The last sentence sums up the arrogance (using Pachauri’s idiom) of the primary fault with politicians (especially) who attempt to translate scientific data into politically correct lingo. They (the politicians) have little or no knowledge of any scientific subjects, and are thus unqualified to cast opinion. I would be delighted to hear from any President, Vice-president, Senator, Congressman, UK MP or, indeed, any politician who can refute this statement, apart from Lord Christopher Monckton, who I do not think regards himself as a politician, although others may.

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

THE Federal Government cannot guarantee that its controversial climate plan will cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at all.

Labor and the Liberals are fiercely arguing over whose climate change plan is the best.

Both plans aim to reduce emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

The government says the opposition’s plan won’t work and could see emissions rise.

But the same argument could be levelled against the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Government data appears to show that under the ETS, Australia’s emissions would rise from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 585 million tonnes by 2020.

The target to cut emissions by 5 per cent is only reached by paying other countries to reduce their emissions.

Modelling from the Treasury Department says Australia’s emissions don’t begin to fall under the ETS “until the mid-2030s”.

Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia’s emissions by 2020.

When asked how much of the emission reduction would come from domestic sources, he said: “That’s up to the market”.

“The place where it is going to be the cheapest and most efficient to achieve those reductions is where it will take place first,” Mr Combet told reporters in Canberra.

The government’s ETS aims to tackle climate change by forcing business to pay for its pollution.

The opposition’s rival plan would pay farmers and others to suck emissions out of the sky and store them in plants and soil. It does not appear to rely on international permits.

A key element of the opposition’s plan is not clear – what happens to businesses who hike up their emissions.

The opposition’s plan says a company that increases its emissions above “business as usual” is fined, but it’s not clear what “business as usual” means, or how much they would have to pay.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on Monday said only businesses who increased their “emissions intensity” would have to pay. This is a different concept to “business as usual”, which usually refers to total emissions.

Mr Combet said there appeared to be a secret penalties regime and business – and investors – needed to know what they might end up paying.

“The detailed work is not done on this policy,” he said of the opposition’s plan.

Owen Pascoe, climate change campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the government should change its ETS to reduce emissions at home.

The ETS “allows too big a role for international permit trading, and should be refocused onto domestic action”, Mr Pascoe told AAP.

Report this

00

There is a poll on yahoo at the moment which asks the question

Q. Do you support Kevin Rudd’s ETS proposal?

Here is the website:-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/51862

78% of people so far are OPPOSED!

Report this

00

The trouble is business as usual for industry means carbon emissions will continue to rise by 20 per cent by 2020. It’s hard to see how that’s going to help protect against a warming planet.
And the small scale of his plan is really no help in the task of switching from a carbon intensive economy to a low carbon economy.

Report this

00

Report this

01

Report this

10

Mp3 Audio File of LehrmamMust Listen!

We may have a long way to go before we reach balance.

There is a whole generation of nutters to deal with.

Report this

00