Abbott goes green with one top idea, one dodgy gimmick

Deliah says:

06:37am | 15/01/10

A good speech which accurately identifies the importance of the green vote and contains some sound practical ideas. It also makes an accurate observation of the PM’s innate narcissism.

Dave C says:

06:43am | 15/01/10

A couple of things. Firstly in NSW there is a 90% chance of a change of Govt in March next year, also Vic and SA (with Rooting Rann) are going to the polls this year and Qld (who I am told that Govt is becoming as on the nose as the one in NSW) in a few years after so maybe the issue wont be state Labour Govts when it comes to the Murray Darling issue IF and when Abbot or the next Federal Libs are elected.

Secondly that provocative quote about Rudd summed him up. He does set targets that take so many years to take effect or require cooperation of others. His media moll status makes Carr, Beattie or Rann look amateurish.

Essentially all Rudd has done are a few symbolic gestures (The Aboriginal Apology, Kyoto) and borrowed and spent Billions upon Billions on crappy school halls and other dodgy one off stuff amongst other things to keep the economy going. No extra money for rail or roads or anything he could be remembered for in the long term (for example fast tracking the existing upgrade of Pacific Highway to be 4 lanes from Syd-Bris or make the Princes Hwy 4 lanes from Kiama- Batemans Bay)

The Govt is now $300 billion in debt and is led by a man who said at the last election “this reckless spending must stop”

Phil says:

06:45am | 15/01/10

Good article David.

I know you think the green army is a let down or waste of money, but Australia really needs this, whether they are temporarily used for fighting bushfires (which may help nature) clean ups afterwards to renew growth, planting trees, ridding weeds or cleaning up rivers, its not a bad idea, and as for the cost, probably better for the environment than a pink batt rort.

As for the Murray Darling, why waity up to 3 years more? I would be pushing for an earlier referendum.

T.Chong says:

06:50am | 15/01/10

Comrade Tony , come in from the cold.  A truer lefty has not graced the coalition since Fraser .
15,000 strong Abbotts army, not Brown, but Green shirts.!!!!
Imagine the eco-nazi plans to be implemented. A good start would be to have the troops more closely monitor and ENFORCE the carbon sinks
plan. that Howard introduced to meet the Kyoto protocols. 
Farmer Spenxcer and his Agrimates better watch out, now Chairman Abbott is on their case.
Just hope this plan has been approved by Barnaby, Minchin, Abetz and Bronny Bishop- they dont usually take to kind to critter and tree huggers.
First step Australia, next we will save Pandora.

Charles says:

06:54am | 15/01/10

This is a good idea (except I agree that the Green Corp is a dumb one), as so far the Greens in every manifestation on every continent have been an unmitigated disaster for the environment.

There has been no attempt by the Greens to do anything about the environment, except exclude humans, and all this does is try to transport us back a million or so years to an environment that no longer exists.  What people need to understand is that humans are actually part of the environment, and our impact is always going to be part of how the environment is put together.

So, if a political party decided to make true environmentalism part of its poliocy mix, it would be a welcome relief.  To date, the ALP has left this to the Greens to dictate, which has resulted in some very unfortunate effects on the environment.  It has also resulted in a huge class of bureaucrats who consider themselves to be in charge of environmental policy, but unfortunately are quite clueless.  This has resulted in some extreme costs to society, and some dumb outcomes for the environment, and they will require either getting rid of or retraining.

Tony Abbott needs to go further than what he has proposed and try and remake the environmental agenda in a new form, for the old one has served nobody’s purpose, apart from a few zealots trying to assert themselves in society, and have hijacked the environment as the tool to do it.

Diamantina Dick says:

06:57am | 15/01/10

Green army- “making it sound more like an idea in progress than a ready-to-roll initiative”. A but tough Pembo, he’s only been leader a few weeks and the ARE in opposition, not Government.

I for one am looking forward to a few more of these Cate Blanchett type comments landing on the glass jaw , we do not need a celebrity PM.

Murrray-Darling issue has some legs, Rudd is vunerable, off to Copenhagen while the (river) beds are burning. Wong says this morning that Abbott plan has no cedibility and Howard Gov’t did nothing. Nice try on the first, mendacious on the second. They better get serious

GreenedOut says:

07:20am | 15/01/10

Sorry Greens you have just lost my vote. How could anyone with even half a brain think that the Liberals have gone all enviromently friendly over night? We saw that debacle in Canberra when Turnbull was ousted. The Liberals are world champions of climate change sceptics. So much so, I felt embarrassed we had so many “fools” in the opposition. They can say what they like before the election , then change it back to their “real” views after. I was shocked to hear The Greens supported them and I felt like I wasted my vote in the last election. I will vote Labour in the next elction . I heard Tony Rabbit say last night on tv he wants The Greens preferences. I won’t risk my vote. Where is the money coming for this Green Army?  From us..nothing in life is for free.

iansand says:

07:23am | 15/01/10

Federal control of the rivers is a good idea.

I ewould have thought coming up with a few ideas is step one, not creating the workforce to implement them.

Wayne Hutchins says:

07:27am | 15/01/10

Good article David. And T Chong, placing thumb in mouth and blowing,  ttttttthhhhppp! Labor stooge….. Abbott’s got em worried.

Laura says:

07:32am | 15/01/10

The Government have come out saying Abbott doesn’t have “green credentials”. I would like to know what green credentials Kevin Rudd has, apart from wanting to impose a tax on everthing with no environmental impact.

Deliah says:

07:40am | 15/01/10

@GreenedOut. The government said a few things before the election like “Action, not words, needed to save whales” - 19 June 2005 and
“It is also time the Government supported Labor’s proposal to take the matter to the International Court of Justice” - 26 May 2005.

It is now 16 January 2010 and the slaughter of whales continues under a Labor government with no sign of an impending court application.

The whaling and Murray-Darling issues amply illustrate that the government’s credibility on environmental matters is looking decidedly suspect. Thus, green preferences are up for grabs.

Nick says:

07:46am | 15/01/10

Interesting literary resonance on Abbott’s ‘sparrow can hardly fall’ line. Plays to the conservative core with its Shakespearean reference (’‘There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow.’‘)
But it’s Hamlet who says this line. Yes, that quintessential emotional loner and prevaricator.
And here he is essentially predicting his own inevitable death in the coming duel with Laertes, the chosen agent of the wrongful king.
Of course Shakespeare himself was referencing the Bible, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 10: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell./ Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father”
Which, in this context, in Abbott’s mind, casts Rudd as God.
So much going on in Abbott’s subconscious!

Notduped says:

07:49am | 15/01/10

Kevin Rudd has at least tried to do something aabout Global warming.. Tony (Budgie Smuggler ) Abbott has done everything in his power to stop any attempts to get Global warming under control. Australians are not silly, we all saw “The Turnbull” affaire in colour on tv. We heard Michinn and the others , state their “real” views. This is a smoke screen and Aussies are not dumb enough to be duped. The Greens obviously are!! Where is the money coming from for this?..higher taxes. All we need now is Steve Feildings support and we all know hes definatly lost the plot

Luke says:

07:54am | 15/01/10

Tony Abbotts language is so much easier to understand than Kevin Rudds. That alone has to be a bonus, he even admitts he’s chasing green preferences, I can’t imagine Kevin Rudd being that honest.

GreenedOut says:

07:56am | 15/01/10

Deliah says:08:40am | 15/01/10
I saw yesterday you saying you were a lawyer Delilah amongst much derision from everyone else. The Howard Government had many many years to stop whaling and they did nothing. What makes you think anything has changed? and Tony Rabbit would act? You will not change my views . I am entitled to my opinion and so is everyone else who comes here. Rather than trying to deride and brainwash others who comment , you might be better off getting out in the real world ..doing something practical about the issues that concern you

Peter says:

08:01am | 15/01/10

@Notduped - Kevin Rudd has at least tried to do something about Global Warming. Have I missed something here? are you talking about his ETS/TAX that will have no impact at all on emissions or the environment?

Drewboy says:

08:03am | 15/01/10

Thanks Penbo for pointing out Abbotts crack at Rudds love of celebrity.

Kevin showing up to visit Cate Blanchett just after she had a baby is just creepy!!

persephone says:

08:03am | 15/01/10

1. Abbott criticises Rudd for setting targets he won’t be in government to see delivered. One assumes from that that Abbott won’t bother with such targets, so we’ll be back to short term fixes for long term problems.
Issues such as aboriginal life expectancy will not be fixed in a three year term. Development of Australia’s infrastructure will not happen properly if one only thinks in three year increments.
Just because Abbott is incapable of holding a thought for more than a couple of hours should not mean that short term thinking is glorified.

2. His flippant ‘$50 000 per person” is back of the envelope stuff and demonstrates his lack of understanding of basic economics. If it were true, it would mean these people would be working for less than the dole.
Firstly, the average must include the costs of supervision, and one assumes supervisors will be paid more than the workers.
Secondly, it must include on costs, which (as any business knows) adds significantly to the wage bill. There’s super, WorkCare, insurance, etc etc.
Thirdly, this is meant to be a mobile workforce, so you need to add accomodation, travel and food into the mix. Even if they’re living in tents, army style, accomodation is going to be expensive. Travel will also be a killer; they’ll have to travel probably hundreds of miles each time they move, and then commute to where they’re working on a daily basis.
So either it’s a lot more than $50k per person with all those costs added or they’re going to be paid virtually nothing.

3. TA identifies the M-D as the most urgent issue facing Australia, and then says we can wait till 2014 for a referendum. If the MD is cactus now, waiting four years means it will be irretrivably gone.

4. TA makes it clear that the M-D should be run for the benefit of SA. Why should the states which produce the water sacrifice their export earnings for a state which isn’t prepared to sacrifice theirs? Why should other states allow their towns to go dry so SA can water theirs? I would think he’d lose more votes in Victoria, NSW and QLD on this one than he could pick up in SA.

Deliah says:

08:07am | 15/01/10

@GreenedOut. You are entitled to your views and I am not deriding anybody. I am simply pointing out that the Labor government has failed to deliver on their election promises re: environmental issues. This is a view shared by many.

Bruce says:

08:15am | 15/01/10

Tony Abbotts idea seems to make sense, no doubt needs a little more “flesh on the bone”. His observation of Kevin Rudd is pretty much on the mark. Unfortunately, many uninterested voters will not understand or care, they are more interested in “behavioural politicians” than substance.

Peter Hatsworthy says:

08:17am | 15/01/10

I think the “old Abbott not far below the surface” line is a unfair. The comments are an accurate portrayal of the charlatan posing as our Prime Minister and an impression which the majority of Australians are waking up to.

And asRudd and his Labor cronies have been given a green light by the Canberra press gallery to label Abbott an “extremist” and “denier” (with the disgraceful Holocaust undertones that term carries) then a few well crafted sledges at the PM are well and truly justified.

Chewy says:

08:22am | 15/01/10

I did not think much of Abbott before but I am starting to think the man is a champ. It is very refreshing to a straight shooter providing a strark contrast to Rudd. You gotta respect a man that can go deep into what really is enemy issues like indigenous, enviroment or even a Bob Ellis book launch and keep a straight face without talking bullsh*t.

Simon the Pieman says:

08:22am | 15/01/10

I am a traditional Labour voter and hate the fact that Abbott comes with religious baggage, but I am actually warming to him.

Margaret Gray says:

08:22am | 15/01/10

“...$750 million to send 15,000 environmental fix-up folks into the bush at $50,000 a pop…”

Greens are so cheap and easily bought.

Kevin missed a BIG opportunity there.

He is still smarting over Hill pulling out of another photo op and autograph for his “World’s Most Influential Leaders” collection.

He had a tie picked out and everything.

laurie says:

08:23am | 15/01/10

In the case of the Prime Minister raising the retirement age and so many indolent and idle people in our communities. Why do people have to work to age 67 when so many dont bother to even start work as young people. I dont understand the conundrum. Is it because older people are fixed in their voting patterns? We import so many workers yet hundreds of ‘000’s of Australians have never started work.

Jamers Hunter says:

08:26am | 15/01/10

percy phone not a bad comment ...cept.
the states do not oroduce the water.. lol nature does that..
the states just suck it up and spit it back.
however i must admit i was not expecting ever anything so sensible from tonny rsbbit.sense from a liberal christian /christian liberal ?? well maybe miracles do happen.

Cameron says:

08:33am | 15/01/10

If you believe Abbott on this, you would also believe in the tooth fairy. This is non core promises all over again

BMJ says:

08:33am | 15/01/10

The problem Labour has is that it seems it’s “ETS or bust” while Abbott is starting throw out alternatives that might catch on. They are token alternatives because if we want to tackle the problem there must be some pain, however, it’s good to see that Abbott is at least exploring other avenues.

The biggest question mark is whether Abbott can behave for an extended period.

Margaret Gray says:

08:38am | 15/01/10

@persephone

“...Thirdly, this is meant to be a mobile workforce, so you need to add accomodation, travel and food into the mix. Even if they’re living in tents, army style, accomodation is going to be expensive. Travel will also be a killer; they’ll have to travel probably hundreds of miles each time they move, and then commute to where they’re working on a daily basis.
So either it’s a lot more than $50k per person with all those costs added or they’re going to be paid virtually nothing…”

Spoken like a true bureaucrat.  You must a union official.

Why is it always about you?

With that kind of intransigent thinking it’s a wonder anything ever gets done.

But then I look at all the atrophied Labor states and see nothing ever does.

Be as part of the solution…not part of the problem.

Deliah says:

08:40am | 15/01/10

@Luke. Your comment is very valid. Policies aside, Tony Abbott has superior communication skills to the PM. Kevin Rudd’s verbose ramblings, perceived arrogance and lack of sincerity are going to be liabilities for him this year. This, together with his poor record in actual achievements.

Kevin 07 promised much and has been found wanting. There are a lot of disappointed voters out there whose sense of betrayal is entirely justified.

Ian F says:

08:46am | 15/01/10

Since moral exhibitionism is easier than action, it would be fairly certain that there would be very few Greens Political Party members within the ranks of the Green Army.

AJ says:

08:48am | 15/01/10

notduped and Margaret Gray:

Just because Tony Abbott calls it a ‘Green Army’ doesn’t mean he’s bought the Green vote.  No self-respecting Green thinks that 750 million spent on environmental fix-up folks can substitute for doing something, you know, effective.  The Greens will suggest that this is fiddling whilst Rome burns, as it were.

BULMKT says:

08:56am | 15/01/10

Build more dams = takes pressure off the Murray

Helen says:

09:02am | 15/01/10

I wish Rudd and his crew would stay on holidays, it’s such a pleasant change to listen to Abbott. No doubt Rudd and his robots will be out in force soon, what a shame.

Jane says:

09:05am | 15/01/10

LOL. Abbott has hit a nerve here, and rightfully so. He doesn’t talk the talk but walks the walk. He actually volunteers and ‘does’ things. I love the farcical catchcry that the Coalition ‘did nothing in 12 years’ that the left and ALP apologists are so eager to parrot and therefore believe is so, because they are told so. They’re not interested in facts…just lazy inaccurate propaganda.

The Coalition set up a Greenhouse website in 1998 that outlined/implemented copious initiatives and programs like Solar Cities ( that Labor are taking credit for now that they are coming to fruition) etc. Any wonder the site was quickly dismantled by KRuddco immediately after they came to office to remove all trace of and therefore credit for what was and had been going on.

If Labor were truly concerned about emissions and the environment they would be open to discussion on all facets of consideration and not dogmatically discount or refuse to even debate Nuclear as an alternative like the rest of the world…as the Coalition had put forth. The fact is they are NOT serious about real concern but rather harness it as a political point scoring exercise first and foremost with rhetoric, bold claims but no actual real beneficial action. So addicted to the Green preference vote are they that they will pretend to be aligned with anything that they know they will not deliver on. Just ask how happy the Greens are with Labor at State and Federal level. Labor/Rudd heavily criticised Coalitions/Howards inability to implement their Murray/Darling initiatives in the 18 month timeframe….because Bracks/Victoria played politics rather than genuine concern. 2 years after KRuddco took over they STILL have not done anything on the Murray/Darling situation….STILL cannot draft an acceptable plan with it’s own Labor States. Their whole ‘environmental’ angle has been based solely on the useless/deceitful ETS at the expense of all else. Labor - Environment = FAIL

laurie says:

09:05am | 15/01/10

In respect of Constitutional control of the rivers. If section 92 covers commerce across state borders surely water across state borders is a commercial transaction and falls under section 92. A river dammed in queensland that impedes commercial flows into nsw and s.a. is commercial. I would expec t a constitutional challenge to be successful if the judges deem so.

Mrs James says:

09:19am | 15/01/10

laurie says:09:23am | 15/01/10
I feel I must comment on this Laurie, my husband is 50 years old and a boilermaker, he has a craftsman certificate as do most of his generation and upward. The younger generation is his trade and many others were not given the same amount of training. The “old boys” are in demand for their skills level. My husband has already has one back operation, he did not down tools and go on a benifit, he healed and went back to work. While we all look forward to retirement, we lost so much in super in the Global crisis its not to much of an issue for us to continue to work a little longer. Aussies many many trades suffer back problems as they age from constant bending, including mine Nursing. But we were horrified to see Tony Abbott on tv saying he thought the retirement age should be 70 years old. We don’t mind doing our bit to subsides those already on a pension but 70 years old is asking a bit much. I have no doubt this is just a political stunt, I was disgusted my the recent “comedy show” by the Liberals and they will not get our vote.

D'oh says:

09:25am | 15/01/10

[face palm]

@ not duped:

“Kevin Rudd has at least tried to do something aabout Global warming”

An Extraordinary Tax Scam on everything is NOT doing something about global warming.

“Tony (Budgie Smuggler ) Abbott has done everything in his power to stop any attempts to get Global warming under control”

Putting aside the snide remark concerning Abbott’s physical prowess, Abbott has stopped the governments proposed daylight robbery of Australians.  You should be thanking him.

“Australians are not silly, we all saw “The Turnbull” affaire in colour on tv. We heard Michinn and the others , state their “real” views. This is a smoke screen and Aussies are not dumb enough to be duped. The Greens obviously are!!”

Oh dear, where to start.  AGW/ACC/AGC is nothing more than a myth and the Greens have woken up to it.  Perhaps you missed the UEA scandal, not surprising due to the lack of media coverage.

Read here and make up your own mind: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

I must confess that initially I was duped by the likes of Gore and the IPCC.  Not any more.

Super D says:

09:41am | 15/01/10

Election 2010 is going to be a fascinating contest between lofty rhetoric, symbolism and wordy prose and straight talking practical solutions. 

I reckon its going to be very, very close. 

There is definitely an outside chance that Rudd will be a one term wonder.

Pete from Sydney says:

09:41am | 15/01/10

Ah Deliah…you wouldn’t give Kevin a go if he performed a miracle, hey by the way the Australian is ticking along nicely still doncha think…must be difficult to swallow that he may have done something right there….

Anyhoo. you doged the question on the Libs track record on whaling, what did Little Johnny and Tony do when they were in government for all that time about whaling….SFA…first word ‘sweet’, last word ‘all’...middle word you can figure out.

Their track record on the environment wasn’t great when they were in office and the Murray Darling was a problem four years ago, yet no action from the Libs then. Abbott is picking easy populist targets as did his predecessor…and he’ll do nothing if ( and it’s a big if) he gets elected…

thatmosis says:

09:41am | 15/01/10

This is a typical Pembo article, attack the man and not the policies although he did have a bit of a go at that. Theses are good initiatives and well beyond anything Gunna Krudd has done since coming to office. We will take over the health system if the States cant get it right…..waiting…..waiting, we will fix the Murray Darling problem…..waiting ....waiting, we will take Japan to court over whaling…..waiting….waiting, I am a fiscal miser , thats why every man woman and child in Australia now has a massive debt to carry and the list goes on. Time to stop berating the opposition and get stuck into the present non funtioning Government or is that in the too hard basket.

E says:

09:44am | 15/01/10

@Persophone: States dont produce water, it just falls there. Shows the typical fundemental lack of understanding from an ALP/union stooge.

What is it with this CPRS or bust corner the ALP are painting themselves into? I think the problem might be that the ALP members are pretty stupid, and are just puppets run around by their not much smarter media consultants. So they are locked into this strategy by their overwealming terror of having to painfully learn a bunch of new soundbites to parrot on demand.

Or perhaps there is a limit to the number of trite soundbites any given ALP stooge is capable of learning, and its not feasible to replace them with stooges who have a new script?

To repeat the obvious:

According to treasury modeling, the CPRS wont reduce CO2 emissions at all, all the benifits are ascribed the the invention of ‘clean coal’ in 2025. Google it and be amazed at how dumb the ALP are, perhaps Julia should just keep the hard hat on and stay on site pretending to work like the union thugs she serves.

acker says:

09:49am | 15/01/10

Good on him, I was one of Tony Abbotts harshest critics when he bounced Turnbull out of the leadership of the Lib’s (many scathing posts on this site)...But at least he has delivered an understandable message of his stance on the environment. I struggle to understand Wong and Rudd’s

Carl Palmer says:

09:57am | 15/01/10

The MD is critical for this country but very little has and is been done. TA is right as was Senator Minchin – the government has too many No One Priorities – primarily driven by the PM and his insatiable drive to conquer the “great moral challenge of our time”.

TA makes no secret of the fact that it will be “a vote-changing issue in this year’s election” and that “the environmental debate should be much more than an argument over climate change”. This sounds upfront and very reasonable to me.

I agree the water issue is national, not state controlled and that the Feds should take control, I therefore welcome a referendum on this issue if it is not resolved. Just the thought of having the NSW Govt involved makes you shake in your boots and we all know the Greens have no authority and at best tinker on the fringe happy to drag the country back to the 1800 with their extremist demands.

As for the “Green Corps” it was introduced by Howard, rebadge by Rudd as the Green Jobs Corps. So it is in place now, TA is just giving it a bigger emphasis. If the Green Jobs Corps was a waste of time, then I’m sure the PM would have immediately terminated their services.

TA also stated that “A concern to protect the environment should mean much more than voting Green or joining Greenpeace. It should mean preferring those trying to do good rather than merely to look good on this issue.” I think everyone has a concern for the environment and want a sensible and reasonable approach to how it is managed because as we know, the Greens cannot achieve any meaningful outcome by themselves and just talk alot.   

Unfortunately the Govt’s spin and how it tightly manages media statements places a stranglehold on the ministers to get on with the job. It is almost like they need his permission to say something. Add to that his need to be somehow involved in “the social scene” and the whole thing grinds slowly forward.

Pretty much what is happening now. 

Bring on the debate and confrontation TA because we are moving too slow when moving in the right direct and too fast when we are moving in the wrong direction.

Kenrick says:

10:00am | 15/01/10

I must admitt I would have said only 2 months ago the Libs had no chance of taking a fight to Rudd at the next election, if anything I was starting to think they may even disappear off the political scene altogether. But Tony Abbott in 11/2 months seems to have breathed fresh air into them, not only is he going to be able to take the fight up to Rudd I actually think he may even be able tople him at the election.

Kevvy from the Inner West baby says:

10:00am | 15/01/10

@E…speaking of thuggery the tone of your email smacks of that…sound a bit like a private school bully to me…...

persephone says:

10:02am | 15/01/10

E

how dishonest of you - why am I not surprised?

I didn’t make any mention of the CPRS at all, yet you accuse me of doing so and make that the basis of your ‘stooge’ comment.

Shows that YOU are so blinkered and prejudiced that you project your own perceptions onto others, without actually reading what they wrote.

For someone who claims to be anti both parties, your lack balance and objectivity.

As for the CPRS:

1. Both parties agreed that an ETS was the best way to tackle climate change in the lead up to 2007. Until a couple of months ago, this was a bipartisan agreement.

As the party which walked away with it has not indicated that it has any better alternatives (and indeed, seems to be sidling back in the direction of an ETS) it’s fair to assume there aren’t any.

2. An ETS is accepted by most major countries as the best way to deal with the problem globally. It’s a global problem, needing a global solution, so whatever we adopt needs to be compatible with what our major trading partners are doing.

3. Most environmentalists recognise that a CPRS will reduce carbon emissions. Most also recognise that something is better than nothing; once the legislative framework is in place, targets can change. The CPRS is also only one plank in the building; there are a number of other initiatives in lock step with it which will also help reduce emissions.
The aim is to reduce emissions by at least 5% (not enough, but that’s on the assumption noone else in the world is doing anything, which means we’ll be doing 5% more than the rest of the world). It’s probably going to be more like 15-20%, in cooperation with the rest of the world.
By definition, the CPRS must achieve this, so it will.

Now, try and refute me without calling me names or accusing me of stoogedom. If you can’t, then it means you’re too much of a lightweight to engage in real discussion.

Yeesss, Marg dear, it’s all about me. I admit it. Now take your medication, like a good girl.

Deliah says:

10:11am | 15/01/10

@Pete from Sydney. I have given Kevin 07 a go and voted for him. Further, he happens to be my local member. He has let me down badly and has thus lost my support. I can tell he takes his constituents for granted and is both inaccessible and unaccountable.The word is he might have a fight in his own seat as did John Howard.

E says:

10:19am | 15/01/10

@Kevvy: Wong again Kevvy. How about addressing the issues rather than ad hominem. Ok I sledged the ALP, gee maybe we should all sit around talking about our feelings, or maybe you could comment on exactly how the CPRS is intended to ‘fix’ global warming, given that treasury estimates show very little reduction on CO2 emission until 2025 with the invention of ‘clean coal’?
Got nothing, thought not.

Pete from Sydney says:

10:22am | 15/01/10

Is that the word Deliah? Righto, when the election draws closer we may have a punt on that..my mail is that the Libs have got a snowball’s chance in hell, and that Tony doesn’t get much love from the fairer sex, apart from your good self of course…however time will tell

still didn’t answer the question on the Libs efforts in the whaling arena though…

Deliah says:

10:24am | 15/01/10

@ Pete from Sydney. I agree that the previous government was found wanting on the whaling issue. However, Labor is worse because they made an election promise to end the slaughter of whales and take Japan to the International Court of Justice. Clearly we were lied to.

I have written to several government ministers about the whaling issue and they have not provided me with the courtesy of a reply. There is a disturbing lack of accountability which has become evident with the Rudd government.

BTW did you know the previous environment minister under Howard i.e. Ian Campbell joined the Sea Shepherd? Go figure.

Pete from Sydney says:

10:28am | 15/01/10

Give me a chance e, I’m trying to do some work here as well…Read Persephone’s response…a couple of times E, so it gets though you obviousoly blinked view son, and please have a Bex and lie down, you’re getting all worked up.

Abbott jumped off the bandwagon of the CPRS in order to get himself elected leader…pure and simple. It was political opportunism and had nothing to do with the merits of scheme.

And you still sound like a bully boy to me, feeling or no feelings

Margaret Gray says:

10:28am | 15/01/10

@Pete from Sydney

“...what did Little Johnny and Tony do when they were in government for all that time about whaling…”

Do try and keep up.

In case you missed it, John Howard hasn’t been Prime Minister for more than two years.

Conversely, the incumbent pledged he would do something immediately upon coming to office.  In this he was roundly and enthusiastically supported by his parliamentary caucus, including Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who said was said to be “distressed” about the situation.

Maybe you can point to what Labor have done for “the whales” in the 770 days since they took office?

Margaret Gray says:

10:37am | 15/01/10

@persephone

“...Yeesss, Marg dear, it’s all about me. I admit it. Now take your medication, like a good girl…”

Another childish contribution.

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?

E says:

10:48am | 15/01/10

@Persophone:

A: I have read your posts before, and know that you are in support of a massive tax which will fail to deliver anything but heartache for ordinary people and billions for bankers. Sorry if you expect me to treat each and ever post in isolation, not going to happen. This is not an example of my ‘blinkers’, its just that I already know your are pro-ETS.

1.a) No, the leader of the opposition said that he supported the ETS, but as can be seen from the events late last year, the Libs to not support and ETS, havent you been paying attention?
1.b)There are many obvious alternatives to an ETS, including a carbon tax, doing nothing, banning human existance and efficency measures. Only the truly gullible or easily led think that there is ‘no alternative’ just because they heard someone say that on tv. The ETS is simply the illusion of action most favored by the Kevvys mates, the big banking industry.

2.a.1) Countries dont have brains, countries dont think anything, you are confusing a squiggle on a map with the people who rule within the boundaries defined by that squiggle.
2.a.2) Who cares if many of the leaders of some squiggles think one thing or another? They are capable of being wrong, or corrupted, same as any other human beings. Your argument is a favorite fallacy of the left, the ‘Argumentum ad populum’
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) also known as the ‘bandwagon fallacy’, a kissing cousin to the ‘argument from authority’. Any first year knows both of those are formal fallacies of relevance and hence unsound.

2.b) Our major trading partners (USA and China) dont have an ETS, which planet are you on? Europe has one, but they are about 4th down the list of our trading partners after USA, China, Japan, none of which have an ETS.

3.a) Again with the bandwagon fallacy (please look it up in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies), who cares what ‘most environmentalits’ think, truth is not a democracy, the majority does not rule.

3.b) “By definition, the CPRS must achieve this, so it will.” WTF!!?! This is disturbingly Orwellian. You seem to fail to recognise that governments fail at pretty much everything they attempt to do, I mean they cant even get the trains running on time and we have had trains for 100 years.
I dont know where to even being with this one, but you are apparently ignoring the treasury modeling which shows that the whole implied benifit of the CPRS comes from adoption of clean coal in 2025, and not from the ETS (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/21/excuse-me-minister-but-what-will-your-cprs-actually-do/).

3.c) Despite having an ETS, Eurpoes emissions have continued to rise, which is a proof by counter-example of your truly bizzare comment that ‘By definition, the CPRS must achieve this, so it will’. I’m still freaked out by that, what a scary thing to think.

3.c) CO2 is a trace gas, and Australia is responsible for 1% of emissions, so 5% of 1% of SFA is not going to make a difference. Why should we all pay billions for what is obviously at best a purely symbolic effort? Coincidentally the only thing this govt has been capable of, a purely symbolic tokenistic but frighteningly expensive effort in connivance and spin.

So there you go, Persephone’s trite sophistries and falsehoods cleanly butchered by someone with a functioning brain and a tertiary education worth having (engineering and logic). What did you study , interpretive dance and land rights for gay whales? hehe, u rent-a-crowd pseudo-loyalist get a clue and stop being evil.

E says:

10:52am | 15/01/10

@Pete, Persophone et al: Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is characterised as having some personal issue and ‘needing a lie down’? Is it becuase you have no actual argument and fall back on mud slinging?

I presume neither of you have any information except sound bites to work with? Perhaps you should read something longer than a pamphlet? Just a suggestion, but your childish attempts at argument are actually truly low standard sophistries. But I bet you cant tell me what sophistry means can you?

E says:

10:56am | 15/01/10

KRudd promised to do things, he has failed to deliver. Thats the story, no excuses, he had failed to deliver anything except Julia Gillard memorial school halls and CFMEU jobs for mates with the stimulus.
And now he is MIA hoping everyone will forget what a fool he made of himself with Nopenhagen and his shamefull attempts to terrorise and bully the Australian people into going along with his CPRS scam.

A bit of respect please says:

10:57am | 15/01/10

It doesn’t matter what people think of Abbott, but the childish “budgie smuggler” (attempted) put-down has to stop.  He was photographed, in swimmers, at a charity swim.  For crying out loud - he’s a volunteer lifesaver.  What do you expect him to wear?  A Zegna suit? A bit of respect please for his service to the community, irrespective of what you think of the man.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:13am | 15/01/10

Tony Abbott is a sodding hypocrite. First he wants to allow mining in the area covered by the Wild Areas Act in QLD and then he wants to “green” the Murray Darling Basin? Give me a break. If Tony Abbott wants to get involved in a three way bun fight between NSW, VIC and SA then he is also stupider than I thought.

Marie says:

11:25am | 15/01/10

Hey !!  all you “name callers”. The moment you start calling people names, I just turn off. Your point is NOT worth reading and lacks credibility.

D'oh says:

11:25am | 15/01/10

@persephone:

“1. Both parties agreed that an ETS was the best way to tackle climate change in the lead up to 2007. Until a couple of months ago, this was a bipartisan agreement.”

That was before the AGW/ACC wheel fell off at the end of November last year…remember?  It appears that the Liberals were the only ones ballsy enough to stand up and say ‘hey, is there something else goingo on here?’  There are ALP skeptics out there and it is only a matter of time before they are brave enough to step forward.

“It’s a global problem, needing a global solution”

Sounds like a quote taken straight from Copenhagen, massive sucess that it was.  The truth is that it is not a problem.  Humans do not contribute to climate change and there is no evidence to the point.

“3. Most environmentalists recognise that a CPRS will reduce carbon emissions. Most also recognise that something is better than nothing; once the legislative framework is in place, targets can change. The CPRS is also only one plank in the building; there are a number of other initiatives in lock step with it which will also help reduce emissions.
The aim is to reduce emissions by at least 5% (not enough, but that’s on the assumption noone else in the world is doing anything, which means we’ll be doing 5% more than the rest of the world). It’s probably going to be more like 15-20%, in cooperation with the rest of the world.”

Unfortunately this is a case where nothing is better than something.  The CPRS/ETS will do nothing more than take money out of Australians pockets.  Assuming carbon emmisions do contribute to GW/CC/GC (which they don’t)  the discussed reductions will have a negligible effect.

“By definition, the CPRS must achieve this, so it will.”

So it is more important for the results to fit the policy, rather that develop a policy to reduce results.

haggis says:

11:30am | 15/01/10

Am I right to believe that stylistically, Percy Phony seems to have a policy-making ring to her as she lurks in the underworld . . . . .

Deliah says:

11:35am | 15/01/10

@ Peter from Sydney. I have answered your question re:  whaling.

The rumour is that Kevin’s worst mightmare might be awaiting him in Griffith. A highly intelligent, articulate and very attractive woman with green and social justice credentials will be taking him on and inviting him to debates. Could the Liberals be that cunning? It is only a rumour.

Eddie says:

11:44am | 15/01/10

Persephone says:
1. Abbott criticises Rudd for setting targets he won’t be in government to see delivered. One assumes from that that Abbott won’t bother with such targets, so we’ll be back to short term fixes for long term problems.
Issues such as aboriginal life expectancy will not be fixed in a three year term. Development of Australia’s infrastructure will not happen properly if one only thinks in three year increments…
———-
Whatever helps you sleep at night but your dreaming if you believe Rudd is anything but a term-to-term thinker, which admittedly, is not unusual for pollies and particularly PM’s.

2. His flippant ‘$50 000 per person” is back of the envelope stuff and demonstrates his lack of understanding of basic economics. If it were true, it would mean these people would be working for less than the dole.
It must include on costs…
Thirdly, this is meant to be a mobile workforce, so you need to add accomodation, travel and food into the mix. Even if they’re living in tents… Travel will also be a killer…
——-

Wow…talk about nonsense. They wont actually be an army! Its just a media bite. 15000 spread across the country, not based in one location in barracks, travelling the nation. As for being paid less than the dole - ignorance reigns. Currently, the dole is $228 a week. $50k pa, even minus costs, is miles ahead of the $12k on the dole.

As for Abbott not understanding even the basics of economics - he is one of the few pollies who actually has a degree in economics.

3. TA identifies the M-D as the most urgent issue facing Australia, and then says we can wait till 2014 for a referendum. If the MD is cactus now, waiting four years means it will be irretrivably gone.
———-

Agreed.

4. TA makes it clear that the M-D should be run for the benefit of SA.
——-

He makes no such claim. The future health of the MD is of benefit to all states, even those where the MD does not run, for it provides the majority of produce across the country.

Felt the need to respond to this one more than others - just cannot believe the stupidity and naiveity of blind Rudd followers.

Deliah says:

11:56am | 15/01/10

@D’oh. The ETS may well be one of the solutions in a multi-factorial approach to climate change. However, it has been very poorly explained. It is imperative we do something about greenhouse emissions. There is no doubt the climate is getting more extreme. There are murmurings that something might have happened to the Gulf Stream which would account for the deep freeze in Europe. Also, that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening. Worrying stuff.

@Mrs James. I agree that a lot of nurses and labourers have bad backs. Raising the retirement age to 70 is no option for them. Tony Abbott will need to go back to the drawing board on that policy.

Eat The Rich says:

12:20pm | 15/01/10

Dunno Dave is anyone really listening? I’m not.
Back to the beach eh.

Jamers Hunter says:

12:30pm | 15/01/10

Percy phone. Both E and myself have raised the issue that the states do not make water. Little things like defining your terms and getting simple facts correct would lift your comments soooo much I know what you mean ( I think) and so , probably , does E but some of the rabbits may be confused ??

Mikko says:

12:36pm | 15/01/10

Practical approaches to dealing with the environment have to win over Rudd’s dodgy CPRS- tax -everything- so- that -we- use- less- of -it scheme, while the climate keeps changing the way it has since dinosaurs roamed the earth, The Vikings grew grapes in Greenland, and levels of CO2 were periodically much higher than today.
CPRS = Can’t People Recognise Scams? Thankfully a growing number will answer Yes. Go Tony!

Deliah says:

12:40pm | 15/01/10

@Persephone & Eddie. Regarding waiting until 2014 for a referendum on the Murray Darling, my understanding is the power for the Cth to take over is already contained in the Constitution. There is no need for a referendum.

E says:

12:40pm | 15/01/10

@Deliah: There is no doubt that temperatures since 1998 have been cooling. There is no doubt that CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere which historically lags warming, not leads it.
You need to learn about another fallacy: cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)  also known as mistaking correlation for cause. Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean there is any connection between them. I have no idea where you get the idea that a 0.00001% change in the composition of the atmosphere will somehow effect the Earths magnetic field, but you are crazy to think so and desperately grasping at straws in your efforts to protect your ignorance.
There is massive doubt that the climate is getting more extreme, there has been no measurable increase in hurricanes, floods or droughts in the last 50 years.
Have you ever noticed how whenever we have the ‘second hottest day’ or ‘second coldest’ or whatever, the most extreme is nearly always 1905, pre carbon emissions?

Are you aware that you are made of carbon and that you breathe out CO2? So I have a simple suggestion for all AGW victims, stop breathing!

your psuedo arguments are junk, go back to your knitting until you have a science degree or some semblance of a clue.

Matt says:

12:44pm | 15/01/10

Water in the Murray Darling is not an Australian issue, it’s an eastern states issue.  The water infrastructure in the east is not connected to that here in the west.  Stop telling us that your water problems are a national problem; they mean us much to us as California’s water issues.  A national takeover sounds like just another way for WA to subsidise government expenditure on the east coast.

6clegs says:

12:45pm | 15/01/10

The Murray-Darling is to Australia what “health care”  is to the U.S.A, and no matter how many pairs of rose coloured glassed one wears the mad monk aint no Barack Obama!

A green army and Policy that will make Green voters change their vote to Liberal? Well I’ll be blowed, the mad monk does have a sense of the ridiculous/humour!

Any alleged Green ‘voter’ that turns and votes for the conservatives was only ever yanking the Greens chain. It would be like Dick Cheney suddenly seeing the light and joining the communist party of China!  (h’mm - but if there was a buck in it for him??? so perhaps not the best anology? LOL) The mad monk might get a few who have no memory of him, but theres too much footage of him running his mouth off on the net…

TA is copying everything his hero, JH did in the run up to the 96 election… I wonder if he’s emailed/called Carl Rove yet, to see what he’s doing later this year?

I’d vote for my cat before I would allow my vote go to the MAD MONK!

red robin says:

12:48pm | 15/01/10

disclaimer: I dislike both major parties equally

Whilst I agree with taking practical local measures environmentally over a global tax scam that does zero for the environment, I do not like Abbot’s ‘green army’ idea.

Firstly why the need for an “army”? Sounds like carbon ‘cops’. The general populace do not require any further herding by government enforcers.

Secondly, anything the government has a hand in is generally highly inefficient, grossly unaccountable and budget blowing. We need to mobilise private enterprise to be involved in this. Let’s start empowering the people - less big government more private entrepreneurial action.

persephone says:

12:49pm | 15/01/10

Eddie et al (you know who you are):

Have you read TA’s speech? I’m going by what he says.

A. TA is the one who claims Rudd sets targets he won’t be around to see delivered. If TA is wrong, I’m happy to acknowledge it. It wouldn’t be the first time.

However, if he is right, it would be inconsistent of him to set any targets for anything which go beyond the time he can expect to be around. So TA is promoting short term political thinking, of exactly the type that got us into these messes in the first place.

I think anyone who studies these issues seriously - whether it’s weed control, climate change, the MD basin, aboriginal issues, etc - recognise that what they need is a long term plan.

According to Abbott, that’s not what he’s into.

B. Direct quote from Abbott’s speech…’‘it’s management of a catchment extending across Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria on which South Australia is critically dependent. ’

Makes it pretty clear that he sees SA as the one who needs help here. Given that Simon Birmingham, who has responsibility for MD issues under Abbott, is from SA, this isn’t much of a surprise.

NSW irrigators have already come out against Abbott, calling his proposals on the MDB an effort to get Green preferences and describing it as poor policy which isn’t supported by anyone in the industry.

http://www.nswirrigators.org.au/pdf/press_release/100115 Abbott Without Suppot.pdf

TA claims to belong to the party of small government, supporting the current constitution and state’s rights - yet he is proposing to take a way a fundamental right of the States, guaranteed under the Constitution, and give it to bureaucrats in Canberra.

C. My knowledge of sexy terms such as ‘on costs’ has nothing to do with anything to do with any union but comes from my training and experience in small business management and my service on a couple of boards, employing hundreds of people.

From Abbott’s speech:

‘It would be a 15,000 strong environmental workforce – a standing green army, if you like, or a land army, if you’d prefer ‘

Note, he is the one to use the term ‘green army’.

I don’t know whether TA intends $50 k per person to cover the whole of their costs, in which case, they’ll be getting virtually zip wages (for argument’s sake, if they cost $50 k each, we’ll allow 20% on costs, which is reasonable, so their wage is already down to $40 k; variation between supervisor’s pay and ordinary workers, so we’ll whack another $5 k for each worker off for that, although that’s shortchanging supervisiors, so we’re down to $35k; travel & accomodation, we’ll say $100 per person per week, which is incredibly cheap, we’re down to $30k.) or whether he hasn’t factored in the extra costs at all (probably the second).

Hi, Margaret!!

red robin says:

12:50pm | 15/01/10

disclaimer: I dislike both major parties equally

Whilst I agree with taking practical local measures environmentally over a global tax scam that does zero for the environment, I do not like Abbot’s ‘green army’ idea.

Firstly why the need for an “army”? Sounds like carbon ‘cops’. The general populace do not require any further herding by government enforcers.

Secondly, anything the government has a hand in is generally highly inefficient, grossly unaccountable and budget blowing. We need to mobilise private enterprise to be involved in this. Let’s start empowering the people - less big government more private entrepreneurial action.

E says:

12:59pm | 15/01/10

Better a Mad Monk than Chairman Krudd

Nafe says:

01:04pm | 15/01/10

“E” I agree 100% with what you are saying, but using material other than Wikipedia may give your arguments a bit more credibility. We all know how accurate Wikipedia is at times.

Deliah says:

01:04pm | 15/01/10

@ E. It is a fact that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening and I did not say this was as a result of climate change. It was a comment thrown into the post as a matter of concern. I stand by my comments about more extreme weather, something I am sure Australian firefighters will attest to.

You may care to explain the retreating glaciers all over the world, and the melting of the polar ice cap and Greenland ice. It is the dumping of too much fresh water in the Atlantic which can cause the Gulf Stream to slow or stop altogether.

Finally in retort to your disparaging post. I do have a science degree, I don’t knit and your sending a wikipedia link says it all.

MassiveSpray says:

01:11pm | 15/01/10

Wow…what a collection of the blind and blinkered.

Surely you realise that the government is staying quiet at the moment so they can give the Opposition plenty of rope to hang themselves with. 
And for anyone who seriously think TA will get within cooee of the Prime Ministership…I have a bridge to sell you…hardly used at all.

AKoiLus says:

01:19pm | 15/01/10

Remember when a fresh faced Abbott spoke like a normal human being? I thought at the time…  there’s a future PM in him. Then as he climbed the Liberal ladder he reinvented himself to be a mini Howard. Just as Johnny was losing his speech impediment. Abbott was creating a new one. The only people who vote for this tosser will be die-hard conservatives. The people his vocal cords pander to. Now I just can’t stand to hear him utter one syllable. What ever this speech was about I can guess the only flavour it had was one of Machiavellian wowserism. Green Army Ha. Like sending men to war with no guns!

BULMKT says:

01:24pm | 15/01/10

Greens that are too Yellow to admit they’re really Reds!

Below are just a few. I’m sure you can name others.

Kevin Rudd - who wants to introduce Cap & Trade aka CPRS and is willing to push the progressive agenda farther than Whitlam’s.

Malcolm Turnbull - any “Liberal” willing to support Kevin Rudd’s Cap & Trade scheme.

It’s called Cap & Trade as it puts a CAP on Success and TRADES prosperity for poverty. Rudd will penalise companies for simply operating and producing. Rudd’s CPRS will reduce manufacturing output (Pro: fewer emissions, Con: Fewer Jobs), and that in turn will reduce Australia’s GDP (Pro: lower carbon output, Con: a lower standard of living).

Al Gore - who stands to profit the most from worldwide Cap & Trade schemes.

Barack Obama - a president who seems to be willing to push the progressive agenda farther than former presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson & the Father of “Progressivism” Theodore Roosevelt.

see http://bit.ly/90yBaS

James says:

01:30pm | 15/01/10

Does anyone else find the image of Tony, eating mung beans and wearing a beanie with long dreadlocks very amusing.  How dumb does he think we are?

E says:

01:38pm | 15/01/10

“It is a fact that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening and I did not say this was as a result of climate change. “
- no but you were clearly trying to draw a corellation

” I stand by my comments about more extreme weather, something I am sure Australian firefighters will attest to”
- pfft Australia has always had bushfires. We havent always had so many people living in them who had no idea how to survive them. The Black Saturday deaths were caused by treechangers without a plan, not by extreme temperatures. And shame on you for using such an emotional ploy.

“You may care to explain the retreating glaciers all over the world, and the melting of the polar ice cap and Greenland ice”
- its not really happening, its just a matter of selectively cherry picking the data. The reason you believe its happening is because you saw it on TV, or in a pamphlet enjoining you to donate money to combat global warming, think about it, you got played.

“It is the dumping of too much fresh water in the Atlantic which can cause the Gulf Stream to slow or stop altogether.”
- thats a theory, might be accurate might not, but I’m pretty sure its not an issue (since the world isnt warming)

“Finally in retort to your disparaging post. I do have a science degree, I don’t knit and your sending a wikipedia link says it all. “
—good for you, pity it didnt teach you how to think. Claiming that ‘sending a wikipedia link says it all’ is a combination of a hasty generalisation (that everything on wikipedia is false) which is a false statement, and then a fallacy of association and culminating in an ad hominem attack on me by the implication that anyone who uses wikipedia must be ignorant. Shame shame sham, poor show. Better luck next time.

E says:

01:41pm | 15/01/10

Think i can claim victory over Persophone (aka Kruddphone) yet?

Where are my victory shoes…

Wikifan says:

01:44pm | 15/01/10

Nafe says “We all know how accurate Wikipedia is at times.”

Incidentally, this type of argument would be identified as ‘weasel words’ on Wikipedia, because it appears to mean something, when it is, in fact, completely devoid of meaning.

Wiki criticism fail

Macon Paine says:

01:45pm | 15/01/10

persephone says:11:02am | 15/01/10

Hey Persephone you make lots of points so I’ll address them in point form:

1)  Yes thats a fair point , they both agreed on a CPRS until Turnbull was boned. Are you so blinkered though that you did not read this entire paragraph from the OP? “The speech contained two policies - the national takeover of the Murray-Darling river system and the creation of a so-called 15,000-strong “Green Army”  - and a promise of more to follow, with Abbott conceding he did not yet have a finalised position on carbon emissions but would do so within the fortnight”
The Liberals have “not yet finalised a position”, so you cant accuse them of not offering one nor can you “assume” there is no better alternative.
2) Thats fair enough you make a good point here. I agree it’s a global problem that must be solved with a global solution.
3) “Most environmentalists”? Ok so who are the ones not recognising this and why? Also you state there are a number of other “initiatives in lock step” Can you point out a few for us?
You have totally floored me with your next paragraph. Now i remain open to a CPRS but your argument is doing your case no favours. I guess im just a little more skeptical than some but can you explain to me what is the point of Australia reducing it’s emissions by 5% or for that matter 20% (remember we contribute 1.5% of the global carbon emissions) if the rest of the world does nothing? A five percent reduction on 1.5% sends us plummeting to 1.425% of the worlds emissions, while at the same time China for instance is increasing it’s emissions output by roughly 1% per year (thats 1% of total global emissions, not 1% of the 20 odd % they currently emit), entirely defeating the purpose of Rudds CPRS so really perhaps the Liberals where justified in knocking back the CPRS until the rest of the world is also on board.
Finally you state: “By definition, the CPRS must achieve this, so it will.” This is terrible reasoning and an example of whats called the “appeal to belief” logical fallacy.

Pete says:

01:48pm | 15/01/10

This is what I want to see more of. Home grown solutions where the money is doing something/anything for the environment that can give measurable results. If we can carry out a few of these initiatives at home that matter at home now, and then (core) promise to make the big changes when the rest of the world is on board (and will thus actually be effective), I’m sure Abbott can win a green vote or two.

Bravo Abbott, i look forward to a straight talking politician.

Pete from Sydney says:

02:01pm | 15/01/10

@Macon just on point 3…we contribute 1.5% of Global emissions right? ...what % do we represent of the world’s population? a pooftenth to use a scintific term…So therefore aren’t we punching well above our weight in terms of carbon per head of population and if so, is it not reasonable that we reduce our emissions dramatically?

Can you or perhaps @E do the maths for me…. (@E’s the smart one apparently, having an engineering degree and all)...

Fracis Forbres says:

02:09pm | 15/01/10

Ow I know why dont we set up a River Watch Scheme?

D'oh says:

02:18pm | 15/01/10

@6clegs:

“I’d vote for my cat before I would allow my vote go to the MAD MONK!”

[face palm]

In other words you would rather watch the country burn.

@Mikko:

“CPRS = Can’t People Recognise Scams?”

Nice one!  Here is on: Cash Pilfering Robbery Scam!!

Hey, I this could be fun!!!:

Communist Procedure for Redustribution Swindle
Cash for Penny’s Redistribution Scam
Communist Party Redistribution System
Cash Payments to Rudd’s Scam

And the spin machine was concerned about the accronyms for ETS. 

EPIC FAIL

Anyone else got suggestions???

E says:

02:20pm | 15/01/10

@Pete :
Earth Population(Human) : 6.8 Billion (guesstimate)
Australian Population(Human): 22 million (guestimate)
%of Earths human population(Australia) =  0.3%
Estimated CO2 emission (Australia) as proportion of total: 1%

CO2 emissions ratio to population = 3.3:1 (ie we emit 3.3 times more CO2 than our population would allow in the New World Order pretend economy and slave planet).

So if we reduce CO2 emission by 5%,  our ratio would fall to 3.15 to 1, assuming nobody else did anything.

Cost of reducing global emission by 0.05% billions of dollars, providing an illusion of caring while locking our grand kids in carbon shackles and being elected secretary general of the UN… priceless

E says:

02:25pm | 15/01/10

@Pete:

Clearly I am not convinced by the things I saw on TV about global warming.

However if your ambition is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the CPRS is a dodgy way to do it.
Its just a money making machine, why dont people understand this? Its a way for big banks to create a whole new derivative and commodity class to play games with! Thats all!
Read about the european experience with an ETS, after its introduction CO2 emissions continued to go up! Further more, all the pain in being compensated away, so how will behavior change? Its a total waste of time and we would be better off planting and then burying trees than shuffling paper.

E says:

02:30pm | 15/01/10

@persphone: “my service on a couple of boards”, so is your real adgenda with the CPRS to provide another investment vector for yourself at our expense?

@Nafe says:02:04pm | 15/01/10
Hey everybody, the things I am posting from wikipeada are basic first year stuff. They are the equivalent of 1+1 = 2, they are not controversial and have been accepted as true for several hundred years. Wikipedia is a perfectly adequate source for such basic information and anyone who doesnt think so needs to rethink.

Jim Fletcher says:

02:33pm | 15/01/10

Is’nt It about time both major parties stopped this, I’m greener than you, fiasco.
The Greens want to stop coal, and uranium mining. They want to shut down coal fired power generation. They want to shut down the timber indusry. They want an open door policy on refugees. They want more money spent on education, health, and public housing - the list goes on.
They talk about jobs that can be created to offset the job losses their policies would cause. They mention jobs in the alternate energy sector, even when we have glaring examples of job losses in countries that have adopted such policies. They talk about job creation in eco tourism to mop up job losses in the timber industry, yet the same people (to be consistant) would abhor the carbon footprint of the transport required to deliver these tourists.
Hopefully no sane electorate will ever provide sufficient votes to allow these “greens’ to ever obtain power, yet we have our major parties falling over themselves, dreaming up policies that they hope will tempt some of the people who support this rubbish, to support them.
When will the madness end.
You’ve both lost me.

Matt says:

02:36pm | 15/01/10

Yeh, Cease Posting Ridiculous Shit

Marvin the Martian says:

02:36pm | 15/01/10

E:
You better watch out, Delilah might use her law degree to back up her science degree.
That is the problem with these mulit degree people, they are jacks of all trades, masters of none. A text book beats real world experience and if they read it in a text book it must be true.
To them it doesn’t matter that whilst one side of Antarctica is melting the other side is expanding. It doesn’t matter that the side that is shrinking is the side with the most exposure to the sun because of the tilt of the Earth on it’s axis. It isn’t in a text book or sprouted as propaganda by their govt so it can’t be true.

iansand says:

02:43pm | 15/01/10

Has anyone noticed that Mr Abbott has not said what he will do about the Murray Darling once the Commonwealth gets jurisdiction over it?  Nor has he said what he will do with his greenshirts (apart from doing a spot of gardening along the Wakehurst Parkway).

persephone says:

02:43pm | 15/01/10

E

If you refer to me by names that I don’t realise are me, of course I don’t respond. Please make it clear which post I didn’t respond to, so that I can, since it’s so important to you.

Macon, ta for response, always like it when people treat me as if I’m a human being.

1. If a policy is rejected without something to replace it with, it is fair to argue that there’s no other solution. The fact that Abbott has to put some hard thought into another solution shows the lack of thinking behind the rejection of the ETS (which MT still supports).
After going to an election supporting it, spending 2 years arguing about its detail and then to junk it without an alternative shows that there isn’t an obvious one. Some of TA’s mutterings suggest he is thinking about some kind of ‘great big tax’ himself…
All we can say at present is that the Libs have no alternative to the ETS.
A credible alternate government should have.

2. Ta.

3.  Being careful with the ‘many’ claim, just in case. Hate generalisations (doesn’t mean I don’t use them!)
RE (the biggie, aimed at reducing reliance on carbon based power by 20%), home insulation, solar heating rebates, upping foreign aid to countries in return for less land clearing,  etc are all part of the other actions, apart from the CPRS. 
Sure there’s others that don’t leap to mind at present.
4. I know, I didn’ t word it well. The target of the CPRS is adjustable, so it can produce whatever reduction you want it to. The modelling most referred to is the 5%, which most people agree is fairly limp wristed but would still be more than the rest of the world.
Given that Copenhagen has agreed to try and hold the climate at a 2 degree rise, we’ll have to do more than 5%, and the CPRS will be adjusted accordingly.
BTW, there is a strong moral argument that we should take action even if the rest of the world doesn’t; firstly, because trotw has alread taken some action when we haven’t and secondly because of our very high emissions rate per person.
Very hard to preach to the rest of the world about cleaning up their act when we are still so far behind the eight ball.

Pete from Sydney says:

02:48pm | 15/01/10

@E “we emit 3.3 times more CO2 than our population would allow in the New World Order pretend economy and slave planet”  So to my point, we pollute at a level far above what is acceptable?

As a man of science then…do you actually believe that the world is warming or not? If you do, what ,if any, is your suggestion for the reduction of CO2 which seems to be the problem, you’ve written off the CPRS…

If you don’t then I’m done chatting with you…..

Darin says:

02:54pm | 15/01/10

I’m not sure what is behind the over the top sledges at Abbott, but I think David needs to calm down before his next article.

Firstly, the concept of a policy direction speech should be applauded. it strikes a balance between the media and publics need for some information on what the Opposition’s policies will be should they win the next election, but also are not so detailed as to lock the party in so far out from an election and the absence of knowing the state of the budget.

Secondly, while Abbott may have taken the liberty of making characterisations about Kevin Rudd, the real point to observe is, so what? Is it really that unusual that a politician would point out flaws in their opponent?

I also don’t understand your comment, “the Green Army plan, which has a bit of a whiff of the Work for The Dole about it, and appeared to have been scribbled up on the back of a beer coaster by the conservatives to win a few talkback plaudits for getting the indolent and unemployed out there and pulling up noxious weeds. “

I felt that Abbott had outlined quite clearly that it would not be another Work for the Dole program, and would be designed to be substantially more permanent and effective than Labor’s Green Jobs Corp or the Howard Government’s Green Corp. It would be a program designed for those Australians who wanted to make a serious contribution to addressing environmental issues, and not a program for the unemployed or disinterested youth.

6clegs says:

02:56pm | 15/01/10

To “D’oh” - mate, the kindling has already been lit.
Ms Stripey Pants [my cat] would at least have a go at scratching around it to put it out, whereas IMHO the mad monk would think it was the 2nd comming, and rejoice.

(Please at least be a Simpsons fan so we can at least have that and The Punch in common? )

E says:

03:10pm | 15/01/10

This jobs in eco tourism and green energy reminds me of when they used the ‘jobs in service industries’ to excuse sending well paid Aussie manufacturing jobs to China in the 80’s. Didnt work very well then, wont work very well now.
government should concentrate on keeping the roads and rail system working, funding the cops and army and thats about it, let the rest of us sort ourselves out.

Interesting last comment: In 1902 there were hundreds of thousands of horses in New York city, they were required to keep the economy running. However, their manure was filling up the streets. The solution came in the form of the internal combustion engine and the automobile. No legislation was required and people gravitated to the better solution naturally. Until then people just lived with the manure.
Its the same with CO2, when a better solution to electricty generation and personal transport comes along, people will use it without legislation.

I think its interesting that the same PM who wrote a 6000 word essay decrying the failure of free market capitalism to prevent the GFC, seems convinced that only free market capitalism can save us from AGW. He is a bit stupid i think.

E says:

03:18pm | 15/01/10

@Persephone:

You totally failed to respond to my points, instead you childishly attempted to change the subject from the failings of your arguments in support of the CPRS to a critique of TA’s speech. This is an attempt at ‘changing the subject’  or technically a ‘red herring’. You are a joke, please go away.

persephone says:

04:01pm | 15/01/10

E
i. not those kinds of boards.

ii. childish? I didn’t call you names.

iii. this thread is about Tony’s speech. I have a couple of very looonnnnggg posts here on the CPRS< which deal with many of the issues you raised, as well. I can walk and chew gum.

iv. I wasn’t aware I was here to do your bidding, nor that it was in your provenenance to decide who posted here or not. If I really tried to answer every post here which addresses me by name, I’d be here all day (rather than off having a real life). Until ‘The Punch’ is kind enough to put me on salary, you get what you get.
And I’m not sure what bits I missed, anyway.

D'oh says:

04:02pm | 15/01/10

@ Matt:

“Yeh, Cease Posting Ridiculous Shit”

Touché!!

@6clegs:

Yep, two things in common so far.

Simon the Pieman says:

04:52pm | 15/01/10

Green Army will be just another way of pumping money into all the bogus employment service companies run by Politicians friends and relatives.  The 50k per person will be 25k to the person and 25k to the mates for administration.

persephone says:

07:49pm | 15/01/10

E

On reflection:

1. You are the one who introduced the topic of the CPRS. I pointed out that I hadn’t and you said you were just getting in ahead of me.
2. Despite that, I courteously dealt with some of your points (but couldn’t see the point of going over the same old, same old).
3. Several other posters addressed my posts so I made a couple of generalised posts to try and cover as much of their queries as I could.
4. You apparently addressed a post to me, using a name I didn’t recognise. If you’re going to insult people by calling them names, you don’t deserve a response. I’ve never called you anything other than E.
5. When I realised that I had missed a post of yours because of 4. I scrolled back, but seemed too late in the thread to bother.
6. Thank you for educating me. I had never, of course, encountered terms such as ‘changing the subject’ and ‘red herring’ before, and hope you will explain them to me further. (And see 1.)
7. I don’t know how I have upset you. It seems you are hurt because I’ve failed to answer every one of your posts in detail. I was unaware I owed that obligation to you, and I apologise.
Will try and do better in future.

Jamers Hunter says:

10:33pm | 15/01/10

E, I to have little disagreements with Percy phone, but for yo well i am seriously thinking of putting you on my dont bother list.
to me comments cshould be accurate,relevant or scarcastic insiteful,usefulto humanity not to some idolocical cause,
,i know that to love onself is often the start of a life long relationshif (wilde) but also remember “the only person that you have to spend the res of your life with is yourself (wilde).
If thes few words are above your intelectual or emotional capacity to benifit from, dont worry , take the clips to “show and tell” and your kind loving and supportive teacher will explain.

Christian Real says:

04:18am | 16/01/10

Tony Abbott’s green army policy is as big as fake as he is, because on one hand he is claiming to be a greenie, and claims he is concerned with the enviroment,he also talks about a Murray-Darling river take over.
On the other hand,Tony Abbott talks about overturning laws on the pristine wilderness and the wild rivers area of Cape York,to allow mining companies to mine there.
By allowing mining companies into our Aboriginal lands in the far north,would cause inviromental damage to the wilderess and wild rivers in that area,and indicates that Tony Abbott would be an enviromental vandal by doing this to the Cape York wilderness and wild rivers area .
Because of these two different sides of Tony Abbott, I cannot vote for him or any of his opposition party,and I have no faith or trust in him on the sole issue of enviroment.

Deliah says:

07:24am | 16/01/10

@Marvin the Martian. I note your profound contribution to the debate. Rather than comment on the subject matter at hand you have chosen to sarcastically attack me for having degrees. You then go on to make entirely incorrect assumptions. I can assure you I have had plenty of real life experience. Rather than resort to “tall poppy syndrome’ remarks maybe you would be best advised to return to Mars.

Diamantina Dick says:

11:57am | 16/01/10

As this thread shows, the green tinged vote of middle Australia is up for grabs.

I am not saying for sure, but perhaps a tangigle group of people are realising that what has in the past been offered as environmentaly good is actually contributing to so called ‘extreme’ events. Eventually the bush fire enquiry in Victoria will cease focusing on incompetent administration and start asking sensible questions like; is it sensible to enforce planting of trees over new houses or to fine people collecting firewood along roadways (fire escape routes).

Marvin the Martian says:

01:01pm | 16/01/10

Delilah, some of us want more out of life then being a professional student, with text book experience. Sure I could be a jack of all trades master of none to, but I like having one skill and being exceptional at it. Don’t flatter yourself by thinking that having multiple degrees makes you a tall poppy, it doesn’t.

Liz says:

01:58pm | 16/01/10

AAh, the vitriol in these emails is incredible!  I can almost see D’Oh and E frothing at the mouth.

For those of you espousing climate gate, the supposed cooling and all the various other AGW is a myth theories here, I suggest that you refer to this web page.  It will quite clearly show you what the science really says, in simple summaries (with links if you want to understand the science).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Perhaps rather than wildly denouncing AGW you should spend some time trying to understand the arguments, and understand that each and every climate denialist theory that has been placed on this page has been addressed by credible science and debunked.

formersnag says:

02:41pm | 16/01/10

DISCAIMER, am not a supporter of either the labour/green coalition or the liberal/national coalition.

The green army is a great idea, it could take the form of compulsory national service for all school leavers. Who could start in junior positions in all areas of bureaucracy as well as the military and include free education at tafe, followed by free education at university for anybody showing ambition & talent. Instead of fees &/or HECS, students could “pay for their education” by continuing to work in the bureaucracy &/or at senior educative level for a minimum period like doctors doing their internship at public, teaching hospitals. After which they could leave or move into the private sector. Or perhaps, work like VMO’s do in the public hospital system, working both private & public, part time.

Timmo says:

02:56pm | 16/01/10

Hey, I submitted a blog this morning and you haven’t put mine there yet.  You’re very selective aren’t you. Oh look, I’ll vote for tony and join up to the liberal party and change my viewpoint so that i can join you all there. I’ll say Kev is a downright loser and he’s taking away our right to put cities in the Daintree and dam those wild rivers and tame them. And I won’t mention that Jesus saves and Moses invests and I won’t be so sarcastic in future. Pleeze, Pleeze mr Punch Moderator. Do you think my blog is that bad. No, people don’t need to know that we just live on a rock just floating around do they?. Oh so much for Democracy. Ok while you back the Liberal status quo hey. La de da da. Do de do do. I think all your readers should watch the Monty Python Movie Classic,” THE MEANING OF LIFE”. Well I’ll probably not hear from any of you again and that my friends, if I have any is very sad, very sad indeedie. SO GOODBY TO ALL OF YOU GREAT CONCERNED AUSSIE BLOGGERS OUT THERE SNUF SNUF. Hey I just had a great thought. You are not the only ones who want people to write in to their Puncho Hitto Slappo and Kikko Butto Sites, so I will have to go elsewhere. See Ya and good luck with Your new leader Tony the Abbott. If my Blog is not printed by this arvo your Puncho Bloggo site will self destruct. We won’t have any anti Liberal viewpoints on your programme no,no, no. Make sure you turn off the lights when you leave won’t you.?!!!

Valery says:

03:55pm | 16/01/10

It’s hilarious watching Wong go out of her mind because Abbott won’t announce what he has up his sleeve to tackle climate change ahead of her reintroduction of Rudds ETS. She can’t attack it before hand as he makes her wait giving her no amunition to fire against him. He keeps saying it will be out in Feb prior to the resumption of parliament, poor Penny. Although we have Sartor Environment Minister of the now famous, useless, shameful, embarrassing NSW Labor G’vment having a shot at Abbott’s environment policy plan. What a joke Frank is, I’m sure Australians are really interested in what he has to say.

lustjuvachat says:

04:28pm | 16/01/10

I don’t get a lot of comments here, you criticise Abbott’s plan and ask where is the money coming from.  Well from the same place that Krudd seems to find it and you don’t bemoan when Krudd spends zillions of our taxpayers dollars for what people must surely being asking by now, for what?  Has anything he spent money on made a difference to the environment?  And by the way Christian Real, be real for a moment, you would never vote for the Liberals regardless of who was leading them.  That’s the biggest problem we have in a democracy, people who vote but don’t think about what their vote will achieve.

lustjuvachat says:

04:34pm | 16/01/10

Deliah, are you kidding yourself, “Green votes up for grabs”.  Hardly.  Green voters will follow the line from the party and earth will freeze over, that is after the global warming thing, before the Greens would direct their preferences to any party other than the ALP.  Green voters don’t think, they want to feel good about doing ‘something’ even if it is marking a piece of paper, can’t see what that really does I’m afraid.  I’ve voted ALP all my life, am proud of the fact that I have 3 grown kids that just don’t follow the party line and many a discussion over the kitchen table has produced some sensible thoughts which haven’t sat that well with me.  Anyway, I too now put my brain in gear when thinking about who I might vote for and thankfully Krudd, Wong and Co have taught me a valuable lesson.  Never again.

Ken says:

04:57pm | 16/01/10

Well David you have to back your mate Rudd after you, yes you recommended in an editorial that Labor was the way to go.You should be very embarrassed that your true beliver status is now undermined in a huge way. Rudd is nothing but smokescreen and spin.
In any case if you think you know it all, and it seems you profess to, get off your fat ass and run for office yourself!

Deliah says:

05:45pm | 16/01/10

@Lustjuvachat. I think we might be on the same page. I have voted ALP and become very disillusioned. I am thinking about the concept of the “voters with no home” party. Somehow I think there are a lot of us.

Jon says:

09:52pm | 16/01/10

Wow - seriously all of you Liberal Abbot lovers need to become a bit more educated and widely-read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/abbott-mauled-for-talk-of-murray-darling-takeover/story-e6frg6nf-1225820177750

Anything Abbott comes up with is - without even needing to check - an absolute joke and farce. The guy is the epitome of the village idiot and so is anyone who seriously thinks he’s a credible alternative PM. What a joke. The more I hear from Liberal-minded fools the more I’m glad not to be one!

Q.E.D. says:

09:07am | 17/01/10

@ Jon 10:52pm 16/01/10

Classic ad hominem, again from the ‘left’. It’s early days, Jono.

Q.E.D. says:

09:44am | 17/01/10

@ Liz says: 02:58pm | 16/01/10
“For those of you espousing climate gate, the supposed cooling and all the various other AGW is a myth theories here, I suggest that you refer to this web page.  It will quite clearly show you what the science really says, in simple summaries (with links if you want to understand the science).”

Thanks for the link. The site is a hot-bed for discussion, which can only be a good thing.

Liz, I take it you haven’t read beyond the home page? There is very much of the science under the microscope.

If you thought this link would stop scientists/sceptics in their tracks, you are very much mistaken.

Q.E.D. says:

10:25am | 17/01/10

@ Jon : 10:52pm | 16/01/10

The feeling is mutual, Jon.

Elke says:

12:29pm | 17/01/10

I’m disapointed we haven’t seen Kevin Rudd come out and make a statement regarding the earthquake in Haiti. A word of sympathy on behalf of Australia would have been a decent thing for the Prime Minister to do I would have thought.

PJ says:

01:59pm | 17/01/10

David, i u’stand your job and the need to focus social intercourse.We often hear the counter argument to pseudo enviro’s—-get a real job and get off the gravy train. I find it almost impossible for such people to have any legitimacy in promoting a policy stance featherbedded by their employers . .I’ve worked for myself for 30 years and not met an enviro who has ever done the same!

M Cooke says:

12:09am | 18/01/10

Tony I can’t wait to vote any thing to get rid of that plastic numbnut failure KRUDD , and there is a huge following who feel the same way.

Christian Real says:

09:27am | 18/01/10

M Cooke comments @ 01:09am 18/01/10

M Cooke, It would appear then, by your comments, that there are a lot of gullible people that are jumping on the Abbott bandwagon.
Even 2 years olds would be able to see and realise that Abbott is an opportunist,that preys on braindead supporters like yourself and others who have commented here.
Tony Abbott a greenie?, one who cares about the enviroment?, everytime he opens his mouth he speaks the biggest load of bullshit and diatribe.
Two face Tony, he should be known as,because one minute he is claiming to be a greenie, concerned about the Murray- Darling river area, and the next minute he becomes an enviromental vandal, hell bent on overturning laws so that mining companies can mine in the Pristine Wilderness and the Wild Rivers areas of Cape York.
Then last year it will be remembered also that Tony Abbott rejected Climate emissions policy of the current Federal Government and as an Opposition Leader he failed to offer an alternative climate emission policy, which appears to suggest that Tony Abbott has No Policies, No Ideas and No Real Leadership qualities.
Tony Abbott it appears, is lost in the Wilderness(The Political Wilderness) that is, he is clueless and he is making Policies on the run, without even thinking about them or running them by his Opposition team first

Timmo says:

04:33am | 19/01/10

I suggested in a previous blog which was not included here that instead of interfering more in what little bit of nature we have left, that we might embark on a rather grand plan of greening the centre of Australia by building a canal large enough to bring ships from the Sth Australian gulf into the lakes such as lake Eyre, dredging that out and filling it permanently with water and setting up a city there. Also there is a lot of artesian water above there too and natural gas as well. Crops could be grown and industries, hopefully Australian not foreign, could be encouraged. Tourism also could employ the Aboriginals who want work for their peoples. Nice land, beautiful Namitjira Skys everyday. Nothing that would pollute should be allowed. Howard, remember him, wanted to turn it into a dump for foreign nuclear waste, that was his grand plan. Duh. This scheme is not my Idea but was mooted by some important person many years ago. Can’t remember who at the moment. But I thought, how great an idea is that!!. Similar to the Suez or Panama Canals. The Swiss just completed a 35odd k tunnell through the Alps to allow Trucks to travel safely down and up to Italy for safety concerns and economic benefits. Now this country of ours has plenty of money to do something like that and it certainly would create long term employment and whatever they spent would be regained later. It would de-centralize the country and connect east with west. Australia’s not going to go broke everyone so don’t worry!. The Americans did it in their deserts so we know it can be done, we just have to throw the money at it. Old Joe Bjelke wanted to build a railroad across queensland to connect with Lang Hancocks operation in WA, when he was governing qld many years ago,to open up the country and the lucrative mining industries of the time. But that never went ahead. That was a shame. The problem is that if we leave that to Government it will never get off the ground, ever, as all the money may get tied up in Commissions and Inquiries and we will as usual miss the boat on it. Is there any Private enterprise out there who might have a crack at it ?. We have the knowledge and the Skills here to do this and always have had,but as we have seen most of the good ideas go offshore as governments here don’‘t support Australian Enterprise enough. We have lost many good Ideas to overseas Countries over the years. Get the money from Bill Gates, he has plenty, and we have given Windows good support and helped to make him wealthy, maybe he can help us in return. Or Sir Richard Branson, now he’s a goer. The question from me just to finish is, Will this get printed on this Blog Site? As we used to say in the old days, Have a go yer mug.