You wouldn’t wish a wounded government on any nation. They’re too dangerous.
The timing could hardly be worse. We’re about to force our nation to spend far more on its energy than it has too, while our competitors are decidedly not doing that, and the world faces a economic meltdown of the “generational” type. We’re the last cab off the rank in a race to nowhere and most of the competitors have moved on to other events.
“Far from saving the worker, the ALP have become the unwitting schmucks who screwed the workers to help the banksters”.
In a desperate bid to score a “bounce” in the dismal polls, Gillard is pushing through the carbon legislation next week.
The 15 minutes of fame or a face saving “legacy” will last only until the rest of Australia wakes up to just how monumentally stupid, utterly pointless, and expensive and ineffectual this tax is. And they are waking up. The rise of skepticism in the polls is a one way street, a monotonic increase. No one is shifting into the believer camp.
Only an idiot would think a tax can change the weather.
Far from making skeptics “give up”, the legislation will galvanize the activists, industry, and the disorganized grassroots campaign. There will be no let up, no escape from the relentless bad news as Australia becomes the last nation on Earth to fall headlong for the witchdoctor’s scare campaign.
The storms are coming. Pay us your tithe!
The growing ridicule and satirical jibes will eat ALP credibility for breakfast.
…
Whats the opposite of skeptical? Gullible.
Labor has to dump the tax.
The carbon tax gives the parties enemy too much fertile fodder.
“What’s left of the pitiful last remnants of Australian-manufacturing will move to Ghana.”
Canada, Japan and China — will not be joining any “carbon schemes”, and nor will the US, where republicans openly call carbon-schemes “a scam“. To a man (or woman) they’re running to distance themselves from the politically correct (and scientifically incorrect) litany that “CO2 is pollution.” The backlash is sweeping through the party. No pussy-footing kow-towing allowed.
What is happening now in the US will happen in Australia. The Labor Party will look like gormless patsies who fell for a barking mad idea, childishly self-aggrandizing themselves. Kidding themselves that they have a God-like ability to a/stop the storms, or b/influence other nations to take grandiose meaningless sacrifices in the name of impressing the UN. All because 60 B-grade scientists and a foreign committee told them to sacrifice the nation to prevent the same floods, droughts, and nasty bad-weather which has been striking us since time began.
Far from saving the worker, the ALP have become the unwitting schmucks who screwed the workers to help the banksters. The financial houses will quietly cheer, beaming at the thought of all the brokerage fees from the coming emissions trading scheme. The workers will pay more for their holidays, their food, their clothes, and their home improvements. Their bosses will scale back expansions, cut jobs, and send less money to the workers who are left. What’s left of the pitiful last remnants of Australian-manufacturing will move to Ghana.
There will be no long term recovery in the polls until the gullible self-serving fools stop trying to run the country.
The Australian Labor Party need a revolution. It needs to grow up.
I’d prefer it if we could hit the streets now with fact sheet handouts, buy advertising space on buses and in MX, leaflet the letterboxes in Labour seats and in short order generally enrage the public into harassing Labour and their carbon tax out of the House next week and into the political outhouse where they and their furry Green friends belong.
20
God help this country I love!!!
PM Juliar is like a slow moving train wreck that cannot be stopped.
Someone needs to stop her doing this.
Where is Batman when you need him, quick fire up the Batlight!!!
The ALP will be consigned to the bottom rung of Australian Politics for years.
Bring back Monckton !! We need the cavalry !!
It`s 5 minutes to Midnight !! Make that 1 minute. God we are cutting it thin !!
20
I know I have linked to this before, but the proposed Australian legislation is virtually a copy of the legislation proposed for the U.S. which was first proposed in May of last year, and then didn’t get up.
It’s literally just a shell game, and rather than go over the whole thing again, read the Post at the link to gain some idea of what the ‘carbon copy’ (pardon the pun) proposes for Australia.
In the U.S. to divert you from the real intent of the legislation they gave it the artful name of The American Power Act. They did the same here in Australia, artfully diverting from the real intent by calling it The Clean Energy Bill.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering CO2 emissions. It’s just about the money.
American Power Act – The Great Big April Fools Day Tax Grab
Tony.
10
C’mon Jo, you’re a science blogger but this is just preaching to the converted. Reductive Fallacy followed by Ad Hominem? You’re better than that.
10
The tax will last as long as Gillard. She must be booted out. Can’t wait for the next election.
Cheers
10
Here in Britain, as well as Australia, I think that there is a bigger picture to be seen.
We have to recognise that our parliamentarians of all colours are gullible career politicians, with little or no understanding of science and little ability to judge whether they are being lead by the nose by civil servants, so called experts and particularly non governmental organisations (NGOs) who are advocates of ‘climate change’ for their own disparent reasons.
The people who rule us are just about the last people to trust when it comes to global warming, not because they are bad people, but because they are advised by others with agendas, and never question or find time to to see for themselves.
How many know that CO2 is just under 0.0004% of the air we breath and that humans contribute around just over 3% of that (0.000012% – lots isnt it!)
Surely only a simpleton, or a charlaton, could seriously believe that any amount of ‘forcing’ could empower this benign and beneficial gas that makes the plants grow to seriously affect the climate.
It seems to be about tax, control and wealth re-distribution. At least Gillard is labour. Green seems to be the new communism.
I hope that we can learn from Australia, I wish you Aussies good luck and an early change of administration.
10
The carbon tax will do to the ALP in Oz what ObamaCare is doing to the democrat party here in the US – literally destroy at all levels of government politically.
Appears we are all going to have to repeal both pieces of legislation the hard way. Cheers –
10
Another step along the path to the New world Order:
http://channelingreality.com/what_is_the_new_world_order.htm
.
10
Maybe Gillard has realised that she is headed for the political trash bin and so is feathering her nest at the UN for that cushy, well-paid appointment (as did Helen Clark in NZ).
10
Hi William.
CO2 is about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, which I think is 0.038%, not 0.00038%.
10
Stop Common Purpose, the website you link to is way behind others in regards to that subject try http://www.revolutionharry.blogspot.com. It links together the fabian movement,of which Julia Gillard is a member, with the NWO movement and its climate scams and scares. It is heavy stuff but gives a different perspective to what most others offer.
10
A Green Left Weekly contribution –
Lenin Rests
Wednesday, September 7, 1994 – 10:00
Lenin Rests
By Walter Jones
Lenin is our captain
Carve his name with pride
Chiselled deep into a wall
By the many who have died.
Wake up! Wake up Vlad!
You are too long dead
Your tomb is now a stock exchange
And Yeltsin is in your bed.
The wall wears your name
Graffiti shrill and clear
Only by destroying it
Bolshevik
By
Bolshevik
Will it disappear.
From GLW issue 158
10
Good call, Mondo….
http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1130512020.htm
1 PPM is 1/1,000,000 = 0.000001 which would be 0.0001%
So you would divide by 10,000
10 ppm = 10/10000 = 0.001%
It won’t matter what the substance is in this case.
So:
500,000 ppm / 10,000 = 50%
380 ppm / 10,000 = 0.038%
10
Do you reckon she bunged the weights on the Ban Ki for a nice comfortable retirement gig?
10
Perhaps a more instructive way to do the calcs at say 400ppm:
1. 400/1000000 = 0.0004 parts is the approximate atmospheric CONCENTRATION of CO2 (by volume). That’s where the number 0.0004 correctly fits.
2. To express it as a percentage that number is multiplied by 100. In this case 0.04%.
3. 2ppm which is about the present average annual percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (which probably has little to do with human activity and much more to do with natural climate warming which in turn releases CO2 from the oceans) has three zeros after the decimal point. viz 0.0002% increase by volume.
10
IF
If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years.
And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise.
And if human origin CO2 is to be taken to account.
THEN.
Our part of the worlds green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise.
The rest is nature.
Likewise we are responsible for 0.0045 mm of the annual 3mm ocean increase.
Over 100 years we would cause 0.45 mm sea rise.
Holy Crap Batman.
We’ve been had by the IPCC.
10
We Aussies should be proud that we have stood up so well to this onslaught of mas media propaganda and global agenda driven politics.
We are at Helms Deep at the moment and UN’s favorite Orc Julia is running in with the torch, there is still a way to go in the battle though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U20VIrMZxzM
10
The ALP has betrayed its most loyal supporters. Workers who make a living from manufacturing. One of the aspects of the Labor/Greens axis of job destruction that hasn’t been discussed much is the future function of carbon credits on de-industrialisation. The simple truth is that it will be more profitable for Bluescope and OneSteel to bank their blast furnaces and trade their carbon cedits than produce steel and maintain jobs in Australia. The Indian steel company Tata did this in the UK with the Redcar steelworks in 2010. Basically, the Brown Labour government in Britain gave Tata £600 million in cash as carbon credits. Having received the cash. with no obligation to repay it whatever happens, Tata closed their Redcar steel plant at Teesside. Tata can then build a new plant, which is much less efficient than Teesside, in India. As the new plant is more efficient than existing Indian steel works, Tata can receive another £600 million of carbon credits in cash. In the carbon credits for manufacturing and jobs scheme Tata pocketed £1.2 billion, Teesside lost 1600 jobs and Britain’s CO2 emissions fell by 0.000001%. Of course the carbon dioxide entrepreneur, Nobel Prize winner and IPCC Chair Rajendra Kumar Pachauri has close financial and political ties to Tata steel through the TERI NGO.
These people (including their Australian acolytes) are literally criminals. Read this and weep for our nation and our democracy.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html
As for the ALP the retribution for their treachery will come through the ballot box.
10
3. “…… average annual (delete percentage) increase…”
10
I believe there will be no vote in the lower house until October.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/a-full-house-of-carbon-bills/story-e6freuy9-1226130934186
They need Kevvie back on deck.
10
pattoh:
She will have to push KRudd out of the way first. Ban Ki Moon was always chummy with Rudd and preaching what a wonderful leader he was. Rudd clearly has a UN post in mind. Add to that the fact that Ban Ki made a point of swinging by Rudd’s humble abode just a few days ago to wish him well.
Gillard had no mandate for this tax, she has no credibility, it will achieve nothing with respect to the weather, and she needs to go. Unfortunately, as others have said, desperate leaders do desperate things. That’s what has me worried. Time to pressure the independents, Labor members, whoever can be swung, and expecially Turnbull. I would expect that *&$%*& to cross the floor on this one.
10
I think the legal experts in the Opposition and the sceptics movement need to put the fine tooth comb through the proposed legislation
(if they have not already done it) to see exactly what can and cannot be done once Abboott and co get into power. The comment yesterday by Debbie @ 40 on the Newspoll thread should be taken notice of by all.
Barring some miracle in the short term it would appear the Tax will be introduced so the tactics of the fight have to change focus –how best to keep up the issue front and centre with the public and to clean up the mess when the time comes.
10
Lets be clear about this tax on carbon based life forms
It is the first step towards an emissions trading scheme (think of the banks taking a cut from each trade, think of CDOs, think of subprime mortgages)
The next step is for the ets to be hooked up to the EUs market. Think of the huge rorts in the EUs so called carbon market. Think about this being run by people responsible for the situations afficting greece, spain, ireland and iceland
The next step appears to be much murkier. A global market. Trading permits for an invisible trace gas in the worlds largest commodity market. Run by the likes of Goldman sacs, deutche bank, Bank of america. Probably administered by ex enron and lehman brothers magicians.
Yes, thats right -Ken Lay- the ceo of enron advised gores government on how best to run a market based on nothing.
But don’t worry says Julia, you can trustthem as much as you can trust me.
Exactly.
On the other hand, over the last yearor so, I have noticed more and more people who used to be convinced by al gore become skeptics. In accordance with an observation (I didn’t get out of the plane), I estimate them to be more than 40% of the population. This is leading me to conclude that believers in global warming should be put on the UN endangered species list.
10
Ross, the government can repeal any legislation it makes. It cannot be sued. All tax legislation can be repealed in its entirety.
10
bunny asked on a previous thread why i’d vote informally and why i think the Coalition would allow trading in “carbon (dioxide)”.
it isn’t a secret. why can’t the anti-carbon tax people see it?
did anyone hear a critical word out of the Coalition after their meeting with EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard this week re pricing carbon?
bunny asked for examples, here goes:
31 Aug: SMH: Ben Cubby: US embassy believed ETS was a done deal
One cable records vacillation within the Liberals’ party room shortly after the release of the white paper and, as the Herald reported at the time, pointed out that a moderate group headed by Malcolm Turnbull and the current opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt spoke in favour of passing the ETS…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/us-embassy-believed-ets-was-a-done-deal-20110830-1jk94.html
23 Sept: Big Pond: Coalition to keep carbon farming
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said his party supported the intention of the bills but believed the program was not yet ready to be implemented.
‘We are not willing to take programs on the face of it if they appear to be inadequate and unfinished,’ he said on Tuesday.
But said the coalition would not abolish the carbon farming scheme.
‘We will, if elected, simply seek to improve the bills to remedy the defects which we have identified,’ he said…
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National-Rural/2011/08/23/Coalition_to_keep_carbon_farming_653429.html
17 Aug: SBS: Abbott carbon campaign hits snag
Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said Mr Combet had misled parliament on Tuesday by suggesting the coalition’s policy had recently been changed to exclude allowing businesses to buy carbon abatement permits from overseas…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1579041/Abbott-carbon-campaign-hits-snag
the Coalition needs to be told NO CARBON TAX/NO ETS. it’s possible an ETS without the tax/compensation could be even worse than an ETS with the tax/compensation.
as in england, where the public is complaining all three major parties are pro-EU and pro-CAGW, we do not seem to have a choice in australia.
the common thread among people i know whether they are CAGW believers or sceptics is they don’t want carbon dioxide to be commodified. simple.
10
Jo,
This appears in an article at
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17260
Among Obama’s problems is that
“From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat.”
I wonder how we’re going with “Former ALP”?
10
Connolly @ 18
Brilliant.
The problem is to get this type of summary to real people who vote.
The media, whether by design, accident, laziness or whatever, obscure the real issues of Human Involvement in Climate Change.
There is no incisive analysis by scientifically literate reporters; there is no balance to the political mantras being used daily.
We are uninformed on the issues and are being Bled Dry for a higher purpose known only to the worlds political elite who will dine for decades on our tax money.
10
Gillard will be relegated to the dustbin of Australian politics after the legislation is passed and in all probability will be “retired” by the Labor Party to the UN, or another nice, cushy job overseas out of the Aussie spotlight as a thankyou for her “sacrifice”.
Once this legislation is in, it will be almost impossible to remove. Thankfully (?) not many Australian jobs are in the manufacturing industries, because those that are are easily exportable and will disappear overseas in rapid order. The jobs remaining will be the non-exportable jobs: mining, agriculture, medical, tourism, construction, education, and retail. It’s a crying shame that “politician” isn’t an exportable job, but which country would take Gillard if it had a choice?
10
Not to go O/T too much, but back on the topic of State royalties and the MRRT, this article in the SMH is a perfect example of how ignorant reporters are about basic concepts:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/mrrt-exposed-as-a-poor-excuse-for-a-tax-20110906-1jvzd.html
There are too many misconceptions, deceptions and flat out errors for me to catalogue, but here’s three of them:
It is entirely misleading to refer to teh removal of concessional royalties on iron ore fines as a royalty grab. Sure she says “royalty payments” which is slippery and patently deceptive.
There was always a regulation stating that beneficiated iron ore attracted the concentrate rate of 5% royalty, same as other types of intermediate mining products. This is not a “new” royalty, nor is the State expected to give away resources with no royalty payable. This is both wrong and deceptive. BTW there is no such thing as “standard” iron ore shipments, one assumes she means “fines” iron ore shipments. Anything else is flat out wrong.
The author obviously does not undresstand the CGC (Commonwealth Grants Commission) redistribution mechanism. It redistributes funds between the States, not the Commonwealth. Any suggestion that the Commmonwealth gets its hands on GST funding is wrong in fact.
I could go on… the author completely ignores the fact that minerals on State lands belong to the Crown, and are administered by the respective State Governments as representatives of the Crown. It is not for the Federal Parliament to determine the apropriate royalty paid for minerals extracted from State land.
This creeping centrist power grab is something that needs to be watched IMO… Australian States are already weak in the sense that they ceded income taxation powers to the Feds. Give much more authority to Canberra and you might as well go live there, because they will let those rednecks across the Nullabor wither and die.
10
RE Pat #25
I 100% agree. Its one thing to be anti- Gillard (and I am), but where is our political alternative? The coalition is absolutely aligned to the “alarmist” camp as well and does not have the guts to stand up and say AGW is a myth and we will abolish the carbon tax AND any other forms of tax (ETS, Direct Action etc).
For me this is the real issue and i am dissappointed this forum has become a labour govt bashing site (yes they deserve it) as opposed to bashers of all supporters of climate change.
10
Robert @ 24
I agree that a Govt. can normally just repeal legislation but in this case if it is allowed to go too far the costs involved in repealing the legislation could be huge. Just go back to the comment by Adam Smith @ 164 on the thread titled ” Conspiracy Theories in Australia : but not by me ” to see how the ALP/Greens are thinking / taking advantage of the way Parliament works. This is why I say its important to read the fine print in the legislation.
10
As I have stated on an earlier post, I have been a long time Labor voter, My parents grandparents and siblings were employed in the mines and industries of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.
In the times of my parents and grandparents the Labor party was structured from the ground up, eg. all the power came from the members and it was the responsibility of those given the privilege of representing the party in parliment to represent those that put them there.
Unfortunately in my life time the structure has been turned upside down where a small group of elitest who no longer have the same ideals for the party, rule over those that still belong to local branches forcing outsiders upon the branch. Combet is one of these.
At the state level Jodi McKay a former local news reader was forced on the Newcastle branch by Morris Iemma for the election four years ago, she won the seat by one of the lowest margins Labor ever scraped over the line with. Just months before the election she was not even a member of the party, Iemma whent outside the party to recruit a personality rather than let the branch select the best from within their ranks.
At the recent state election not only did Labour lose Newcastle but just about every other local seat for the first time in electoral history. One of the only Labor members to be re-electored in the hunter was Sonia Hornery, my local member and a rebel within their ranks that publically agitated against the party on more than one policy that would have harmed those in her electorate.
So to re quote you, the Labor party needs a revolution, and divorce themselves from the so called power brokers in head office and once more become the servant of the grass roots membership.
fixed. Mod Oggi
10
Ian @ 30
I don’t agree this is a Labor bashing site. On many occassions I have vented my frustration with the choices we have with any competant pollie.
The only thing I can say is get these turkeys out first. The decimation will leave very few Labor pollies capable of picking up any seats. Then put the AGW thing to each pollie in the country that s left running and make sure you vote for the ones that stand for something meritous instead of this distastful waste of human resources.
Tony Abbot said he would repeal the Carbon Tax but Libs have their Direct Action plan the good thing about this is it can be stopped if times get tough or the budget needs attention etc etc. To my mind a totally better outcome!
Say YES to an election now !!!
10
Well said Jo.
“There will be no long term recovery in the polls until the gullible self-serving fools stop trying to run the country“.
Should the word be ruin?
10
This coming year will provide many surprises, I suspect, for the climatically hoodwinked classes and very few, in the short term, will be welcomed.
There’s just too many wheels coming off, what with hindsight was, a very shaky wagon. I sort of feel sorry for the many that trusted the certainties given off by the few in authority that eschewed History in favour of Psyentific sound bites.
The precautionary principle. Climate change is man-made and unprecedented. Shut down capitalism and industry and we’ll be in HEAVEN. Carbon consumption is Greed. It’s worse than we thought and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam!
Pass the ‘Carbon Legislation’ OzPolies. Let the consequences sink in to the general populace and then gird up your loins.
The wind that you sow will serve only to impoverish the majority of Australians to the enrichment of a few. Transfer wealth to other countries and for what benefit – and don’t use the ‘Feel-good’, ‘sacrifice for the world’ argument with me. That’s what suicide bombers use to justify their actions!
An already comfortable minority will gain. For the average ozzie, Zilch an not one measurable and palpable planetary benefit.
Pass the ‘Carbon Legislation’. Wait a while and then reap the whirlwind.
Ozzies are well known for their friendliness and good-nature. Until they get crossed that is.
10
Bob Malloy @ 33
Well said mate. The Labor party will not be getting my vote until I see some change for the better of the pary and the working man.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
The climate god Al Gore is reving the planet up for Earth Day on the 24th.
I think we need to counter it with Carbon Day if we can. The promo sounds just too good to be true and it will hoodwink more people. This man is a dangerous and he makes far too much money from the benefits of this hoopla.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Hi Bob at 32
Your quote: “”Labor members to be re-electored in the hunter was Sharon Grierson, my local member and a rebel within their ranks that publically agitated against the party on more than one policy that would have harmed those in her electorate. “”
She’s my local member now too and I cannot recall her being pro active for Newcastle in any way shape or form.
She is a Federal member and they weren’t tested at the last election.
THEY WILL AT THE NEXT AND SHE WONT PASS MUSTER!!
10
Stupid comments and policies are not the sole domain of the Labor/Green Government. Barry O’Farrell backflipping on solar panels is an example, Colin Barnett saying people don’t need air conditioners in WA… just two of the more recent that spring to mind. How about the Baby Bonus under Howard/Costello? Equally stupid and populist policymaking.
10
Mary at 38, my mistake, typing whilest in a coma this morning. I was referring to Sonia Hornery, not Sharon Grierson.
10
Bulldust
I reckon the best target for a bit of realism would be Mike Kelly. He was parachuted in for the Kev007 campaign as ” Man who wore the Rising Sun”. ( along with Maxine & others who have appeared in our living room on TV)
He wore the uniform & knows what it represents in terms of defending the country’s standards, rights & freedoms, yet he is part of the Behemoth hurtling towards submitting our economic sovereignty to the UN on the back of Maurice Strong/UN power grabbing designs.
He, if anybody, needs a reminder of what he is there for.
10
Bob I can understand how you could get them mixed up.
Sonia Hornery, not Sharon Grierson.
Nice enough people but they should not be politicians.
The days of being a relative or being the last one left in the office when the incumbent dies are over.
Newcastle needs representation as witness the election of Tim Owen.
There was a big law and order undercurrent to Jodhi’s loss and she tried; for the last 3 months of her campaign Newcastle showed signs of controlling the Alcohol Industry but now we seem to be back where we started.
Everyone knew she had no intention of permanent reform to the street violence and drunkenness so they removed her. Tim will go the same way if he lets the pub industry run the town.
People are fed up with murder, injury, maimings and serious permanent head injuries in town that occur because alcohol sales are important.
Pollies will get the message that human life is the most important thing Novocastrians value.
10
US in no mood to follow our useless lead on this carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/us_in_no_mood_to_follow_our_useless_lead/
Question about the effectiveness of the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax answered by Sunday Age….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/question_answered_by_sunday_age/
10
The legislation itself shows just how serious these people really are.
The obvious intent of the legislation, (so they tell us) is to lower emissions by placing a cost on them. (WTF)
So, let me see now. They tell us that by placing a cost on those CO2 emissions, it will force operators and entrepreneurs wanting to invest in power generation plants to move away from coal fired power and to less emitting plants, (like Natural Gas fired Plants) and no emissions plants, (Wind and Solar, which patently do not deliver the power required to actually run the Country)
So, by placing a cost on those emissions, the intent is to stop those emissions, in effect, to close down coal fired power plants.
Bear with me now.
In the legislation however is an often used term ‘security of power delivery’, or words that mean exactly that.
What this means is that if the large scale deliverer of power, (coal fired power plant) falls into difficulty with the imposition of this cost, then to ensure power delivery, the Government has in place loans that will enable the plant to stay in operation.
In the round of interview appearances prior to (and during) the legislation being announced, Garnaut himself even mentioned this, but as usual, the ‘talking head’ interviewers had no concept of what this actually meant, so it was just, er, skipped over.
So if the legislation actually achieves its intent of forcing coal fired power to the wall, hence lowering those emissions, the Government itself will fund the plant so it stays in operation.
Wonderful, eh!!!
Sort of like, er, making sure that the Government ensures its income from the imposition of the Tax.
Proving again that the intent of the Tax is not to really lower those emissions at all.
It’s just about the money.
Tony
10
To rjm365:
Sorry i dont agree – the direct action plan is even worse, but it is not actually the point.
The point is that both sides of politics are endorsing AGM climate change and the need to take action. They are putting politics ahead of science, or in other words lies ahead of facts.
In my view anyone with a real desire for truth would not be calling for labour to be replaced with the coalition. They are both in the same camp. I wish this site would focus on the main game, ie the truth. As as it becomes labour vs coalition our objectivity (or perception of objectivity) is lost.
10
Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. Just 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. Just 10 metres left to go.
9 metres are argon. 1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural. It has always been in the atmosphere otherwise plants couldn’t grow.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.
So in every kilometre of atmosphere, complete with green-house gases regulating the climate – in every kilometre reflecting back and retaining the sun’s heat on earth, just .18 of one millimetre is contributed by Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Now gillard’s Great Green Tax, the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax is designed to reduce Australia’s contribution by 5%. That’s what it’s designed to do. gillard wants to reduce our point .18 of one millimetre by 5%.
That’s what all the pain is about.
It is simply madness. It’s not based on science. It’s a tax. Finally, a tax on the air we breathe.
10
damien #46
An excellent way to put CO2 in context.
10
I just hope that when Gillard’s government are turfed out of office the replacements don’t sell the Australians out anyway like the National Party did in NZ. Someone must be putting severe political pressure on these governments to tow the line – who’s pulling their strings & what are they threatening?
10
Gillard, by introducing the carbon tax legislation immediately to ram it down the throats of ungrateful Australians before the Labor party dumps her, makes me think of an general and an army about to lose a war. This general and army knows that is about to be dealt a crushing defeat from which there is no escape. What to do?
The answer: Lash out in spite and murder all the prisoners you are holding. This is what the Nazis did at the end of WWII. Out of mean-spirited, nasty spite they executed (that is, murdered) thousands of unarmed prisoners to deny them certain liberation that was but days away. All Australians are those prisoners today and Gillard, out of sheer malicious spite, is going to inflict as much pain as she can upon us (her enemy) before she is dispatched. It’s sheer bloodymindedness and an unedifying spectacle. She is going to ram those vegetables (carbon tax) right down our unworthy, ungrateful throats if it’s takes the last breath she has to do it. Such is the resolve of ideological uber-haters on the left like Gillard. The sooner we see the back of her guile, her smarminess and her patronising attitude the better. But it’s the insidious, poisonous, pointless, vanity-imbued carbon tax that is the true enemy of all Australians.
10
“In my view anyone with a real desire for truth would not be calling for labour to be replaced with the coalition. ”
I have pointed out problems with the Coalition policy, and expressed frustration that they aren’t brave enough to speak their minds, and take on the name-calling in the media. But their policy is far better than the ALP one. A trading scheme is impossible to remove without paying mass compensation. It rewards large powerful financial houses which already have too much influence. The Coalition policy wastes money, but can be reversed and undone. Plus enriching our pathetic top soil is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, regardless of the CO2 scare campaign.
I don’t like it, but there’s no doubt it’s better than the ALP grovelling obedience to the UN and banksters.
I want an election.
If the Coalition were in government and carrying on with their policy as planned, I’d be criticizing it. Right now, I’d even prefer a majority labor govt to this weak red-yellow-green arrangement where the independents are not independent (bar wilkie) and the Greens have too much influence, and Gillard is too desperate NOT to do ruinous things in the quest for symbolic “points”.
But the biggest favour we can do for the ALP right now would be to crush it at the polls so it was forced to rebuild itself from scratch and get back to representing mainstream Australia. The size of this task is fearsome, since the unions also need to be turned inside out (or shut down and rebuilt) and the left bias in the media must be dealt with; It allows a weak Labor Party to escape criticism at an early stage before they run off the rails. The union-ALP-media complex of weakness, low standards and self-interest is a systematic diabolical mix.
I want two strong political parties.
10
Ian @ 45
No need to be sorry Ian in part it’s my sentiment as well.
I would like to think that the Libs will come out and publicly state tht MMGW is a fallacy but they are on record in Hansards as agreeing to it, in fact there is bi-partisan agreement for a 5% reduction in GHG emmsiions by 2020. I don’t think this will happen. I don’t agree that the Direct Action plan is worse at this point, it is only rhetorical, it hasn’t been tested in parliament.
I just think it’s the better option and quite bluntly who else do we have?
I agree with you though I would love TA to come out and say that ‘MMGW is a load of crap” I just think it’s unlikely.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
How so? Could you please explain what you objections to the various aspects of the direct action plan are. When you do so try to keep in mind that Rudd ratified Kyoto, which means regarless of whether the coalition believes in AGW we are now committed to emissions reductions. Also you might like to consider that RET legislation was passed in 2001 and increased by Rudd in 2009, repealing this legislation would entail significant cost to the taxpayer by way of compensation if they went down that path prior to the RET target date of 2020. Lastly you might like to consider that the direct action plan has elements that will provide significant benifits outside of any emissions reductions, especially in the areas of land use management, soil fertility and water/aquifer quality and security. It might be and idea to include those benefits in you calculations of whertehe the direct action plan is worse than an ETS that does none of those things.
10
Labor has become so focused on “catastrophic climate change”, that they cannot manage, but has barely discovered the much more real and present prospect of “catastrophic global economic upheaval”, which they could prepare for.
10
Rather an honest, democratic,slightly warmer world than a cooler, “cleaner” dishonest,undemocratic Green dictatorship any day.
10
Jo #50
Thanks for the reply.
Our difference of opinion comes down to the way we would like to see the “world operate”.
You are saying lets get rid of Labour and replace them with the coalition** because their way of reducing co2 is better than labour’s.
I say, any party that supports a co2 reduction of any kind is lying to us and i will not support them. I just want a party that is interested in the truth – not one that bows to public opinion that is driven by a left leaning media and the IPCC propaganda machine. Now, that takes courage – which is completely absent in politics these days.
As soon as you or any of “us” skeptics starting entering the political arena and call for one govt to be placed with another who fundamentally support the same outcome (albeit by a different mechanism) all credability in terms of objectivity is lost and WE WILL LOSE.
**REPLY: No. I’m saying we need an election. I don’t get to choose who runs the country, I want the people of Australia to do that.
10
Joanne Nova:@ 50. I know this is not democratic at all but can we just have a coup and not let her back into the country after she is finished in New Zealand??????????
Kneel.
10
I’ve just read that piece in the Australian. This is the comment I posted, so let’s see if it makes it.
Gillard is going for broke. She knows she has already lost the next election and therefore the leadership of Labor. Her next best career move is to the UN. The same UN who stands to get a huge windfall from the carbon dioxide tax she is determined to impose on Australians. The toxic tax has nothing to do with environment and will not make the slightest bit of difference to global temperatures, which are declining naturally anyway. If Gillard secures her future at the expense of Australians by causing hardship through economic sabotage, she will become the most hated PM in history.
10
A politicians brevity is directly proportional to his/her electoral margin.
Keep that in mind when discussing who should do what; if and when they win the next election.
10
ian: #55
September 7th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
So you’ll be voting for the Climate Change Sceptics Party then. So will I.
10
Hi Damian Allen: @46
That is complementary to 16.
10
Gillard’s trying to get her primary vote down to the Carbon price (26) so she’s got a “pretty” set of matching numbers to tell her fantasyland story with.
26 should be roughly the number of days she’s got left in the top job before the inevitable tap on the shoulder. It’s probably the amount of the swing that’s going to be felt by Oakeshott and Windsor at the next election too!!
I hope!!!
10
I believe that Gillard is a committed communist and always has been. I know that “communist” is a word that is not used these days because communism has been discredited and no one claims to be communist anymore, they use socialist or social democrat or progressive but it’s all the same thing. As a communist, Gillard cares not what others may think, she is only interested in pursuing the communist ideal and the “carbon” tax is one step along the path. She realizes that this government is in terminal decline and so she is desperate to get the legislation through before she is removed from power. She is not at odds with comrade Brown, she shares his world government desire, but she realizes that the Greens will never hold power and thus she is in the ALP. She arrogantly claims that she is the best person for the job because she wants to do what is best for Australia, suggesting that no one else, and especially the Australian voter, can know what’s best for the country. She lies so easily that if asked her name, she would have trouble answering truthfully but you can believe her when she says that she has no intention of holding an early election.
As for the Libs direct action plan, well if you don’t believe that there’s a problem there’s no need for action. And targets are just that, if you don’t hit them to bad, even Japan has reneged on Kyoto.
10
The sight of Gillard fawning after Ban Ki-moon during his visit made it all too clear: this tax isn’t about the climate, the planet, a clean energy future (as the GetUp patsies kept repeating in front of Albanese’s office last week). This tax is all about a cushy UN job for Rudd and Gillard and a giant slush fund for the UN and big banks.
Charities are looking forward to the carbon tax because it’s a form of wealth redistribution. They don’t realise they’ll have many more ‘clients’ when this tax is imposed on Australians who already can’t afford to pay their bills. Bankers are rubbing their grubby hands together with glee. The UN is relying on the billions of dollars raised by guillible countries like NZ and Australia – with no questions asked where the billions will end up. The timing of Ban’s visit was not lost on most of us.
We cannot stop Gillard introducing this abominable tax into Parliament. It’s too late. We must now join to ensure Gillard(or whoever is in the chair at the next election) and this patchwork Government of traitors, are resoundingly defeated. Only then will Tony Abbott be able to repeal socialist insanity that is the carbon (dioxide) tax.
10
In Comment 52, PaulM mentioned Kyoto, and people tend to let this slip somewhat into the background, but what is interesting now is the Labor thinking (through Combet) with respect to what Kyoto asks, and this provides an indicator (not as to their thinking on emissions reduction, which they tell us is the intent of this CO2 Tax) but down another line altogether, and it needs some careful explanation.
I know I’ve mentioned this here at Joanne’s site before, but with new readers coming here all the time, then more people need to see this, and understand what it means.
Rudd went to the 2007 Poll with Kyoto as his big green stick to beat the Coalition with, because they hadn’t added that all important second signature ratifying the Protocol. Then the first thing he did after the election was go to Bali, and with a flourish added that second signature, now leaving only one Country out of 192 who hadn’t ratified Kyoto, that other Country the U.S. who in effect by not signing have effectively ‘dodged a bullet’.
The Protocol as long as it was with so much content contained one bracketed part containing only ten words, and therein lies the crux of Kyoto, and why it will now be virtually impossible to replace and keep in mind it had a Sunset clause of 2012 for them to find a replacement, something that failed so comprehensively at Copenhagen and Cancun.
There are 192 Countries which are subject to this Protocol. Of those Countries, 40 of them have been categorised as Annex 1 Countries, and the remaining 152 Countries as Annex 2 Countries. From that first list of 40 Countries, 23 of them were further culled into a sub group, and after that group of highly developed Countries came those ten fateful words.
Those 23 Countries (and yes Australia is one of them) were required by Kyoto to lower their emissions to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990, something NO country has achieved, and putting into context ‘targets’ now being talked about, as the original will forever be unobtainable now or even ever.
Those 23 Countries also had to move away from CO2 emitting power generation towards zero emission generation, and to do this as soon as they feasibly could.
Those 23 Countries also had to introduce a ‘mechanism’ to place a cost on those existing emissions, and from that then ….. see those ten words in brackets.
That’s why Howard did not add that second signature, and the same applies for the U.S. and while the blame is sheeted home to Bush, the person who didn’t sign this was Clinton, who with Gore as his VP put the Protocol to the Senate where it was voted down, and wait for this ….. 95-0. Not one vote.
So, from that ETS, or equivalent mechanism, vast sums of that money raised were to be forwarded to the UN for distribution in those other 152 Countries to pay all their costs, like introducing their own emissions reduction measures, and to pay for all non emissions electricity generation provide the technology etc, and then to pay for it, oh, after the UN took a handling fee I guess, and with such monstrously huge amounts of money coming in, what’s a big pile here and there.
Now it seems Combet is having second thoughts about this allocation of vast fortunes to the UN for distribution to Developing Countries. It seems that he’s become aware of the huge amounts of money this will generate for Government coffers, and gee, from that, they can afford to give SOME of it back to his own people, knowing that those
bribescompensation packages will soon be eaten away so it will all be coming to the Government. They can even give a token sum for token renewable plants which will never be made to work on the scale provided.This new found doubt from Combet acts as an indicator to the thinking of the Government. You know.
Wow! Look at that huge bucket of money. That’ll help our bottom line.
See now why Kyoto is such a problem, and will prove impossible to replace. Those 23 Countries have become aware of those bracketed ten words, and are complaining that why should they be the only ones, while on the other hands those 152 Countries, (whose only obligation at all with respect to Kyoto is to report their emissions) have a perfectly legal document that they do not want to see diminished in any way.
I’ve said all along that this has nothing at all to do with the environment. It was only about the money, and now, it seems, Greg Combet is thinking that same thing too.
If you want some further background read the Post at the link, and I know it’s my own, but it goes into further detail.
The UN and Climate Change – Ten Fateful Words
Tony.
10
this might make jo’s blood boil!
7 Sept: ABC: Light speed research nets Eureka prize
Communicating climate change
John Cook, the University of Queensland’s Climate Communication Fellow and creator of the Skeptical Science website, has been awarded the Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Science.
Mr Cook launched the Skeptical Science website in 2007 after becoming frustrated by misinformation surrounding global warming.
Today, the website receives more than 500,000 visits per month, and an associated mobile phone app has been downloaded more than 72,000 times.
“His unique efforts using web and social media tools come at a time when accurate information is essential in terms of understanding and responding to climate change,” said Frank Howarth, director of the Australian Museum…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/light-speed-research-nets-eureka-prize/2874090?WT.mc_id=newsmail
10
Pat @64
Great Pat.
Another example of just how fragile the human psyche is and an illustration of how we all need to be part of something even if we have to dispense with reality, just a little bit, to make that happen.
We are all vulnerable and no blame should be attached to most individuals but in the case of so called educated people there should be more inquiry if such a public stand is to be taken.
To those in the know he looks like a fool.
Just possibly there is some political benefit or even cash-flow from the website advertising???
10
TonyfromOz @ 63
Looks like we are legally screwed !
How the hell can we reverse this mess from here ?
Time to start building those 2 new coal fired power plants so we can get the CO2 level down to 5% before 2020. I can’t see any other way of complying with that stupidly signed agreement unless we go Nuclear. It won’t happen with the current renewables we have on offer.
This government will be recorded for all of time as the most abusive and ineffective bunch of twits… I cannot believe this !!
Say YES to election now !!
10
btw folks,
all i’m saying re the pollies is – let’s not single out the tax, but include the ETS in everything we say and write. it isn’t difficult –
NO CO2 TAX OR ETS – LEAVE CO2 ALONE
one of the staff at a small business in my town said recently the local Coalition member had come to see them and was going on about how his party was against the “Carbon Tax”, knowing he had the staff and business owner onside. i asked the staff member if anyone asked him about Emissions Trading, and she said no, but said they’d been invited to some get-together with the pollie (looking for votes of course). she said she would ask him at that meeting.
meanwhile, the Coalition needs to be asked to explain CLEARLY – and PUBLICLY – their position on an ETS, tho they have already made themselves clear as regards the Carbon Farming Initiative – stating they will not overturn it. surely Bolt could have a segment devoted to the ETS on his Sunday TV show quizzing someone from the Coalition. let’s encourage him to do it.
it is not cowardice that prevents the Coalition from exposing CAGW as a fraud. in fact, they’d win more votes if they admitted it was a scam.
how anyone watching all the european rightwing governments who have adopted carbon dioxide emissions trading schemes can waste time imagining CAGW is a communist/socialist conspiracy is beyond me.
10
rjm365 at Comment 66,
Luckily, as I mentioned, Kyoto has a Sunset Clause, as much as the UN is trying to say it can just be extended.
You saw the kerfuffle at Copenhagen, with those developed Countries (23) trying their hardest to find something new, and the 152 Countries saying they will only agree to something the same as Kyoto.
Then the same happened at Cancun.
They came out with a ‘watered down’ semblance of an agreement which in effect meant nothing at all, trying like crazy to deflect from the real intent of both meetings, to find a replacement for Kyoto.
Trouble is everybody is signed up to what is still the only legally binding document there is, oh, all except the U.S. that is.
Oh thank you so much Kevin07!!!
Tony.
10
robt@62:
You think Julia is a communist. Why do you bother to say such things?
Lets see. A communist believes that there should be no private property, and that all means of production should be owned and controlled by the state.
Hmmmm. I don’t think Julia wants this.
She is no doubt a socialist, which is what almost everyone is anyway. The only argument is about how socialist we should be. Take roads. We in Australia are pretty socialist on roads. The vast majority of roads are publicly owned and controlled. There are a few privately owned roads (tollways). If we were not socialist, then every road would be privately owned. There are, no doubt, some people who do think that every road should be sold off. Another example is policing. In a non-socialist world, the safety of your person and property would be your responsibility. But, because we live in a socialist society, there is a publicly funded police force to do that stuff. We aren’t completely socialist though, because pubs, concerts, football etc employ their own bouncers/security guards.
10
Pat #68
I agree with your sentiments. The reality at the moment is that all around the world, govts, whether they are left or right leaning are supportive of action on CO2. It is not an australian labour party phenomenon.
Continuing to aim our arrows at this labour govt is a waste of time. Yes they are hopeless, incompetant and deserve electoral slaughter. But what are we fighting?
– the labour party, or
– the fact that human CO2 emissions dont cause climate change?
Replacing Julia with Tony changes nothing other than the mechanism for the 5% reduction by 2022.
We should be fighting for the truth and praising people like the czech PM as our saviours not Tony Abbott.
10
Fair point Tristan..Jo was doing it for humour.
The problem is..the current meme of the govt/abc/csiro etc = “a tax can change the weather”.
Which looks like a logical fallacy…. 🙂
If thats a reductive fallacy then go speak to the govt..not me..
10
Well folks we have a tweedle dum tweedle dee adversarial political ‘Westminster’ system here in Oz. Anyone that thinks that the Libs will save us is in lala land. Turnbull Turncoat? was a no carbon tax man until he visited his bosses in London & returned to Oz a ‘transformed’man. You are correct in saying that this is a super tax on the air we breathe – I never thought I’d live to see it! It is backed up by puppet scientists, academia & media that don’t want to see their research/grant/salary monies dry up. Flannery is an example of this + he also has other related agendas.
Most people want to ‘do the right thing’ & sadly they have been told what the right thing is. This leverage is used very effectively in the ‘green guilt’ scenario pushed hard in the media.
Gillard’s relative popularity will never return because there ain’t no more rabbits in the hat & she couldn’t sell ice to Eskimos! She has to get this tax up as she has been told to do by her controllers, starting with the Fabians, & time is now running out. It’s do or die! This tax is an important precedent setter & jig saw piece in the NWO plan.
The plan is global control- we will virtually hand over what’s left of our sovereignty with this legislation. The total dynamic is depopulation & fascist control over the masses through the tool of globalisation. Oz’s part in this is to be one of the world’s quarries & to clean up after tourists. What’s left of farming & processing & manufacturing will become more & more difficult as this tax (& currency manipulation) is applied. More land will be closed off under ‘environmental’ policies eg. Murray Darling Basin, & control handed to NWO/UN.
I’ve tried to put this tax in perspective in this limited space.
I PLEAD TO EVERYONE FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, PUT A STOP TO THIS INSANITY!!
10
The mere fact that the incompetent one is now saying the tax bills are going to the house can only mean one thing, She is all labor has.
You see labor cannot abandon the tax now because firstly they will lose Bandt and with him the government and secondly what little credibility they have left will be torn to shreds, so their only option is to push ahead.
They will introduce the bills and take another hit in the polls and hope like hell in two years several things happen.
Firstly we will have warmed to the tax.
Secondly we will have forgotten all the f*&^% ups they have made to date (this is assuming they make no more between now and then) and
Thirdly a new credible leader emerges so they can ditch her in the run up to the election.
One can only hope the public do something different this time around and look beyond the prok barrelling and remember how bad this lot were.
Jo in 50,
In regards to the Liberal tax i think you need to understand that this is purely a political move, any pollie worth his salt must be able to read the mood of the public. Abbott declared his thoughts on this by calling the science crap and copped a flogging over it so he came up with a limp wristed policy that could easily be molded to suit the public mood. The mood has shifted and now Abbott is looking the goods on this issue his tax plan will be all but dropped come next election.
10
O/T Vic Forbes’s site has been hacked and taken over by what appears to be an Islamic fundamentalist group.
10
Greenpeace, WWF and many others where radicalized by ex communists and ex peaceactivist after the wall fell downward.
Their focus has since been to “find” “problems” that will support a radical change off society.
Its environ-soscialism or – communism.
Labour here seems to also want to politically radicalize Australia.
With the help off envirososcialism.
The next step will be Agenda21.
Good luck on your transition to a “Soviet” lookalike nation.
Soon you will be good friends with North Korean?
10
crakar 24: I think you’ve got it in one!
10
Damian @ 16
Well put – thanks!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Crakar24 @ 73
Jo in 50,
I’m sorry Crakar, but to anybody who has taken notice of the shenanigans, lies, broken promises and corruption from BOTH sides of politics in OZ over the last two decades, your statement is enough to start reaching for the sick bags.
I doubt that the Libs “climate change policy” has secured them a single vote, and I’d be prepared to bet money it is costing them quite a few, so if it is “purely a political move” it’s a damn stupid one.
And if “his tax plan will be all but dropped come next election”, then why not drop it now and be done with it.
There can be only one explanation for continuing with a policy that is overwhelmingly unpopular, and costing the party votes without securing any, and that is this:
The Libs WANT to win the next election with a “climate change policy” in place and be able to claim an “overwhelming mandate” to implement it.
What do we do then? Another convey? We could hardly complain there was no mandate.
10
some reading:
6 Sept: Environmental Leader: Deutsche Lowers EU Carbon Price Forecast
The bank has lowered its year-end 2011 forecast to €12/t from €17/t, as it expects the market will take some time to recover from volatility resulting from concerns about Europe’s sovereign debt. Deutsche has also lowered its predicted prices for year-end 2012 to €15/t from €19/t.
The bank has retained its prediction that participants in the scheme will see their emissions capped at 395 million tonnes. This may force many companies to switch to less carbon intensive fuels, the bank predicts.
In related news, the EU and Australia are to start talks discussing linking their two emissions trading schemes….
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/09/06/deutsche-lowers-eu-carbon-price-forecast/
22 Aug: Reuters: Alexander Hubner and Vera Eckert: Deutsche Bank in focus at German carbon fraud trial
In an EU-wide investigation, Germany has carried out the biggest swoop on suspects, with prosecutors identifying around 170 suspects, including seven who work for Germany’s biggest bank.
One of the first six to stand trial, none of whom work for Deutsche, a 35-year-old defendant named Bjoern P. told the court that he suspected that when Deutsche Bank organised itself for emissions trading, the potential for tax evasion was clear.
Deutsche did not seem to want to know and instead hid behind its risk management, Bjoern P. told the court…
Bjoern P. said he initially did not understand the difficult nature of carbon trading. He nevertheless accepted an annual salary of 180,000 Swiss francs and a one million euro bonus…
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E7JJ35U20110822
27 Aug: Irish Times: PADDY WOODWORTH: The capitalist environmentalist and the price of nature
‘THE BELIEF that private financial markets can solve all our problems is the witchcraft of our age.”
Those are not unusual sentiments to hear since the global financial turmoil began three years ago, yet it is still surprising to hear them from Pavan Sukhdev, a leading figure in the formulation of Deutsche Bank’s global markets strategy in Asia from the 1990s. But Sukhdev is full of surprises, all delivered in a quiet and mellifluously eloquent Indian-Oxford accent. He exudes both common sense and calm, despite the grim warning he is issuing about the consequences for humanity if we do not learn to value, and pay for, the goods and services provided by nature, such as fresh water and fertile soil…
Sukhdev describes himself as a “total capitalist” and says that our problem is not that we have too much capitalism but that we have too little. The witchcraft of the markets has, he says, “made nature invisible”. By confusing capital with money, and by failing to recognise the value of natural capital, mainstream economics has created a deeply misleading picture of our world…
For the past few years Sukhdev has been leading a global team of 500 top-ranking economists and ecologists in their efforts to put a price on those goods and services that can be traded, such as carbon capture and protection against erosion and flooding.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb) is a five-volume study partly funded by the United Nations Environment Programme. But it was also backed by the presumably harder-nosed German government, and the governments of several other industrialised nations. Its findings have been broadly endorsed by such august bastions of monetary rectitude as the Financial Times, which opined last year that the study was making “economic sense in costing the earth”.
Sukhdev spoke to The Irish Times this week in Mérida, Mexico, just before he addressed an audience that might have been expected to be uneasy about putting price tags on fish and flowers…
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0827/1224303043791.html
10
Earthisland.org: Jeff Conant: Do Trees Grow on Money?
A UN-Backed Plan to Address Climate Change by Slowing Deforestation Sounds Like a Good Idea. Unless You Live in the Forest
The offsets component brings REDD strong support from the fossil fuel industry. BP (yes, that BP) recently became the first company to join the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, which will allow the company to offset its emissions. REDD’s market-share potential has also attracted the financial services industry – Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley – the same Wall Street speculators that threw the global banking systems into a tailspin.
The whole idea is based on the notion of “Payment for Environmental Services.” To the market-minded, this is a pioneering method for quantifying the worth of ecosystems, thus incentivizing their preservation. Many in the global South, however, see it as the rationale for a wholesale privatization of territories and natural resources. Gustavo Castro of the Chiapas-based NGO Otros Mundos says, “When a natural function like forest respiration becomes a product with a price, it’s easy to see who’s going to end up with control of the forests.”
That is, the people who have the cash to put up the protection money…
(LEFT COLUMN) Leap of Faith by Jeff Conant
But even such a bastion of market fundamentalism as The Economist magazine suggests that “REDD may not be possible at all,” due to factors including corruption and the fact that most of those who live in and care for forests do not have legal title to their lands.
Still, if there is an opportunity for business, business will be done. New private carbon-marketing firms are springing up daily to prepare for the windfall from REDD…
Pavan Sukhdev, former head of the UN Environment Programme’s Green Economy Initiative, estimates the value of global ecosystem goods at $4.5 trillion per year. “The rewards are very clear,” Sukhdev says.
The problem is how to generate these rewards, literally out of thin air. The offsets-based REDD scheme that is in the pipeline requires a stable and reliable carbon market. And so far there isn’t one.
The US Government Accountability Office reports that carbon offsets are impossible to verify, warning that “it is not possible to ensure that every credit represents a real, measurable, and long-term reduction in emissions.” The US Congress failed to pass a national carbon-trading initiative last July, and the European Carbon Market – the largest in the world – is proving fatally flawed, with uncontrollable price volatility and regulations that seem to incentivize more climate pollution, not less. After European emissions rose to unprecedented levels in 2010, Friends of the Earth-Europe called the system “an abject failure.”
But in business, failure can be generative: Billions have been made through ventures that failed, such as subprime mortgages and derivatives. For the believers, faith in the market remains strong. At a Carbon Expo in Barcelona this summer, representatives of Point Carbon, a global firm that provides technical support for business, wore buttons that read, “I can’t help it – I still believe in markets.”
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/do_trees_grow_on_money
fortunately, Copenhagen fell thru, but this is still the plan and remember it will be your Super that gets traded whether you know it or not:
4 Dec 2009: Bloomberg: Lisa Kassenaar: Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives
These two worlds came together in the offices of Blythe Masters at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities. JPMorgan brokered a deal in 2007 for Land Rover to buy carbon credits from ClimateCare, an Oxford, England-based group that develops energy-efficiency projects around the world. Land Rover, now owned by Mumbai-based Tata Motors Ltd., is using the credits to offset some of the CO2 emissions produced by its vehicles.
For Wall Street, these kinds of voluntary carbon deals are just a dress rehearsal for the day when the U.S. develops a mandatory trading program for greenhouse gas emissions. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley will be watching closely as 192 nations gather in Copenhagen next week to try to forge a new climate-change treaty that would, for the first time, include the U.S. and China…
Estimates of the potential size of the U.S. cap-and-trade market range from $300 billion to $2 trillion.
Banks Moving In
Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.
JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.
The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.
Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases…
Subprime Carbon
Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives — they’ll get creative.” …
Boom and Bust
Chan has an ally in hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. He says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities…
The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.
“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.” …
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
so-called left-leaning NGOs hated the “carbon trading” scams being designed by the Financial institutions, so it is shocking that Bob Brown and the Greens are responsible for taking Australia down this path. down with the CAGW narrative, and no taxing and/or trading of CO2.
10
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics we in Australia are a bunch of whingers and are rolling in it after our wages have increased 50% in the last few years.
No one really gives a stuff about that sector anyway, statistically speaking.
Clearly we need to be taxed.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/household-spending-report-released/2875106
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/6530.0Media%20Release12009-10?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6530.0&issue=2009-10&num=&view=
10
If the ABC was both relevant and prone to sudden plot twists, Part 47.
– – SCENE 1 – –
===========
[knock knock!]
(Brian opens his front door.)
BRIAN: Hello?
JOHN: Good morning! What’s your name?
BRIAN: Uhh.. it’s Brian.
JOHN: Brian, my name’s John and I have a great product you might be interested in!
BRIAN: I didn’t think door-to-door salesmen existed any more.
JOHN: Tough times, Brian. After my cattle property fell through I had to do something.
Now let me tell you about this great product.
Are you prepared to take the NapiSan challenge?
BRIAN: What is that?
JOHN: It’s the product I’m selling door to door…
BRIAN: No, I mean that, way up there, in the sky…
JOHN: Is it a bird?
BRIAN: Not a chance.
JOHN: Is it a plane?
BRIAN: No.
JOHN: Is it Wind Power Guy?
WIND POWER GUY: Nope I’m right here! [ring! ring!]
(Wind Power Guy rides up on a bicycle.)
WIND POWER GUY: `Ullo there! Gawd gettin’ up that hill was a hard slog!
BRIAN: Wind Power Guy aren’t you supposed to be off generating power right now for our clean energy future?
WIND POWER GUY: Well that was the plan, but I just don’t feel like it right now. They told me to generate Alternating Current you see. I took that to mean “On again, off again”.
JOHN: Wind Power Guy can I interest you in this great product…
BRIAN: Never mind that now! What’s that up there in the sky?
JOHN: It looks like a two-humped flying camel!
WIND POWER GUY: What, that thing way up there above us?
BRIAN: Yes, that thing way up there above you.
WIND POWER GUY: Oh no! It’s DEMAND CURVE! Again!
JOHN: It’s getting closer. I think it’s seen us! It’s going to land.
(Demand Curve lands in Brian’s front yard.)
DEMAND CURVE: HAHAHA! Greetings, Wind Power Guy, still out of puff I see?
WIND POWER GUY: I’ll get you one day, Demand Curve! You just wait, I’ll…
DEMAND CURVE: You’ll do what? Even on the most blustery of days I can beat you two to one, and that’s at midnight when almost NOBODY is using ANYTHING!
WIND POWER GUY: B-b-but I have *so* much potential capacity, my manufacturer told me so…
DEMAND CURVE: HAHAHAA. Optimistic as always, Wind Power Guy. Well I’m off to Parliament to see the Red Queen. There’s a siege happening there, didn’t you know?
BRIAN: A siege?
JOHN: That sounds like a bit of fun to watch.
DEMAND CURVE: Hop on board and I’ll take you there. No, just you two, not the blowhard!
WIND POWER GUY: Wouldn’t dream of giving you the satisfaction, Demand Curve!
(John and Brian are whisked away to Parliament House.)
– – SCENE 2 – –
===========
BRIAN: Who are all these people?
JOHN: That’s the SWAT Team, Brian.
BRIAN: I didn’t think we had a SWAT Team in Australia.
JOHN: Different mob, Brian. This is Society Without Anthropophobic Taxes.
BRIAN: Looks like they’ve laid siege to the parliament. Hey this one’s got a megaphone.
SWAT TEAM LEADER: ATTENTION KING BROWN COBRA AND RED QUEEN.
WE ARE THE SWAT TEAM.
THERE ARE FIFTEEN MILLION OF US ACCORDING TO ROY MORGAN.
WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED.
DROP THE CARBON TAX, AND COME OUT WITH YOUR SEATS UP FOR ELECTION.
(Muffled voices emanate from inside Parliament.)
MUFFLED VOICE 1: I firrmly bul-lieve, that we `aint comin’ out!
SWAT TEAM LEADER: WE WILL SPEAK TO THE KING, NOT HIS PRESS SECRETARY.
MUFFLED VOICE 2: I can’t give up the Carbon Tax, it’s my ticket to becoming a regional henchman for the One World Government! I already told you that!
MUFFLED VOICE 1: psst! And the clean energy future.
MUFFLED VOICE 2: Yes! And the clean energy future! You *need* the carbon tax for a clean energy future. In fact, you can’t have a clean energy future without us!
SWAT TEAM LEADER: WHY IS THAT?
MUFFLED VOICE 2: Because… we… we’ve taken Wind Power Guy hostage!
WIND POWER GUY: Nope I’m right here! [ring! ring!]
(Wind Power Guy rides up on a bicycle.)
WIND POWER GUY: `Ullo again! Gawd gettin’ up that Capital Hill was a hard slog!
SWAT TEAM LEADER: WIND POWER GUY IS OUT HERE WITH US.
WIND POWER GUY: Yep, still here, open for anyone to use. Can’t put me behind fences!
MUFFLED VOICE 2: Bugger!
JOHN: This is turning into a real opera, Brian.
SWAT TEAM LEADER: THERE IS NO NEED FOR VIOLENCE.
COME OUT WITH YOUR SEATS UP FOR ELECTION, AND NOBODY WILL BE HURT.
MUFFLED VOICE 1: Will we still get our parliamentary perks and state pension?
SWAT TEAM LEADER: UNFORTUNATELY, YES.
MUFFLED VOICE 1: Well that sounds alright.
MUFFLED VOICE 2: Evacuate? In our hour of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
SWAT TEAM LEADER: THIS IS TAKING TOO LONG, WE WILL SEND IN DEMAND CURVE TO DEFLATE YOUR ARGUMENT!
DEMAND CURVE: This shouldn’t take long.
(Demand Curve flies into the Parliament. Sounds of a struggle are heard.)
[Thud! Thwack! Yow!]
MUFFLED VOICE 2: We have taken Demand Curve hostage! You forgot that our carbon tax can suppress Demand Curve! Hahah!
SWAT TEAM LEADER: Dammit!
BRIAN: We were so close. Wait, hey Windy, SWAT, I’ve got an idea so crazy, it just might work!
(Brian, Wind Power Guy, and SWAT huddle together and speak in hushed tones.)
SWAT TEAM LEADER: Okay, it’s worth a try.
SWAT TEAM LEADER: KING BROWN COBRA, WHAT WERE THE BENEFITS OF THE CARBON TAX AGAIN?
MUFFLED VOICE 2: A great question, my loyal subject. Climate change is a clear and present
danger and it’s our moral duty to tackle climate change by cutting carbon pollution
which will blah blah blablah bleh blah blah blablah bleh blah blah blablah…
JOHN: Did you just feel a slight breeze, Brian?
BRIAN: Yes. Yes! That means it’s working! All the hot air coming out of Parliament is rising
upwards, and all the air from around the ACT is being sucked inwards to take its place!
WIND POWER GUY: I’m feeling a tad feisty.
JOHN: They’ve created wind!
MUFFLED VOICE 2: ….blah blah IPCC blah bla consensus blablahh glory of the green reich blah blah…
JOHN: It’s blowing a gale now!
BRIAN: This is it, Wind Power Guy, it’s time for you to save the day! Do it!
WIND POWER GUY: Righto!
(Wind Power Guy hops on his bicycle and rides into the Parliament Lobby.)
(Sounds of a struggle are heard.)
[Crash! Rush! WindSOCK! Rattle! Hurricane spin! Flying kick!]
(Wind Power Guy rides out with Red Queen and King Brown Cobra trussed up on his rear parcel shelf.)
[ring! ring!]
WIND POWER GUY: `Ullo again! I’ve been to the shops and back. Got a couple of watermelons for you!
KING BROWN COBRA: I feel winded.
RED QUEEN: I should have known you’d be the one to leave the seat up.
BRIAN: Well done, Wind Power Guy. We never thought you could do it.
WIND POWER GUY: What can I say? I’m unpredictable.
SWAT TEAM LEADER: GREAT JOB EVERYONE. ELECTIONS NOW!
DEMAND CURVE: You two need a lift back to your place?
BRIAN: That would be nice, thanks.
(They take a turbulent flight back to Brian’s house.)
– – SCENE 3 – –
===========
JOHN: What a day!
BRIAN: We’ve stopped the world’s most expensive and futile carbon tax, we’ve saved ourselves 700 bucks a year, we’ve still got Wind Power Guy to supplement our energy sources, and we’ve evicted the Greens’ misguided senator from Parliament and restored majority government!
JOHN: Sounds like a win, Brian.
BRIAN: So much action in one day.
JOHN: Of course this would have all been much quicker and easier if you’d just taken my NapiSan challenge earlier, Brian.
BRIAN: How’s that?
JOHN: Well it gets the Brown stain out of anything, Brian.
===========
40
Bring it on: Gillard to put her tax to Parliament next week………
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bring_it_on_gillard_to_put_her_tax_to_parliament_next_week/
THIS IS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN THAT REPRESENTS THIS DESPICABLE GILLARD “government”.
THERE IS NO WOOD LEFT!!
10
Hot off the presses I think…Nature Journal of Science: CO2 not guilty of AGW
I have posted the full item from Big Government at the link, as Nature is usually behind a paywall…Labor will be finished if they continue with a CO2 tax now…At least, I hope so.
10
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF “GREEN” HYPOCRICSY !
Blankets for you, heaters for the Greens…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/blankets_for_you_heaters_for_the_greens/
10
Gee, I’m not too worried about the Carbon tax being passed as there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge yet. Much chatter at the moment, quietly confident.
I’m even less worried that the Direct Action policy will be implemented in its entirety either. It’s a matter of what is core and non core that will prevail, due to circumstance when the Libs get back in.
10
scaper @ 85
The Direct Action Policy will be implemented just to the extent necessary to justify a “temporary” tax to pay for it, once it’s discovered (as it always is with a change in government) that the country’s finances are “worse than we thought”.
That “temporary” tax will be levied as a “temporary” additional tax on petrol, or a “temporary” increase in the GST to 15%, or a “temporary” rise in some other tax levied at federal level.
The money will be
squandereddisbursed as follows:1) To pay for the Direct Action Policy (pork-barreling in favoured areas and with favoured companies).
2) Into general revenue for more generalised pork-barreling.
3) To meet our commitments under Kyoto as detailed by TonyfromOZ elsewhere.
4) To finance the creation and growth of the bureaucracy to administer it (public service pork-barreling).
For the mug taxpayer at the bottom of the food-chain the result will be the same.
More costs.
That will lead to a voter backlash against Abbott and that will lead to him being rolled and replaced by Turnbull.
Who will rescind the unpopular “temporary” tax and the Direct Action Policy, and replace them with an ETS to force the “derdy polluders” to pay for their “derdy carbon pollution”.
And mug Aussies will actually be grateful.
.
Seen it all before.
10
Rio has now come out publicly against the carbon tax, which makes the full set with BHP and Xtrata.
Only Ms Gillard knows how to dig a deeper hole than those guys.
It amazes me that she and her party members haven’t worked out how futile it is to sail on against the wishes of a large majority of the public, most companies (except green ones for some reason) and the recent science. If the house is burning down it helps to put water on, not nitroglycerine.
If someone in the ALP gave her the boot, dumped the carbon tax, the mining tax and the pokies thing, they’d be mostly forgiven the other fiasco’s and even the NBN black hole. That might save the furniture and give them a chance in the election after next.
10
Pretty much right. The degree to which a system is socialist/capitalist is approximately how much gov’t ownership/employment there is plus how much market control is exerted. We’re all somewhere on the scale. Unless you’re anarcho-capitalist you’ve some socialist values.
Tax changes emission CBA changes emission levels changes CO2 concentration in atmosphere changes climate system changes weather patterns.
Allegedly.
10
Some people have the knack of communicating seemingly complex matters in simple terms.
With due acknowlegment and thanks to Stephen Wilde I submit the following edited offering from his 2008 article “Global Warming and Cooling – the Reality” which encapsulate and express my thoughts.
I also thank one of the posters on his site, whose comment resonated with me and part of which I have included, adding my own take.:-
Future historians will ponder how any sane person, let alone heads and members of governments, were seemingly conned into believing that a tiny fraction of an already miniscule natural gas in the attmosphere could have a greater effect on our climate than the interaction between the energy output of the sun and the energy store of the oceans, or that it could have any more effect than a fly hitting the windscreen would have on the momentum of a motor vehicle!
Yet UNIPCC alarmists say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are rising so in the absence of any other known cause, it must be man made CO2 that is warming the planet. But they pointedly avoid the issue of the rather small proportion of the overall greenhouse effect provided by CO2 and the even smaller proportion provided by man.
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth out rises and falls in temperature from other causes but is not itself, and cannot be, the determining factor for global temperature.
If heat from the sun declines the global temperature will fall with or without any greenhouse effect and if the heat from the sun increases the global temperature will rise.
The greenhouse effect does not create new heat. All it does is increase the residence time of heat in the atmosphere.
The fact is that the solar effect is huge and overwhelming. Other influences can only ever delay or bring forward what would have happened anyway because of the time scales involved with solar changes that tend to develop and intensify over centuries.
For more:
http://climate realists.com/index.php?id=1041
10
Humble apologies. Messed up the link again!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041
10
Correct as a first-order approximation.
Solar activity has been trending slightly downwards over the past 30 years but temperatures have been trending up. Explanation?
10
Speed of Light 299,792,458 metres per second through a vacume, ie, space.
Distance between Earth and the sun 149,597,892 kilometers.
You do the math.
10
OK.
150 million km [Earth-Sun] / 300,000 km/s [c] = 500 seconds.
~8 minutes 20 seconds for light to reach Earth from the Sun.
10
Tristan @ 91
For a start, dishonest. The graph is only for two aspects of solar activity, irradiance (light) and solar flares (which seem to be independent of all other solar activities).
But that is of only minor relevance. The big answer to your query is the vast heat sink known as “the oceans”. They take time to warm up, and time to cool down, so obviously there is a measurable lag between measurable effects on atmospheric temperatures.
The oceans appear to have been heating up until about 2003, (a year or two after true solar total maximum output), and have been cooling off ever since. Hence dropping SST temperatures and slowing down of sea level rise. In the meantime the heat now being lost by the oceans has been warming the atmosphere – for a time.
Actually you can read all about it over at scepticalscience under the heading “The Thermal Inertia of the Oceans”, which was originally written as a pathetic explanation for “Trenberth’s Travesty” – the “missing heat” from his energy balance equations.
Marvelous how eventually this drivel comes back to bite the propagandists on the bum.
10
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Dishonest implies I’m being knowingly misleading.
What are the important solar activities and where can I find a graph of them?
So the ocean levels will drop as they release heat, and as the oceans get cooler they’ll release less heat and the atmospheric temp will start to go down?
10
Very good, now think about what happens to that when it isn’t through a pure vacum, where it isn’t a direct line and where there are other forces that have an effect on that relationship. There are a multitude of other sources of EMR both within and without our solar system that will effect this relationship. I know this is probably difficult for you to grasp, but similar to the climate system, energy transfer from the sun to the earth isn’t a pure linear relationship, it is a complex relationship of a diverse number of forces and influences.
10
Seems easy enough to grasp, even for a simpleton like me. Can you find me a page with some detail on this topic?
10
TH@85
Hold on a minute! Ok I’m a few wines under the belt now, but I follow the link you give and there’s plenty of Puff but no direct link to Nature. I go to current Nature page and there’s absolutely nothing about CERN, clouds or anything else. Unless I’m too blind to see it.
A Furphy.
10
Tristan @ 93
“Solar activity has been trending slightly downwards over the past 30 years but temperatures have been trending up. Explanation?”
Clue: There are far better theories for posssible explanations than that of the UNIPCC(we don’t know so it must be manmade CO2). The link I gave you is a good start to at least provide you with some thought-provoking ideas and if you’re interested in looking further I’m sure you’re just as capable as I am of searching the Internet.
10
A great piece Jo. You’ve got to hand it to them though; they’ve managed to politicize the ordinary person.
Pointman
10
LevelGaze. The article from Nature Journal of Science was also mentioned at ClimateDepot with a link to Keyword:GlobalWarming, which also linked to Big Government. If it’s true, serious spilling of cereal bowls and coffee on computer screens in the US this morning.
10
If you’re there Tony from Oz – something right up your alley which should be required reading for everyone. See what you think of the article by Paul Driessen currently featured on ICECAP.
Our Least Sustainable Energy Option. (Just above mention of one by Jo)
http://www.icecap.us/
I’m sure you’ll love the version of the old Nat King Cole hit: “Unsustainable, that’s what you are….”
10
Tony @ 3
That’s it similar to the US bill, simply supports the idea that this is a global movement to force us to adopt an energy accounting system to exchange goods and services, in stead of the profit based system that the people spontaneously adopt, even under totalitarian systems (AKA the underground or cash economy).
As for the illformed comments over the solar factor, it’s a no brainer for the plasma physicists, but then modern climate scientists never did have a good grounding in physics in the first place.
10
From Chriss Street at Big Government: The title is “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”. It was hyperlinked in the story.
Here is the link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/f….
I hope this works…
10
Hmmm. no, plenty of information about the theories behind it, Just like the climate system it is a young area of science where there are substantially more unknowns than knowns, more hypotheses and theories than empirical data and decades of first steps before even the most basic understanding of the relationship will be understood.
Are you catching on yet?
10
The ETS won’t pass the parliament next week, it will be introduced, and probably pass the House on the last day of the sitting. This will mean it will be ready for the Senate in the October sitting. It will probably pass the Senate in late October, and may require some technical amendments to be agreed to by the House. Either way I suspect it will be law by early November.
Once it is law no government will repeal it, because doing so would blow a $30 – $40 billion hole in the budget over the forward estimates.
10
TH@103
Sorry, much as I try I can’t find a link to Nature publishing as you describe. If Nature did, well, that would be the day.
10
Connolly @ 18
So with the $600 million (between BlueScope & One Steel in Cash for carbon credits in the ETS (start 2012), every time they close a blast furnace they can sell their credits (reduced CO2 emissions) and cash up again until no blast furnaces left – then open in India or China later.
They’re better off carbon trading than making steel?
Has this government read anything about TATA & Teeside? Goodbye to steel making in Australia – well done Julia Guillotine (fools all of them).
10
PaulM, Memoryvault, Tristan et al.
Wouldn’t it have been great if the UN had set up a panel of genuine scientists of independent thought and open to all sides of any theory or argument to look at all possible causes of climate change, not just tasked to specifically try and find human-induced.
If even a fraction of the money they’ve wasted had been spent on trying to understand the highly probable close link and interaction between two of the major drivers, Solar and ENSO, which seem in some circles to still be looked at by many as single entities, we’d have been so much further down the track of a basic understanding of our complex chaotic system.
Hopefully, out of all this turmoil there will come a real scientific Renaissence.
10
I’m sure there are lots of explanations that have been posited by various people. I’m responding to the one that you posted:
If the solar effect is huge and overwhelming, then there’ll be some sort of relationship between the sun and the ocean that explains most of the atmospheric temperature. I’m looking for that relationship.
I’ve caught on that that is your opinion. I think there is already a basic understanding of the relationship that provides predictions with fairly large error bars.
10
KeithH Too true.
If there are fairly large error bars the hypothesis is flawed and there is no understanding, basic or otherwise.
Once upon a time science was done in a manner where significant error bars or error margins resulted in the hypothesis being reworked or discarded. In true science, there is no shame in your hypothesis failing as even failure adds to the knowledge in a field. Once upon a time science wasn’t about who is right or wrong, it was about knowledge in and understanding of the field of study.
10
Wow, Andrew McRae at #83.
What an effort! Bloody funny too!
Well done.
Now for some more popcorn…..
10
Well, I’ve had fairly large* error bars on plenty of models of my own devising for various things. It certainly didn’t indicate ‘no understanding’, it indicated that my model didn’t explain some proportion of the variation.
* An arbitrary assessment, one man’s large is another man’s small.
10
Models aren’t empiricle evidence, they are analytical tools to assist in understanding what you expect to see in the experiment and to allow you to chart trends in the data to enhance your understanding or allow you to test other potential factors.
I too have had fairly large error margins in computer models I have created, I usually take it to mean there is something wrong with the assumptions in the model, the quality or reliability of the input data, a flaw in the logic of the model or in the theory on which the model is based. All too often I junk the model and start again. I don’t like putting out models with significant margins of error or uncertainties, I was taught that that sort of behaviour is unprofessional.
10
Tristan @ 97
As someone who claims to be a multi-qualified scientist addressing someone who claims only to be a layman, suggesting you know nothing, have read nothing, and have heard nothing of the controversy about only using solar irradiance as a measure of total solar output (as per AR4) immediately labels you being as dishonest OR completely uninformed and therefore not qualified to even voice an opinion.
Take your pick.
Try googling “total solar energy output” and skip the first couple of pages of results.
I’m not your research assistant.
In an otherwise static, uniform system, yes. However, since we do not have a static, uniform global climate system we will always have competing and complementary causes and effects overlapping each other.
For instance, in the “hard” sciences where observation still outweighs computer models (unlike “climate science”), it is generally accepted that ocean level measurement can only be to an accuracy of + / – 10cm. That being the case, it is ludicrous to contemplate a measurable and discernible ocean level rise of 3mm a year.
10
I just hope that all those irresponsible voters in the 2007 Federal Election who thought John Howard was Satan and had to go, finally understand the meaning of ‘better the devil you know”!
10
Mervyn Sullivan @ 118
And I just hope that all those irresponsible voters who thought things would be different and better under Fraser than with Whitlam, Hawke rather than Fraser, Keating rather than Hawke, Howard rather than Keating, Rudd rather than Howard, and Gillard rather than Rudd, finally understand they are all PARTY POLITICIANS, totally beholden to their parties and the people who control their parties, and not to Australian electorate.
10
John Howard took a policy to implement an ETS to the 2007 election. In fact it would’ve started on July 1st of this year. Here is the Coalition’s 2007 election policy document:
http://australianpolitics.com/elections/2007/liberal-policy/07-10-12_AustraliaStrongProsperousAndSecure.pdf
Have a look at Page 27 in particular.
Interestingly, there’s still 15 Coalition Senators elected in 2007 on a policy of supporting an ETS. If they vote against the new ETS that will be put to the parliament next Tuesday, then they will forever be known as liars who mislead the Australian people and should resign.
10
World Socialist Website, WSWS.org
The economic and political crisis in Australia and the building of the SEP
2 September 2011
Socialist Equality Party (SEP) conferences on “The Failure of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism Today” were held in Sydney and Melbourne over the past two weekends. They discussed the new stage in the breakdown of global capitalism, and the fight for a socialist and internationalist perspective for the working class to answer the intensifying assault on jobs, living standards and basic democratic rights.
Below we publish the second of three resolutions that were discussed and adopted unanimously at the two conferences. The first was published yesterday and the third was also published today.
The economic and political crisis in Australia and the building of the Socialist Equality Party
1. Since coming to office nearly four years ago, the Rudd-Gillard governments have functioned as the ruthless representatives of big business and finance capital. Now, amid the worst global crisis of the capitalist system since the 1930s, the Labor government is orchestrating a far-reaching restructuring of Australian capitalism, involving a systematic assault on the living standards of working people.
2. Between 1983 and 1996, the Hawke-Keating Labor governments, in league with the trade unions, advanced a pro-business program aimed at integrating the Australian economy more closely into the world capitalist market. Mass job losses, the closure of entire sections of manufacturing industry and the wholesale elimination of working conditions and basic rights followed. Central to this process was the destruction of workers’ organisations with any even limited independence, including shop floor committees and other workplace bodies. The end result was historic levels of social inequality, as wealth was transferred from working people to the richest layers of society.
3. In 2007, Labor returned to office after capitalising on the enormous hostility felt by millions towards John Howard’s conservative government. Yet on every score a virtually seamless policy transition marked Kevin Rudd’s record as prime minister—including continued support for US-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, the maintenance of all the essential provisions of WorkChoices within the Fair Work Australia industrial regime, ongoing inaction on climate change, the continuation of the Northern Territory intervention and the retention of brutal “border protection” policies targeting refugees.
4. The global capitalist breakdown that began in the 2008 financial crash brought sharp changes in the political landscape. After initially throwing their support behind Rudd’s stimulus package measures in 2009—Murdoch’s newspaper the Australian had named him “Australian of the Year”—key sections of the corporate, financial and media elites began to demand a program of spending cuts and debt reduction in line with the turn to austerity measures internationally.
5. At the same time, the coming to power of the Obama administration, and its “refocus on the Asia Pacific” targeted against the rise of China, brought stepped up pressure from Washington for an Australian government unconditionally committed to the maintenance of US military and strategic dominance in East Asia and the Pacific Ocean.
6. These financial and geo-political shifts found their expression in the coup against Rudd of June 23-24, 2010, which saw his removal as prime minister and replacement by Julia Gillard. The anti-democratic conspiracy, carried out by a cabal of Labor Party apparatchiks and trade union bureaucrats behind the backs of the Australian population not only revealed the worm-eaten character of the Labor Party, but the decay of parliamentary democracy itself and the turn to more authoritarian forms of rule.
7. From day one, Gillard made clear the Labor government’s new agenda: unconditional support for US militarism, accommodation to the demands of finance and big business, above all the major mining companies, and the launching of a new wave of privatisation and attacks on social spending aimed at lowering the social position of the working class. In a major speech, she paid homage to the restructuring of the Hawke-Keating governments and explained that her government would target those sectors “that were relatively untouched by [their] reforms”—including hospitals, aged care facilities, childcare centres and schools.
8. The growing crisis of parliamentary rule found further expression in the 2010 federal election. Far from bolstering Labor’s electoral position, Gillard failed to win a majority, primarily due to mass hostility towards her role in the coup, leading to the first hung parliament and minority government in 70 years. Notwithstanding overwhelming opposition to its policies, the minority Labor government has carried out every demand of both US imperialism and corporate Australia, relying totally on support from the Greens.
9. Gillard’s key initiative of a carbon tax is aimed, not at alleviating climate change, but at positioning Australian financial and corporate interests to take advantage of new international markets in carbon credits. As with every other policy of the Gillard government, the working class will be forced to bear the cost.
10. The end of the phony global economic “recovery” of the past two years, and the eruption of new financial turmoil, coupled with deepening recessionary tendencies produced by the “China boom” in all non-mining sectors of the economy, have once again exposed the myth of “Australian exceptionalism”.
11. New demands for greater productivity—cuts to jobs, wages and conditions—are now being publicly aired as major corporations, including Qantas, Westpac, OneSteel and BlueScope, announce their restructuring agendas, involving the axing of thousands of jobs. The Gillard government has already extended its support, while the trade union leaders have indicated their readiness to participate. At the same time, the government has established a “razor gang” to meet the commitment it made to financial markets to bring the 2012-13 budget to surplus and to implement the same social counter-revolution as that being carried…….”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/res2-so2.shtml
http://www.henrymakow.com/democracy_socialism_the_perost.html
10
Below are some interesting play-questions for skeptics like me. (Anyone wishing to cut and paste my words for quoting purposes is kindly asked to do so with the intention of responding precisely to the quote.)
If CAGW were proven real to the satisfaction of all, and accepted as a full-blown global emergency by those now skeptical, what actions would we take? Anything like the actions favoured by those who presently claim that CAGW is real? Well?
Would we burden our domestic economy with taxes, emissions trading schemes, transferable fines – choose your name – while we ripped up even premium agricultural land so that 75% of our enormous coal production could be burnt overseas? Burnt into the very same atmosphere as I’m breathing now?
Would we play the Green Gourmet and delay the development of nuclear energy, so that in September of 2011 no nuclear industry, above boutique, exists in uranium-rich Australia? Would we be trusting that some kind of Invisible Hand of the Market would make those nukes appear as other power costs soar? Without attention to time-frames, without resolution and decision? And would we persuade ourselves that antiquated toy-technologies like wind and solar represent potential replacements for Hazelwood, Loy Yang etc?
After enormous financial exactions upon the “derdiest pollluders” – and consequently upon their customers, us – and after littering the landscape with tens of thousands of impractical whirlygigs, would we continue to burn brown coal anyway? And would we have faith that an abstraction called Administration is going to endow us with an abstraction called Compensation, so that all manner of thing shall be well?
Would we continue to allow massive fuel build-ups leading to lethal hot burns in Australian forests? Especially in those crown-fire regions in the South of the continent?
Would we allow spivs, touts, skimmers and stock-jobbers like GIM to make a cracker out of our problems?
Would we do any of this? Well?
Exactly!
10
I think MV that Wilkie, Oakshott, Widnsor, Xenophon and quite a few other Independent mewmbers of House, Senate and State and Local Legislatures have shown that not representing the electorate isn’t confined to the major parties. Single issue politics is as much to blame for the state we find ourselves in as is party politics and not understanding the duty to represent is a failing that doesn’t confine itself to parties or ideologies but is a risk for all elected members.
You also should admit that the electors also share a measure of the blame as they have in the past fundamentally failed to hold them to a high standard and have simply accepted that this is the way of the world. When the electors vote based on ideology rather than policies, when they fail to punish those who fail in their sworn duty to the electorate and simply shrug it off with “they all do it” then the inescapeable conclusion must be that we elect the governments we deserve. We have no right to hold our elected officials to a higher standard of democratic integrity when we fail to apply the same rigor to our vote.
10
http://1984usa.com/higherlearning/?cat=295
False Flags
10
I recall reading somewhere that during history a leading cause of polarised scientific debate was usually that there was not enough reliable evidence to decide one way or the other.
The kind of climate evidence we’re mostly familiar with is this kind at WoodForTrees.
We’d love it if that red line would go all the way to left, but rockets and satellites and platinum thermopile radiometers were not invented in 1900.
WoodForTrees does not yet include other phenomena of interest such as cosmic ray flux, low cloud coverage, Beck’s ground level CO2 reconstruction, or the carbon accounting estimate of annual industrial emissions. That would be handy, but we can probably find these things in other ways and do our own charts.
In the long term, we are going to enter a new ice age and nobody knows when.
In the medium term, science will go on, more climate science discoveries may be in store.
In the short term we have to dump the carbon tax so we’re not pointlessly paying to avoid something which in the near future science is most likely going to show to be a non-problem. The administrative cost of implementing the tax is large enough that if there is any sign of CAGW not being a problem then we are better off putting it on the backburner rather than implementing it and cancelling it 2 years later.
Indeed, the only way to put this issue on a sensible foundation is to devise sensible policies on energy supply, population, and sustainability. That can of worms must be opened and the options must be understood or we are going to continue seeing kneejerk policies like we’ve seen in the last 12 months. We have already seen we can’t leave these big issues completely to the government funded brainstrusts. Central planning is unpalatable but any democratic alternative requires an educated and responsible public. At minimum we need an uninhibited research environment instead of the Yes Doctors we have now.
10
Ian #55: Not quite.
**REPLY: No. I’m saying we need an election. I don’t get to choose who runs the country, I want the people of Australia to do that.
10
What’s up, Doc?
I’m pretty new to this blogospheric war. I’m still learning who holds what as their holy grail or paragon.
You don’t need a qualification to voice anything.
All I found was TSI.
How can TOPEX have made several hundred observations in a non-random distribution all within 1cm of one another?
10
It only takes one or two Labour members to cross the floor during the vote … which ones have the ahem (cough) fortitude to do that?
The independents did deal with Labour, at the last election, and have presumably have now got the sweeteners they asked for.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if they now dumped Julia, and came out of all this looking like heros? If they don’t, they will be dead meat at the next election. But if they make their move now, they could bring this government down, and leave Julia with the blame.
Wouldn’t that be a statesman-like thing to do?
10
“In the U.S. to divert you from the real intent of the legislation they gave it the artful name of The American Power Act. They did the same here in Australia, artfully diverting from the real intent by calling it The Clean Energy Bill.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering CO2 emissions. It’s just about the money.”
It is a bankster scam clothed as a “tax”. Taxes appeal to those of a leftist bent for doing something, they faithfully believe. But the tax goes away after three years to become cap and trade. That is the real money, cap and trade. Like the Dems in the USA, Labour is a tool of big city finance and banksters.
Baker & Mackenzie fingers all over this one.
10
This statement of faith by Tristan should make it obvious it is pointless discussing issues with him:
If you truly believe Australia reducing CO2-e emissions by 5% or even 25% will have a measurable impact on global climate & weather, then you are truly beyond reason. This assumes all the IPCC says is true… heck even the worst possible case.
Australia is simply not a big enough emitter to make an impact, even assuming our reductions are not offset overseas (which they would be).
That is a statement of pure ignorance.
10
Rereke Whakaaro:
September 8th, 2011 at 5:28 am
It only takes one or two Labour members to cross the floor during the vote … which ones have the ahem (cough) fortitude to do that?
To quote my father –
“A statesman is someone who does some thing for their country
A politician is someone who does something for something”.
10
Adam @ 108
You are obviously a Canberra “insider”. In several posts you have made,you have referred to what is being introduced as the ETS. Is what is being put to Parliament next week a Carbon Tax proposal or the ETS scheme ??
10
Here’s something to make you choke on your morning food of choice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/07/24-hours-of-gorepocrisy/
Still waiting for my cheque from Big Coal/Oil…
10
O/T
It looks likeif you have a union credit card where 100,000+ is dpent at a brothel, the way to avoid being prosecuted for deception is to lose the receipt.
Oops!
Amazing. Where can I get one of those cards?
We need a royal commission of enquiry into the hsu, the awu and the alp.
10
Off topic, but thought Id post here anyway. . .
The EPA has declared hay a pollutant and for it to be stored in a pollutant containment zone.
So, there we have it. . . grass is now a pollutant.
http://www.infowars.com/epa-declares-hay-a-pollutant-to-intimidate-ranchers/
10
This has to be the bizarre news of the day:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nsw-police-have-cited-insufficient-evidence-to-launch-formal-fraud-probe-into-craig-thomson/story-fn59niix-1226131838129
So it’s quite OK to use your union credit card for hookers and blow, as long as you aren’t deceptive about it. If you needed any proof that unions are corrupt to the core, here it is. And this is the breeding ground for Labor politicians… ’nuff said.
10
OK maybe not blow … even the unions would have to react to that 😀 But hookers are A OK!
10
Madjak:
Would that be a root and branch review?
10
bulldust, root, branch, twigs, parasites. The whole bloody lot. The stuff coming out into the public domain is just the stuff that has been caught.
I would bet my right arm that there is much much more there than what we are seeing.
I say to anyone who knows of any misplaced funds for any organisation related to any parliamentary representative from any political party to stand up now and expose it.
It is peoples silence on these matters that allow the next steps to occur to the slippery road of graft and corruption.
We have every right to be represented by people who can use other peoples money responsibly. If someone doesn’t do this, they must be exposed – not protected.
10
memoryvault@88
I hope you are mistaken on your prediction but history seems to repeat. Or is it just like the climate, cyclical?
I really do not see Turnbull as the next leader of the coalition. If it did come to pass the Liberals would lose a proportion of their base.
10
scaper
The Australian public are not stupid.
They rejected him over the Republic issue and they do not support his C Tax – ETS tendencies either.
The public does not trust him.
I agree; it would be suicidal to put him at the top of the liberal party; he has no empathy with average voter and ranks about level with the average Union Executive for trust.
10
I think you missed the pun Madjak :p
10
Mary, my friends in Sydney refer to Turnbull as ‘el Presidente’. For me, “Bollinger Bolshevik” is a valid descriptor. Not to be trusted!
10
Bulldust @ 132 – Best comment IMO, by ‘Green Sand’:
10
Do you really think The Lucky(LAZY) Country will get off its arse and stop this madness WHO OWNS THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT? CERTAINLY NOT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.Its not a game any more this is the potential DESTRUCTION of our COUNTRY and “I’m as mad as hell about it” I was leaning towards PASSIVE RESISTANCE and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE,sadly that will not be enough.CLIMATE CHANGE is NATURAL and CO2 is LIFE
10
@135
Thats crap!
Definitely a cover up going on. Someone got a nice fat bribe over this.
10
Off topic so please delete or move if necessary:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nsw-police-have-cited-insufficient-evidence-to-launch-formal-fraud-probe-into-craig-thomson/story-fn59niix-1226131838129
But wait, didn’t Thomson tell us there was some other guy visiting the brothels, not him? Strange that the police seem to think he was the one using the card with his name on it (as per normal use of such cards).
I’m so glad no brothels were deceived!
10
[ Jo #126
1. Calls for an election are just plain naive. They are not obliged to have one for 2 years and why would or should they? I wish people would give the “election now” line a miss it makes us look stupid.
2. What will an election (now) give us in terms of the real issue- CO2? Nothing. We will replace a carbon tax with a direct action (tax) and perpetuate the lie.
3. The australian people have chosen the govt and they also (at the time) were mislead into beleiving AGW was real – hence we had both parties offering up CO2 reduction schemes. Having an election now will produce the same outcome only with a liberal PM – then what?
What we should be doing is fighting for the truth and educating the voters about the myth. Then the political parties will follow. Calling for a change of govt now is not the answer – in fact it is the last thing the anti-AGW movement should want.
The way i see it is we have 2 years to build a groundswell of public knowledge and opinion about the fraud that is AGW. This will be the fuel that moves the political engines to reject CO2 action of any sort. We are not there yet but i can see the tide slowly turning. We must keep our eyes on the prize and not get into party political squabbling or we will lose.
10
warcroft:
Not quite my interpretation… assuming I am not reading it incorrectly, it would suggest to me that the Fraud Squad is saying they have no reason to suspect it wasn’t him ordering services from the knock shop. As long as the Union didn’t have regulations explicitly prohibiting that kind of thing, I assume there is no crime…
Needless to say it goes to the morality of Mr Thompson that he would do such a thing, and if Gillard had even one seat to spare she would have dumped him for sure, but she doesn’t, so her reputation sails down the same cesspit his does by association.
10
Ian:
You don’t seriously believe for even one second that the direct action plan is a core Coalition policy do you? It will be ditched faster than union morals at the knockers.
10
sorry if this link has been posted before but worth repeating:
10
TonyfromOz –
what do you make of this?
7 Sept: ABC PM: Mark Colvin: Solar same price as grid electricity
MARK COLVIN: Solar power from Australian rooftops has become so cheap and
efficient that photovoltaic cells now produce electricity for the same price
that’s charged by the electricity grid.
Australia is one of the first countries in the world to reach what’s known
as “grid parity”…
MATT PEACOCK: …In effect, this makes solar competitive with coal, even
without subsidies according to the Photovoltaic Association’s Muriel Watt…
MURIEL WATT: It’s competitive with coal if you add what you need to do to
bring the coal fired electricity to where you want to use it. So it’s coal
plus the network.
MATT PEACOCK: So for a consumer, does that mean race out and buy your solar
panels, even if you did miss out on the subsidy, because in 25 years time
it’ll be justified?
MURIEL WATT: Absolutely. I think so. I think it’s a really good investment
and that’s just looking at it from the price of electricity now. If you
assume, as I think most people would, that electricity prices are not
actually going to stay where they are now, they’re going to keep going up,
then it’s an even better investment for you…
MATT PEACOCK: Home generated power, believes Muriel Watt, should be worth a
higher, competitive price, given that it’s already on the doorstep and
doesn’t require the huge cost of poles and power lines…
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3312340.htm
10
[ Bulldust #149
The coalition and the ALP reached bi-partisan agreement about reducing CO2 by 5% by 2020. That is a FACT. That is also key point here.
UNtil this agreement is repealed or renegged by one party we have a problem. If the coalition win an election on the basis of a commitment to meet the targets we are back to square one, ie
a. Stuck with another tax, mechanism for carbon emission, or
b. An elected govt who went to the election saying one thing and then doing another – which will end up in a change of govt back the other way again.
I say again, the issue is the public perception / knowledge not the politcal party in charge, ie truth vs lies, not labor vs libs
10
I don’t disagree that educating the public is an issue… I don’t share your view about the Coalition. The Coalition under a desperate Howard in 2007 or under Turnbull is a completely different kettle of kippers to teh current state of the party.
The direct action pan tony ran with was simply to avoid alienating swing-vote CAGW believers. I doubt he would have rushed off to implement it… no doubt the economic turmoil in the global economy would have been cited as the reason for forestalling action.
10
Here is something I wrote on another site concerning the background of the Direct Action policy.
“After Turnbull was narrowly defeated (late 09) by a grassroots campaign of lobbying MPs the word was out that Rudd was talking a DD election in March 10.
The Coalition had no alternate policy to present to the electorate if an election was called and still on the back foot. Rudd wimped out which was another mistake and the first shift towards his downfall!
In Jan 10 there was a scramble to put something together, Greg Hunt was to be the architect and there was internal and external brain storming to achieve thus in a short period.
Tricky, as it would be fool hardy to devise a policy that would inflame the same element that brought pressure to bear, to dispatch Turnbull. The ‘Direct Action’ policy was devised to not introduce any tax or air trading from savings in government expenditure. Also, this policy would not require legislation.
I would not hold too much credence in the implementation as when mentioned by the opposition it always comes with a rider, Greg Hunt mentions it to ensure no future video grabs.
It goes along this line, “If circumstances change we can wind it back”.
Now, we shimmy from then to now where the science is unravelling, albeit at a slow pace but most importantly, the electorate’s belief that we are not all going to fry is now in the majority.”
10
Tony @151- that’s great- even the ABC is now campaigning to drop the subsidies!
(I am off-grid during the winter, and using a diesel generator stacks up a lot better than solar at present. Don’t expect basic commonsense from the ABC- it isn’t there.)
10
MV in 79,
I must say i do enjoy reading your posts (especially the one about the granade and missing teeth) however i am not sure you would make a very good pollie because you display an honesty that no pollie can afford to have.
Let me clear up a few things re post 74, remember back in the day we had world leaders falling over each other as they made the dash to Hopenflopen to be crowned greeny of the year this award was akin to the pope in the vatican. The world held their collective breaths as these leaders went to decide the fate of the planet, meanwhile Tony Abbott says the science of climate change is crap. The oz public after years of being pummelled by lies and deception reached for the holy water, and Tony sank in the polls his honesty being his achilles heel.
So he came up with a new plan……………he simply told the public what they wanted to hear, he came up with a policy that appeased the liberal base, he came up with a policy that will demand over a million trees get planted, that improves the soils, that will reverse the environmental damage we have created (rising salt etc), his plan befriended the true greeny (not the radical socialists we see on TV). This intent of this plan was not to gain votes but to simply not lose them and this is what happened.
The alternative was a labor tax and in the beginning it worked like a charm because we were prepared to pay a tax to save the planet. But then we had climategate and then Crapenhagen and the mood of the public shifted as the reality set in that this was nothing more than a scam. One by one world leaders dropped their pursuit of the greeny award, unfortunately Labor are a bit slow and now when Tony talks about planting millions of trees and improving soils the Green Dullard is wearing out her shoe leather telling traditional labor voters this tax will put them out of a job, this tax will drive up prices on everything they see, touch, smell, taste and hear, this tax will cost us 650 billion over 30 years 650 billion that goes directly off shore and will never be seen again.
Hence Tony is now well ahead in the polls and cruising to victory, he can now at a time of his choosing simply drop the mythical 5% target and keep the good bits of his policy and rename it an environmental policy rather than a climate change policy. Labor however do not have that luxury.
I jope this clears things up.
10
Tristan @ 112
“If the solar effect is huge and overwhelming, then there’ll be some sort of relationship between the sun and the ocean that explains most of the atmospheric temperature. I’m looking for that relationship.”
Tristan: if you want to help look, can I suggest you first visit the following site for a good outline of one opinion on TSI plus ongoing updated information as it becomes available. Additional articles are clearly linked.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
Someone may know of far better sites but I find the ideas provided easily understood and very informative. I also feel the author has an open mind and is clearly and honestly seeking greater understanding of our climate, as evidenced by the following. Quote:
“This article has become so popular and relevant to ongoing observed climate changes since it was written that I think it appropriate to remove peripheral comments including some of mine so as to avoid distraction from the essential issues. I will add my own new comments concerning ongoing climate developments as they occur and readers are welcome to do the same.”
10
Oh OK, so you are saying that Tony Abbott and John Howard are liars who wouldn’t actually implement the policies that they take to elections.
So that means they are no better than Julia Gillard.
10
[ #158
… exactly.
10
Pat @ 151:
I asked Tony to comment on this claim on a previous thead. Tony’s reply can be found at comment 44 here. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/more-photos-from-both-sides-of-a-nation-protesting/
He expanded on the topic here. http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/rooftop-solar-power-reaches-grid-parity-with-coal-fired-power-well-not-really/
Bob
10
Bob Molloy:
thanx…
10
pat in comment 151 brings up something I thought would get a mention here, and it’s off topic I know, but it does need to be addressed.
Note especially where it has been mentioned, on the ABC, and also note especially the timing with the plethora of CO2 Bills to be introduced in Parliament next week.
I first noticed the article just prior to going to bed late last night at the ABC Online site at this highlighted link.
This is a rehash of what was said a couple of weeks back, and was addressed in the earlier Post here at Joanne’s site.
Read the ABC Media article very carefully, because the spokesperson Dr Muriel Watt actually tells the truth. It’s just that what Dr Watt says has been ‘artfully’ misinterpreted by the person reporting the article, because the reporter has no concept of interpreting what was said, so let me be very clear here.
Rooftop Solar can not be competitive with coal fired power generation.
The article actually says this is a comparison on the RETAIL price of electricity in one area where the claim has been made.
It is actually based on an illusion.
An average rooftop system is 1.5KW and during daylight hours it will generate approximately 6KWH of electricity.
This is the power that will be consumed by the residence during daylight hours, effectively meaning that residence does not have to purchase that 6KWH from the grid, hence ‘seeming’ like this rooftop system is generating power equal to what is being supplied from the grid.
The grid supplies that power at the retail cost of around 20 cents on average, ($1.20 in all).
Dr Watt actually says this in the quote:
What needs to be asked is questions that require an exact answer, and then it becomes plain that this is ‘spin’, telling the truth in a way that is not understood, unless you know what it means.
1. The power is not being fed at any time back to the grid, unless it is a system greater than 6KW, and the cost of those is around $45K+, even after the subsidies.
2. If there are these systems in place that are feeding minute amounts of power back to the grid, how much power is in fact being sent back to the grid.
This is also a way of ‘artfully’ saying that the feed in tariff has now been lowered (for new purchasers) to the same price as people pay for power from the grid. Those buying systems prior to this lowering of that feed in tariff have contracts ensuring their feed in tariff stays at double and triple in places what people pay for their power from the grid, hence every other consumer is paying higher prices for electricity so those people can get that higher tariff.
It is still an artful interpretation of an illusion. If the residence generates its own power, then it does not have to purchase that power from the grid, hence seeming like parity.
And the big thing in all this.
It’s based on the retail cost.
Coal fired power sells its power to the grid wholesale for 3 cents per KWH, effectively meaning that even this illusion still costs rooftop solar power at 7 times that of coal fired power.
If that is parity, I’ll go hee!
Read the Post at Joanne’s site here, and then also read all the comments I have made, as it addresses this exact same thing.
Note the timing. Note where it was reported, and note that it’s the retail cost.
These systems would never be economically viable if all subsidies were removed, they would never pay for themselves, and the power any of those large systems of $45K and upwards(approximately 1% of total sales) feed back to the grid in a whole year is around what one large scale coal fired power plant would generate in a matter of hours, more probably minutes.
This is a furphy of the highest magnitude based on an illusion, and reported by people who have no idea what was really said in the first place.
The trouble is that now people will point to this is being fact.
Any and all rooftop solar systems, no matter what the size will still see that residence as a net consumer of power from the grid.
Do not even be tempted to place any faith in this article.
Tony.
10
And the troll “Adam Smith” finally gets out of bed today at “September 8th, 2011 at 10:20 am………
Damian you really need to stop playing the man and focus on the ball. Enough is enough. [Mod oggi]
10
TonyfromOz – you have more patience than me. When Mark Colvin started talking about this on PM last night I listened in mounting incredulity then turned the radio off in disgust. Anyone with ten fingers and a brain can work out that is rubbish, yet he reports it happily to the whole of Australia!
The ABC are getting worse and worse. Do they have no idea that annoying the other side of politics is dangerous when there’s certainty of a change of government at the next election? On the other hand if they the ABC can make solar cells magically par with coal then they can also magically do everything they now do on 1/3rd of their current budget. They might just get that chance. Idiots!
10
ALP brand ruined by a bunch of Mad Men
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/alp_brand_ruined_by_a_bunch_of_mad_men/
Labor policy belongs in an asylum
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/labor_policy_belongs_in_an_asylum/
10
TonyfromOz –
thanx. ABC needs to be called out on this type of misrepresentation.
back to business, Super etc…
8 Sept: Australian Mining: Andrew Duffy: Rio boss says Labor not delivering on carbon tax
(Rio Tinto Australia managing director David ) Peever said the Government was ignoring the principles it had drawn up with the business round-table, which includes companies such as Qantas, Woolworths, and Shell.
He said the principles of environmental effectiveness, budget neutrality, competitiveness of Australian industries, investment certainty, and administrative simplicity had not been addressed.
He also said the carbon tax was coming at the wrong time and would put a dent in already low business confidence levels…
But another round-table member, Investor Group on Climate Change chief executive Nathan Fabian said it was too early to make such a judgement…
But Fabian said the principles agreed upon in the round-table were based on business submissions from a variety of viewpoints, and it was not appropriate for individual companies to speak on behalf of the group.
“Every group put in their own version and it would be inaccurate for anyone to comment on whether the priorities were broken from the perspective of other members of the round-table,” he said…
http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/rio-boss-says-labor-not-delivering-on-carbon-tax
of course Fabian would be happy:
2009: IGCC appoints Regnan’s Nathan Fabian as full-time CEO
The Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) has appointed Nathan Fabian as the group’s first full-time CEO. “Nathan’s appointment as the IGCC’s first full-time CEO demonstrates our commitment to supporting institutional investors in this period of environmental and regulatory change,” said IGCC chair Frank Pegan.
The announcement follows the recent appointment of Steve Gibbs, formerly CEO of Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA), and CEO of Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) as director, government and industry liaison of IGCC.
Fabian comes to the IGCC from Regnan – Governance Research and Engagement where he was manager of ESG Research. In his former career he was adviser to Senator Penny Wong in the shadow portfolio of corporate governance and responsibility…
http://www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2942&Itemid=402
watch Fabian’s face light up around the 4 minute mark when he talks of australia’s significant, mandatory Super Funds…
8 mins: Feb 2010: Youtube: Nathan Fabian on Climate Change and the Investment Industry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEC1IHDwVk
as for Pegan:
Catholic Super: Our board
Employer representatives
Frank Pegan
Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Super
Prior to becoming the Catholic Super CEO, Frank was the Chair of Finance with the Catholic Education Office, Melbourne. He is a Certified Practicing Accountant (CPA) and a Registered Tax Agent (RTA). Frank holds a Bachelor of Commerce and a Master of Business Administration.
http://www.csf.com.au/our-board
10
Yes, Abbott and Howard are liars.
No, they are far better than Julia Gillard.
I don’t mind that Julia Gillard has the head of a union ballot rigger and the heart of a Slater and Gordon lawyer. I can live with her deception, fudging and spinning. I can readily abide a rogue as Prime Minister of Australia.
I cannot abide a fool.
10
I’m sure there will be some who might say but .. but .. but.. there is a saving so in effect it is parity.
Look at it this way.
The average cost of a 1.6KW system producing 6KWH per day is around $6500 after government subsidies. (Full price $9000)
The residence generates its own power during daylight hours (6KWH) and then consumes on average 15KWH out of daylight hours.
The savings, at retail are on average $1.20 per day, (with no feed in tariff multipliers)
That’s not a saving because you had to shell out the original $6500, so at that $1.20 per day, then the pay back period is almost 15 years, and the system has a life span of 25 years at best.
So, the residence has consumed 33MWH of power generated by this 1.5KW rooftop system in those 15 years. That system cost $6500.
The same amount of power being generated by this rooftop system and then being consumed by the residence for that whole 15 year period is being generated by Bayswater power plant in 45 seconds, and yes, read that again, 45 seconds.
To generate that same 33MWH of power, it has cost Bayswater $990.
That my good friends is not parity.
Tony.
10
and that is not hyberbowl!
10
DA in 163,
He might live in Perth.
10
jo; i am sorry for your troubles but i hope you can draw comfort from the fact that any such law will be (nearly) the last. The effect on Oz will be obvious and immediate, and few if any other governments will repeat the error. Behind the bravet talk and gutless foot-shuffling agreement there is a powerful realization that the Carbon Scam is pretty much done and it is now sauve qui peut.
In a perfect world the profiteers would dangle from lamp-posts but we should be content with a return to a rule of law based on, yes, Science.
10
Axe the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) Tax with FACTS !!
Art Raiche PHD worked for CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 of with the rank of Chief Research Scientist. Attached is both a video and a typed transcript of the speech he made at the National Rally in Canberra on August 16th . The truth from someone who knows – plain and simple.
Transcript http://galileomovement.com.au/blog/
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxCzW6RWoLg
The Galileo Movement
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/
At stake is human freedom, your freedom, our freedom
The triumph of evil requires only that good men do nothing – Edmund Burke
10
[ Tony in #168]
I understand your point, but are you sure the numbers you have quoted are correct – something seems wrong? I ask from the point of view of trying to understand the current economics of solar.
1. You say it costs $990 to make 33MWH of electricity (15 years worth), ie $66 per year. Yet the householder pays on average over $2000 per year. Retail marks ups arent that high – where is the gap?
2. Surely the maths should be done over the life of the solar unit, ie $6,500/25 years = $260 per year per 2.2MW. What is the real cost of delivering that same 2.2MWH to the householder each year, not just the power generation cost, ie include losses, transmission, capital cost of infrastructure (depreciation), etc etc -ie things not needed for solar on rooftops. Then how does it compare? I imagine solar is still not as good but it must be closer than you implied.
3. From a carbon footprint point of view (yes i know it is irrelevant), how does the total amount of CO2 emitted during generating the 55MWH of electricty over 25 yrs compare to the amount emitted during the manufacture of the solar unit.
Thanks
10
Adam Smith #120
Yes I had a good read of page 27 as you suggested, and for anybody who is politically savvy, the key paragraph is the following…’
Having read ALL OF YOUR POSTS to date, I know you are politically savvy, and you understand the “outs” politicians love to give themselves on ALL policy initiatives.
To that extent, I’d love to read your comments on the above quote I supplied (with my bolding).
thanx in advance.
10
I see The Australia Institute is obediently slamming the mining industry as a front for the Government, stating that their data show the industry inflates it’s importance to the Australian economy:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/mining-workforce-numbers-are-exaggerated/story-e6frg9df-1226131735022
Who might be behind this report… oh wait, our friend Dr Denniss. Yes that name should be familiar as the plonker who was thoroughly drubbed by Monckton in the debate a couple months ago. Right after the debate thrashing he ran off to the ABC to blog what a fool Monckton is yadday, yadda, yadda. The gutless wonder is simply a progressive for hire…
10
Memoryvault:
So we need to get past the “established science” and on to the crackpot theories do we?
10
John Brookes:
September 8th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I love your humour John. Thumbs up for you lol
10
Ian at comment 173,
The power this 1.5KW rooftop system generates is 6KWH.
The retail price is 20/21 cents per KWH, hence the saving is $1.20.
If the System cost $6500, then, at that saving of $1.20 per day, it will take 5417 days to pay off.
That comes in at just a tad under 15 years.
The analogy was using that same amount of Power being generated by the rooftop system, 33MWH.
Bayswater, and for that fact, most coal fired power plants sell their power wholesale to the grid for around 3 cents per KWH, which equates to $30 per MWH.
That cost of $30 per MWH includes the cost of the fuel for the plant, (the coal) extrapolated original capital construction cost, depreciation, financing arrangements, maintenance, wages, tax imposition, and profit. What needs to be taken into account here is the huge amount of power being generated by Bayswater, around 17,500GWH, so at that $30 per MWH, that sees an income from the generation of electrical power for sale to the grid of around $530 Million each year.
That $30 per MWH is power plant related only.
Everything else you mentioned is external to the power plant.
Coal Wholesale price – 3 cents per KWH
Grid retail price – 20 cents per KWH
As to the retail mark ups you mention.
Coal provides the bulk of power sold to the grid at that 3 cents per KWH.
Wind and Solar power (half subsidised by Government) is sold to the grid at around retail of that 20 cents per KWH, but as there are only tiny amounts of power delivered, then that cost increases retail by only a small amount.
Gas and other plants wholesale at around double that of coal, hence further raising the retail average.
Then add in tariffs for rooftop solar, keeping in mind that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, as someone has to pay.
Those front end rooftop system rebates from the government are also added on by the government in their charges.
See now how the retail price rises commensurately.
That 20 cents per KWH average is for the residential sector only, and that makes up 38% of all consumption.
Commerce (37%) pays around 15 cents per KWH, and Industry (24%) could be as low as 12 cents per KWH, so again to make up any shortfall, retail for that residential sector rises also, as Commerce and Industrial are mostly ‘in confidence’ prices and are set by contract, so if electricity costs do go up, then the only place they can rise is in that residential sector.
The cost of the Government owned distribution network is added to that, and then add in the profit margin for the providers, the retailing entities whose names are at the top of your power bill.
Tony.
10
Now now, play nice xox
If you truly believe Australia reducing CO2-e emissions by 5% or even 25% will have a measurable impact on global climate & weather, then you are truly beyond reason. This assumes all the IPCC says is true… heck even the worst possible case.
Australia is simply not a big enough emitter to make an impact, even assuming our reductions are not offset overseas (which they would be).
That is a statement of pure ignorance.
If you read my post again, you may notice the word: ‘Allegedly’.
10
Oops. Tristan quotefails in his above post
10
Total Solar Energy Output (after skipping a few pages)
10
At least one person in the media in the USA has a clue on the appropriate use of government and government agencies. Someone should tell the public servants in Canberra.
10
Sorry…link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-did-it-take-so-long-to-uncover-the-green-jobs-racket/2011/03/29/gIQAxHhK7J_blog.html
10
[ Tony 178]
Appreciate your time to reply – but you actually didnt answer any of my questions
10
PS Thanks for the link Keith!
10
This is way off topic i know however some time ago there was a robust debate about the value and effectiveness of the NBN.
First we had this:
“It is unacceptable to me, it is offensive to me, that if you live in rural and regional Australia you are three times more like to die within five years if you are diagnosed with cancer, than other Australians,” she said.
“That is because it is harder for people in regional and rural Australia to get access to the services, to the healthcare professionals they need. I want to transform that relying on the National Broadband Network.”
Now we have this:
LOW-INCOME households will miss out on the full healthcare benefits of the National Broadband Network, with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy admitting the basic service would exclude high-definition video consultations with doctors. Senator Conroy has long promised the NBN would solve the technological barriers to delivering healthcare services remotely.
But he and NBN Co chief Mike Quigley admitted yesterday the service was “impossible” on the NBN’s cheapest plan.
Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley also struggled to explain the level of service to be expected from intermediate packages, underscoring Labor’s difficulty convincing voters its $36 billion investment is value for money.
The white elephant is now dead and what we are seeing is its body begin to bloat in the mid day sun.
10
ian @185
You forgot one point in question 2 when you stated
So for a realistic comparison you have to disconnect from the grid totally and figure out how to supply the balance (on a good day of sunshine) of power for the remaining 18 hours? If you do not require power from 4pm one day to 10am the following day – then the answer to question 2 – is you don’t need an answer! In fact all three of your questions become irrelevant in the context you mentioned above!
10
And therein lies the answer.
The only true way to evaluate rooftop solar is for households installing rooftop solar to pay the full price without subsidies, receive only the retail price for feed in tariffs, and then see how economic they really are.
The main thing in all of this is that the residence must, by law, be connected to the grid, and that’s always the fallback, because no matter if it is completely overcast for days on end with panels barely generating 1 to 5% max of the rated maximum power, the residence always has power available, from the grid.
No matter how many rooftop systems will be installed, they will make no dent whatsoever in power generation from traditional sources.
At the moment, all rooftop solar is doing is adding to the retail cost of electricity for all consumers.
Tony.
10
Your Mom’s a white elephantNBN was a pretty bold* move. When does it roll into capitals, 2020 or something? Be interesting to compare our internet services to ones in the US at that point. After lagging behind for a long time we seem to be roughly at parity with them at the moment.*Expensive guess, I’m all for Public Works in general but I’m not sure about taking a technological punt.
10
OT, but if you’re as sick as me of the Federal Government’s carbon tax and various fiascos then you’ll need distraction too.
Here is a new survey out in US-land, that actually asks level headed questions. Over 250 of them to be exact. Americans never do things by halves.
Some cool numbers:
Q60. How worried are you about global warming? “very worried”: 9% nationally
Q174. Sign an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon
dioxide 90% by the year 2050? Democrats 83% support or strongly support. (Are they mad?)
Q177. Expand offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast. Democrats 55% support or strongly support. (Does this prove people can believe two completely incompatible things at the same time?)
Q181. Increase taxes on gasoline by 25 cents per gallon and return the revenues to taxpayers by
reducing the federal income tax. Strongly support: Democrats 10% Republicans 7% (no one wants to pay even 6c/L more for petrol)
The more I read the answers the more I think humanity should be reclassed as four different species: homo democraticus, H. independans, H. republicans, and H. tea partius.
10
Yes thanks guys, I get it – no sun= no power.
I was really asking a very simple question,
Assuming there is sun available at will, what is the real cost of delivering power to the home via power stations vs power to the home from a solar panel? Forget about power sold back into the grid, thats politics, i just want the maths.
10
Hehe Bruce
I love cognitive dissonance
Scientist: Do you believe in evolution?
Oil Baron: Heck no, God created the world 6000 years ago.
Scientist: But that oil has been down there for millions of years!
Oil Baron: You think Ah don’t know that, whatcha take me for, some kinda idiot?
Republican: Bring down this awful $18T debt!
Republican: Hey, I need those tax cuts, $250 000 p/a is barely middle class these days!
10
Why make such a patently stupid assumption. Why no simply admiot the reality that solar is not a reliable source of power.
10
In assuming that sun is available at will, you are assuming an absurdity, are you not? Or perhaps your question can be answered by assuming the solar is installed on the bright side of a fictitious non-revolving planet where the sun shines continuously and without variation. That would be a near absurdity only. Otherwise, I don’t see how anyone can answer your very simple question.
I suppose one could use coal power to shine powerful lamps on to the panels. That would not give sun at will, but it would give the equivalent thereof. Of course, there may again be accusations of absurdity.
10
well Ban Ki Moon believes China is going to radically reduce its “carbon pollution” by up to 45%. Not only that, but they will do it in the next decade! Wow… where do I get some of what he is smoking?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/10217606/ban-ki-moon-challenges-climate-sceptics/
Credibility factor zero…
Oh and we are to blame for Kitibati’s woes… bad developed countries, bad!
10
Could we put Ians solar panels on Ban Ki’s Moon…….sorry
10
Tristan in 190,
I will inform my long dead mother who suffered the same disease as Micheal Jackson and also had a club foot that you likened her to a white elephant.
10
Ian:
The maths as follows with your assumptions a & b below:
a. ie things not needed for solar on rooftops
b. Assuming there is sun available at will
Solar cost $6,500 you will get 36 KWH per day free
Grid connection (use 36 KWH)@ 20 cents per KWH will cost $2,628 per year
Your solar panels are paid for in 2 years 172 days! Congratulations SOLAR IS CHEAPER THAN COAL!
Welcome to The Secret Life of Walter Mitty!
10
Hehe Crakar!
10
True colours are shining through for the Rainbow Coalition:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/greens-leader-bob-brown-lashes-labor-on-asylum-seekers-mining-tax/story-fn9hm1gu-1226132171807
Bob Brown is now threatening Labor if it considers offshore processing for boat people. Last time I checked in a democracy it is the majority of votes that counts. If Labor chooses to do a deal with the Coalition on this issue then it is stiff excrement Greens. Seriously… the wah wahing is becoming hysterical.
I can only hope the Greens do pull their support and force an election, but we all know Brown is just a windbag.
10
If a dog cant wag its own tail and the tail can no longer wag the dog, is the dog then considered dead?
10
Comatose at the very least!!!!!
10
Crakar: Only if it’s not in a box
10
Tony from OZ at 179
could I take it that your excellent post
actually gives all the Evidence required ,
To reach a conclusion that this is In Fact
a Carbon Tax by Stealth .
and if this is so ,Would the government bringing
in a Carbon Tax on top of this,Just be Double Dipping.
In WA we now have the situation , Where the people
with Pv Panels on their roofs , Now are recieving thier
power bill in full ,With Gst on top .
The Little Feed in Back to the Grid ,Is then sent by
Cheque ,Effectively short changing the customer as
they now pay Gst on an inflated bill,The customer then
has to add the Cheque to their Income .
Pensioners who have done this , Have been hit hard as
the Cheque is taken into account with their Pension,
Subsuquently their Pensions are being reduced.
Its just a big fat money grab
10
Bertrand Russell: “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”.
Check out the Dunning-Kruger effect and see if any particular person springs to mind…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
10
Socialist International at COP15 in Copenhagen:reaffirming social democratic priorities.
“Exchanges and discussions organised by the Socialist International were held at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 7-18 December, in which a number of delegates, ministers, and some of the Heads of State and Governments present in Copenhagen took part.
These activities, aimed at reaffirming social democratic priorities and perspectives on the key issues on the agenda of the Conference, included meetings, press conferences, discussions with civil society representatives and other exchanges with many of the delegates attending.
At a press conference held at the Bella Center, the COP15 venue, on 16 December, under the title “From a High Carbon Economy to a Low Carbon Society: a global perspective from progressive leaders”, Prime Minister George Papandreou, President of the Socialist International; Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Climate Change and former President of Chile, Ricardo Lagos; Belgian Minister of State Elio di Rupo and the SI Secretary General Luis Ayala, highlighted the conclusions and proposals put forward in the Report of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society and stressed the need for the Conference to reach substantial agreement on the core issues of emissions reductions by developed countries, commitments on reductions by developing countries and emerging economies, sufficient financial assistance for developing and most vulnerable countries, a target for a maximum of 2C increase in temperature, and the need to move forward to a legally binding agreement.”
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2044
10
Dave at comment 199, you say:
That’s not 36KWH per day. It’s only 6KWH per day, and, er, you’re not getting it for free.
You’re just not consuming it from the grid, ergo 6KWH from grid costs 20 cents per KWH, hence a non use of $1.20 per day.
That’s $1.20 per day off the original outlay of $6500.
Tony.
10
My response is simple, from the Coalition’s 2007 election campaign document:
If you don’t accept that it was the Coalition’s policy to implement an ETS then you are being misleading, and allowing John Howard to get away with lying.
10
The Age has discovered massive melting of The Petermann Glacier in Geenland &
Dr Hubbard said:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/dramatic-shrinking-of-greenland-glacier-20110908-1jyym.html#ixzz1XLmsKVpN
This astounding news – but a simple google search of Petermann Glacier reveals that in August 2010 that part of the Glacier Ice Shelf broke of – the biggest since 1962. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45112
When a glacier flows into the ocean, as the Petermann Glacier does, ice breaks or calves from the end, creating new icebergs.
Bindschadler explains.
Dr. Hubbard and The Age must not have internet access yet, for them not to acknowledge this in any of the articles?
10
Tony,
I agree with you, but with Ians conditions of A. unlimited sunshine and B. no grid connection this it what he thinks he can get in a Bright Big New Green World.
I should have left Ian to you?
My apologies!
10
Hey Dave,
no problems, as all I wanted to do was differentiate between 36KWH and the actual total of 6KWH
Tony.
10
Adam Smith:
Does the term “non-core promise” ring a bell? The term even made its way into the urban dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise
10
Also known as… do you honestly believe everything a politician tells you? Seriously dude…
10
So Spanky Banky in his lecture a Sydney Uni today tells us we have to act now on climate change because sea level rises are going to drown pacific atols and tells the story of a little boy from Kiribas that is affraid to go to sleep.
Well here’s some news for Spanky, there is a much more effective way to stop this little boy being afraid to sleep, and it has nothing to do with reducing emissions, taxiation, cap and trade or world governance.
For a start you can stop the scare tactics of “you’re all going to drown and those who don’t will burn”, that would be a good start.
Next you might want to discard your computer models and have a look at the real world evidence about low lying islands and atols.
10
Democracy = Socialism, i.e. Communism (The Perestroika Deception)
February 21, 2009
By Jon Baker – 1984usa.com
“Without going into background on Trotsky in this article and the overthrow of the Tzar of Russia by the International Bankers – just know this: The Soviet Union was established by the same people who own the Federal Reserve and virtually every other central bank in the World. The Soviet Union was created to be an antithesis to capitalism (thesis). Besides making tons of money over the eventual conflict these two opposing dialectics would have on each other, they are the pro-genitive elements that would eventually lead to the preconceived “New Order” for the world. A synthesis of Capitalism and Communism, the China model if you will.
If the singular source of funding is not enough of a factor to sway your cognitive reasoning, then you perhaps should look at the fact that the New World Order is set to be a global socialist totalitarian form of government. That organizations like the SI (Socialist Internationale) and the United Nations embody such principles and promote them on a global scale. Never-mind that most of the U.S. delegation who signed the U.N. Charter in San Fransisco on October 24, 1945 were later found to be communist spies or have communist ties (i.e. Alger Hiss, FDR’s personal attorney present at the Yalta Conference. – Never-mind that FDR took over the entire presidential platform of a gentleman and union icon named Norman Thomas who unsuccessfully ran for President on the Socialist Party ticket 6 times.) Never-mind that the U.N. Charter is virtually identical section by section of the old Soviet constitution. Never-mind that the Constitution for the United States of America, Art. 4, Sec. 4 guarantees a republican form of government, not a democracy. Never mind that mainstream media constantly reinforces that we live in a “Democracy” when that is not true.”
http://www.henrymakow.com/democracy_socialism_the_perost.html
10
The point is John Howard believes in AGW to the extent that he adopted an ETS as a policy to reduce Australia’s production of greenhouse gases.
This means any conspiracy theory about global warming being a fraud needs to include BOTH John Howard and Bob Brown.
10
WTF?
10
Adam Smith:
Somehow I feel it a tad hard to believe that YOU know what Howard believes, outside of his stated religion.
You are drawing out a ridiculously redundant argument to try and make your point which is tragically non-existant.
Your arguments are simple *there I said it politely* I can only assume therefore that your repetitious hammering on the same non-point is that you are cruising for the proverbial bruising. Sorry to disappoint.
The point is that you have no point.
10
10
Tag team stupid now? I guess I shall sign off tonight with the following clip … it seems apropos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgz5-8chSlk
10
What? He was a politician for 33 years, over that time we found out a lot of what he believes.
I’m sorry that me pointing out that John Howard believes in AGW and that he proposed an ETS as the cheapest way for Australia to cut its emissions makes you feel uncomfortable.
John Howard was the FIRST Prime Minister to commission a report of any sort into what Australia’s response to climate change should be. He even went as far as getting the head of his department Peter Sheargold to write the report, and Sheargold duly reported that an ETS was the best way for Australia to deal with climate change. Howard accepted that advice and adopted that as Coalition policy in mid 2006.
Those are the facts. Your post is basically a circular argument “I don’t believe Howard believes in AGW therefore Howard doesn’t believe in AGW.”
10
Play the ball and not the man.
10
The most important skepticism is skepticism of oneself. To be skeptical is to be open-minded.
10
Tristan @ various and John Brookes @ 177
RE: TOTAL SOLAR OUTPUT
Okay, I’ll accept that neither of you can use google, so I’ll help out. My apologies that I couldn’t do so earlier today – unfortunately I’ve been working for the man.
1) Google “cosmic rays”.
2) Google “coronal mass ejection”.
3) Google “solar energetic particles”.
4) Google “CERN”.
4) Google “CERN CLOUD experiment”.
5) Google “Spencer and Braswell
Now after a bit of reading you should be aware of the following:
A) “Cosmic rays” are not “rays” at all. They are streams of subatomic particles – mostly protons (hydrogen and helium nuclei).
Some of these strike the earth and could have an effect on climate but we don’t really know how much because instead of studying it we have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into trying to blame all “climate change” on a miniscule fraction (the man-made bit) of a minute trace atmospheric gas (plant food).
B) On an average day the earth receives over three hundred times more “cosmic rays” from the sun than we encounter from interstellar space.
And unlike those we receive from outer space which fluctuate in a narrow band dictated at any given time by the interaction of the sun and earth’s magnetic fields (which again is the result of a fluctuation in the sun’s magnetic field), the amount of cosmic rays from the sun fluctuate enormously with various activities in the sun.
These solar “cosmic rays” could have an effect on climate but we don’t really know how much because instead of studying it we have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into trying to blame all “climate change” on a miniscule fraction (the man-made bit) of a minute trace atmospheric gas (plant food).
An ongoing series of experiments at CERN called the “CLOUD” experiments have strongly suggested that interstellar “cosmic rays” could play a significant part in the formation of clouds here on earth. If that is indeed the case then it seems reasonable to assume that solar “cosmic rays” have an effect on the formation of clouds some 300 times that of interstellar “cosmic rays”.
Further, since the emission of solar “cosmic rays” fluctuates enormously, then it is reasonable to assume that their influence in cloud formation fluctuates to the same extent.
Several peer-reviewed, published papers (the most recent being the one by Spencer and Braswell) suggest that cloud formation (and the lack of it) influences changes in climate.
Anyway, I hope that helps you in your continuing quest for knoweledge.
By the way Tristan, thanks for the link at 182.
I never realised you had your own website.
10
Adam @ 223
Correction – Play the ball and not the men – Linguistic Plurality!
Your assertions tonight are not strickly on subject – Get Up to Speed Adam Smith!
10
Mike Jowsey: @ 9 I dont think Gillard Juliar has the butt crawling credentials or brains that Helen Clark has to get that cushy number in the UN (alias World Govt of the New Order of Thieves).
10
Bulldust @ 213
Hate to have side against you on this Bulldust, but the whole concept of a “non-core” promise as defined by Howard’s actions, was a promise made to garner votes in an election that there was never any intention of honouring once the election was over.
Since there are almost certainly NO votes to be had by the Liberals in persistently sticking with a “climate change policy” and almost certainly votes to be lost in doing so, their “climate change policy” becomes a pretty meaningless “non-core” promise.
That leaves us to ponder why, in fact, they do persist with it. And the only obvious answer is that they fully intend doing “something” with it after the election.
AND they will be able to claim an “overwhelming” mandate to do so.
10
So the Liberals are a pack of liars who are only supported by people who like being lied to.
10
Like the Post Memoryvault at 225
It reminds me watching Lost in Space
Landing on Unknown Planets , The Robinsons
would mine for their Fuel (Deuterium)
this show was made in the 50`s
When was science dumbed down to this?
The Periodic Table is a distant past for young Students.
10
Adam Smith @ 229
You won’t find any post by me anywhere on this site – or any other – supporting the Libs, the Nats, Labor, OR the Greens.
So your point is . . . ?
I have no idea why the bulk of Australians continue to vote for party politicians who will always put their party’s interests ahead of their constituents.
Sad but true.
10
Mobilly1 @ 230
Wrong Mobilly.
As any young student will tell you, every inner city kerbside cafe has a Periodic Table.
It’s where young PhD students challenge each other to dream up the next “it’s even worse than we thought” climate scenario.
Sort of a brain-washed greenie intellectual equivalent of a pool table in a public bar.
Only you’re allowed to put drinks (cafe latte only) on the table.
10
Its called a “Periodic Table” cos the students have to wait on the latest periodic pronouncements from unrealclimate and septicscience as to what the latest version of the “concensus” is, as it changes on a daily basis.
10
Thanks, I appreciate it.
CERN Jury will be out for a while.
Could solar cosmic ray muons cause cloud nucleation? I think we’re even further from that answer.
I’ll have to read up on solar winds.
Still waiting for the Spencer & Braswell furor to die down before I try to get a grip on it.
Your evil cyclopic educators of ONEness, will not allow
you to know supernatural 4 Day Time Cube Principle.
😉
10
Here are two simple questions worth asking.
Who does NOT believe that climate is fantastically complex?
Who DOES believe that climate is broadly understood by current science?
10
memoryvault:
The weakness in your argument is assuming that the Coalition would have lost no votes by going anti-CAGW in the policy positions. They certainly had no votes to gain by such a stance, but they certainly might have lost votes.
To put it another way… imagine you were staunchly anti-ETS/CO2tax … not a stretch of the imagination I think. Were you going to vote for the Greens? Labor? An independent running on a CAGW platform? I don’t think so. Therefore the Coalition had nothing to gain from an anti-CAGW platform. They would have counted the anti-CAGW votes as theirs, and any veiled (and obviously non-core) policy on “climate action” was simply an attempt to garner extra votes, by definition swing voters. The policy they took to 2010 would have been designed as “climate action lite.”
If people don’t think political parties think this way, then I really think they are being a tad naive.
As for arguing what politicians believe … that it like wondering what a second hand car salesman really thinks about the junker he is selling. The primary thing we know he cares about is his commission (getting a vote) … all else is a distant second place or lower. He’ll even tell you he (dis)believes CAGW if he thinks it will sell the car.
It’s how people behave.
10
Hi Mosomo @235
Good one ; clear and simple.
Having a background in modeling real world complex systems where the model can be checked and adjusted in real time I was more than a little curious when I heard that someone had modeled the Earth’s atmosphere.
Going deeper I read what they claimed to have modeled and my initial skepticism turned to anger.
That anyone can claim to have real working models of that system is nothing short of preposterous and my studies over the last few years indicate that in Australia, at least, we should instigate a Royal Commission to clean it up once and for all.
The corruption associated with the CAGW monster is a world class scientific fraud which has been used by the academia (see Eureka Prize), green world, politicians and banksters to thieve from hard working taxpayers.
There is NO climate benefit to this continuing so it must be shut down.
Thieves must be found and punished.
People who have damaged the reputation of science must be punished.
10
Oh look !!
It’s snip (Tristan) and snip (Adam Smith) !!
I warn you Damian Allen, enough. [mod oggi]
10
Adam Smith: #209
September 8th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Your response tells me I was sadly mistaken to think you are politically savvy. Your response also tells me you have no idea how a politicians mind works.
Furthermore, my comment did not contain anything offensive or rude. Your reply, stating that I was being ‘misleading’, is offensive and has been noted.
You’re not worth the effort
10
If you like dark humor,
See this photo of smiling politicians campaigning for AGW
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-chief-urgent-action-climate.html
Warning: It may make you ill.
10
Hello good people and getup trolls,
This whole debate which has emerged on the radar in the last 5 years- is nothing to do with temp, sea levels,CO2 but is everything to do with global money transfers in the form of air trading and mandatory levies to the UN committees. All of the Financial houses have their carbon desks set up and will make commissions out of the product sales (air) It will only last a year or so for the mandated price of $23per tonne to collapse like it has in Europe -but in the meantime -fortunes will be bled offshore.
Both parties in Oz have a click who like this idea and Kyoto is the shop front for the game. Simple fact is that without the Native Vegetation Acts that enforced “Land Use Change”- Australia would be running at 133% of its 1990 level of CO2 emmissions- instead of the 108%- pass level which avoids massive penalties.
Most first world countries haven’t a hope in hell of complying and won’t go near signing Kyoto- even though they give it lip service. Rudd couldn’t wait to sign it in 2008. the tree’s lockup accounted to offsetting about 97%of the inevitable increase due to population and industry activities in this 22 year period.
This is the sole reason that Rudd and Gillard inherited a situation that enabled them to grandstand on the world stage- thinking that it won’t cost them anything.
This self destructing mob have one last mission to there masters and that is to ram the Clean energy bills through before the wheels fall off Bob Browns horse and buggy.The new Govt will be hard pressed to unscramble the web of bills set in train. eg I’m sure Flannery will get his $180K per year for the next four years irrespective of what happens- contract and all!
My tip would be to read the Bills that just passed the senate and FOLLOW the units(money)
10
Tristan @ 234
The only ONEness is the TRUE ONEness,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You are aware, no doubt, of the inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global warming?
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
All the work of the omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Blessed be His sauce.
10
I resist for as long as possible the notion of conspiracy, especially lower down. Yes, there are probably GetUp members patrolling these forums and loosely following committee guidelines. These people, however, mostly young and likely to have a tertiary education, are pretty sincere. If they are paid, they aren’t paid much. Their most infuriating practice is constant resort to spin, often framed in a mock-analytical presentation that starts to seem too familiar after a while. But all of that is a long way from conspiracy.
At the top, however, there does seem to be an interest in money and little else. On the part of those most senior and influential among alarmists, there is a curious indifference to the actual emission of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide etc, especially from non-taxable sources or places. Nothing in their proposals or actions exhibits any urgency, or even concern, beyond the subject of money. Emissions they cannot or do not wish to audit do not seem to exist. The most comical example might be Pachauri taking a private jet back to India for cricket practice, but the real and overall indifference at the top is striking.
On the other hand, one can see plenty of interest in how much money will be emitted!
10
mosomoso,
Well said.
It’s just so obvious.
Ask them to address something outside their ‘bailiwick’ and they assiduously ignore the question completely, and ‘stay on political message’.
Tony.
10
Can’t you just hear ’em in the upper echelons?
“We’ll get ’em with their own ammo!”
“Huh?”
“Classical liberalism! The Wealth of Nations! The Invisible Hand! Edmund Burke! Laizzez-faire!”
“Um, how we gunna do all that?”
“With a classical anti-liberal tax, a sort of transferable fine for belching those gases – or any of the gases we feel like auditing. If it’s transferable, sellable, buyable and so forth…”
“I totally get it! A MARKET!”
“Anyone who argues is a centralising big government socialist.”
“I dunno…That’s a lot of spin…”
“And what’s the one thing we are undeniably terrific at?”
10
Well whatever. At least I know how to use apostrophes correctly.
10
Adam Smith
No you are mistaken on this:
The marking of possessive case as in the use of apostrophes (e.g. the cat’s whiskers).
You are assuming POLITICIAN and MIND are mutually exclusive!
You are also assuming politicians have a mind of their own!
10
ADAM @ 246
What happened to “play the ball not the man”?
10
Mark D @ 248
Only applies when Adam thinks he has the ball.
.
Which, sadly for Adam, is not very often.
10
Gillard says “Let’s save the world! Is everyone with me?” and the World responds “YEAAAA”. So Gillard then says “We will ban all weapons! We are at peace!”
And the rest of the world says “Gee, these Aussie chips taste great at the point of a gun.”
You are about to unzip you fly and your opponent has not agreed to a cease fire. It is a sad day for Australia. It will take many years to recover from the handicap you are being dealt. All for a myth.
10
Dave @ 247
“”The marking of possessive case as in the use of apostrophes (e.g. the cat’s whiskers).
You are assuming POLITICIAN and MIND are mutually exclusive!
You are also assuming politicians have a mind of their own!”””
I had noticed that myself Dave, good point.
I had debated as to whether an apostrophe or a semicolon would be best in the previous line.
10
Mike Jowsey @#9
Deliver us Aus. on a platter -while you still can – if your cherish a UN appointment.
10
We really need to thank the Aussies for stepping up and being the paster child for financial disaster.
They will go down in history as the guinea pigs who showed that being cooked
in a microwave oven, because someone said it was okay, is bad for your health, metaphorically speaking.
Some one had to set an example for what NOT to do to your economy. Thank’s Australia!
10
AGW CO2 is only 0,001152 % part of the atmosphere!! Thus it should be clear to everybody that such a futile quantity can NEVER be cause of global warming.
Besides this important statement, is Henrik Svensmark’s (et al) scientifically convincing explanation of climate and/or temperature change, caused by the sun’s activity and cosmic ray quantity and intensity, shown in: http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XYxL66O_s&feature=related
Conclusion: Manmade CO2 has no influence at all on climate and/or temperature change!!
Politicians who still contravene this conclusion are unrepentantly stupid or knowingly criminal swindlers!
20
Ah, F. Eckenhuijsen Smit, you miss the point. AGW has nothing to do with science. They do not care that they are wrong. There is no advantage in them ever admitting they are.
AGW is a political agenda that simply uses a false, junk science-based crisis as the excuse for a Draconian takeover of the energy supply, which would have to be tightly monitored because they know perfectly well that wind and solar such and are woefully inadequate, making the energy shortage even more critical.
Off the top, the cap and trade/tax of CO2 is a huge generator of completely undeserved revenue for governments and for a few individuals and banks who are properly positioned. That’s the scam part of the program. The larger plan, which they openly talk about, is to bring down the Industrial world and prevent the undeveloped from developing.
Control of energy controls everything, all we do, buy, and use. Then, they want to cripple the Western economies, as weak economies are always in turmoil and would have trouble mounting a coherent revolt. So, unreliable energy rots economies from within while they bleed them with “climate change reparations” to undeveloped countries.
These massive redistributions of wealth are meant to prevent these countries from ever developing as the funds will simply be used to keep the populations under control and, again, depressed people and poor economies allow oppression and create permanent nanny states run by dictators.
The extreme environmentalists are all for this agenda as it pretty much damns all humans for AGW—the extremists are inherently self-loathing—and they get to campaign against all forms of energy, particularly coal, gas, and nuclear. Reliable energy is undesirable in this agenda, so having the Greenies be against all forms of good energy and virtually anything we do, from farts to lollypop sticks, is perfect for AGW.
The key environmental reason for killing our economies is to lower the standard of living, thus lowering our life expectancy by higher mortality of all kinds, as the enviros are scared of the trend of greater longevity when countries develop. They ignore the fact that developed countries tend to lower their population growth rate and want to go back to high mortality from disease and starvation. They love biofuels as this industry and waste of time, resources, food, and croplands does nothing but raise the price of food and starve people to death else where. It’s a win-win form the enviros point of view. Their fear of population growth was also, by the way, exactly why that wanted and succeeded in having DDT banned. Dying of malaria is SO natural; they love it.
The last piece of the puzzle, and the reason the IPCC was set up as a junk science propaganda machine, is to realize Maurice Strong’s lifelong dream of a one-world government, ruled by a privileged elite and necessarily totalitarian and socialist. We all know how well those civic plans work!
There is good reason Hillary Clinton is trying to register all US small arms with the UN, under the excuse of controlling illegal gun movements (but she is trying to register all of the legal guns). Why would any country tell an outside organization of any kind where all of its defenses are? It’s insane. However, the point is that eventually the UN wants to disarm the world. It makes dominating much easier. Bureaucrats NEVER collect information they do not intend to use, eventually. HIllary is salivating over being able to simply hand the US over to the UN.
The UN was never set up to be a world government. It was meant to facilitate international affairs and help negotiate peaceful relations. They are looking way outside their charter.
The proposed agreement that was being pushed a few years ago at the Copenhagen climate conference included setting up a world level power structure—the structure was purposely left undefined. The talks failed mostly because the UN discovered that they were being shut out of the new, proposed government. So, they withdrew their support and torpedoed the agreement. It was largely UN greed that made that agreement fail so quickly. We dodged the bullet.
10
Charles Higley @255 You are very observant. Why is it so easy for the Hillary types to do these things even thought it is right out in the open?
10
Charles Highley,
It is not that I miss the point, but you are one step further on the path to tell the World Population (WP) what the eventual disastrous goal of the red/green coalition is.
My intention is first to inform the WP of the manmade CO2 reality, as the WP has been drenched ‒during more than 30 years‒ in “alarmists/destroyers” lies.
This seems to be possible more and more through all the scientific proof of which is made use by countless “critics”.
Once that is accomplished, I would have followed up with the dark description in your answer 255, with which I am in total conformation.
Let’s keep up the fight against the “DESTROYERS”!
10
Stop agruging science. This it totally pointless. Its is well known that CO2 doesnt affect the climate, theres more proof for than against, the agrguments are a waste of time and totaly futile the Gov has NO intention of beliving it because they know its true (climate change is baloney) they want the lie to continue.
The point of this site should be to fix the ‘problem’ of the draconian and illegal, immoral TAX on the life gas CO2. The real reason that this Labor Gov is pushing this tax is a probably because of a rougue element inside the Gov. These will be moles who are representative of the global banking cartell the same cartell that was behind the failed Copenhagen conference and Cancun conference where they tried, and mostly failed to introduce fascist draconian world ‘Carbon’ taxes with dictat methods forcing Govts to adopt taxes and measures that would bankrupt them. This is a globalist agenda. If you dont believe it go live on another planet. These are the same globalist elites criminals that have started 7 wars under Obama, including Libya where they want the oil, also the funding of 911 terror through a rougue putch inside the US Govt. and many other things including the US debt downgrades the failing of the Euro and the European and US banks.
These moles will have either blackmailed Gilards Govt into intruducing such a tax or similar underhand activities. They have to be exposed. Theres no way the problem will go away unless the populas wake up and start by voting them out at least it will provide a shock syndrome to the Gov. Unfortunately this will not entirely fix the problem as the moles will just carry on their activity on whoever gets to replace the current Govt. but it may help slow the pace. These moles are probably not elected but officilas in high places put into office by the banksters and elitists or officials that are sympathisers that are easliy duped by offers they cant refuse. There are refernces to suspicious connections by some politicians to various organisations. Also added into the rougue mix will be green fanatics who believe in saving mother Gaia and dont see that they are stooges for the global banking cartell.
20
Just stop voting labor.
10