the truth.
Sack Flannery!
Abbott’s pragmatic approach to winning an election has seen him all over the place on climate change and he needs convincing. Hopefully his DAP will be dumped along with the carbon tax.
We can rely on Dennis Jensen, Barnaby Joyce, Cory Bernardi and David Busby from Tasmania.
”I know eminent scientists have one view but I know other eminent scientists – usually ones who have retired and are no longer reliant on government grants – have a totally different view,” Busby said.
How about all going back to the start and discuss some RELEVANT comments as to why the reverse auction approach (like the water buy back scheme) and apparently like what the previous Labor Govt was using for “Kyoto carbon buyback”, won’t work, and which is a targeted market based scheme (not a “direct action scheme” as contrasted by certain economists and others who apparently support the carbon tax and ETS approaches) ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!