JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Abbott’s plan delivers $10/t carbon reduction, lots of trees. Greenies call it “illogical”

Tony Abbott’s plan is one of the most efficient and effective programs anywhere in the world. But the Green hero is really enemy number one. Apparently giving the eco-cartel what they say they want is a disaster. Don’t look now, but green underpants are showing. Who cares about carbon reduction or trees? Givem’ power and money!

Gillard’s carbon tax cost $5310 per ton. Abbott’s plan at $10/ton this round is 531 times greener. The Direct Action plan uses a reverse auction to buy the cheapest carbon reduction in Australia. In the third round another half billion dollars has bought 47m tons of carbon reduction at an even cheaper price than the first two rounds. Most it achieved by planting or restoring greenery and trees.

The real problem with the Direct Action plan is manifold — a/ it doesn’t specifically punish the “big polluders” (those big independent companies that don’t need the government to survive).  b/ it doesn’t reward the right patrons  — there’s no money for the parasitic windmills and solar industries.  And c/  It is more like the real free market solution the eco-fans say they want — showing that the fake free market idea of imposing an economy-wide carbon trading scheme is useless, overpriced, and inefficient. Direct Action  fails to reward those financial houses and the conglomerate big-gov entities like the EU and UN, all of whom have been part of the lobbying cheer-squad for 20 years.

The Direct Action Plan delivers lot of trees:

More than half a billion dollars has been spent in the latest auction under the Turnbull government’s Direct Action climate change plan, with the vast majority of the money committed to tree projects.

 In the third auction of the emissions reduction fund – a central plank of the Direct Action scheme – about 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide savings were bought from 73 projects at an average price of $10.23 a tonne.

Almost all of the emissions savings bought (47 million tonnes) will come from protecting and restoring plants and trees. Much more modest amounts will come from plans to cut emissions from rubbish dumps, savanna burning, saving energy and agriculture.
All up across the three auctions under the emissions reduction fund, $1.7 billion has been spent to buy 143 million tonnes of emissions savings from 348 projects at an average price of $12.10 per tonne.
The director of The Wilderness Society, Lyndon Schneiders, says it’s “completely illogical” because the state governments “gutted nature laws and allowed millions of trees to be ripped up and burnt, and then spends $1.2 billion of taxpayers money to keep trees in the ground and plant new ones. He complains that other land clearing will wipe out the gains in the next two years. Schneiders doesn’t seem to care that no matter what we do, China will wipe out the gains in the next two minutes.

Schneiders says: It would be easier and far cheaper to just reduce tree clearing.”

Which is true. Stealing things is always cheaper than paying for them. In the past, rules that stopped farmers clearing their own land were “cheap” because they confiscated the right to use land owned by farmers, causing hardship, loss and bankrupting some of them.

Where is the National Party on this topic? They could win over a lot of Delcon/Defcon votes if they were prepared to make a stand.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (65 votes cast)
Abbott's plan delivers $10/t carbon reduction, lots of trees. Greenies call it "illogical", 9.3 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hghbvje

94 comments to Abbott’s plan delivers $10/t carbon reduction, lots of trees. Greenies call it “illogical”

  • #
    Gee Aye

    That would be Greg Hunt’s plan?

    From Liberal party statement before last election

    As soon as the carbon tax is repealed, the Environment Minister will introduce legislation to enact the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan on climate change and carbon emissions.

    He is now Turnbull’s minister and still owns and runs the plan.

    71

    • #
      el gordo

      Its in the formal agreement that Turnbull made with the Nats.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        That agreement is null and void at the election. Besides, there won’t be any Nationals. Ten in the lower house and 4 in the Senate. Halve them both. Labor will be devastated in the lower house if the Greens switch. The timing is everything for Turnbull and di Natale. Close enough to the election to inform the Green voters that Turnbull is going Green and not so close that the Liberal and Nationals can get rid of Malcolm and undo the deal.

        To quote Andrew Bolt “Lin Hatfield Dodds the Green Senate candidate for the ACT for two elections running has been appointed a deputy secretary in Prime Minister and Cabinet in charge of all things social policy. Many Liberal MPs apoplectic. PM one suspects was consulted. If not tells us all we need to know about Turnbull’s appointment of Martin Parkinson (as PMC head)”

        How much clearer does Turnbull have to be? A Green politician given charge of social policy in the Cabinet?

        240

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          To quote Andrew Bolt “Lin Hatfield Dodds the Green Senate candidate for the ACT for two elections running has been appointed a deputy secretary in Prime Minister and Cabinet in charge of all things social policy. Many Liberal MPs apoplectic. PM one suspects was consulted. If not tells us all we need to know about Turnbull’s appointment of Martin Parkinson (as PMC head)”

          How much clearer does Turnbull have to be? A Green politician given charge of social policy in the Cabinet?

          That says it all TdF.

          You’re right about Parkinson too. Secretary of the Environment Dept when Labor came in. Then Finance wasn’t it?

          Now he’s another lefty in Turnbull’s Department (PM&C). The Australian Public Service (APS) has been slowly infiltrated and subverted (ala Gramsci and the Fabian’s strategy manual). And they have the temerity to tell us it’s apolitical.

          Things are crook. And Turnbull

          210

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Just remind me again TdF.

          How are you proposing to vote?

          40

          • #
            TdeF

            Not sure, but I will put the Greens last on both papers. The Greens are the key.

            Right now, if Barnaby Joyce had some sense, he could stop this. However once the election is underway, there is much less he can do. After the election, Barnaby will be history along with his Nationals.

            Otherwise Barnaby could withdraw from the coalition immediately with the Governor General, creating the sort of constitutional crisis we have not seen since the Dismissal. Malcolm would not be kidding the Nationals along if he did not need them for now. Malcolm may not get the numbers if the Liberal members realise what he is doing. Remember, those who have lost their seats in preselection are still able to vote him out.

            90

        • #
          aussiepete

          Hi TdeF,
          I’ve been reading your comments for some time and untill now thought you were being perhaps a little melodramatic, although given my distrust of politicians in general, but Turnbull in particular, i was prepared to consider your scenarios as possible but not likely. With this news I am moved to wondering,
          1/ Does Tony Abbott have ALA’s phone number, and
          2/ Wither to now for Miranda Devine?

          110

          • #
            TdeF

            aussiepete,
            I wish I was wrong, but logically and if you study Turnbull’s track record (and that of his very successful politician wife, grandaughter of another Lord Mayor of Sydney) you would have to conclude that he has a few sheep loose in the far paddock or he has another plan, the sort of plan which would be obvious if you were a narcissistic rich opportunist lawyer who had nothing to lose and cared nothing at all for the Liberal party, voters, the Nationals or even Labor. There is only one party. The Turnbull party.

            Unfortunately it all fits. As the days pass, the dominoes are falling. Liberal MPs are apoplectic according to Andrew Bolt. Why? It is all perfectly obvious and they will do nothing until it is all too late.

            70

            • #
              TdeF

              aussiepete,
              Also, I do not intend to be melodramatic. That is an unintended view of my logic. The Senate was the major problem for Tony Abbott too. Labor rejected 40% of all bills and the independents 70%. Remember repealing the Carbon tax was a very close call! Tony could not have repealled 18C for example or even pass Hockey’s budget. Shorten will block this faux budget, keeping the new taxes and rejecting the reductions. So what would be your solution?

              Tony would have threatened the lucky independents on six year terms with a double dissolution to get his way but Malcolm will demand it very close to the mandated election. Why? To what purpose? The obvious sole purpose is to remove the six independents from the Senate. Even Bolt is puzzled, as it advantages Labor and the Greens, not the Liberals and it exacerbates the Senate logjam. So why do it? Then why did the obstructive Greens vote with Turnbull against Labor and the Independents? Why did Turnbull throw away the leverage and make the Senate even more ungovernable? Simple. He will control a Green Senate. Any other explanation would be welcome.

              Why a VFT? Why a retrospective tax on superannuation, straight out of the Green handbook? Even Labor are appalled! It destroys any trust in mandated superannuation, the Labor Keating invention and a proud boast, now just a piggy bank for the Greens. The Grasshopper rules.

              Put yourself in Malcolm’s shoes and see if you can find a better option for control of both houses and the demolition of your enemies than a coalition with the Greens and a preference swap. Malcolm has always thought the Nationals an anachronism. His mother was host to the most famous Labor people being connected to British Labor. His radical great great uncle George Lansbury led UK Labor from 1932 to 1935, but modern Labor rejected the arrogant rich loner. Just look at his Labor history on both sides! Amazing.

              Melodrama was not my intention. Malcolm is doing exactly what you would do if you were Malcolm. The drama comes from the betrayal of the Australian Liberal voters, just as in removing Tony Abbott. Legally right and ethically appalling. Malcolm if anything is consistent, but people just do not want to believe it. So hope triumphs over logic. Most of all remember Turnbull is a very successful QC lawyer and banker. It is all about winning and the deal. With the Greens.

              111

              • #
                Lord Jim

                Your numbers on the nationals are incorrect (as I have pointed out before).
                Moreover, this plan of Turnbull’s would decimate the party at a state level in Qld.
                Add to that the fact that the Liberal party and Greens policy is fundamentally at odds on a number of levels, e.g. ‘pacific solution’ and it is clear this sort of plan could never succeed.
                I suggest Turnbull’s political skills as leader are more accurately judged on his past performances as (failed) opposition leader.

                71

              • #
                Annie

                Um, British LaboUr, TdeF.

                30

              • #
                TdeF

                Annie, U are Labouring the point. It’s all in the delivery.

                20

              • #
                TdeF

                Lord Jim, Abbott only one by a single vote to remove Turnbull and stop his Green agenda, including an ETS. His ‘failure’ was a very near thing. Last Septemeber there were only five votes in it and as Bolt just points out, eleven of those who voted against Abbott have resigned, lost preselection or unlikely to win. Still, most are still in their jobs today and there is time for five of them to change their minds.

                40

              • #
                TdeF

                Did I really write one instead of won? Now that’s touch typing. Sorry. Brain fade.
                Still the point is that Bolt’s Abbott’s curse is really Turnbull’s curse. History will show Turnbull as the greatest destructive force in Liberal history, a real cuckoo in the nest.

                80

              • #
                TdeF

                Lord Jim, “Your numbers on the nationals are incorrect (as I have pointed out before)”

                Thanks. Now what are the correct numbers?

                50

              • #
                Ted O'Brien.

                Annie. British LaboUr.

                In the post WWII era the American spelling for the ALP is ironic. When the Australian Labor Party was formed the Americans were the anti empire heroes, the model. So they used the American spelling. Mud in the Empire’s eye!

                Not much above half a century later the ALP was in bed with the Communists and since then the ALP has regarded the Americans as the enemy.

                00

    • #

      Savannah Enrichment Orchard Landscaping is all go, here in the West Kimberley. My time has revolved around planning plant nursery activities for the promise of tens of thousands of seedlings ready for planting out with our 5 Green Army projects for the next year and a half. These activities have been years in the planning and is now in full swing.

      It would not have happened if not for Tony Abbott.

      While Prime Minister, he did what every Labor/Green Government failed to do, environmental rehabilitation. A Green Army across Australia and 20million trees planted in 18 months. What’s more, it did what every Greenie dreams about, yet they pilloried him. Well, Tony Abbott is vindicated, the result is staggering.

      Savannah Enrichment is the method of planting native trees with economic benefits direct into wattle savannah environments, and rehabilitating by the same method, ensuring a variety of species to aid with pollination and not import a monoculture style of orchard or landscape.

      260

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Thanks for that.

        Most of us don’t have access to that sort of detail.

        70

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Great to hear such interesting news Tom.
        A really satisfying achievement all round.
        Geoff W

        20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I haven’t examined the details of this tree planting business because I saw it as just another Ponzi type scheme, a scheme which must ultimately fail. Perhaps I should have, because there is better short term money in it than farming. However. what is to be paid when the scheme hits the wall? In the long run you get nothing for nothing.

        There is a limit to the capacity of any area of land to retain carbon. That limit varies for that land, regulated by various factors, from time to time.

        All plant growth is part of an ongoing cycle, cycling over different periods for different types of plants, but in an ongoing system all finishing up in the one place. The regulating factors for the quantity of “carbon” on any area of land are rainfall for growth, which in Australia is variable, grazing and forestry where applied for removal of some of the carbon, and fire from time to time for accelerating destruction, especially where there is no grazing. Where there is no grazing the frequency and ferocity of fire is greatly increased.

        You can plant trees today, I daresay the more the merrier. But what happens in ten or twenty years time when you get a drought and 80% of those beautiful trees die because they are now at a size which makes their population density too much for the available moisture? What then in another five years when the debris from that catches fire and kills the rest?

        I won’t be here when this happens, but when it does happen remember that I told you that Abbott’s scheme will ultimately be funded by insurance premiums which will be compulsory, and which will cripple the economy if there still is an economy to cripple. A gigantic Ponzi.

        10

      • #
        Richard Barnett

        Tom,

        So everyone wins, the economy is boosted from the purchase of domestic goods, local labor to plant the appropriate varietys, land owner’s are compensated for their willingness to cooperate without losing the right to control their own assets, it is affordable at ~$10 per ton as compared to the cost of off shore carbon credits, etc… I fail to see drought as a risk because when it hits it is not selective on the damage it causes. It doesn’t just affect the purchased sinks but all sinks are a risk as it doesn’t descriminate. Even if the off shore credits were purchased the drought risks remain.

        10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    While we are talking about “carbon accounting” we might pause for a moment to assess just how the ongoing firestorm in Canada fits in?

    It seems that many tons of CO2 have been liberated to participate again in the endless cycle of life.

    It was mentioned in news reports that roads out of the area were impassable in a re_run of the circumstances of recent fatal Australian fires.

    It would be interesting to find out whether this fire was made worse by Green policy that stopped the proper maintenance being down to reduce fire risk and maintain safe exits.

    KK

    121

    • #
      Yonniestone

      That would be the UN Agenda 21 ‘Wildlands Project” Sustainable Development policy.

      From the link,

      “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.” The preamble to The Vancouver Action Plan approved at Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (31 May to 11 June 1976).

      Nice to know people like this have our best interests at heart.

      50

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        And that was the beginning and the sole end of Julia Gillard’s ETS/carbon tax plan. To terminate the private ownership of land in rural areas. Surely it is not Malcolm Turnbull’s goal, but it is the whole purpose in life for the Greens.

        10

    • #
      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Ian,

        Sounds like they have eco restrictions on controlled burns.

        Seems like they need to burn sections to get the growth cycles of various patches out of sync.

        A”young” stand of growth would act as a forebears for older growth sections.

        The only conception of fire management they have is to have rapid response and penalties for those who start fires.

        Sad.

        30

      • #
        Peter Miller

        John Sutter, an ecoloon high priest at CNN – a news source you can trust!?! – has a big article on this fire.

        The message is clear: i) it was definitely caused by ‘climate change’, ii) be very afraid, and iii) it was definitely manmade.

        It is full of BS quotes, such as:

        Climate change has led to fire seasons that are now on average 78 days longer than in 1970,” the U.S. Forest Service said in an August 2015 report.

        True, there have been fires in Canada’s boreal forest for ages. But scientists and researchers say this fire looks a whole lot like climate change. And that should be alarming for all of us.

        No mention of arson, the age of the trees in the forest, or the greenie/goofy policy of controlling small scale fires which allows brush in the forests to increase to such a level that catastrophic fires are guaranteed.

        The province of Alberta, where Fort McMurray is located, recently elected an NDP government, a party known for its ecoloon policies, lack of business savvy and general economic ineptitude. My guess is the inevitable inquiry will show political incompetence and vacillation allowed this fire to spread out of control. Nevertheless, the faithful will continue parroting, “it’s climate change, it’s climate change”, when the causes of these fires is clearly something totally different.

        70

    • #
      clive

      The Canadians are having the same problems that we in Australia have had in the past with the Eco-Loons interfering with our controlled bush fire burn-offs.After a number of out of control fires in Qld,Tassy,Victoria and NSW were shown to be caused by their”Interference”they have been keeping a low profile,lest they get strung up by the people for their”Meddling”in things they have no idea about.There is also a rumor that it may have been deliberately lit,as it’s near the “Tar Sands”that they hate.

      10

  • #
    pat

    no comments on weekends, but a supporting link:

    7 May: Bolt Blog: Greens candidate now a deputy head of Turnbull’s department
    A trusted insider writes:
    “It goes from bad to worse. Lin Hatfield Dodds the Green Senate candidate for the ACT for two elections running has been appointed a deputy secretary in Prime Minister and Cabinet (LINK) in charge of all things social policy. Many Liberal MPs apoplectic. PM one suspects was consulted. If not tells us all we need to know about Turnbull’s appointment of Martin Parkinson (as PMC head).
    “Bureaucrats upset as well because of lack of public service experience.”
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_candidate_now_a_deputy_head_of_turnbulls_department/

    on his homepage, Bolt also has this excerpt from The Australian (subscription required):

    7 May: Bolt Blog: Shorten makes a crazy promise he cannot possibly deliver – and should not try to
    Terry McCrann (Australian) on Labor’s most deceitful promise – and one of its most destructive, if Labor even tried to deliver:
    Shorten’s overarching coup de destruction is the total insanity, restated aggressively on Thursday night, of the commitment to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
    This would at the same time dramatically increase the cost of power to all Australians — probably as much as four times; devastate business across the board; and add billions of dollars to our current account deficit…
    Apart from the fact that even getting to 50 per cent renewable energy in just 14 years is completely impossible…
    Right now we get barely 14 per cent of our total electricity from renewables…
    [A]bout 8 per cent of that 14 per cent comes from the now ‘dirty’ renewable of hydro. We ain’t going to build any more hydro dams; so in the weird space that passes for Shorten’s brain, wind and solar have to go from about 6 per cent to 42 per cent. They have to increase sevenfold, and in just 14 years.

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      The odd thing is how hard Labor are trying to please the Greens by being even more irrational and extreme. With Liberals doing the same thing, the Greens with one seat in the democratic House of Representatives now have control of the agenda.

      The silly bit is that Labor are going to find themselves snookered, abandoning their own voters only find that Malcolm has partnered with the Greens. When Gillard promised “no carbon tax” she was talking to traditional Labor voters. Most Australians do not want a carbon tax but the politicians are all chasing the crazy Green vote. Tony Abbott was the only one with the courage to say no and win a landslide victory, but individual Labor and Liberal MPs are too scared for their jobs.

      30

  • #

    Oh dear! How cool is this where Joanne mentions this: (my bolding here)

    All up across the three auctions under the emissions reduction fund, $1.7 billion has been spent to buy 143 million tonnes of emissions savings from 348 projects at an average price of $12.10 per tonne.

    A typical ETS is a cap and trade system, and a typical Cap and trade system incorporates the lowering of the cap on total emissions each year, and the typical one lowers emissions by 5% each year, which is in effect a pretty draconian cut.

    These three reverse auctions have actually resulted in a saving of 143 million tonnes of CO2.

    Labor’s ETS, umm, had it been in place, would have seen a CO2 reduction of, umm, 59 Million tonnes, across the same three years.

    That ETS in its original Labor Party form at $26 per tonne would have cost Australian Industry (all of it passed down to consumers) $10.6 Billion a year, so, across the same three years, then around $32 Billion. Even at the bargain basement cost of $10 per tonne, you’re still looking at $12.3 Billion.

    Oh dear!

    Cue Curly

    Tony.

    90

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Where is the National Party on this topic?’

    Clearing the back paddock of useless scrub and putting in some fresh trees for booty makes good business sense, this is largess writ large. Anyways the Nats are in favor.

    ‘The Labor party plans to reinstate land clearing restrictions if it is elected, which the Deputy Prime Minister and Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said would put a Federal Police officer in every paddock.’

    ABC

    70

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Where is the National Party on this topic? They could win over a lot of Delcon/Defcon votes if they were prepared to make a stand.

      You left out the second sentence el gordo. Jo’s conclusion is spot on as usual; that’s the second sentence, in case you were wondering :-)

      Horses – water – drink.

      Barnaby needs to pull his finger out and get cracking on this.

      I know the election has not yet been called but if he’s not careful the horse will have bolted.

      Looks like I’m going to have to write them a really nice letter and attach a cheque to it so that they at least read it. Or, maybe, I just tear a $100 bill in half, send one half and tell them I’ll send the other bit when they wake up.

      Dozy bludgers.

      80

  • #
    Peter C

    It is still Illogical. Co2 is not pollution so no point in trying to cut down our emissions.

    Liberals still do not get that.

    What happened to the Billion Trees we planted during the Hawke years. Are they still here?

    80

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Many of us have tried to talk to others about the reality of CO2 but have met the “brick wall”.

      This Abbott inspired solution reduces the load on taxpayers and creates some benefit to farmers who have had a hard time here in oz.

      Politics is never rational.

      120

    • #
      bobl

      Except Peter,
      If I recall correctly in Direct Action any CO2 reduction also had to be shown to have other social benefit, such as say salinity reduction, food, timer etc.

      40

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Generally not.

      I had a good friend – farmer at Bruce Rock – who took the money, planted the trees (mainly acacias) after twenty years they turned up their toes (as they do). The dead timber is still there. The termites are having a field day.

      50

  • #
  • #

    The mathematics of carbon capture by trees is fairly straightforward. Genuine plantation afforestation, be it pine of hardwood (eucalypt) will, on average, give yields of 20 to 25 cubic metres per hectare per annum, which roughly equates to 20-25 tonnes of wood. Half of this weight is water and half of the dry fibre is carbon, so its around 4 to 5 tonnes of carbon per ha. per annum. If this wood is used for solid products, boards, furniture, trusses, rather than being burnt it is kept out of the atmosphere and only will re-enter the carbon cycle when it is discarded and/or decays.

    With the native forests it is more complex. Young vigorous regrowth forest will use carbon dioxide in its growth phase which can be harvested the same as plantations. However, the beloved (by the greens) old growth forests of SE Australia have reached maturity by about 250 years and, although they store large amounts of carbon, what little growth is occurring due to damaged crowns and general senescence, is offset by internal decay. One can see old photos of fallers working on planks with their axes and cross saws; the reason for this was to avoid the decay, or “pipe” and the basal buttress. The amount of wood in the old growth forest can be up to 500 tonnes per hectare, say, 120 tonnes of carbon.

    With the more open forests, savannahs, carbon capture is much less due to low tree density and growth rates, but nevertheless they do store some carbon in their branch and root systems.

    120

  • #
    scaper...

    Environmentalism masquerading as warmism.

    40

  • #
    Mike

    Carbon Green Environmentalism (CGE) is an Anthropomorhic Genetically Modified Clone (AGMC) of itself into a single molecule/Single Species Environmentalism (SSE) designed to destroy a once diverse ecosystem of environmentalism comprised of all kinds of environmental specializations.

    Ordinary biologists are ‘rare as hens teeth’ these days since the advent of mass produced Carbon Green Environmentalism (CGE)

    60

  • #
    Mike

    Typo
    *Mass Produced Carbon Green Anthropomorphic Environmentalism (MPCGAE)

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    The Greens are only ever interested in reducing mankind to the level of a rodent so they can be controlled much easier and exterminated as such. The thing they don’t realize is they are part of mankind, well at least some of them do. Anything else to them, including planting more trees to reduce CO2 is not only illogical to them – it removes any incentive for them to instigate draconian measures to control the people.

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      is that a typo?

      “The thing they don’t realize is they are part of mankind, well at least maybe some of them do are

      22

  • #
    Mike

    Or, Flat Earth Carbon Green Single Species Anthropocarbomorphically Modified Environmental Extremism (FECGSAMEE)

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    10-20% of the population vote Green. 24% in Melbourne Ports, which means the seat is Labor and not Liberal. Malcolm is changing this across the country and a coalition in the Senate will be the icing on the cake. Unlike Abbott, Malcolm can do as he pleases as long as he pleases the Greens. So a Very Fast Train and an ETS are certainties.

    Sadly it is all about money and power for politicians and nothing to do with Australian voters. Whoever gives the Greens what they want will run Australia and the politicians do not have to pay for anything, the government does. That’s us folks.

    Politicians retire on massive incomes with no savings at all. Everyone else now has a retrospective cap of $1.6million on their super, but politicians like Bronwyn Bishop will get income which corresponds to $10Million. Plus the gold pass etc.

    What they need are the bigger salaries which comes from plum jobs like Speaker, PM and Leaders and ministries. Our professional and rich politicians are paid far too much and the gold passes are just ridiculous, from the time of government trains. So power is everything and whoever pleases the Greens is in power and in the cash. This time it will be the Liberals who can offer the Greens a partnership in power, not Gillard. Labor can hardly complain.

    Pity the poor Australians who will be sending our wealth and jobs overseas for a generation. Just get elected and then do as you please, as long as the Greens are happy.

    130

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      How sad. And how correct. Turncoat’s writing is on the wall already with this one. The new LibGreen party. Vote ALA in the Senate.

      110

    • #

      I listened to Dr. de Natale election launch; utter rubbish about climate change, save the Great Barrier Reef by not burning coal etc. and save the old Growth Forests (from the invasion of understorey species causing their demise?) by letting them accumulate fuel until the next serious weather event similar to what happened in Gippsland recently, and previously in 1939, and in 1934 and 1967 in Tasmania.

      70

      • #
        Analitik

        Did you also notice his emphasis on how they represent the METRPOLITAN green voters? The $tupid, smug, thoughtless, arrogant, meddling, foolish, self-centred, self-righteous, clueless know it alls that have absolutely no idea what the realities are for economics, energy, agriculture, industry, defence or even the environment.

        90

        • #

          Bob Brown realised a longtime ago the voting power of cafe latte sippers of the inner cities who think they are doing their bit for the environment by voting green, and at the same time enjoying their air-con, hospitals, exclusive schools, a reliable electricity supply and so on, essentially mis-guided hypocrites.

          90

  • #
    James Murphy

    I am often frustrated by the likes of The Wilderness Society, who cannot, and will not bring themselves to say anything positive about, well, anything, really.

    If they were serious about CO2 reduction for the sake of CO2 reduction, then they should be happy at every single effort, at every single achievement in this area… shouldn’t they?

    (Of course, for the sake of the argument, I am am operating under ‘suspension of disbelief’, and assume that CO2 emission reduction is a worthwhile, accountable, and logical activity)

    60

    • #
      Peter C

      I used to donate to 3 or 4 environmental charities.

      I dropped them all one by one because they latched onto Evil CO2 and CAGW.

      80

      • #
        James Murphy

        Which begs the question – are there really any genuinely productive, and useful ‘environmental’ charities around any more, or have they all become nothing more than political entities?

        I know of a few groups who work towards removing non-native plants from native-vegetation dominated national parks, state, and local council parks and the like, but they aren’t usually ‘charities’, and generally do it on a shoestring budget concocted from donated time and equipment. The real value of this may be debatable, and they do (now) tend to be quite militant in their environmental views, but their actions still speak more loudly than the words of all the Greens party politicians put together.

        60

        • #

          Yes, James, I have been struggling for years, work for the dole, Green Corps and now Green Army tree planting, that are very successful, then all stopped, then re-re-re-re-training the same people when Labor take over. I guess that’s to help the Union workers at TAFE. 3 steps forward and 2 backwards. At least it’s forward looking now, thanks to Tony Abbott. The trees going into the ground here are all ‘economically fruitful’ if you will excuse the pun.
          The plan is to keep communities and outstations open without government assistance.

          50

          • #
            James Murphy

            It’s nice to hear of such successful, and useful projects, it restores my faith in humanity…slightly!

            40

    • #

      Like Greening Australia, another group which slagged the Tony Abbott scheme, then became a service provider for the 20 million trees! I guess all it boiled down to was money wins.

      60

  • #
    handjive

    Denmark chews over carbon tax on foods

    Denmark is considering a carbon tax on foods following research that suggests consumers need to be pushed rather than nudged towards ethical diets.

    40

    • #
      James Murphy

      I guess this way it will be easier to slowly change the ‘ethical’ diet’ into a form of rationing which saves the world via population reduction.

      30

    • #

      Doesn’t anyone know anything about organic chemistry? Most of one’s diet is carbohydrate, protein, sugars and fibre, all full of carbon. What else can one eat?

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        Rocks. Salt. No carbon. About all there is. To answer your questions, organic chemistry is solely about Carbon compounds and no one knows about organic chemistry. Certainly not the Greens. Green is chlorophyll, a long chain evil hydrocarbon. It should be banned. Greenpeace did ban Chlorine. Why not Carbon?

        50

        • #

          Oh dear, not much understanding of photosynthesis, actually I am going to put a little on the subject later when Jo puts up the unthreaded comments as not many folk seem to understand its importance to life.

          40

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Solyent green coming to a store near you.

      50

  • #
    AndyG55

    From Bolta

    Lin Hatfield Dodds the Green Senate candidate for the ACT for two elections running has been appointed a deputy secretary in Prime Minister and Cabinet in charge of all things social policy. Many Liberal MPs apoplectic.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_candidate_now_a_deputy_head_of_turnbulls_department/

    41

  • #
    James Murphy

    What am I missing – the Age article says “…All up across the three auctions under the emissions reduction fund, $1.7 billion has been spent to buy 143 million tonnes of emissions savings from 348 projects at an average price of $12.10 per tonne…”

    but $1.7 billion for 143 million tonnes is $11.89/tonne, is it not? Pedantic as it may be, I hate this lack of precision, even though the whole scheme is as productive as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    50

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      James,

      To a journalist $1.7 billion is probably the same as the actual figure of $1.7303 billion.

      40

      • #
        James Murphy

        This is true, I mean, what’s $30.3 million here or there… unless it’s money from ‘big oil’, then every cent counts, obviously.

        70

  • #
    Bill Burrows

    If you are interested in Direct Action you might find this link of interest: http://atse.uberflip.com/i/665800-focus-195-innovate-or-perish-thats-the-mantra-we-must-turn-our-ideas-into-world-products-and-services/29. Two papers relevant to that discussion are http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065161/abstract and http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~jasone/publications/liuetal2015.pdf. This visualisation https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU is also interesting when you compare the atmosphere’s CO2 content above Australia with that over the rest of the world. So we look as if we have a very pronounced net CO2 sink operating over the continent. And the Fact sheet http://wenfo.org/wald/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AusEnv2015_summary.pdf recently published by the Fenner School of Environment & Society, ANU makes the further incredible claim that total national vegetation carbon uptake was estimated at 2.0 billion tonnes of carbon in 2015. Perhaps the science isn’t settled yet?

    Fortunately though, I note that in the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts LULUC&F Emissions Projections to 2030 our greenhouse accountants have had an epiphany for the second Kyoto Protocol Commitment period (2013-2020). They have now decided (Introduction p.3) that “virtually the whole land mass (of Australia) will enter into the accounting framework”. This should enshrine our net sink position for many years to come.

    Rabid greens are going to have an apoplectic fit. How are we going to save the GBR if we are already a substantial net sink?

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Direct Action was Tony’s way of saying, if you really think we should reduce our carbon footprint, there are other ways to do it which cost nothing. It was a political solution to an imagined problem.

    Obviously Malcolm does not care how much money we send overseas to buy carbon indulgences. Firstly it is not his money. Then it will make Goldman Sachs very rich. Surely Malcolm has an outrageous conflict of interest, or should we say nothing. No one else says anything.

    50

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Much in life is confusing. In the analysis of almost anything we human animals do, contradictions abound. If there is a single rule one can adhere to to make sense of things, it is: “follow the money”. As,over the years, it has become clear that “public servants” have become adept at turning their “service” into massive private wealth for themselves and their allies, it might become “follow the power to the money”.

    As we are peoples separated by a common language, many of you probably don’t realize how jarring the phrase “call an election” is. I wonder at the cultural differences of countries where, on the one hand,a known calendar and a huge amount of bureaucratic inertia have led mostly to gridlock, while a flash election and an overturning of policies by the winners (as i understand it) can lead to significant system shocks.

    But in both systems, the simple expedient of planting trees, and applying the best field proven engineering practices to industry incrementally, to provide real improvements in efficiency at least costs, and real carbon dioxide concentration incidentally (if that is your [misguided] goal, is unacceptable to the governing. Their “rice bowl” is unsolved problems and more government to solve same. If the growth of an antipoverty administration is accompanied by a growth of reported poverty, if the growth of an environmental regulator is accompanied by more reported dangers to the environment, if the growth of banking and financial regulation results in more financial risk ……

    The analytical mind will reach the opposite conclusion from the governmental mind. The analyst wishes to solve a problem. The governmental type wishes to preserve the gravy train.

    In both our countries this leads to marginalization of those who wish to reduce the scope of government,as the profit to those of any stripe,who govern, and are large in number now, dwarfs the returns to those who solve a problem. “I may not be large in the organization but I won’t give up my compensation as a czardine” says the regulator paid to tell us how to plant that tree, which we would gladly do from the goodness of our hearts. I have 50 or more in my suburban yard. I have never been thanked for the planting, but have been regularly visited by the authorities re: the trimming and care, and charged taxes for the improved assessed value of my lot.

    I fear that the only force that will ever reduce the size and obduracy of the state is bankruptcy and perhaps not then.

    Still, “calling an election”, and trying change in a brief period may be more likely than an interminable calendar to allow reason to prevail.

    Good luck to our Aussie friends, and here’s hopingyou can set a good course we might follow.

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    One might ask,

    Why have any plan at all?

    Carbon schmarbon — who would care if not for this fear being spoon fed to everyone from those not qualified to know a carbon atom from a hydrocarbon molecule? :-(

    Let’s mitigate politicians instead of carbon.

    40

  • #
    Stephen Mcdonald

    Turnbull cannot lose.
    If Labor wins he gets his E.T.S.
    He then leaves Australia goes to New York an rubs shoulders with the billionaires.
    That has always been his dream.
    Australians have never been good enough for him.
    We have been his useful idiots.

    20

  • #
    stan stendera

    I am horrified that on this skeptic site only a handful of the commenters have pointed out that CO2 sequestration is nonsense. CO2 should be a minimum of 800ppm. Branding CO2 a pollutant is false, folly and downright destructive.

    10

    • #
      el gordo

      Stan this has been discussed over the years and I can say without fear of contradiction that we agree with you.

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Stan, several years ago I posted a sign saying “Toward 700ppm” on the 350.org forum

      (removed, needless to say)

      As you say, 800+ would be a good starting point

      Also posted this on several web sites

      http://s19.postimg.org/mkjk6feib/CO2_greening.jpg

      Believe me when I say that NO-BODY here (except a couple of mindless AGW trolls) thinks level of atmospheric CO2 around 800+ would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL to the planet.

      01

  • #
    stan stendera

    I have no clue what caused you Aussies to kick out a great man, Tony Abbott, in favor of a scum ball like Malcolm Turnbull. As an American with what we’ve elected and may elect this November I cannot cast stones, but I thought better of Aussies.

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “no clue what caused you Aussies to kick out a great man, Tony Abbott”

      far-left MSM, and weak-kneed parliamentarians

      The people did NOT kick him out.. we was undermined then stabbed by the sewer-rat that is now in his place.

      21

  • #
    eliza

    History and science will back Tony Heller as the real scientist who broke the back of AGW sorry. You made an effort but as everything in Australia very politically correct and weak. BTw I consider Ausralia a dictatorship of the politically correct that why I left many years ago. Imagine a country where you cannot have an asado/barbecue charcoal in your own backyard hahah” you can delete posting if u want would not surprise me. last posting here anyway

    00