Coalition greenhouse denialism a disgrace
|
The party of greenhouse denialism is back in town. For most of its time in government, the Coalition outright denied the existence of global warming. We joined the Bush Administration in living in a fantasy world of dud science, biased research and straight-out pigheadedness. At the last moment, desperate to figure out why they were so out of touch with voters, Australian conservatives professed to have changed their minds. Bollocks they did. Yesterday’s effort in Question Time has revealed the Coalition is hell-bent on undermining an emissions trading scheme — the critical element of any serious effort to reduce our carbon emissions. This has been coming for some time. Appearing on Insiders a month ago, Andrew Bolt flagged that there’d be a right-wing push against an emissions trading scheme. We got the first glimpse of it yesterday. The Prime Minister called it “day one of their orchestrated campaign against an emissions trading regime”, and he was dead right. It was led by Greg Hunt, who has previously boasted of doing a thesis on carbon pricing and converting Alexander Downer to accepting climate change. As the basis for his question, Hunt clearly and deliberately misrepresented a new report by the Climate Institute about the impact of a trading scheme, demanding that the Prime Minister “rule out a new petrol tax of 10c, 20c or 30c a litre as a result of his emissions trading scheme.” If Hunt learnt anything from his thesis, it would have been that the broader a carbon tax or trading scheme, the more effective and less burdensome it will be. Even the greenhouse mafia’s accountant, ABARE, conceded last year that excluding energy-intensive industries like transport from an emissions trading scheme would double the price needed to be paid by other sectors and, therefore, households. So when Hunt stands up in Parliament and demands that petrol be ruled out, he’s either arguing that we should pay the double carbon cost on everything else, like groceries and household goods, or he’s trying to undermine the emissions trading scheme full stop. Have a guess as to which is more likely. Nationals leader Warren Truss followed Hunt. The party of pork-barrelling, the mob behind the Regional Partnerships rorts, a pack of hicks who are less a party than an elected conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, probably can’t understand the notion of a scheme that isn’t designed to deliver cash to their mates. “Is the government prepared to export jobs from our energy intensive communities?” demanded Truss, with one eye on making sure voters in Gippsland understood that an emissions trading scheme would put them all out of work. It’s probably no coincidence that yesterday’s attack on Labor in Gippsland by Hunt’s good mate Glenn Milne savaged Darren McCubbin (strangely undamaged by Milne’s allegations of being a “platform for pervs”) for his climate change views. If you think the Coalition is just playing politics, bear in mind that the bloke pulling Brendan Nelson’s strings, Senator Nick Minchin, was trotting out pseudo-science to argue global warming was nothing to do with humans as recently as March this year. At least Minchin is open about his scepticism. There’s no hypocrisy about him. Most of his colleagues are a different story. They talk of the need to do something about climate change, but seem to think it can be fixed without people being made to change their consumption. They evidently weren’t listening when — of all people — John Howard correctly said last year that addressing climate change would cost us. It has to, otherwise we won’t change the way we behave. After the election it had looked, briefly, like the Coalition was going to go some of the way toward making up for its inertia and indolence under Howard by backing an effective emissions trading scheme. Brendan Nelson even spoke about “living off environmental interest, not capital”. But political desperation and sheer flat-earther pigheadedness has won out. It underlines how difficult an effective response to climate change will be for the Government to craft, and will embolden Labor Party recalcitrants like Martin Ferguson, who continues to push bullsh-t magic bullet solutions like geosequestration. The design of the emissions trading scheme will be the biggest test of the Rudd Government’s first term. |
|
|
|
22 Comments
Why do the government have to “allow” debate if the pathetic Lib-Nats are not prepared to contribute in a meaningful and long term way? Apply the guillotine and negotiate emissions trading through the new Senate without dealing with the ignorance on the other side. No doubt they’ll have to give up something completely loopy to Family First, but so be it.
Hello Brendan Nelson and your fellow conservatives! Not to mention your fellow “born again environmentalists”. One of the reasons the electorate gave you the heave-ho was because of the total disinterest shown by the ‘Coalition of the evil’ in anything to do with the environment. Your lack of interest was a complete disgrace. That you have suddenly had a Damascene conversion about our environment is as unlikely as herding cats. Nick Minchin is a typical blunderbus Coalition member along the line of the late Henry Bolte, but without his street smarts.
One day in the future the complete vision (the window through which will be viewed) of the 12 years of the John Howard government will be of pigs snuffling at the trough. This period of mal-governmental abuse will go down as the NADIR of Australian history. And Andrew Bolt will be a footnote on the a*sehole of shame.
There is increasing scepticism about the science of Climate change and their is even more scepticism about how Australia should address these issues if there is not a coherent and united effort by other nations, particularly India and China, to address the same concerns. These two major economies have repudiated any attempt to decelerate growth in GDP. Understandably so!
The environmentalists are demanding a fall in the living standards of Australians. The Opposition should question and debate this Emissions trading scheme every step of the way. What was obvious is that Rudd is very uncomfortable when challenged. His paper shuffling becomes intense and he has NO answers.
The reference to “wind power” and “hot rocks” is just laughable. Reminds of the last attempt to provide base load power using solar. I think it went broke!
Ah JJ Jeans, welcome back from planet Triton or wherever you’ve been collecting data on the case against global warming (yeah OK Triton’s a moon, fine, whatevs).
Waiting for China and India to do something about climate change before we do is a guaranteed way to cook the planet. Not to mention morally objectionable, given the west has caused that last two centuries of rising carbon emissions. Still, shouldn’t be a problem if there’s no climate change, right?
JamesK: I agree it is the job of an opposition to make things hot for the Party in power. But surely, in the case of a fake Damascene conversion, they leave the door wide open for criticism, in other words they are playing to Labor’s strengths and making a liar out of themselves. But with a little imagination they could come up with something not of the past-but a vital thing for the country’s good. Then it’s up to Labor to try and unseat THEM. I cannot seriously believe that this whole business of politics is nothing but Chess, without the subtleties, and played as a blood sport. And the electorate is superfluous to their thinking.
oh my oh my, the climate change deniers just never let up do they - JJ “There is increasing scepticism about the science of Climate change” James K “…that does not mean that global warming is an indisputable fact.” will you two blokes please pull your head out of your collective rear ends and acknowledge the fact that there is indisputable evidence linking humans to climate change & environmental destruction. Sheez how more blatant does it have to get! James Hansen recently testified to the US congress - here’s an article on it: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/24/9850/ have a read! moreover you’d think that a godbotherer like JJ would want to do everything in his power to protect his almighty’s creation. i guess not! is it god or money which is worshipped? What it comes down to is that it is essential that we make change now for if we don’t what sort of future will we leave for the generations that follow us?
get real JamesK, did you visit that link i posted…it was in direct response to you stating “His first budget has addressed none of this”.
here it is again:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm
you mentioned housing affordability - you’re willfully ignoring the several schemes that have been introduced.
petrol - Fuelwatch, Petrol Commissioner…not enough for you? don’t think they’ll be effective? fine…but not “not addressed”.
grocery and household costs in general - income tax cuts, upping the Child Care rebate, education rebate etc
still not enough for you, still fine…you’re free to say so…but again not “not addressed” and not “dishonest”.
emission trading - read any Labor interviews/statements from mid-last year - they all point to significant cost involved and their emphasis is on determining the best way to introduce emissions trading so the cost is spread fairly and evenly across all sectors. they always said they’d be commissioning the Garnaut report for this reason, which is exactly what they’ve done.
It happens everywhere, this populist political hypocrisy. Just follow the money. Our local Council hired a speaker to educate the ratepayers about climate change. The speaker was that eloquent mathematician and ABC broadcaster - Adam Spencer. I learned the term ‘green washing’ and realised that Adam was doing exactly that, when he praised our local Council’s green credentials - of course he was paid a handsome fee for his toubles. Here are the Deputy Mayors opinions on climate change -
http://steveevans.com.au/Global%20Climate%201.php
JamesK: Penultimate sentence should read, “I cannot seriously believe that this whole business of politics is ANYTHING but Chess, without the subtleties, and played as a blood sport.”
Nick, The Ruddmeister said and did anything to get in power. He talked about climate change and the environment throughout the election campaign. At the same time with an almost audible violin dirge in the background he championed ‘working families’ and how they were doing it ‘tough’. He said government must do all it can on petrol, groceries and housing affordability and gave the impression that it could and would.
His first budget has addressed none of this, particularly housing and changes to taxation to discourage home investment buying. His budget took away the incentive for solar conversions. He talked of an emissions trading scheme but still has not spelt out what it would cost despite having a bloody good idea that it would mean significantly higher food and energy costs. We did not hear that during the election campaign. In fact, far from it.
That is not a flipflop but It is dishonest. He faces a credibility gap and he knows it. The Libs should apply the screws so that the country knows it. The only point is that they lack the leadership to execute it.
Rudd needs leadership to sell it and so far he has come up with a zero (apparently he is waiting for Garnaut) and the longer he waits the starker the gap. Waiting for Garnaut was and is a very bad idea because it gives Garnaud and his agenda way too much say and I predict Labor could fall flat on its face at the next election if that scenario plays out.
JJ, after submitting my last post at 1 minute past midnight, I slept very well thanks…but thanks for your concern
JamesK, small point on the first and second posts you linked to…the first refers to Hansen as “not a scientist”…the second, refers to Hansen as an “Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment”.
His resume is clear on his educational qualifications:
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
NASA Graduate Traineeship, 1963-1966
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
Followed by 36 years at the NASA Goddard insitute, 27 of those as its Director…and concurrently, the last 23 years as a research professor in Earth and Environmental Sciences, at Columbia University.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/cv_hansen_200702.pdf
The ‘list of 400’ from the next link is noteworthy. Many signees flatly argue against AGW theory, many others that there simply shouldn’t be a consensus view on AGW - ‘the jury is still out’, ‘we haven’t been convinced’ etc. Many on the list work in Meteoroloy/Climatology/Atmospheric Physics etc related fields, many don’t (several are economists).
But they all have interesting and educated views, and their comments are worth reading. Good on them for sticking up in support of their arguments.
On the other hand, there are 15.7 million people in the USA alone, who hold Science degrees.
Internationally - in 2002 alone - 50,644 people were awarded PHDs specific to Physics/Environmental/Bioligical fields.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/
They’re all just as qualified to hold an opinion as those in the list of 400.
Of course there are scientists who disagree with Hansen (and the other tens of thousands of scientists internationally, as well as the CSIRO, Bureau of Metereology, NASA, IPCC, UN, and every national science board, who openly subscribe to AGW theory) - so there should be.
I’m as interested as you in reading opposing views on AGW and debating the science…it’d be silly not to be.
But in terms of a numbers game - 400 is rather meaningless - and with respect for the qualifications of many of the 400, they’re a drop in the ocean.
.
oh, I just noticed you called me a ‘twat’…
thanks very much JamesK, very classy and more than a little sexist…
need I echo your “if we are to have a debate”, and add you could perhaps refrain from the name-calling in future…
JamesK, you say the Government is ‘facing a credibility gap’…
Unfortunately (as Bernard is pointing out) it’s Opposition members who’ve had to repeatedly flip-flop this last 12 months, as their Party struggles to find its line…
As CC points out Malcolm Turnbull has been made to look increasingly agenda-less - so maybe Nelson’s playing the short game is not so dumb right now…
I guess that greg subscribes to Hensen’s school of ‘thought’:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
I rather suspect that greg is not a scientist nor a climatologist.
There are scientists and climatologists who do not sucbscribe to Hansens and greg’s world view :
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
Lastly greg you called me both a climate change denier and a climate change sceptic and as I made plain previously I am neither.
Nick, I was just testing to see if you actually read my posts. I withdraw the barb. It was as you say uncalled for, however, I have no intention of reading the budget papers not matter how often you post the link. Respectfully I suggest that the contribution to making houses more affordable is probably as a effective as Fuelwatch. Which from your perspective (having read the budget papers in their entirety) is probably wonderfully effective.
JamesK,
“His first budget has addressed none of this”
Well apparently it has… otherwise the Opposition would have found more to attack than simply ‘Fuelwatch is inadequate’, and the removal of Solar Panel rebates for medium-high income earners. Oops, forgot luxury car tax. And Butlergate (what a fizzer)…smart of them to remember to check the size of Howard’s entourage before launching that paper rocket. Then there’s lifting of the Medicare rebate threshold, but (assuming the system can handle it) that does actually help ‘working families’ too.
You could try reading the budget…it’s revealing to see just how many schemes implemented aren’t coming under fire…here’s a good place to start:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm
Regarding emissions trading…
JOHN HOWARD - Lateline 13/11/2006: There are significant and damaging growths in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and that - unless we lay the foundation over the years immediately ahead of us to deal with the problem, future generations will face significant penalties and will have cause to criticise failure to do something substantial in response.
I’d guess in that case, you’d say Labor was ‘me tooing’?
But generally, just hold your blooming horses…the green paper on emissions trading will be released in a few weeks time.
The Kid From Bondi: Why don’t you come down on ‘either side’ on an issue of such crucial importance? We are not talking about who is going to be in the Stonnington’s second, junior league footy final. Both for Australia and the world-In case you hadn’t noticed- we are discussing the annihilation OF EVERY FORM OF LIFE FOR THE NEXT 2000 YEARS. And you don’t have an opinion?
At a time like this you indulge in facile semantics in order to crucify those people who have got their noses out of the ‘proverbial trough’ long enough to contemplate the incipient disaster awaiting us. You are a beacon which illuminates the appalling apathy of the average Australian. Also, you display the amazing shortfall of this country’s peoples’ ability to indulge in rational thought. Your attitude is f*ck the argument, let’s get stuck into the people who dare to think. Indeed, why think about a difficult future when you can go to the footy instead. To deny you are on one side or the other in this discussion is bollocks. You are so far right wing as to be ludicrous.
You call yourself ‘The Kid From Bondi’. I take it that your first name is Billy.
Boys, boys, judging by the time of your postings some of you guys are insomniacs. Bernard, its not a matter of doing something BEFORE India and China but WITH them and the rest of the world. If you do not have an agreed price for carbon emissions and other nations undercut you you just export Australians jobs, particularly in carbon-intensive industries, overseas.
I’m amazed at peoples unwillingness to debate the science. It reminds me so much of Erlich and the Club of Rome and there computer modelling of impending commodity shortages in the latter half of the 60’s. The editor of Nature coined the “the Doomsday Syndrome” to describe this impending catastrophe mindset.
Connor, thanks for that clarification. Dont bother with the blindfold!
Ah, Connor, “apply the guillotine”! I can see you denouncing those ‘wicked” counter-revolutionaries with Venise knitting away happily! Fancy denying Climate Change! Solves alot of problems, eh? Just remember what happened to Robespierre!
The Left always devours itself!
JJ: Parliamentary Guillotine to debate. Up against the wall for Climate Change Sceptics and those that would deny it.
John James#2, Ah JJ what a tease you are! As a tricoteuse I’m knitting away happily as I watch the heads rolling down from the guillotine and being collected in laundry baskets. These are the heads of the pathetic remains of the previous government.-the Coalition of the greedy-the heads of the supine followers go into a yellow wicker basket and the ones of the ‘outright crooked’ go into a basket the colour of vomiit. Blink, blink. I haven’t yet decided which colour to put your head in.
, 
My next target is the Catholic Church; shock horror, blink, blink, blink; and I have been waiting for 2000 years, so I’m knitting a very, very long scarf.
Of course Robespierre’s great crime was his wish for a more equitable distribution of wealth and that’s something the cynical thinkers (???) of the Catholic Church can’t tolerate. They want millions of people living in despair, on the grounds that the greater the agony, the greater the chance that people will call out to the Catholic God. Keep it up JJ, we’ll have you back to the evil of the Crusades in nothing flat.
Knit one, purl one; slip one.
Nick, if we are to have a debate, generally that means responding in argument to the points raised. You do not. You simply grandstand and certainly fail to make an relevant argument back to mine.
Bernard, whilst I actually agree that we should act in response to global warming that does not mean that global warming is an indisputable fact. It is not and moreover amongst those experts, who do agree that man made global warming is real, they disagree wildly with both its extent and the possible repercussions. Science is actually inexact and climatology is more inexact than most.
JJ is in fact correct. There is more controversy not less over the past few years. Just because you frequently disagree with him does not automatically invalidate his point. In fact, he is frequently right!
You do not win the argument by suggesting that he is ‘from planet Triton or wherever you’ve been collecting data on the case against global warming’.
The only valid point is in relation to India and China not being likely to sign up. Sign up they must although the requirements on them and so the costs are likely to be less severe than for wealthy countries. Australia per se globally is irrelevant. I do agree that it does have a leadership role and if Rudd can be restrained from making a twat of himself internationally (like Nick does on this board), Australia could have a role to play.
Finally Australia under Howard (however repulsive that is to lefties) actually fulfilled all requirements for Kyoto which is why Rudd could actually sign.
One more point: Just because I do not subscribe to Crikey’s all to frequently extreme left wing agenda does not make me a lover of the Liberal party and John Howard in particular. Rudd could still be good but…..