What were they thinking?
Tony Abbott has a plan to try to convince China and the US to sign up for the “global climate change deal.” As if the world’s number one and two economies, with a population of 1.6 billion combined, will be waiting for instructions. And as if the global climate needed “a deal”. Hey but we do have 22 million people. squeak. squeak.
To make matters worse, Greg Hunt — the opposition spokesman for the environment — said a Coalition Government might not wipe out the emissions reductions target but… wait, they might lift the target instead. Thus taking something useless, expensive and ineffective against a problem-that-doesn’t-exist and making it moreso.
It’s a mistake every which way. The Liberal Party could play them at their own green game and beat them, just by applying common sense. Instead its appeasing the politically correct namecallers (who wouldn’t vote for them anyway), and the price they pay is to look weak, irrational and lacking in conviction.
A true environmentalist would stop wasting money on schemes that don’t help the environment. (Why spend a cent cooling Australia by no degrees? There goes the carbon tax…)
If the Liberal Party were serious about protecting the environment, they would promise to drop funding for pointless fantasies and token do-gooder projects and get the science right first. A government that was serious about the environment would use some saved funds to set up an entirely new climate science research unit — one that aimed at predicting the climate (inasmuch as it is possible). Better climate models would help farmers, town planners, tourism operators, emergency services, dams and water catchments. It’s not just green, its a productivity thing too. Better than a wind-farm…
The new unit could compete with the BOM and CSIRO and may the best scientists win.
A real green policymaker would audit our temperature records independently. How can we be serious about managing Australia’s climate if our records have biased and inexplicable adjustments, that are described as “neutral”? Why would anyone who cares about the environment be prepared to accept shoddy data, bugs, and mysterious black box methods that no one can test?
At the end of the day, if the Greens cared about the air, the temperature and the trees, they would care about the data used to track these things. They would care about the outcomes. Anything less is just “seeming”.
Ladies and Gentlemen we have some work to do.
- We could upgrade coal power and cut 15% of emissions (if only emissions mattered).
- Renewable energy is a $250 billion dollar industry that makes about 3% of our global electricity.
- Wind Farms: Turbines break like match-sticks in medium waves, and their capacity is “overestimated”
- Wind farms — are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do
- How much electricity do solar and wind make on a global scale? Answer: “Not much”
- Tim Flannery – baseload is just a “coal” industry idea (Yes and darkness is a “renewable” idea, right?)
- Solar Power costs less than Coal, and the Wishing Chair lives on